Friday, 18 March 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent the Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Calvert (from 167 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to Telecom's plans to introduce time charges for local calls; (2) that while Telecom remains a public enterprise, it must be accountable to the public, its owners; and (3) while Telecom retains a statutory monopoly which shields it from the discipline of competition, it should not be unilaterally allowed to impose extortionate charges upon the public. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon all members of the Senate in Parliament assembled to take action to prevent Telecom introducing time charges for local calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 199 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senator Reid (from 697 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned residents or persons employed in the Australian Capital Territory points out to Honourable Senators that: it is appropriate that State and local government policy and administrative functions should be managed by persons accountable to ACT residents, and that all Australian residents would agree that there should be no taxation without representation, and that the Commonwealth Parliament should give just and equitable consideration to redressing the wrongs afflicting the ACT. Your petitioners therefore request urgently that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should agree to provide the ACT with an elected form of self government which will be responsible for all the functions of the ACT Office of Administration and, in addition, for those of local law enforcement and the administration of justice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 58 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 Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senators Knowles (from 31 citizens) and Watson (from 110 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 238 citizens), Giles (from 262 citizens) and Knowles (from 134 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the A.C.T. respectfully shows- That X-rated videos denigrate true human values and lower community standards. That the continued availability of this pornography is contrary to the wishes of the majority of Australian citizens. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to take action to bring about the prohibition of X-rated videos in the A.C.T. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 186 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal for or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 59 citizens). Whereas the Hon. Brian Burke whilst serving as Premier of the State of Western Australia was also fulfilling the position of State Treasurer: Whereas the State Treasurer is the Officer of the Parliament responsible for the oversight of Building Societies and Credit Unions, and the Superannuation Board in Western Australia: Whereas investigations appear to be suggesting at least maladministrations and possible illegalities in the affairs of the Superannuation Board and some Building Societies and Credit Unions: Whereas Section 25 (Subsection 2) of the Superannuation Act states that no loans shall be made by the Superannuation Board without the approval of the State Treasurer: And whereas it would appear that investigations to be complete would require the presence of the principal officer involved: We would therefore humbly request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, in the interests of justice and good government, should seek to have the appointment of the Hon. Brian Burke as our Ambassador to Ireland deferred until such time as these matters are fully investigated. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from three citizens). To the Honourable The President and the members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation'' by Cobalt 60, Caesium-137, Caesium-134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government ban the importation of any radio-active substances or machinery for the purpose of food irradiation, disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia, and ban the irradiation of food in this country. We also call upon the Federal Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that elderly and disabled people living alone need the protection of personal emergency alarm services. We request that the Government provides these in its Home and Community Care Services as the practical, economical, humane and dignified means to enable people who wish to remain in the familiar surroundings of their own homes to do so, instead of seeking premature admission to institutional care. by Senator Robert Ray (from 1,867 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned. (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 100 citizens). Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 222 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, praying that public telephones be reinstalled at the Curtin Post Office, Canberra: We the undersigned object in the strongest possible terms to the removal of four public telephones at the Curtin shops. While we realise these were removed due to continual vandalism we feel it should be possible to have at least one public telephone installed inside the Post Office, providing public telephone convenience during business hours. Petitions received. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the time for presentation of the report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 be extended to 30 April 1988. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate takes note of the statement and resolution of the Global Change Symposium held at the Australian Academy of Science from 24 to 27 February 1988 and calls on the Federal Government to- (a) support relevant research appropriate to an issue of this importance; (b) use Australia's unique geographical position to advantage in national and international programs; and (c) ensure adequate participation in the international geosphere/biosphere program throughout the 1990s. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave of absence be given to Senator Archer for the period from 22 March to 21 April inclusive, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —On behalf of Senator Collins, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, pursuant to the notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Collins for the disallowance of certain export regulations. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the statements made by the Federal Government since 1984 that government office accommodation would be constructed in the Tuggeranong town centre, to be occupied by government employees by the time the Tuggeranong shopping complex opened in 1987; (b) further notes that traders at the Tuggeranong shopping complex have now been trading since October 1987, and there are no government offices occupied in the town centre, and none expected to be occupied until June 1988, at the earliest; (c) recognises that the failure of the Government to have government office accommodation occupied to coincide with the commencement of trading at the Tuggeranong shopping complex has resulted in a number of traders experiencing substantial financial difficulties; and (d) calls on the Government to immediately commit itself to the utilisation of the privately constructed office space, nearing completion, to accommodate government workers in Tuggeranong. Motion (by Senator Maguire for Senator Foreman) agreed to: 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. (Quorum formed) The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate requesting changes in the membership of certain Estimates committees. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That Senator Cook be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committee A and that Senator McMullan, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, be appointed a member of the Committee. (2) That Senator Bolkus be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committee E and that Senator Beahan, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36ab be appointed a member of the Committee. (3) That Senator Foreman be discharged from Estimates Committee E for the period 18 March 1988 to 17 May 1988 and that Senator Morris, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, be appointed a member of the Committee for that period. 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)(9.09) —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- Last year, the Government responded to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform relating to the operation during the 1984 general election of the 1983-84 amendments to Commonwealth electoral legislation and indicated that, due to the exigencies of the legislative program, legislation to give effect to the acceptable recommendations in the report will be introduced in stages. Honourable senators will recall that the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 1987 gave effect to those recommendations which were at the time considered essential for the effective conduct of the next general election. That Act created inconsistencies between the Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The amendments contained in this Bill will remove those inconsistencies and are therefore considered essential for the conduct of any future referendum. Mr President, the Bill will bring the referendum Act into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the following respects: It will ensure that overseas polling officials are subject to the same penalties for neglect of duty as officials in Australia; It will extend from 10 to 13 days the period for the return of all postal votes sent by electors directly to divisional returning officers; It will bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth or the States; It will repeal the requirement that enrolled voters at some time during the three months prior to the poll live within the division in order to vote; It will remove existing time limits on the ability to alter polling day and/or return of the writs It will enable the Electoral Commission to extend by 48 hours the time in which acts must be completed in the event of a failure by any person to perform a statutory duty or function; and It will repeal the requirement that printers furnish returns of referendum printing. Mr President, the Bill also gives effect to the Joint Select Committee's three recommendations which are specific to referendums. Those relate to the presentation of the Yes and No cases, the formality of votes and obligation on broadcasters and publishers to furnish referendum returns. The Bill makes provision for the preparation and distribution of arguments for and against referendum proposals in a form suitable for the visually impaired. Presently the act specifies that the only money that the Commonwealth may spend on the Yes and No cases is for the preparation, printing and distribution of the pamphlet. This has been taken to preclude the preparation of the Yes and No cases in spoken form suitable for the visually impaired. The Bill provides that only an unequivocal Yes or No answer should be regarded as formal. The Bill removes the obligation on broadcasters and publishers to furnish returns for a referendum where it is held in conjunction with an election. Where elections and referendums are held at the same time, no meaningful information is available relating to expenditure on the referendum since it is impossible to distinguish between election and referendum expenditure in the returns furnished by broadcasters and publishers. The proposed amendments to the referendum act are based on recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and conform in substance to provisions already included in the Electoral Act. I wish the new chairman and Committee every success in their future endeavours. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 March, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(9.10) —Yesterday evening I was considering the provisions of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. This Bill needs to be looked at in the right context, because on the face of it it sets out a whole range of measures which have a very real sense of urgency about them. It is a fairly short Bill and it starts off with a new definition of `identified property'. It then proceeds to spell out what are described as `unlawful acts', and then establishes a regime of inspectors with power of entry and search. It also provides for the nomination and consent of certain judges who are capable of granting warrants to facilitate the entry and search of inspectors and finally it provides for a penalty of $1,000, or imprisonment for 12 months, or both, for persons who without reasonable excuse obstruct or hinder an inspector in the exercise of his duties. What justifies the Government to introduce legislation which would bring about a whole new approach to the idea of conservation preservation? I think we have to recognise that Australia has reached a situation, in large measure I think due to the efforts of Senator Puplick, the shadow spokesman for the environment, in which all of the States acknowledge that there is a role to be played by the Federal Government in the preservation of the environment. That is a very healthy situation and it is one that I think is widely acknowledged in the community as being desirable. It does not for one moment encroach on the proper rights of the States and their ultimate powers to determine land usage. But what it does do is undermine the very basis for a Bill of this nature, because we can only assume objectively that the imperative for it was that there was somehow an urgent need to preserve areas that might otherwise be torn away from us, that might be ripped up and flogged and that might be desecrated before there is a chance to preserve them. There is not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that there is any such urgency around Australia in any of those areas. What we have is a cynical attempt by the Government, and the new Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, in particular, to fabricate confrontation, to raise political opportunism to an art form and somehow to try to curry favour with the conservation movement by embarking upon a whole series of actions designed to raise the ante. That is what is obnoxious about this legislation. No-one for one moment quarrels with the proposition that there should be enforceable legislation that would enable the proper listing of those properties deemed to have outstanding natural and cultural significance. We on this side of the chamber are wholeheartedly in support of efforts that would involve the listing of those properties that would genuinely qualify. But this Government is not about that. It is in unseemly haste to get political marks on the board and to attempt to railroad issues, and even courts, in such a way that the debate is changed, so that it is able to claim credit for streamlining the process in its eyes but in reality it is simply dragooning others into a situation where vastly more land is proclaimed, or intended to be proclaimed, for World Heritage listing than there ought to be in the proper method of going about the listing process. If we examine the provisions of the Bill we find that the Government claims-and this is what emerges from Senator Richardson's second reading speech, which on the face of it is fairly innocuous; it is probably more significant from what it does not say rather than what it does-that there is a need to redefine `identified property' in order to follow the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage more closely. The fact is that the convention creates no duty to protect individual world hertiage properties and makes no mention of interim protective measures. Yet that is what this Bill is all about. If we look at the way in which identified property is defined, it becomes clear that this definition is no more than an elaborate charade because a reference in the legislation to `identified property' is a reference to: any property in respect of which one or more of the following conditions is satisfied . . . Certainly, the first three conditions are quite reasonable and plausible. The first is that the property is subject to an inquiry, the second is that the property is subject to World Heritage List nomination and the third is that the property is included in the World Heritage List. There might be some argument about what is meant by the words `subject to' and it may well be that this is premature in the sense that if one simply foreshadowed a listing it would be caught by these provisions. Nonetheless, in general terms, one would have to say that if an inquiry had been established, if World Heritage listing was imminent or if the property was in fact on the List then that would be sufficient to identify the property. However, it is the last condition that really gives the Government carte blanche. That provision says: the property forms part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage . . . There is nothing in the provisions of that subsection of the Bill to say in whose eyes or whose terms it should form part of the cultural heritage. No doubt there would just be a mere assertion that that was so. That condition continues: . . . and is declared by the regulations to form part of the cultural heritage . . . That is a very unhealthy approach because it means that the Government can simply declare that a property forms part of the cultural or natural heritage and that would then be taken as given. In other words, there would not be an objective assessment; there would be pressure brought to bear on the courts to accept the prescription of the regulation without going behind it. It is an attempt to state a conclusive position and, to the extent that that would pre-empt the ability of the States and other interested parties to dispute the legitimacy of the regulations and the propriety of declaring an area to be part of the cultural and natural heritage, it is a denial of natural justice. That is a phase that is often thrown around loosely, but what it means and what it is held to mean in law is that those persons with an interest in a matter should have the opportunity to be heard before a decision is taken against them; they should also be entitled to be heard by a tribunal that is free of bias. In this situation it would be absolutely impossible for that to occur because the Government would have pre-empted the debate, would have declared an area by regulation and would effectively have done what it could to ensure that the court did not go behind that determination. I believe that that is one of the most insidious aspects of this legislation. What concerns me even more is that the powers of entry and search are given to inspectors who are created by the legislation. Inspectors are given very wide powers of entry and search, power to take photographs and record occurrences, to inspect, examine and take photographs and measurements of an eligible thing. If we look for a definition of `an eligible thing' we find that it is anything that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition. If that is not carte blanche I do not know what is. It is quite clear that inspectors have almost unlimited powers. What are they able to do and where are they able to go? Inspectors shall not enter an eligible place unless the consent of the owner has been obtained. One would have thought that that was reasonable, but that is only one means by which they may enter. They do not have to get permission at all because either they obtain the consent or they get a warrant or the following conditions are satisfied: (i) the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to enter in order to prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of anything; and (ii) the entry is made in circumstances of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate entry without the consent of the person in charge or the authority of a warrant. . . That is in the eye of the beholder. If an inspector believes that somehow he is reasonably justified in trampling on to the property, taking photographs, examining, inspecting and confiscating then he is at liberty to do so. We are given no explanation at all as to why and in what circumstances such conduct could be justified. After all, if we are talking about areas of outstanding natural and cultural significance, we are talking about very large areas of land. They are not areas that are about to disappear off the face of the earth; they are not areas that are somehow transient in quality. They are supposed to be of enduring grandeur, of timeless quality. It is very difficult to see why there is a need for such a provision, unless it is to provoke a political confrontation. Where there is a sensitive area, the Government sends in the troops, stirs up a bit of trouble, raises the ante and then claims the political credit for supposedly being on the right side. That is what is insidious about this sort of provision. Worst of all, the power to grant a warrant is vested in a judge. But it is not just any judge. It is common practice for legislation to require a warrant to be granted by a judge. Certainly interception warrants, for example, can be granted by Federal Court judges. They can be granted not just by selected judges, but by any judge. One goes to the court, and if it is out of session to the judge in the practice court, on an impartial basis and one takes one's chances in a sense. One relies on the integrity of the Bench, and asks a judge to grant a warrant. That is precisely what this legislation does not do, and what is so offensive about it. It enables the Minister to approach a judge to ask that judge to consent to be an eligible judge and, having obtained the consent, the Minister then nominates the judge and declares him in writing to be a judge to whom consents are in force. That is thoroughly offensive. That is a frontal attack on the independence of the judiciary. One of the tenets of our Constitution is that there should be a separation of powers, that there should be no incestuous interlocking of the judiciary and the Executive, and yet we find here that not only has the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories not learnt the lesson of Mr Justice Murphy-where there was a very close overlap and one could say one well beyond the bounds of propriety in terms of the mixture between politicians and judges-but also, if we look at the transcripts of the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct and what is emerging from the diaries of Sir Terence Lewis, we see a very unhealthy interrelationship between judges and politicians. That is the very sort of thing that has led the Victorian Supreme Court to say it will play no part in royal commissions, it will not preside over political events no matter how worthy or honourable they might be. That is because the judiciary is rightly concerned that it can and might be contaminated by being brought into the political arena. I want to mention the name of one Federal Court judge who could well be put in a very invidious position. I make no adverse reflection upon him at all; my understanding is that he is a first class judge of that court, and he is certainly eminently well qualified for his position. Mr Justice Wilcox, now a judge of the Federal Court, was the President of the Australian Conservation Foundation. One could imagine that if Mr Justice Wilcox were to consent to be nominated he could well find himself quite unfairly exposed to criticism if he were to grant a warrant. If he were not to grant it, it may be said, as often happens in the law, that he was bending over backwards to be seen to be impartial. Again that would put him in an invidious position. If he therefore chose the safe course of not offering his consent, he would be opting out to that extent and the system would be deprived of the services of a first rate judicial officer. It is thoroughly indefensible to put a judge in such a position. A person of integrity should be able to approach a matter without having to worry about the political considerations, and yet as a result of this contaminated legislation we will have a situation in which judges will be picked off selectively, where friends of the Minister can be approached, where judges who might be thought to be more sympathetic to the cause are asked to give their consent and where judges are perhaps put in a position where they feel they have to give consent. In all sorts of ways a very unhealthy relationship could develop. As Senator Puplick has previously pointed out in this debate, it is not just any judge; it is judges of the Parliament. It is not just Federal Court judges; it is not Supreme Court judges. Let us bear in mind that the New South Wales Supreme Court has a land and environment court, so on the face of it it would have people qualified in and who may well have a particular interest and knowledge of some of the technical areas and legal aspects that might arise with the granting of a warrant in this area. But, no, it relates to any judge of a court of the Parliament-presumably a Family Court judge or a Federal Court judge specialising in bankruptcy or industrial relations. It is a nonsense. There should be access to any judge of a Supreme Court of a State, the Federal Court, or perhaps the High Court, on a thoroughly impartial basis. Senator Evans seems to be chortling away, completely oblivious to and obviously uninterested in the judicial processes. Now that he has been thrown out of his formerly high office of Attorney-General he is demonstrating his contempt for what would previously have had him jumping to his feet in horror, being a former civil libertarian and concerned with the due processes of the law. He now shows a complete and utter lack of interest in it. It is perhaps symptomatic of the cynical approach of the Government. That is one of the worst aspects of this legislation. There is no need for inspectors. There is no sense of urgency. Indeed, one has to be very quizzical about the whole concept of interim and interlocutory applications in the light of the recent High Court judgment. If one shares the misgivings of judges such as Mr Justice Dawson, the external affairs power has now been taken to a point where there is virtually no limit on it. A very respected commentator, Mr David Solomon, expresses grave fears for States' rights in this area and for land usage questions and says that there is effectively no limitation on the power of the courts. As Mr Justice Dawson says, if all one needs to do is relate it to a treaty, and if that needs only to be based on international concern, it is not hard to envisage that almost any matter will be subject to the external affairs power. I do not take a narrow view of these matters. There are legitimate ways in which the external affairs power can be used. But it has to be used with great care. When commentators such as David Solomon say, as he recently said in the Australian newspaper, `What the States should be jumping up and down about is the further growth of the Commonwealth's legislative powers through its constitutional power to make laws about ``external affairs'',' it is clear that the time has come not only to question the external affairs power but also to look at why there is a necessity for legislation such as the Bill before us. I would like to conclude by referring to what is perhaps one of the most offensive pieces of chicanery on the part of a politician that I have come across in recent years. I refer to the nomination form from the Government of Australia for inclusion of the wet tropical rainforests of north-east Australia on the World Heritage List. This is a formal document presented by the Australian Government and signed on its behalf by Senator Richardson in December last year. One would have thought it was put forward in good faith as a basis for the nomination committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in due course to make a judgment about the merits of the north-east wet tropical rainforests. As is often the case with matters that are put before courts and other tribunals, those courts rely very much on the integrity, honesty and accuracy of the document. But what do we have in this document? Under the heading `Responsible administration' it states: 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. That is unexceptionable. It continues: A joint authority of the Australian and Queensland Governments is envisaged to assume responsibility for administration of the property. That is absolutely untrue. As Senator Parer has pointed out already, when this was signed in December of last year there was absolutely no prospect that the Queensland Government would be on side. The Premier at the time, as we all know, was Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen-not the sort of individual likely to have caved in, not the sort of person likely to have taken the much more reasonable and rational approach now being adopted by Mr Ahern, but someone who quite clearly would not have paid any attention to the blandishments of the likes of Senator Richardson. What was the basis for asserting that it was envisaged that the Queensland Government would assume joint responsibility with the Australian Government? There was no basis whatsoever. The document, under the heading `Agent Responsible for preservation/conservation', states: The envisaged joint authority of the Australian and Queensland Governments will also have responsibilities regarding the preservation and conservation of the World Heritage Area. Again, that is a deliberate misstatement of fact. We know that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is under the joint administration of the Australian and Queensland governments, after a tortuous period of negotiations, after a lot of toing-and-froing. It is not the sort of agreement that is entered into quickly. Quite clearly, time is of the essence in terms of negotiation. This document simply asserts what might be wishful thinking on the part of the Australian Government, but which had no reasonable foundation in fact. It is a disgraceful position. It amounts to Senator Richardson having misled the international community by asserting that the Queensland Government would be party to a joint venture of administration when there was no reasonable prospect of that occurring. That is a very cogent example of how this Government is desperately trying to make political capital out of highly political stances, with no thought at all for the proper negotiating processes or for proper and calm consideration of whether matters should be properly listed on the World Heritage List; rather, it is a desperate attempt to up the ante, to push through legislation in such a way that parties are put on the defensive. This nomination form is nothing less than a callous exercise in propaganda. An apology should be made not only to UNESCO but to the international community at large. It means that the word of the Australian Government will have to be much more closely scrutinised in the future. It means that political imperatives have overtaken the ordinary standards of propriety and morality that should accompany the presentation of such a document. Senator Richardson deserves to be chastised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). There should be a full and proper explanation as to why a Minister of the Crown was able to make such an assertion when there was no reasonable foundation in fact. One could say that not only was there no reasonable foundation, but no foundation and no prospect at that time, that the Queensland Government would have a bar of any such joint venture. That characterises the approach of the Government to this piece of legislation. The legislation is totally unnecessary. It does nothing to advance the cause of preservation of the environment and does nothing to assist the proper consideration of properties for world heri-tage listing. It is unnecessary and it ought to be withdrawn. All of the powers that have been recently held by the High Court of Australia to be available will be available in the future. If there is any urgent need, injunctions can be granted to restrain abuse. There is no need for this whole regime of inspectors that will corrupt the independence of the judiciary and lead to a very unholy interaction of judges and politicians. It is a thoroughly distasteful and unnecessary piece of legislation. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(9.33) —We are debating the Conservation Le-gislation Amendment Bill 1988. As far as I can see, it is basically about shifting the responsibility for jurisdiction that should be Australia's to an overseas body. I say an overseas body because, of the 21 members of the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation that deals with these matters, only seven members-and I stress, only seven-can be regarded as having many common interests with Australia. In other words, seven are truly Australian allies. I also note that Australia's membership will expire in 1989. I am not sure whether Australia will be a member of that Committee after that time. I do not believe that Australia should give away the final determination process regarding its main asset. The main assets of any country are its agricultural, pastoral and mining areas. I know that we need good conservation policies. No honourable senator knows better than I that we have to conserve the land; otherwise we cannot carry on a lifelong business in agriculture and have a good asset to pass down to future generations. Australia has already locked up 20 per cent of its land which used to have multiple uses. If further regulations are imposed and if we do what the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) asks, that figure could easily rise to 40 per cent. The main brunt of the provisions of the Bill will be borne by country people, those 11 per cent-I stress that-of Australians who earn 84 per cent of Australia's foreign export income. Western Australia is tired of carrying the burden of eastern State society. Although the Federal Government has not yet declared any areas in Western Australia, certain conservation groups have requests before various bodies to have vast areas declared, including Shark Bay, the Kimberleys, wildflower regions, the D'Entrecasteaux National Park and surrounds, and the Nullarbor Plain. The area in question at Shark Bay has been held by one family for 113 years. In other words, that family is in its fourth generation there and it has two stations. The Western Australian Government has declared the area to be a sensitive area. The family has been dealing with the Western Australian Government for a number of years in order to protect this sensitive area and they have come to certain arrangements., However, they have been overridden by the ACF, which ran to the Federal Government and is trying to have the area listed under the World Heritage provisions. The arrangements which the station owners made with the State Government have been overridden. When the ACF took an interest in that area it was lazy-that is the word for it-in defining the area it wanted. Apparently the easiest way to become an expert on an area is to drive down the main road and look from side to side. That is exactly what the ACF did in this case. Taking a third of the station on the sea side, the ACF drew the lines on its map taking in the bitumen road. It is quite likely that the piece of land on that side will be taken from the station. It just happens that the homestead, the shearing shed and the bores that supply the homestead built by the family are on that side. All development, such as buildings and improvements, are on that side. Just in case honourable senators are not aware of the areas around Australia that the ACF is trying to put on the World Heritage List, I have a list which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Great Barrier Reef Great Sandy Region South West Tasmania Lord Howe Island Arnhem Land expanding on West Arnhem Cape York Peninsula Prince Regent River Ayers Rock and Arid Zone Region The Channel Country-Lake Eyre (encompassing Simpson Desert) Shark Bay The Western Australian Wild Flower Region The Central Highlands-Tasmania Antarctica Macquarie Island Senator PANIZZA —The points I have raised about Shark Bay are of particular concern. I turn now to the effects that listing would have on the areas nominated by the ACF. Listing would cause the cattle industry to move from the north-west of Western Australia. Alongside Queensland, that is probably one of Australia's largest cattle-raising areas. It was opened up in about 1860 when the Durack family-no doubt Senator Durack is a descendant of that family-drove cattle from north Queensland across the Northern Territory. After two years hardship, it settled in the Kimberleys. With the Kimberleys on the list, we could see the end of the cattle industry in that area and a reduction in mining. Of course, mining includes the production of oil, which is a very important commodity for the welfare of Australia. Many pastoral and farming areas would be lost as a result of the expanding wildflower areas. I do not know about the rest of Australia, but in Western Australia wildflower areas are not very well defined. One turns up here today, another turns up somewhere else next year, and so on. It is a very wide-ranging net. I have no great beef about the D'Entrecasteaux National Park. The Nullarbor Plain is a strange area. What a farce it would be to move into the Nullarbor Plain. There are minimal stock there. I can remember coming over on the east-west train in about 1960. They were fencing the areas then and sheep were moving in. It is very well run. There is a lot of underground water there, so water is not a problem. What a farce it would be to get the stock out of there. If the Nullarbor Plain were taken out, it may be a good way of removing the Labor Federal member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Campbell, who used to be a pastoralist in the region before entering Federal Parliament. If the sheep were removed from the plain it would go back to being used by rabbits alone. Clause 4 of the Bill repeals subsection 3 (2) of the Act, which contained the former definition of `identified property'. Both the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) claim that the repeal and redefinition of identified property follows more closely the procedures which the World Heritage Convention requires Australia to follow in protecting properties of cultural or natural heritage as defined in the Convention. It is hard to reconcile this claim with the provisions of the Convention, which creates no duty to protect individual World Heritage List properties and makes no mention of interim measures or inquiries to consider whether a property forms part of the cultural heritage or national heritage. Clause 5 introduces a new section 3a which redefines `identified property' in a way that would allow the Federal Government to widen its scope and broaden its involvement in the management agenda of each State. Repealed subsection 3 (2) contained the original definition of `identified property'. Its repeal has swept away the threshold that the property form part of the cultural heritage or the natural heritage as defined in the Convention. It was the Federal Government's compliance with this requirement that could be tested in the High Court of Australia. In the new section there is no threshold requirement where section 3a applies in respect of properties subject to inquiry, properties subject to World Heritage nomination or properties included in the World Heritage List. Let us turn to the system of inspectors. The Bill states that inspectors may act only with the consent of the property owner, on the basis of a judicial warrant or in serious or urgent circumstances. Proposed new section 17a deals with the appointment of inspectors for the purposes of the Act. Here the Bill deals with what an inspector can do. Read in conjunction with the definitions of `eligible purpose' and `eligible place', it means that the inspectors have formidable powers to go anywhere, except into dwelling houses. Proposed new section 17 is couched in the broadest terms and allows an inspector to enter property without warrant when he believes that entry is necessary to prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of an `eligible thing'. An eligible thing is anything that the Federal Government or the Minister believe or declare to be an eligible thing. It is a very wide definition. There is an attempt to avoid abuse of the powers of inspection by providing that inspectors cannot go into private houses. In cases were inspectors cannot find the owner and do not know where he is, they are given carte blanche to do what they want to do. I have seen such systems working before. I read in the West Australian yesterday a statement made by our friend Senator Sanders from Tasmania. He said that there would be no worry about finding the owner of the land involved because most of the land was crown land. That is probably one of the most hypocritical statements I have heard in this chamber-and I have heard quite a few in my short time here. Senator Sanders knows full well, as do other senators and I, that most crown land is subject to pastoral leases, oil or mineral exploration leases or other sorts of licences. These are licences that people pay money for and licences that may have been held for a long time. There is no definition of a person in charge of an `eligible thing'. As I said, there is no onus on an inspector to contact the owner of the land. We only have an inspector's word that he has tried to find the owner. I can imagine the sort of effort an inspector would make to find who owned land in remote areas such as Shark Bay, the Kimberleys or the Nullarbor. In proposed new section 17 there is a secrecy provision. It is a very curious provision. I do not know why it is to be included in the legislation. Its purpose is not clear. Supposedly, it is to keep confidential what the inspector finds out. It is more likely that it is to prevent owners finding out. In the mining industry an individual or company pegging a claim must not only put a number and the name of the claimant on the datum peg but also lodge that information, with the prescribed fees, at the mining office and, by registered mail, notify the owner that that land will be the subject of a claim. We had quite a debate in this House last night on that matter when considering the heritage listing Bill introduced by Senator Walters, a senator from Tasmania. Of course that Bill was not successful and I heard all the excuses on earth as to why one could not find the owner of a property. I would like to comment now on compensation. The Commonwealth is liable for a certain amount of compensation, which in the Bill is described as a `reasonable amount'. That reasonable amount is subject to an agreement by the two parties. I know which party would have the upper hand in those negotiations between the Commonwealth and individuals concerned. I think that the Commonwealth has a deeper pocket. Senator Collins —Why don't you read the legislation? Senator PANIZZA —I have read it. The Bill and its memorandum describe the amount as `reasonable compensation'. However, the point is that an individual is very frightened about going to litigation. That was borne out in relation to another matter debated in this House earlier in the week. Should the two parties not agree then the Federal Court of Australia is to have jurisdiction at the suit of the claimant. I want to know what the Government means by `reasonable compensation'. No-one has really told me. I can assure the Senate that a land-holder who has spent a lifetime in one area, as I have, would require more than `reasonable compensation' to get him to move. It is all very well to say that reasonable compensation will be offered to a land-holder. But there have been families at Shark Bay, for example, for generations. The Commonwealth would be able to say to these people, `This is reasonable compensation. Now you go somewhere else'. I am sure that those people would want to stay in the pastoral industry. They would have to move further from the Gascoyne into the Kimberleys. The Commonwealth would be able to tell them that they have to look for another property. Most probably that property will not be on the market. If a person has to be moved, he has got to be given more than reasonable compensation; in other words, more than the market value. As a property developer I have had experience of the situation of trying to move the fellow next door. If the Government wants to move miners, farmers and forestry operators, it must pay these people more than reasonable compensation. It must pay them enough to enable them to establish themselves somewhere else-- Senator Colston —It would be unconstitutional. Read section 51 of the Constitution. Senator PANIZZA —Yes, and giving people meaningful employment does not mean picking papers up after tourists. In this chamber the other day I heard Senator Richardson say that tourism in Australia now is worth more than the Australian wool clip. I would like to take him to task on that matter. I disagree with that. However, let me assure the Minister that when the Australian dollar turns around the Australian sheep flock will still be there to shear, but tourists can be fleeced only once. This is another Bill to take away the powers of each State. In this case it removes the right of a State to use the land as it sees fit. It is just another case of retrospective legislation. It is a change of the rules of the game after the game has started. In Australian Rules there are two umpires but they cannot be changed at half-time, even if the team happens to be behind. It might have been a good idea in a certain game in South Australia not long ago. As a Western Australian interested in Australia and Western Australia, I am looking forward to how the Australian Democrats will vote in this case. I note their absence from the chamber. Last week while I was visiting the Pilbara, I heard Senator Jenkins on radio. She told the north-west and the Kimberleys about her interest in better eduction in the higher educational institutions up there and in more medical facilities. I entirely agree with that. But if we get the Pilbara region and the Kimberley region going on to the World Heritage List, Senator Jenkins can forget about it because there will not be people there to use these facilities. I would like to ask the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook-he also represents the primary industries and energy portfolio in this chamber-what he told members of his Party and whether he told them exactly how it would affect his portfolio and Western Australia which he represents. I would also like to ask Senator Walsh, the famous wheat farmer from Western Australia, how it has affected his constituents. That goes for other senators I have not mentioned on the opposite benches who represent Western Australia. I ask them to tell Western Australia exactly what the Government is going to do. I will finish on the following points. I would like to know where in this Bill there are the defined procedures for an inquiry which may lead to a World Heritage nomination. Where are the defined procedures for consultation with the States? I know that local government is not recognised in the Constitution, but I have not seen it mentioned in the Bill. Local government provides the roads and the backup facilities that are nearest to the point of action. Who will be affected during any inquiry that takes place? It is not even clear whether an inquiry is a precondition of a World Heritage listing. Is it? Where is the definition of the type of activity which the Minister may direct? He could be driving a mob of sheep over. He could be picking up samples of soil for future mining activities or prospecting. Where are the procedures for consultation before Commonwealth regulation of identified property? Where is the right of appeal once a World Heritage nomination is made by the Commonwealth? The decision on any nomination would be totally up to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the 21 member countries of the World Heritage Committee. I would not like to rely on 10 or 12 of those countries to vote for the interests of Australia as there are examples of other places at other times. As I have said before, there are provisions for compensation where property is acquired by the Commonwealth, but I stress that there is no provision if the property is partly taken over, as in the case of Shark Bay, and people are left with a unit that is not viable. Once an area is listed by UNESCO for World Heritage purposes there are no provisions for the management of that area. I have had some experience as president of a shire for five years and for 15 years I served in the same local shire. There vast areas have been taken over by what I used to call the birds and the bees but it is part of the environmental protection of certain areas. That it had taken over certain areas was advised by a simple letter to the shire. It would indicate that these areas would be taken over and that they had been marked as worthy of being preserved because of the wild life. I do not have too much beef in a lot of those cases with areas around big rocks and patches of wild flowers. There was nothing wrong with that and it was probably a good idea in the long term to have those small areas protected. But we decided to oppose the nomination of one area and we certainly got nowhere. Once the shire received a letter it was a matter of time before an area was listed. The only thing which was expended in monetary terms: was on a big 6 x 4 sign which was placed in the area stating, `This area is listed under the West Australian Wildlife Authority. You shall not move any bush, shoot any birds, shoot any rabbits, or remove any sand'. The shire could not remove gravel to put on its roads. That is as far as it used to go and nothing was done about fighting bushfires, controlling vermin that built up and went into neighbouring crops, and that sort of thing. People were liable if they shot a kangaroo going out of their crops into those protected areas. That is the sort of thing that happened in vast areas of Western Australia. Once those areas are on the World Heritage List who will manage them? Who will control the management? I have asked that question before but I have not been told. The Press of Australia has given this Bill quite a run. I know that, over the last five years, this Government has had a good run with the media but in the last six months or so I think that has turned around slightly. At last we, on this side of politics, are getting our voices heard. It is not just people on this side of politics who are worried at this stage about what this Bill will do. The newspapers around the country have borne out what this Bill will do. For example, an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 20 May 1986, which is a fair while ago, headed, `Heritage listing move for big Outback area', states: The proposal calls for restricted use of off-road vehicles and an end to drilling new water wells. . . It seems that, if an area is listed, new water wells cannot be put down. The article states further: . . . petroleum exploration could be phased out once current programs ended. With the world running short of oil that is good news. An article in the Australian newspaper dated 14 March 1988 headed, `Conservation Bill infringes rights', states: The Federal Government risks international censure over infringement of civil liberties, according to mining industry spokesmen. The article goes on to state that the spokesmen claim that the legislation: Removes the right of Australians to appeal to the High Court over World Heritage nominations. Removes decision-making power on World Heritage listings from Australian courts . . . Retrospectively removes grounds for legal challenges to existing World Heritage nominations. A report in the Adelaide Advertiser on Tuesday, 14 July 1987, headed `Report urges huge SA-WA park', states that a study has recommended that about a quarter of the two States, South Australia and Western Australia, be proclaimed a national park. Another report in the Adelaide Advertiser of 7 March 1988 has the headline, `Blacks confident of land title'. So another big slab of land will be given away. Senator Colston —Are you a student of ancient history? Senator PANIZZA —I am a student of Roman history; I did not say all ancient history. The Australian Press has rightly judged what this Bill is all about. I hope that the people of Australia-especially tomorrow the people of New South Wales-will respond to what the Government is intending to do with this Bill. I seek leave to incorporate these newspaper articles in Hansard. Leave granted. The articles read as follows- Advertiser, 20 May 1986 Heritage listing move for big Outback area By Political Reporter KYM TILBROOK The Federal Government will be asked to support a plan to declare a vast area of SA's Outback as a World Heritage area. The proposal, prepared by the Conservation Council of SA, covers the heartland and significant parts of the Lake Eyre drainage system. It will be presented to the Australian Heritage Commission, in the hope of gaining Unesco recognition of the area. The proposal calls for restricted use of off-road vehicles and an end to drilling new water wells, except where people replace bores that have failed through silting and chemical deposition. It also says petroleum exploration could be phased out once current programs ended. ``Any finds of gas or petroleum could be strictly regulated and the current exploitation areas excluded from the World Heritage area,'' it says. In 1974 Australia was one of the first countries to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention). The convention, adopted by the general assembly of Unesco, aims to ensure international co-operation for safeguarding the world's irreplaceable heritage. The SA Government is examining the possibility of a World Heritage area in the Coongle Lakes area, near Innamincka, which is in the boundary of the council's proposal. The major elements of the vast area are Lake Eyre North and Lake Eyre South, the mound springs which are natural outlets for the waters of the Great Artesian Basin, Cooper Creek and the Channel Country, and part of the Simpson Desert. The area proposed also covers some of the world's most spectacular fossil remains at Lake Callabonna. The SA Government last year dedicated two new national parks in the area-Mount Dare station on the SA-NT Border and Lake Eyre North and part of the adjoining Tirari Desert. According to the Conservation Council proposal the area has a variety of aquatic life that occurs nowhere else. ``They and their surrounding ecosystems, equally unique, are survivors of a time past when the Australian continent was much wetter,'' it says. ``Careless use of the artesian waters will see it pass the way of the diprotedon and the other large Australian fauna that are now represented in the area as fossil remains. ``The area is a strange juxtaposition of arid wilderness and life supporting wetlands.'' The proposal says the mound springs have suffered considerable degradation as a result of pastoral activities since the 1800s and the sinking of bores has altered the flow rates from springs. Another threat, according to the council, is petroleum exploration which could considerably add to the degradation of the proposed area if tighter controls are not made. It says a number of strategies could be used in the area to provide greater protection to the environment, including stricter controls over pastoral leases through land management agreements and in some cases by exempting areas from pastoral use. Australian, 14 March 1988 Conservation Bill `infringes rights' The Federal Government risk international censure over infringement of civil liberties, according to mining industry spokesmen. The mining industry claims the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill represents a major infringement of civil liberties because it gives unprecedented powers to inspectors. The mining industry spokesmen claim that, should the Bill be passed without amendment, inspectors would have greater powers than police in that they could enter property with or without a search warrant. They claim the legislation also: Removes the right of Australians to appeal to the High Court over World Heritage nominations. Removes decision-making power on World Heritage listings from Australian courts and gives sole power to the World Heritage Committee in Paris. Retrospectively removes grounds for legal challenges to existing World Heritage nominations. The fight for amendments is being pursued by the Australian Mining Industry Council and State chambers of mines. Advertiser, 14 July, 1967 Report urges huge SA-WA park by Political Reporter KYM TILBROOK A two-State national park covering 85,500-square kilometres on the SA-WA border may be proclaimed by the SA and WA governments. The massive park, which would include a large section of the Nullarbor Plain in SA, has been recommended following a study by the SA National Parks and Wildlife Service, the WA Conservation and Land Management Department and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The study, A Biological Survey of the Nullarbor Region South and Western Australia, also has recommended that consideration be given to proclaiming marine reserves for Southern Right whales at the Head of the Bight, and between Eyre Cove and Twilight Cove. The whales calve off the Nullarbor coast in late winter, spring and early summer and appear to favor sheltered bays such as the Head of the Bight. The study area of 32m hectares contains six reserves, including SA's largest park, the 2.13m hectare Unnamed Conservation Park managed by the SA NPWS, which adjoins WA's largest reserve, the 2.49m-hectare Great Victoria Desert Nature Reserve. The SA section also covers the 231,900-hectare Nullarbor National Park. If the proposal for the new park goes ahead, it will cover 57,961-square kilometres in SA, including 30,000-square kilometres of Crown land not now in the parks system. The SA Minister for Environment and Planning, Dr Hopgood, said yesterday that work had begun to determine the best way of implementing the study's recommendations. The area proposed as the two-State park was one of the largest regions of arid limestone landscape in the world and undoubtedly was of international significance. The Australian Heritage Commission had identified the Nullarbor Plain for possible listing on the World Heritage List. The 413-page study report says the honeycombed limestone landscape of the Nullarbor includes small blowholes, rockholes and caves, and is the only arid or semi-arid karst area of any significance in the world. ``Its caves are of international interest,'' it says. They contain large lakes and underwater passages, important fossil deposits and significant Aboriginal sites. The underwater passages of caves such as Cocklebiddy and Weebubbie are among the largest known and, according to the report, are unequalled for recreation anywhere in the world. The report says the two-State park would require rangers stationed at Eucla, Cook, Nullarbor and Cocklebiddy. This would allow it to be managed as one of Australia's ``premier conservation areas''. Advertiser, 7 March, 1988 Blacks confident of land title Aborigines in SA's north-west are likely to be given freehold title by the end of the year to the 21,362-square-kilometre Unnamed Conservation Park-one of the largest parks in the world. The proposal, which is almost certain to go ahead, will give Aborigines title to about 21 p.c. of the State. The park, which meets the SA-WA border, is locked between the vast Pitjantjatjara homelands and the Maralinga homelands and would give Aborigines title to 200,792 square kilometres of the north-west of the State. The director-general of the Department of Environment and Planning, Dr Ian McPhail, said yesterday negotiations had ``proved to be very positive'' and he hoped for a good outcome by the end of the year. He said officers from the department, Maralinga Aborigines and the SA National Parks and Wildlife Service were discussing a plan whereby the Maralinga people would lease the park back to the NPWS. Dr McPhail said SA already had a very successful Aboriginal ranger training program and if the proposal went ahead he hoped most of the rangers at the park would be Aborigines. The legal representative for the Maralinga Aborigines, Mr Darcy O'Shea, said yesterday the elders were also confident they would be given title by the end of the year. He said the Maralinga Aborigines already considered it their land as they had been born on the land and grown up on it. ``It's their whole social and cultural structure and fabric,'' he said. ``It's legal recognition of their ownership of it. They feel responsible towards that land and the best way they can discharge that responsibility is to have title and a say over it''. Dr McPhail said the park was a `perfect wilderness' and one of the most magnificent areas of arid desert vegetation in the world. The transfer would require the approval of the SA Parliament. Senator PANIZZA —I thank the Senate. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(10.02) —There have been so many furphies or, to give the benefit of the doubt to the Opposition, misconceptions floated in this debate about the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 that it would be absolutely impossible for me in half an hour to cover them all. I will try to do justice to the nonsense that Senator Panizza has just delivered. I started noting the points he was making that were incorrect, but I ran out of paper. I hope the honourable senator will forgive me if I do not cover all the points he made. Because of the large number of speakers in this debate so far, it is appropriate that I at least concentrate on the shadow Minister for the Environment, Senator Puplick, and give him some precedence. I was astonished at the facile nature of his contribution to this debate, the lack of grasp he has of the real issues that are involved in this legislation and how it will operate. I will try to address some of the points raised by Senator Panizza. I am sure that if I do not other speakers who will follow me will do so. I turn to Senator Puplick's contribution. He opened by saying: The Bill represents, on the part of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) and the Government, an admission of their failure to make the federal system work and their inability to deal with the constituent States of the Australian Federation in a proper and civilised fashion. That simply assumes that the federal system operates as a one-way street. The difficulty with cooperating with the Queensland Government is very simple. The Australian Government wants to preserve the rainforests of Australia in the national interest and the Queensland Government wants to cut them down. Senator Stone —That is totally untrue, Senator. It is a total misrepresentation. Senator COLLINS —I see that Senator Stone is on the speakers list; his turn will come. Senator Alston carried on with the same nonsense. He said that this legislation will not advance the cause of conservation. I have some factual dispute with that because the point at issue between the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth is that this legislation will prevent the Queensland Government allowing trees to be cut down in rainforests. The Queensland Government wants to cut them down. That is the point on the public record at issue. I turn to what Senator Puplick had to say about the High Court of Australia. We can hardly blame speakers like Senator Panizza for totally misunderstanding the role of the High Court in this matter if the shadow Minister himself does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about. Senator Puplick put a most curious argument, and is recorded in Hansard. He quoted in a number of places from a judgment of the High Court relating to the recent action that has taken place. He quoted from the judgments of Mr Justice Mason and Mr Justice Brennan on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests legislation, saying that they asserted that the Commonwealth does have the right to move for interim protection of areas nominated for World Heritage listing. He went on to say: The important thing to understand about this is that the High Court of Australia, in fact, has said that the power which the Government claims it needs to put into legislation is a power which is already there. The nonsense of that argument, as I intend to demonstrate shortly, is that the composition of the High Court changes, and so do its judgments and its general attitude towards this most vexed question of Federal and State powers. This legislation simply puts into legislative effect the judgment that has been made by the High Court. Senator Puplick has simply turned the argument on its head and made a nonsense of it. The High Court says that the Government does have this power. This legislation simply affirms the judgment of the High Court and, therefore, on Senator Puplick's own argument, the Opposition should be supporting it and not opposing it. A gross misunderstanding of Senator Puplick, the shadow Minister for the Environment, about the role of the High Court is exhibited by his statement-I must say that just about every speaker in the Opposition followed the line laid down by him when he was talking about the High Court-that this legislation is going to remove the jurisdiction of the High Court over these matters. Senator Puplick, in respect of the role of the High Court, said: We have vast paraphernalia put into the legislation that will remove from the jurisdiction of Australian courts the right to make determinations about the validity of nominations or, indeed, about the quality and worth of the nominations. It is about time that that appalling misunderstanding of the role of the High Court was put to rest. I cannot do any better to put it to rest than to quote from the excellent book Encounters with the Australian Constitution by Michael Coper. He says it better than I can. Michael Coper, on page 37 of his book, says this about the Franklin Dam case: Yet the public perception appeared to be perhaps inevitably, that the High Court was called upon to decide not merely which government had the right to decide whether a dam would be built on the Gordon River, but the substantive question of whether the dam should or should not be built. Such misconceptions are not merely the natural products of untutored minds; they are deliberately fostered from time to time by those with a vested interest in doing so. I will leave it up to honourable senators to decide whether Senator Puplick has an untutored mind or a vested interest. Michael Coper went on: In 1975, for example, in the only major reversal suffered by the Whitlam government at the hands of the High Court, the Court held to be invalid the Commonwealth's Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act of 1973 (Victoria v Commonwealth). The reason was that the Act had failed to comply with the procedural requirements in section 57 of the Constitution relating to the resolution of deadlocks between the two Houses of the federal Parliament. Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Queensland Premier and bete noire of central governments of any complexion, greeted the decision with glee: `At last,' he exclaimed, ``the High Court has said to the Commonwealth, `keep your hands off mining'.'' The High Court has of course, said nothing of the sort. The Act was invalid for reasons which were totally unrelated to the content of the Act. The decision has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether it was within the power of the Commonwealth to legislate about mining, and certainly nothing to do with the question of whether the Commonwealth should legislate about mining, a question which is scarcely any business of the High Court. Similarly, the question in the Franklin Dam case was not, and could not have been, whether or not the dam was a good thing, or whether the better policy was conservation or development. But perhaps because of the public perception of what had become a very high-profile and intensely political controversy the High Court took the unusual step of issuing with the judgments a separate statement strongly denying the relevance of the merits of the dispute to the constitutional issue which had to be decided. I cannot say it any better than that. I refer honourable senators who have put about these furphies concerning the High Court's role to that section of Coper's book. I cannot deny honourable senators the opportunity of listening to Coper's reference to a very well known case before the High Court which determined the extent of Federal powers in overriding State powers-the Clyde Engineering case. A justice of the High Court in his judgment made a statement about his views of the distinction between the Federal power and the State power. I stress, this is a judgment, of a justice of the High Court. Mr Justice Higgins said: The State Law is like the Nile River, which covers the whole area with its flood, except that part of the area which is appropriated to the villages. The State law fills, as it were, all the sponge except the fibre. Anyone who can make any sense out of that is a better man than I am, Gunga Din. So many honourable senators opposite spent some time following the nonsense that Senator Puplick started that there has been a complete misunderstanding of the role of the High Court and this legislation. It is constitutionally impossible for this Parliament to remove from the High Court the right to review this Parliament's legislation in terms of the High Court's role in the matter, that is, to test its constitutional validity. There is nothing whatever in this legislation to prevent the Queensland Government or, indeed, any other government, taking the legislation which we are currently debating to the High Court and having the High Court test its validity. The nonsense that Senator Panizza has just repeated, that this legislation removes the right of the High Court to review these matters, has to be put to rest once and for all. The fact is that it should not be the role of the High Court of Australia to make a biological assessment of the worth or otherwise of applications before the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) for World Heritage listing. I do not deny that the combined wisdom of the High Court is certainly capable of doing so, but it is not the proper role of the High Court. It is the proper role of UNESCO to make that judgment. I move on to a second furphy that has been run by honourable senators opposite-that the referral of a listing to UNESCO is an abrogation of Australian sovereignty. What absolute nonsense that is. It is suggested that UNESCO, an overseas body, will make a decision which profoundly affects Australia. It will not make any decision at all unless it receives an application to do so from the properly elected and sovereign Australian Government of the day. It is obvious that, should a government, of whatever political persuasion, choose to take matters for listing to UNESCO, as I have no doubt a Liberal-National Party coalition government would do in some cases, it would simply mean that the Government of Australia had determined in the first instance that the properties concerned should be listed on the World Heritage List. Therefore, again, these silly arguments about abrogating Australia's sovereignty have to be put to rest. In passing, Senator Alston made an extraordinary comment about which I intend to ask him at some stage when he is back in the chamber. Perhaps he can explain it to me. One of the other furphies that has been run in this debate concerns the entire question of inspectorial powers. I know that other speakers will take this up in more detail later in the debate but, from the work I have done over many years in respect of delegated legislation, where a great many of these powers reside, I can assure honourable senators that they would be amazed at some of the things that inspectors can do under all kinds of Acts. Senate Maguire-Tell us about it. Senator COLLINS —No, I do not intend to tell honourable senators about it; other speakers will. But I will tell honourable senators one thing that inspectors cannot do. As far as I know, at least under legislation-this appeared to be the inference-they cannot corrupt judges. I cannot understand on what basis Senator Alston said that under this Bill inspectors will be corrupting the judiciary. I would like to know which part of the legislation he was referring to when he made that statement. Senator Puplick also had the hide to suggest that Territorians were going to be specifically disadvantaged by this legislation in respect of compensation for World Heritage listing that may be made in the Northern Territory. Senator Puplick, as shadow Minister for the environment, has no excuse for this most extraordinary misunderstanding of the provisions of this legislation, because, in fact, the legislation in respect of the Northern Territory does exactly the reverse. Senator Puplick referred to the Teori Tau case in 1969 which determined-I am quoting from Senator Puplick's speech-that `the Commonwealth is not obliged to provide just terms for the acquisition of property which takes place within the Territory which they represent'. He then went on to say: But there is no attempt in this Bill to address that particular matter. The Bill simply states that if there is an acquisition of property it shall have the same meaning and be done on the same terms as paragraph 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. In fact, Senator Puplick is profoundly wrong. The Bill, when it talks about compensation, does say that `just terms' has the same meaning in paragraph 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution. It goes on to say that people are entitled to receive compensation. That provision, constitutionally, extends as well to the people of the Northern Territory. What section 122 of the Constitution says, and what the High Court of Australia determined it said in the case mentioned by Senator Puplick, is that where a specific provision is made by the Commonwealth in respect of the Northern Territory which may put it at odds with the rest of Australia, the Commonwealth has the power to do that under section 122 of the Constitution. But for this legislation to bring about the situation which Senator Puplick asserted that it did, there would have to be a specific reference in this legislation excluding the Northern Territory from the provision of compensation contained in this legislation. There is in fact no such exemption in this legislation. The fact is that in terms of just compensation, this particular piece of legislation advances the cause and the position of the people in the Northern Territory, not disadvantages it, as Senator Puplick would hold. The other startling misunderstanding of this legislation came when honourable senators opposite suggested that the legislation removed the application of the Freedom of Information Act in terms of how the inspectors will operate. Really, I would suggest that honourable senators opposite have some obligation to do at least a little basic research if they are going to debate pieces of legislation before the House. Proposed new section 17c (4) of the Bill states: Section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not apply in relation to information or documents to which this section applies- that is, the confidentiality section involving the material that inspectors gather in the course of their work. The fact is that section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act deals with secrecy provisions in other Acts and allows exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act. In other words, proposed new section 17c (4) of this legislation preserves the right, rather than weakens it, for freedom of information access. It is absolutely clear that section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to information collected by the inspectors. The Opposition has totally misread this legislation. In exactly the same way, the Opposition has made statements about the High Court, but it has turned the meaning of proposed new section 17c (4) on its head. This proposed new section, in fact, means that the information will be available under the Freedom of Information Act, not, as the Opposition would hold, that it will not be available. I would like to turn to the contribution that was made to this debate by Senator Boswell, because once again he has run a number of other furphies. Senator Boswell opened his contribution by saying: Tonight the Senate is debating the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. I responded: That is the only thing you will get right. It turned out that that was the case. Senator Boswell went on to say that this legislation: will take the right to decide the fate of our Constitution away from the High Court of Australia . . . I believe that I have adequately dealt with that matter. Senator Boswell said: . . . I invite Senator Collins to get up and say so-because he will not. On this issue, I intend to take Senator Boswell head on. Senator Robert Ray —It will be an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. Senator COLLINS —When I say `head on', I am probably giving Senator Boswell the benefit of the doubt. Senator Boswell went on to say that the determination of the listing by UNESCO was an abrogation of Australian sovereignty. I have dealt with that matter as well. I now turn to a far more serious accusation that Senator Boswell made. Senator Boswell said that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) scientists who examined the material produced by the Queensland Government, and adversely reported upon it, did so because they were coerced and intimidated in coming to their scientific conclusions by the Federal Government. That astounded me. I worked for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation before I came into politics. Having worked with CSIRO scientists for a number of years in Kakadu National Park, I know that the one thing they place above all other things is their professional integrity. If I had to pick one organisation in Australia where the people working within it would be less subject to and less likely to respond to coercion or intimidation, it would be the CSIRO. Senator Stone —Try working for Graham Richardson, Senator. Senator COLLINS —If Senator Stone really wants to follow Senator Boswell down this path, I would warn him to be a little bit careful before he jumps in. Senator Maguire —He should check his facts. Senator COLLINS —In response to that interjection from Senator Maguire, I did in fact take the trouble to do what Senator Boswell clearly did not. I checked my facts. In fact, I contacted the scientists concerned. I put to them what Senator Boswell had said about their critical analysis of the Queensland Government's information. They told me in very graphic terms what they thought about Senator Boswell's assertion. Senator Crichton-Browne —Who are `they'? Senator COLLINS —The scientists-the honourable senator obviously has not been following the debate at all. If he wants to contribute to this debate, at least he should have the courtesy to follow the issues. I will say it again: I contacted the CSIRO scientists who were-- Senator Walters —No names. Faceless men. Senator COLLINS —Shirley, you really are a monumental pain in the neck. I contacted the CSIRO scientists who prepared the analysis of the information provided by the Queensland Government. That is public information, Senator. If Senator Walters knew the slightest thing about this matter, she would know who they are, but for her benefit I will name them. I was not going to because I did not see the necessity. They were Dr Mike Hopkins and Geoff Tracey, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientists who prepared a critical analysis of the Queensland Government's information. I then contacted, as I felt I had an obligation to do, the Chief of the Division for which they work in Canberra and he told me what the facts were. When the information was produced by the Queensland Government as to the extent or otherwise of the logging in north Queensland over which there was a dispute, the then Department of Arts, Heritage and the Environment went to CSIRO. In the same way that it could have gone to any other professional consultant organisation in the area, it went to CSIRO because the scientists concerned had a national reputation for knowing more about rainforests than probably anyone else in the country. The Department asked CSIRO, as research consultants, to carry out an investigation of this information and produce a report. CSIRO took on that job as a professional consultancy from the Department and was paid for it accordingly. There was no coercion or intimidation or political pressure from anyone. CSIRO did a piece of professional research work, which indeed is its charter, and did it very well. Senator Boswell, having falsely maligned the professional integrity of the CSIRO scientists concerned, as I have just demonstrated, would prefer to rely instead on the scientific validity of the information produced by the organisation known as the Northern Rainforest Management Agency (NORMA), which was set up by the Queensland Government. Indeed, there have been a number of references to it already during this debate. NORMA was set up allegedly to provide the same kind of impartial scientific advice on whether or not these rainforest areas deserve to be listed on the World Heritage List as CSIRO indeed did. The interesting thing about NORMA -it is worthwhile looking at this-is that this impartial and non-biased organisation that was going to determine whether the listing should go ahead placed the following advertisement mentioned in the Port Douglas and Mosman Gazette of 25 February, announcing that it was going to hold public meetings in Innisfail: Come and hear the latest report on the vital work of NORMA's Scientific Committee opposed to World Heritage Listing of our rainforest. Senator Colston —Hardly impartial. Senator COLLINS —Hardly. NORMA was a little embarrassed, a little upset about this, and said that in fact there had been a clerical error. The only problem was that NORMA had also committed a fairly gross clerical error in the circular that was sent to all of the news editors announcing the conference. The circular said: . . . the morning session would be open to the press but the afternoon session would be closed to discuss tactics to `oppose' the listing for world heritage. That is from an organisation which purports to be producing a scientific and detached analysis of whether the listing should go ahead. So that honourable senators do not misunderstand me, I am not criticising the scientists who worked on the report for NORMA; those errors were made by the political masters that were running the show. That is why 25 eminent scientists, expert in rainforests, refused to act for NORMA, refused to work for it. They feared that the Queensland Government would do precisely what it did. Despite all of that, the NORMA report concluded: (1) Queensland's High Court Challenge is partly based on the grounds that substantial nominated areas are not of World Heritage significance. However, the scientific committee's report could only find 23,700 hectares, or 2.5% of the nominated area, as having a `low conservation priority'. (2) The report also identified 84,000 hectares of rainforest with the `highest conservation priority' which had not been included in the nomination. *The report found that of the 167,000 hectares of rainforest allocated for logging by the Queensland Forestry Department, about 126,000 hectares or three-quarters of this area was of such high conservation significance that it should not be logged. This would reduce the timber industry to 30% of its current levels. Of the four scenarios NORMA examined: *Even the land-use scenario most biased in favour of the timber industry predicted it would have to be slashed to half its 1987 level. This would involve logging in areas with marginal timber prospects and high to moderate conservation values. So despite the fact that as far as the Queensland Government was concerned it was a set-up, the Committee came down with such a favourable report for World Heritage listing. The Queensland Minister responsible for the environment is now trying to disown it by saying that it is only a preliminary study because the leakage of the document has profoundly embarrassed the Queensland Government. The substance of this debate in fact is very simple. The Federal Government has introduced this legislation because of the failure of attempts to persuade the Queensland Government to co-operate in the national interest to save those rainforests. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLINS —Senator Boswell wants to ruin the place and this Government wants to preserve it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Collins, when you are advised that your time has expired, you cease speaking. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.32) —We are debating the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, which quite unnecessarily and undesirably extends the Commonwealth's powers in Word Heritage matters and it further intrudes and tramples on the rights and the intrinsic responsibilities of the Australian States through the pernicious use of the external affairs powers. It is clear that the legislation will have long term general application. The Bill was introduced with the nomination of the Queensland wet tropics region in mind. By proposed new section 3a this Bill seeks to give the Commonwealth power to afford interim protection in respect of identified property, that is, property which is only subject to World Heritage List nomination, or which is merely subject to an inquiry to determine whether the property forms part of the cultural or natural heritage. Regrettably, the High Court of Australia last week declared valid the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act, which prohibits logging in those two areas pending the outcome of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. That is the inevitable result of using external affairs powers in such a pernicious way. With the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill the Hawke Government is repeating the dose, and this time Queensland is on the receiving end. To rub salt into the wound, the Federal Government's actions come on top of previous commitments pursuing unilateral action when nominating sites for World Heritage listing. At the July 1984 meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers procedures were agree upon which were to occur before a site in Australia was to be nominated for World Heritage listing. The agreement provided for, at that time, full consultation between the Commonwealth and the States or the Territory concerned. It also included the statement: The Commonwealth Government has indicated that it will not take unilateral action to nominate areas for World Heritage listing without the agreement of the State or Territory concerned. Further, on 12 September 1984, Mr Hawke wrote to the then Queensland Premier stating: It is not the intention of my Government to take unilateral action to nominate the region for World Heritage listing. Of course, it is the situation of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests all over again. Honourable senators will recall that the Hawke Government abrogated a formal agreement also signed at that meeting. In that case it was an agreement between the Tasmanian and Commonwealth governments over the consultative process that would be applied to planning in National Estate forests. The Commonwealth reneged on that agreement not nine months after it was signed on behalf of the Commonwealth by the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin. The Government also confirmed its bilateral commitment to World Heritage listing through Senator Ryan on behalf of the then Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. On 11 February 1986 Senator Ryan advised the Senate: The Government has made it clear that the wet tropic rainforests of north-east Queensland will only be nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List with the agreement of the Queensland Government. The Government is of the view that a co-operative, not confrontationist, approach is the best way of conserving Australia's rainforest resources. The co-operation achieved with the Queensland Government in the preparation of the Working Group Report is an indication of the fruitlessness of that approach. So much for those fine old words and for the Hawke Government's spirit of co-operation. As is so often the case, the Government's actions are not matched by its rhetoric and the history of the wet tropics nomination tells the true story. The Commonwealth's decision to proceed with the nomination was announced-as is inevitably the case with this Government-in a Press statement from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 5 June 1987. This announcement was made without prior consultation with the Queensland Government or those directly affected by the World Heritage listing. The formal advice of the decision to proceed was not given to the Queensland Government until 23 June, notwithstanding the fact that a public Press statement had been made on 5 June. On 17 August the then Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Richardson, announced a consultation period in relation to the proposed nomination, the purpose of which was for the Federal Government to find out about proposed projects for the area and assess them in light of the proposed listing. The Minister allowed only until 22 October for the preparation and submission of objections and comments on the proposed listing. Late in September the Minister confirmed that logging would be unconditionally forbidden in the proposed World Heritage area. In December the Minister pronounced the area to be nominated for listing. This area comprises 9,200 square kilometres of north Queensland tropical rainforest, stretching from just north of Townsville almost to Cooktown. It includes State forest, timber reserve, national park and other crown land and also about 100 square kilometres of privately owned land. The Hawke Government has again acted completely arbitrarily in its decision to proceed with that nomination. Not only has it chosen to proceed without calling for State and local government or industry reaction to the proposal, but also its decision to ban logging without a proper assessment of the social and economic ramifications can only be judged as ham-fisted and totally inappropriate. The Government's approach in banning all logging operations also appears at variance with the national conservation strategy which was accepted and adopted by the Federal Government in 1983. The national conservation strategy for Australia stated as an essential element: Conservation and development are fundamentally linked by their dependence on living resources . . . to provide for today's needs as well as to conserve the living stock for tomorrow, both conservation and development are necessary. I turn now to the particular details of the Bill. As I mentioned previously, clause 5 proposes a new section 3a which seeks to amend the definition of `identified property' to which protection may be extended by a proclamation made under the principal Act. Ostensibly, the amendments are made-to quote the explanatory memorandum: to follow more closely the procedures which the Convention . . . requires Australia to follow in protecting properties of cultural or natural heritage as defined in the Convention. I quote now from the second reading speech: In other words, the Act would follow the three stages of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage: identification of property, nomination and listing. However, it is clear that the unstated, although I am sure intended, effect of these amendments to the definition of `identified property' is to further deprive persons affected by any proposed listing of their ultimate and intrinsic right to challenge in the High Court of Australia the validity of any disruption to their otherwise lawful activities. Owing to recent High Court decisions it is now quite clear that the actual process of nominating sites to the World Heritage List is no longer reviewable because it involves the making of a Cabinet decision. The effect of the Bill before us is to take away a person's final recourse to the High Court and to place firmly once and for all in the hands of a committee sitting in Paris the sole power over matters affecting our cultural and natural heritage. This committee, which administers the World Heritage Convention, comprises 21 of the 100 signatories to the convention. Currently, by chance, Australia is a member of the committee, but in the future this may not necessarily always apply. Accordingly, it is highly likely that the fate of industries and jobs in Australia will ultimately be decided by a committee of foreign countries; yet the owners of those industries or those jobs will not be able to make out a case in the courts of this land for protection from the Australian government's decision affecting their very livelihood. That is a very sad reflection on and a damning indictment of this Labor Government. But of course it is the inevitable and obvious price one has to pay for the use of external affairs powers in this way. Another matter of grave concern relates to the powers given under the Bill to the inspectors appointed by the Minister. Proposed section 17a of the Act allows an inspector to enter and search an eligible place or inspect and take photographs or measurements of an eligible thing if that inspector is acting for an eligible purpose. In simple English, this means that an inspector can enter any land, building or structure, except for a dwelling house, whether it is on identified property or not, or any vehicle to determine whether an unlawful act has or will be done in relation to the identified property. Therefore, the powers given to inspectors are wide. Even more unacceptable is the fact that in certain circumstances these inspectors are empowered to dispense with the need for the consent of the owners or for the need to obtain a warrant from an appointed judge. By any mea-sure the conditions of entry are quite subjective. The inspector must believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to enter to prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of any thing. Honourable senators will note that the Bill does not say `any eligible thing' which is to be prescribed by the regulations, but `any thing'. The measurement or yardstick is that entry must be made in circumstances of `seriousness and urgency' in the mind of the inspector. It is clear that the powers given to inspectors have the potential to be a gross intrusion on any person's privacy. Honourable senators must be aware that inspectors are given power to enter any land, building or structure anywhere in Australia-not just on identified property. Further, they can stop, detain, enter and search any vehicle anywhere in Australia. Unlike Dr Blewett, I do not believe that privacy is a bourgeois right; I believe it to be the prerogative of every Australian to be protected from unwarranted intrusion. For example, I believe in the inalienable right of the citizen to be protected from intrusion into his home, place of business or when driving a motor vehicle. The powers given to inspectors are wider than those given to the police in most instances and have the potential to be subject to grave misuse and abuse. Further, the so-called safeguards on entry without consent or warrant are quite meaningless in the face of an inspector who merely states his belief that entry is necessary in the circumstances. Even where the circumstances are not particularly urgent, how many Australians would be so confident in their knowledge of the law when faced with an inspector who presents an identification card to have the courage to refuse their consent to a search? Even should a person choose to refuse consent in the mistaken belief that an inspector had no power to enter his property without his consent or without a warrant, he could find himself liable to prosecution and a fine of $1,000 or 12 months imprisonment. Of course these provisions are fraught with difficulties and considerable danger. My final comment on the provisions of the Bill relate to part III, which provides that the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 shall not apply to the World Heritage legislation or the submission of property for World Heritage listing. This Act permits, of course, Commonwealth involvement in environmental assessment by two means-by way of the inquiry section and also the environmental impact statement (EIS) section. The object of the Act is to ensure that matters affecting the Commonwealth to a significant extent are fully examined and taken into account in and in relation to, amongst other things, the carrying out of works and other projects and the making of decisions and recommendations, as found in section 5. In general terms, the Act allows the environmental assessment of the activities of the Commonwealth and others where Commonwealth approval is required for such activities where these activities do or are likely to affect the environment. By so limiting the operation of this legislation the present Bill has given the Minister an unfettered and quite unlimited discretion either to approve or to reject proposed acts or projects in world heritage areas without the need to have recourse to inquiries or studies which would examine the benefits or otherwise of these projects. Once again the Hawke Government has seen fit to give Ministers total power to judge whether or not a project should go ahead in a listed area. Of course the considerations on which the Minister's decision will be made are unknown but will it be certain, knowing the pragmatism of this Government, that it will not be on environmental grounds or on the merits of a particular proposal. My guess is that what will be the objective measure or test of the Minister will be what is acceptable to the voters. This, of course, was the determining factor, in the case of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests legislation. One further draconian aspect of the Government's decision to dispense with the need for the EIS legislation is that it is slated to operate retrospectively. This provision in the Bill is to take effect `as if it had commenced on the commencement of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act of 1983'. I have always been and will continue to be totally opposed to the retrospective use of legislation. In the present case the Government has used the device solely for the purpose of frustrating appeals to the High Court of Australia on current heritage proposals, as it has also done through its trick of repealing certain regulations made in relation to the wet tropics in order to replace them with identical regulations under this proposed Act. The Government ought to stand condemned for its sly and underhanded tactics used solely to try to clear up the dreadful mess it has made with its handling of the wet tropics nomination. I conclude my remarks by saying now, as I have said many times in the past, that it is clear to all of us that the States are far better equipped than the Commonwealth to undertake environmental activities. The very basis of the principle of the devolution of power from the Commonwealth to the States and down through local government is that the best and most effective form of administration is that which is closest to the people. I referred previously to the first of the strategic principles set forth in the 1983 national conservation strategy document which emphasised the integration of conservation and development, and their interdependence and common ground. This task of integration must surely fall to the States as it is clear that the ownership and control of natural resources within their boundaries lies to a substantial degree with the respective State governments. The present Federal Government has shown its effectiveness at preventing development, as the Tasmanian dams case clearly illustrates. However, it has not demonstrated any capacity to integrate and formulate development activities with the needs of conservation. We need only look to the stalling of the national rainforest conservation program for evidence of that. In June of 1986 the then Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment, Barry Cohen, announced that the Government had adopted this rainforest program as proposed by the 1985 working group and had agreed to provide $22.25m for the program over the following two financial years. Negotiations with the States were to commence immediately and now, nearing the end of the two-year period, Queensland, with around 60 per cent of Australia's rainforests, still has not received any of those funds owing to the Commonwealth's insistence of the quid pro quo that logging cease. By fulfilling its obligation to provide funds under this program the Federal Government would do more to assist in genuine rainforest conservation than by proceeding with the present legislation. It is clear that the States have both the incentive and the opportunity to formulate arrangements to ensure the integration of conservation and development. Until the Labor Government realises this, its environmental policy will fail. To me, the sadness of this debate is that anybody who argues against domestic legislation which is introduced as an extension of the World Heritage Convention is judged immediately as being anti-conservation. Of course that is a totally arrogant position and it is by any measure intellectually dishonest, but it is typical of the crude fraud of these fringe groups which claim that they have an exclusive mortgage on the care of all things conservation. I hope that commonsense will prevail in the Australian Democrats and that they will join with us in defeating this legislation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.54) —Today we are debating a Bill to amend the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and the Environment Protection Act 1974. If the people of Australia had only been given time to be aware of what this Bill contains the demonstrations over the identity card would have had nothing on the demonstrations that would now be taking place in Australia against this Bill. The Bill takes away more of the rights of the individual than any other Bill has ever done. I believe it is the most draconian Bill ever to come before the Senate. But is has been brought in by a government which believes in that sort of thing. I will quote from one of its Ministers because it is important that the people of Australia understand what this Government believes. To the South Australian Labor Conference in June 1986 the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett, said: Let me say as a socialist that it is the interests of the community that should come before the individual right . . . we should'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 what this Government believes are the rights of the individual. The rights of the state overcome the rights of the individual in every piece of legislation it brings before the Senate. Let us see what is the aim of this Bill according to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). I stress the words `according to the Minister'. According to Senator Richardson, the aim is to strengthen the present legislation to protect World Heritage areas. He intends to redefine the definition of `identified property', that is, property which the Government believes may be of World Heritage value, to bring it more in line with the definition in the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage. I repeat that such a property will be redefined according to the World Heritage Convention, that is, not defined in the Australian way but in the way of overseas countries. The Minister also says that the Bill will allow any part of that property to be proclaimed-not the total property but any small part of it-and be subject to ministerial direction as to its use and so called protection. The Bill will freeze the use of a property if the property is nominated as having World Heritage value or if an inquiry is pending to determine the potential of a property for World Heritage value. While there is a time limit on this freeze, it is virtually unlimited; I will come to that later. The Bill also sets up a system of inspectors for World Heritage properties. I will come to what those inspectors can do later. We are also told that under certain circumstances Commonwealth compensation will be given and that there will be penalties for breaches of confidentiality. There will also be no requirement for an environmental impact statement on ministerial approved projects. Retrospectively, the Bill changes the right of Queensland to appeal to the High Court, as it is doing at the moment; a State will be able to appeal only to the international committee if areas within that State are nominated by the Government. Let us look at what this does because it is most important that we understand what the Minister is really doing. Let us look at the question of identified properties. The first change is that the Bill refers to freezing the use of any property that is subject to an inquiry. At the moment the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests is going on in Tasmania. The Helsham inquiry has already said that logging can continue in parts of Tasmania that are part of that inquiry. But, under this legislation, the Helsham inquiry would not be able to do that. Under this legislation, because an inquiry had been instigated, even that sort of area of land would be frozen, according to the Bill, until 42 days after the final report; so the Helsham inquiry in our State would have been thwarted by this legislation. So any property subject to an inquiry will be frozen. An inquiry can take any length of time; there is nothing in the Bill that says that an inquiry must be undertaken within a reasonable time. So a whole area in a State can be frozen for any length of time. An inquiry could take place over five years and property could be frozen for five years, and 42 days after the final report is brought down. Nothing in this Bill stops that occurring. I move to the second point. The use of a property can be frozen if it is the subject of a nomination for the World Heritage List. So, even if a property is nominated-not listed-everything must stop. The World Heritage Committee takes quite a time to look at nominations and so that freeze could go on for a considerable time. The third point is that the freeze can occur if a property is included on the World Heritage List. That is not so bad; once it is on the list, that is fair enough. The fourth point, and perhaps the most draconian of all, is that not even a nomination or inquiry is needed, but just a regulation by the Minister to say that a property forms part of the cultural or national heritage. This can be declared in a regulation. I believe that is the most draconian of all parts, and this is what the Minister is all about. Let Australians beware that, by the Minister putting forward a regulation, whole areas of their State can be set aside, and for any length of time. Under the legislation not just any judge will be able to issue a warrant; but I will come back to that in a moment when I refer to the inspectors. I turn now to compensation. The Bill states that, where the Commonwealth acquires property to go on the list, it is liable to pay compensation of a reasonable amount to the owner of the property. But the Bill goes on to say that, where the Commonwealth and the owner cannot agree on what is a reasonable amount, the owner can take the Commonwealth to the Federal courts to decide. But who will pay the costs? Who can afford to take the Federal Government to the courts to institute proceedings for recovery from the Commonwealth of an amount considered reasonable? What will happen to a mining area where perhaps exploration is just starting and the Government decides, `No, we will freeze that under a regulation'. What occurs then? Who determines what a reasonable cost is? How can a mining company or the Government know what is under the ground? How would we have any idea what a reasonable cost is? Senator Crichton-Browne —How do you compensate? Senator WALTERS —As Senator Crichton-Browne says, how do we compensate a company for the amount of exploration that has already gone on? Now to inspectors. The inspectors can enter a property at any time of the night or day without a warrant, if they believe that it is urgent for them to do so. They can enter and search; however, they cannot go into a person's home. They can go onto a person's property. They can stop a vehicle and search it. A person is meant to be able to identify them because they will be able to produce an identification card. I can assure you, Mr Deputy President, that if I, as a woman, was in my car on a dark night and was flagged down by an inspector who showed me his identification card through my window, I would not take notice of that. I would not open the door to let in a strange man to inspect the interior of my car. I can assure the Minister for Resources, who is at the table, that I would not do that. I would incur a penalty of $1,000 for not doing so. I would have to pay $1,000 because I had refused, at midnight or later, to open the door of my car to a strange man who flashed some sort of identification at me. How would I know that it was a legitimate request? How would I know, in an isolated country area, that an inspector who flashed a card at me and said, `Open your door, Madam', was legitimate? If I did not do that I would be charged $1,000. Let us look at the penalty for a person who is no longer an inspector and has not handed in his identification card. The person I am talking about may have been relieved of his duties, because he has abused them. He may even have accosted a female; we would not know. The penalty for that inspector not handing in his identification card is $100. He would be charged $100 and I would be charged $1,000 for refusing to open the door of my car to such a bloke. The penalty is not just $1,000; it is $1,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both. This Government, in its search for community interests over individual rights, brings in such draconian legislation. Senator Cook —That argument is logically defective and you know it. Senator WALTERS —Why does the Minister say that? Senator Cook —What you are citing is a maximum penalty which may be applied in the event of a conviction. Senator WALTERS —What I am citing is the maximum penalty for refusing to open the door to an inspector, which is $1,000. What I am also citing is the maximum penalty for an inspector who does not hand in his ID card and is acting unlawfully, which is $100. Do not let the Minister say that I am not speaking the truth. This Bill is the Minister's legislation and he has to act in accordance with it. As I have already said, the Government's policy is, and I again quote the Minister, `Let me say as a socialist that the interests of the community come before individual rights'. I will quote that on every occasion I can possibly do so. That is the Government's policy regarding individual rights. As I have said, the inspectors can go on to a person's property at any time of the day or the night without a warrant. But if they do bring a warrant they bring one from only certain judges-those chosen by the Minister. They are not obtained from any Federal Court judge; just certain judges. They can be pet judges-those whom the Government and the Minister decide are the Government's little mates. If the people of Australia were aware of the sort of legislation that we have before us, the demonstrations against the ID card would bear no relation to what would happen here. After telling us that the inspectors can do anything they like-they can go onto a property, take photographs, record, inspect and measure up things and stop and detain a person; all without a warrant if they decide that it is a matter of urgency-the Government turns to confidentiality. It is a joke for this Government to put anything about confidentiality in legislation because when the Government was caught breaking the confidentiality laws, the Minister concerned, the Minister for Community Services and Health said, `It was not me; it was my staff. I did not know about it. My Department handed on confidential information to my staff who handed it out to back bench committees, thereby identifying people and breaking the law. But I did not do that. I am the Minister and I did not actually see that. I only gave a direction that it be handed out. I did not actually see it, so I am not to blame'. Where does the buck stop in this Government? It has stated in this legislation that there should be confidentiality, but we know of Dr Blewett's lack of confidentiality. We know that under this Government on at least four separate occasions the Health Insurance Commission has breached the act of confidentiality. On each occasion the Minister for Community Services and Health refused to accept responsibility for it. Where does the buck stop in this Government in terms of confidentiality? It puts it in legislation and it does not abide by it; yet it puts it in additional legislation. That is a laugh. People do not believe the Government. They believe that there is no need for it. Dr Blewett said that privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right which is very much associated with the right to private property. That is what the Minister thinks about the need for privacy and confidentiality. The Bill refers to confidentiality; yet the Minister says that confidentiality or privacy is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. That is what this Government thinks of confidentiality; yet it continues to put it in legislation. What absolute rubbish we have before us today. If only the people of Australia had had time to realise what sort of legislation this is, they would have risen in wrath as they did with the ID card. The legislation states that there is no longer any need for an environmental impact statement. It will change the existing legislation to say that it should never have been there, as though it did not exist. Why is retrospective legislation being passed? It is because this Government has already broken the laws, nominating areas without an environmental impact statement. So the Government, to cover itself, is saying that this legislation will make it as though that never occurred. As there is now no need for an environmental impact statement I wonder whether the honourable member for Parramatta will again suggest a monorail around Ayers Rock, Uluru. There is no need for an environmental impact statement now so anything can occur. It will be open slather. What effect is all this having on the economy? Mining exploration in Australia has dropped by 38 per cent. There is an undermining of confidence in investment in future developments. This sort of retrospective legislation together with the fact that there is no confidence in any compensation provisions has the mining industry in turmoil. We ought not forget and the Government ought not forget that 40 per cent of this nation's foreign earnings are from the mining industry. What will happen to our foreign debts once this legislation goes through? It will be the last nail in the coffin as regards the mining industry's confidence to continue exploring in this country. Let me get back to what this Government is all about. For political votes it will do anything. Yesterday the Government defeated my private member's Bill. My private member's Bill purely and simply gave the right to a private owner of land to be informed when his land was put on either the interim list or the register to go on the National Estate. It is pure courtesy to let the owner know that his land is up for entry on the Register. This Government knocked it back. Part of the argument the Minister put up was that it did not interfere with usage of the land. He said, `Give me examples'. Then he walked out of the chamber. Senator Puplick got up and said, `I will give you an example. My own property has been changed. I cannot paint it the colours I want. The local government has said that it must be painted in heritage colours'. When I spoke I also gave instances of local governments having said, `If your place is on the interim list of the National Estate we will not allow you to subdivide your property'. Yet the Minister said that it made no difference, that there were no regulations on the use of property. He asked us to give him examples but he then walked off and would not listen to them. But he did worse. He read from a letter by a representative of the local government of the City of Fremantle. Senator Crichton-Browne —Who is the town planner there? John Dawkins's brother? Senator WALTERS —I will come to that. I had sent my Bill to all local governments, saying, `I would like your support. This Bill gives individuals the right to know that their private property is going on the National Estate and I cannot see how the Government could knock it back. Would you give me support?' I have had support from hundreds of local governments. I have had letters from them. Only one letter I received-that from the City of Fremantle-did not give me support. Senator Richardson read from that letter in the chamber. I thought to myself, `Why is it that just one local government, only one, would not support my Bill?' Let me explain why. The Director of Planning and Development of the Fremantle City Council is a Mr Jeremy Dawkins, brother of a Labor Minister in the other place. Senator Crichton-Browne —He owes him a favour or two. He got a great deal of money out of him for the America's Cup. Senator WALTERS —Not only that. Jeremy Dawkins of the Fremantle City Council not only is the Director of Planning and Development but also, just a couple of months ago, he was appointed by Senator Richardson to the Heritage Commission of the National Estate. Is it any wonder that I got a letter opposing the right of an individual to know that his property is to go on the National Estate from Jeremy Dawkins? It was not signed by Jeremy Dawkins. It was signed by a Mr Pearce. But Jeremy Dawkins is the one who pulls the strings-Jeremy Dawkins, the brother of John Dawkins, a Labor Minister in the other place. Senator Richardson gets up here and uses that sort of rubbish as evidence against a Bill which merely provides that if a person's private property is to go on the National Estate the owner should be told. That is all I ask-to let the owner know that his property is to go on the National Estate; do not sneak it on without telling him and say that he has been told because it has been advertised in the public notices in the newspaper. Not everyone reads the public notices in the newspaper. There are thousands of people in my State whose properties have gone on the National Estate without their knowledge. This Bill is a travesty of the rights of every individual in this country. As I have said, if the people had had time to understand what this Bill was about, we would have seen demonstrations far outnumbering those against the ID card. This is the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen brought before the Senate. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.24) —The Bill before us is the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. As Senator Walters has just observed, it must be, if not the worst, certainly one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to come before the Parliament. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), who is, as usual, not present for debate on his own legislation, ought to be ashamed to have put such a Bill before us. It is important to understand what this Bill is about and what it is not about. It is not about environmental policy as such. It is about the grubby politics of the New South Wales Labor Party. It is about administrative processes. It is about legislating retrospectively to rule out any possibility of legal challenge by the Queensland Government of the actions taken to this time by Senator Richardson in the name of the Commonwealth Government. Of course, as Senator Collins, who spoke somewhat earlier this morning, quite rightly pointed out, it would be possible for the Queensland Government to challenge the validity of this legislation itself before the High Court of Australia. That is not deniable. That is not in dispute. What we on this side of the chamber are saying-this also is indisputable-is that this Bill is directed to ruling out, among other things, challenge by the Queensland Government to the actions already taken by this Minister and this Government under the legislation as it currently stands prior to what I have no doubt will be, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, the passage of this Bill. The Bill is also about removing the Commonwealth from the need to comply with the provisions of its own Environment Protection (Impact Proposals) Act passed as long ago as 1974. It is not, of course, merely about removing the Commonwealth from the need to comply with the provisions of that Act-provisions which fall upon every other subject and entity in this country, insofar as the need to bring down environmental impact statements is concerned-before proceeding to further actions under the environmental head of power; it is also designed to remove that obligation from the Commonwealth retrospectively. Again, of course, that has to do with the fact that the current Minister's actions in regard to the North Queensland tropical rainforest matter have not complied with the provisions of that Act. The Bill also is about setting up and giving very considerable powers to a new corps of what I can only call environmental terrorists-Richardson's greenshirts, as they have been quite appropriately called by Senator Puplick in opening the debate for our side-the so-called inspectorate provided for under this Bill, and I will come to that in a moment. Let us be quite clear what the Bill is about. First and foremost it is about fixing up the mess Senator Richardson himself has created. If one takes it in that context and in the context, therefore, of the original proposals introduced into this place last year by the Minister to list a large area of northern Queensland under the World Heritage provisions, one sees that that proposal had nothing to do with Senator Richardson's or this Government's concern for the preservation of that piece of our environment. It had to do with a tidy bit of forward planning by the New South Wales Labor Party for the election it knew it would have to call within the following six months and which, indeed, will come to its denouement tomorrow, as it happens. That proposal in relation to the north Queensland tropical rainforest was part of the game plan to get on side the greenie vote-not in Queensland, but in New South Wales-in preparation for that forthcoming election. There is much that could be said on that topic because, of course, since that time we have had the interesting revelations about the activities of certain members of the New South Wales Labor Party in this area and their, shall I say, careless handling of the funds provided to them by a woodchipping company in Southern New South Wales, and other matters of that kind which I do not propose to take further time to go into today. Senator Messner —Bob Carr would not be too popular. Senator STONE —As Senator Messner quite rightly interposed, Mr Carr would not be too popular. I simply want to make the point in this context that the present proposal, which stems from the proposal late last year on the north Queensland tropical rainforest, is a purely political initiative. It has nothing to do with environmental policy as such. I come now to the retrospectivity aspects of the legislation. First of all, I turn to clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill. Interestingly, for those people who may not be familiar with the kind of language which this Government employs, clause 10 is headed `Proclamation never in force' and clause 11 is headed `Certain statutory rules of no effect'. Clause 10 reads: The proclamation made on 19 January 1988- that is, less than two months ago- pursuant to subsection 6 (3) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 shall be taken never to have come into force. Clause 11 reads: Statutory rules 1988 No. 2 shall be taken never to have had effect. Of course, what both those clauses of the Bill are directed to doing is removing from the ambit of the High Court case which the Queensland Government has had in preparing this proclamation and those statutory rules so that the invalidity of those rules can no longer be pleaded. As the Minister said in his second reading speech on the Bill, it is proposed that, having passed this legislation, the Government will then make a new proclamation and new rules identical in form to their predecessors now to be rendered by this Bill as never having come into force. It will then proceed without any possibility of threat from the fact that the original proclamation and rules were open to legal doubt. But note the retrospectivity of the action. The other element of the Bill which incorporates a retrospective element of a major kind is, of course, related to clauses 8 and 9 in part III of the Bill, which is headed `Amendment of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974'. Clause 9 seeks to alter the principal Act by including the following new section: Nothing in this Act applies- that is, in the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, after this legislation comes into force- in relation to: (a) the doing of any thing under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 or regulations under that Act; or (b) the submission by the Commonwealth under Article 11 of the Convention, within the meaning of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, of property to the World Heritage Committee as suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List . . . That provision would mean that henceforward the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 would no longer apply to submissions by the Commonwealth for World Heritage listing or any of the other actions related thereto which the Act lays upon the Minister to perform. But the following section, proposed new section 4a (2), reads: This section has effect as if it had commenced on the commencement of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. That is over four years ago. That, again, is a provision clearly designed to destroy one of the bases upon which the Queensland Government would obviously have been proposing to proceed before the High Court in its argumentation-that in putting forward his proposals for dealing with the north Queensland tropical rainforest area, the Minister has not proceeded in accordance with the Commonwealth's own legislation. Let me come to another area of the Bill which has been very properly remarked upon at some length by other speakers in this debate. I think it is one of the most extraordinary provisions to be put forward by a Minister of the Crown. It relates to the setting up of the inspectorate, Richardson's greenshirts. Clause 7 of the Bill provides, among other things, for the setting up of such a body and under the heading of `Entry and search etc.'-this is by way of providing for amendment of the initial Act-proposed new section 17a (1) of the Bill provides: The Minister may, in writing, appoint a person to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act. (2) An inspector may, for an eligible purpose- that is a term which is subsequently defined- (a) enter and search an eligible place; (b) take photographs and record occurrences in an eligible place; and (c) inspect, examine and take photographs and measurements of an eligible thing. An `eligible thing' also is a term subsequently defined. For the purpose of exercising those very wide-ranging powers, the Bill provides: . . . an inspector may stop, detain, enter and search any vehicle. (4) An inspector shall not enter an eligible place . . . or a vehicle . . . unless: (a) the consent of the person in charge of the eligible place or the vehicle has been obtained- that is all right, or- (b) pursuant to a warrant issued under subsection (5); or- I will come back to that- (c) the following conditions are satisfied: (i) the inspector believes on reasonable grounds- `The inspector believes'-nobody else has any right to have any view about the matter. The inspector believes, says he believes, or is prepared to say that he believes- that it is necessary to enter . . . (ii) the entry is made in circumstances of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate entry without the consent of the person in charge or the authority of a warrant . . . The proposed new subsection states: `eligible place' means any land, building or structure . . . but does not include a dwelling house; The next amendment from the Government to the legislation will be to include a dwelling house. The Bill goes on to define `eligible purpose' as: (b) obtaining information that may be relevant- that is, again, in the judgment or the belief, or what is said to be the belief, of the inspector- to the making of a Proclamation, or a regulation, under this Act; `eligible thing'-this is a term which I said I would come back to-is defined in the Act as follows: `eligible thing' means any thing prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition. One could hardly have more extensive, far reaching and sweeping powers than that. I also think it is important to link those paragraphs of the Bill about the inspectorate with the passages about confidentiality to which Senator Walters, who spoke before me, also referred. Proposed new section 17c (1) of the Bill states: Subject to this section, a person: (a) who is or has been an inspector; and (b) who has, in exercising powers under this Act, acquired any information, or document, relating to the affairs of another person; That person shall not divulge that information. There is a penalty for breach of that provision. It goes on to say: Nothing in subsection (1) prohibits an inspector from communicating any information, or producing any document, to the Minister, the Secretary to the Department . . . These days he is just as likely as not to be a political creature of the Minister. The inspector is also prohibited from communicating information to other persons specified in the Bill. Without mincing words, this Bill is about setting up a bunch of people politically appointed by the Minister who will, at the Minister's request, if necessary, undertake or exercise their extraordinary wide-ranging powers to enter, search, and take photographs of eligible things as defined by regulations made by the Minister and who, having done that, can communicate all that information to the Minister. If that is not a police state, I would like to know what is. I note also just in passing-this is on another element of the Bill-the section dealing with compensation. It has been argued by the Minister in his second reading speech and I think by one or two of the rather small number of speakers on the Government side of the chamber-I think it is probably difficult to find speakers on that side of the chamber who are prepared to come in and support this stuff-that these provisions relating to compensation represent an improvement upon the procedures under the principal Act. There is some justification for that view. I accept that. However, what we should note is that these compensation provisions apply only where a property is actually acquired by the Commonwealth. There is no provision in this Bill or the principal Act for compensation where management of a property is affected-at the discretion of the Commonwealth, of course; the discretion of the Minister-but where acquisition does not ultimately occur, as Senator Walters said when she was referring to the inquiry provisions. An inquiry can go on for five years. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent an inquiry going on interminably. If the Minister wants it to go on a bit longer, he can give another reference or alter the reference somewhat to maintain the inquiry in being. There is no hindrance on his capacity to do that, none at all. Just think of the capacities for political blackmail-I do not apologise for using that phrase-which those sorts of powers give to this Minister. Just think of the way in which this particular Minister might be prepared to use them. In the time that remains to me I will say a few more general things about the matters and topics to which the Bill itself relates; namely, environmental policy. I believe that I am as much concerned with the need to preserve the Australian environment as I believe are most other sensible Australians. After all, it is our country. It is not some mere play thing of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation or, for that matter, of various so-called concerned foreigners such as Professor David Bellamy, or other notables of that kind. I find it extremely disturbing that we have all these debates in Australia today-I think it might be more accurate to describe them as emotional uproars-proceeding about issues such as uranium mining, or mining generally within the confines of areas delineated as national parks; or selective logging of small numbers of mature trees in afforested areas, including, but not exclusively, rainforests; or the preservation of birds, such as galahs; or animals such as kangaroos, whose presence, I might say, in virtually plague numbers, wreak havoc with the livelihoods of many hard-working Australian farmers. I am perfectly well aware that one of the more respectable arguments of the environmentalist lobby is that the very presence of unspoiled wilderness itself constitutes a powerful drawcard for one of our fast-growing industries-tourism. I think that argument is the more powerful since, after all, we are not overburdened with fast-growing industries in Australia today, if we leave aside the Public Service which can hardly be described as an industry. In any case, I think it is something of a contradiction in terms. One of Australia's greatest attractions on the worldwide scene is the opportunity which it still offers to people from more physically crowded environments to get away from it all. There is no argument about that and I am quite sure that there would not be any dispute about that in this chamber. It is the prospect of savouring the splendour, albeit the often harsh splendour, of the Australian emptiness that can itself provide a powerful inducement for people to come to Australia as tourists. That is true whether we are speaking of tourism in the context of tourism, or whether we are speaking of tourism in the context of attracting appropriate immigrants to add to our community. As I have said, there cannot be any argument that wilderness or, for that matter, our more engaging forms of wildlife-and we have many of them-represent in themselves tourist attractions. It is one thing to say that the unique natural beauty of Cape Tribulation, for example, must therefore be preserved on that account, among others; in other words, that regard for the environment and for our economic future is not in conflict in such a case. It is quite a different thing to move from that position to the kinds of remotely imposed diktats which assert that thousands of square miles of country, in some cases not even neighbouring country, not remotely comparable in environmental quality with the uniqueness of Cape Tribulation, should be forever locked away in the public domain because Senator Richardson chooses to do so for some short term political gain, as he perhaps wrongly, I think, judges it. I believe that that example illustrates a more general point. I do not assert that people on the spot always know best, but to me there is something deeply disturbing in the manner in which increasingly decisions about environmental matters are being taken in and imposed from Canberra. What I regretfully have to describe as the High Court's prostitution of the external affairs power of the Constitution, which has largely been responsible for giving rise to that situation, is now leading to a most serious situation. The judicial politics involved have led to a situation, not only in this area of policy, where the most far-reaching decisions are being taken by Ministers and by their advisers who have no personal affiliations with the areas to which those decisions relate or to the people in those areas over whose fates and whose livelihoods they are so prejudicially presiding. I firmly believe that, in due course, there will be a need for some constitutional review of the consequences to which the current abuse of the external affairs power of the Constitution is now leading in these and other respects. But I leave that aside for the moment. In conclusion, I want to make the point that the choice ought not to be one between concerns to promote economic growth on the one hand and environmental concerns on the other; the choice is rather between the various ends to which economic growth, which fundamentally means greater capacity to do what we wish to do, can be directed. If that proposition were accepted it follows that a country which does not succeed in achieving economic growth for its citizens and the increase in living standards which goes with that, is unlikely to be able for long to preserve its environmental treasures. We do not find very much debate proceeding in Brazil about logging the timber to be found in the forests of that country. About the only people pursuing that matter are to be found in various United Nations agencies or in the comfort of armchairs in other countries whose standards of living are much higher than that of Brazil. But, more generally, the preservation of some aspects of the environment has a cost-either an actual cost or a potential cost. I simply do not know, for example, whether the seabed now contained within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park might cover large deposits of oil or natural gas because exploration and drilling there have been forbidden on the grounds that it might result in damage to the park. For that reason, presumably we shall never know what will be the cost to future generations of Australians of removing that huge area from our potential petroleum resource base. I am not arguing that, even if we did know that a large oil pool was present there, we should develop it. I am simply saying that we should know. No individual would set about making a decision in his personal life without trying to acquire all the facts relevant to that decision. Increasingly, what Australians are doing, and what governments are doing, ostensibly on their behalf, is locking away large parts of the country and removing, forever presumably, our capacity to find out what it is we are losing by doing so. That process, which has now resulted in about 23 per cent of the Australian landmass largely being denied to mineral exploration, for example, is simply a process which cannot go on forever and which must lead increasingly not merely to grave questions about the desirability of that policy but also to grave questions about the whole of our approach to the environment. Senator HILL(South Australia)(12.54) —The Senate is debating the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. Mr President, I understand that you wish to make a statement in five minutes time which allows me, therefore, five minutes to make a few comments and, when I see your nod, I will sit down. It gives me an opportunity to do what I particularly wanted to do and, that is, move an amendment that came out of Question Time yesterday in which it was confirmed by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) that an interdepartmental committee had been set out by this Government to look at the question of land use-in other words, to look at the question of the relationship of environmental aspects with primary industry, tourism, mining and perhaps some other area. Unfortunately, as yet, we do not have the terms of reference of that interdepartmental committee so we are not entirely sure of the breadth of its inquiry. But we, on this side of the Senate, certainly commend our colleague Senator Watson for bringing this to our attention through his questioning of the Minister. It indicates to us that in-depth consideration is being given by the Government to these various aspects and they may well substantially affect the contents of this Bill. As we know, this Bill deals with the question of compensation and that could well be affected by what this committee comes up with after its investigation. The Bill also deals with one other aspect which we on this side of the chamber oppose, and that is the removal from the Government of the obligation to conduct environmental impact studies in relation to World Heritage management plans and the like. There may well be information that comes forth from this interdepartmental committee that is relevant to that consideration. Adding all this up, particularly bearing in mind that we are somewhat in the dark, and taking into account the Minister's comments in his answer to a question yesterday that he expects this inquiry to report towards the end of April, we seek, and I quote from the amendment that has been circulated: That consideration of this Bill be deferred pending the report of the inter-departmental committee which is currently looking at land use. We on this side of the chamber have made clear our strong support for conservation and I certainly reiterate my support for the World Heritage conservation regime. As I have only one minute left I refer honourable senators to the speech I made in 1983 when I set down our position in great depth. It remains sound. We support the Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Our belief is that it is the responsibility of all Australians to protect these marvellous assets, cultural and natural, not only for the Australians living today but also for future generations. Having said that, we find shortcomings and failures in this Bill. I have mentioned the fact that the Government is removing from itself the obligation to conduct environmental impact studies. We also see the Bill as unnecessary in that the Lemonthyme High Court case has covered one matter that relates to protecting the environment pending placing on the list. The Bill is not necessary; it is not urgent in any event and therefore it would be in the best interests of the whole of the Senate to have it deferred until we get the report of the interdepartmental committee which we expect by the end of April. Therefore I move: Leave out all the words after `That', insert: `consideration of this Bill be deferred pending the report of the inter-departmental committee which is currently looking at land use'. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter advising me of Senator Cooney's resignation from the Standing Committee of Privileges and the nomination of Senator Childs to replace Senator Cooney on that Committee. Motion (by Senator Cook)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Cooney be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee of Privileges and that Senator Childs be appointed a member of the Committee. The PRESIDENT —I inform honourable senators that as President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association I will be absent from the Senate next week while I attend the last executive committee meeting of the Association prior to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference to be held in Canberra from 19 to 25 September. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That, during the absence of the President, the Deputy President shall, on each sitting day, take the chair of the Senate and may, during such absence, perform the duties and exercise the authority of the President in relation to all proceedings of the Senate and to proceedings of committees to which the President is appointed. The PRESIDENT —By arrangement, I propose that Question Time conclude just before 1 p.m. to enable Australian Broadcasting Corporation commitments to be met. If Ministers have answers to questions asked earlier in the week these answers may be given at 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, is absent as he is attending the Australian Police Ministers Council special meeting on uniform firearms legislation. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Tate in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to the Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Senator Bolkus, is absent today as he has a public engagement in Adelaide. Any questions which would normally be directed to him in relation to his portfolio or in his role as Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices should be directed to Senator Reynolds. Questions in relation to his role as Minister representing the Minister for Social Security should be directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-With respect to the matters that have just been put before us by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) I seek some assurance as to the nature of the meeting that Senator Bolkus is attending. The normal convention in this place is that Ministers are not absent for campaigning reasons. I put that quite squarely. Can the Leader of the Government tell us the nature of the commitment that keeps Senator Bolkus from the Senate today? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I frankly cannot. I will try to find out for the honourable senator. Senator MESSNER —I direct my question to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Does the Minister recall his answers to my questions on 22 and 25 February when he denied that the Government had instructed Telecom Australia to suspend all new initiatives until after the New South Wales State election and maintained that indeed any suggestion of a delay in the implementation of divisionalisation of Telecom was completely false? Is the Minister aware of a further internal Telecom memo that states that advice was issued on 12 February by Telecom headquarters that divisionalisation would be considerably deferred beyond April 1988 and would not be commenced until July at the earliest? Given the existence of at least two Telecom memos advising staff of the postponement of the change process and comments to the same effect made by a Telecom spokesperson reported on the PM program on 24 February, does the Minister still maintain that divisionalisation has been postponed? Will the Minister indicate why this initiative has been postponed? Has the Government either directly or indirectly influenced Telecom's decision to postpone this initiative until after the New South Wales State election tomorrow? Senator GARETH EVANS —I still stand absolutely by my earlier answers. There has been no suggestion of any interference by the Government in matters relating to divisionalisation or indeed anything else that I can recall that could possibly come within the category of matters of political sensitivity. The divisionalisation strategy that Telecom is working on is one which has been the subject of continuing discussions, negotiations and consultations by Telecom with its own work force. Those discussions and consultations have been continuing, as I understand it, throughout the period. There are sensitive and difficult industrial relations questions involved certainly, but the policy thrust that Telecom is pursuing is perfectly clear. It is one that I support because it involves a greater capacity on the part of Telecom to respond to customer needs and demands across the whole spectrum of business and residential usage which is important that Telecom be able to service. I am not aware of the particular further internal memo to which Senator Messner refers. I have no doubt that some of the earlier optimistic projections about the timeframe within which divisionalisational changes could be secured have from time to time been modified by simply the complexity and the difficulty of the issues concerned. There is no ground whatsoever for the imputation which underlies Senator Messner's question. Senator AULICH —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. I ask: In the light of the Federal Government's responsibility to maintain accurate and honest electoral rolls, what credence can be given to Senator Bishop's claim that the Castlereagh by-election was subject to massive electoral fraud? Senator Peter Baume —This is not a Federal affair. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Peter Baume just said that this is not a Federal affair, although I know he did not say it loudly. Of course, it is. The rolls and certified lists are provided by the Australian Electoral Commission, as happened in 1980 in this case. So there is a substantial Federal interest in this matter. I might also say that there is a broader interest in this matter because, if what is alleged did occur on this occasion, people would rightly ask whether it has occurred in Federal elections. According to this series of allegations, Mr Begg is supposed to have derived his data from a regional newspaper office. We have checked with the current Divisional Returning Officer in the Castlereagh region, and with the past one. There are no regional newspaper offices based in that electorate. The nearest one is in Dubbo. Indeed, there is no one newspaper that covers the whole of the electorate. There is a whole series of newspapers. So the first element of the claim tends to be a little weakened. There is no evidence to support an allegation about anyone going to a regional newspaper office because one does not exist in the area. The second thing that would worry me is simply that the maths do not add up. We have checked certain figures. The average number of deaths of electors per month is one per thousand. There were at the time of this by-election 21,000 to 22,000 electors in Castlereagh-not 28,828 or whatever the Sydney Morning Herald quoted this morning. I am not sure whether or not that figure came from Senator Bishop, but it was in the Sydney Morning Herald. There were slightly below 22,000 electors in the electorate. This means that to accumulate the necessary 400 names would take in the order of 1 1/2 years. That, of course, is provided that the name of every person who died appeared in an obituary. We all know that that is not particularly likely. So the best projection one can make is that in the order of two years would be required in this electorate to accumulate 400 names. Now let me get to the crucial point, because this apparently has not been understood. In the period we are talking about-and we have checked the record-there were no hitches in the dispatch by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to the Divisional Returning Officer for Gwydir. That is, every month the Divisional Returning Officer for Gwydir received from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages a list of the deaths that had occurred in that electorate. In this electorate we were fortunate at the time to have a very old-fashioned, a very diligent and a very conscientious Divisional Returning Officer. Month by month, that Divisional Returning Officer adjusted the roll in cases of death. There are a few other factors that we should take into account. In an electorate such as Castlereagh, if these allegations were to have foundation, we would be dealing with a hamlet electorate. I think most people would know what I am referring to. In other words, seven polling booths in the Castlereagh electorate were used by more than 1,000 voters; 45 booths were used by fewer than 1,000 voters. We have also to remember that people voted within subdivisions at the time-a system that some Liberals make a big point of wanting to return to. It is fairly inconceivable to me that, in a small country electorate with small booths, bodgie votes could be lodged. Nearly all the officials are locals. They know whether Mrs Smith or Mr Jones has passed away in the last couple of years. Again, there is not much evidence to support the allegations in that area. Senator Michael Baume —What was the absentee vote? Senator ROBERT RAY —I will get to that point later if the honourable senator likes. I was not going to raise it, but I will come to it. At the very best, at any one time, because of the month's lag between a person dying and the notification, 20 or 30 individuals on that roll could have been deceased. We can also compare the census figures at the time for the number of people who should have been on the roll and the number who were on the roll to see whether the rolls were padded. We have done that. In fact, in the Castlereagh electorate that relationship was on the low side, not the high side. I come back to the question of Federal elections just to reassure people that these sorts of things are most unlikely to occur. After the last Federal election the Electoral Commission checked every recent death and checked whether any of the deceased-the ultimate absentee vote-were registered as having voted in that election. As I understand it, 144 electorates showed a totally clean slate. I think that in three other electorates there was one case each, and by investigation it was found essentially that a postal voting form had arrived, having been properly applied for, and that the family had voted and sent it off, may be on the basis that they did not want follow-up letters or that they knew grandmother or grandfather wanted to vote Liberal or Labor-basically a breach of the Act but not one that we would say was earth shattering. Finally, in one Federal electorate there were six to eight cases of people who had died apparently voting. It was the electorate of Capricornia, and this has been mentioned in the newspapers. Our investigations so far-they are not conclusive-indicate that no political party was attached to that matter but that an eccentric was responsible for it. There is a great protection against anyone in the electorate who would like to get the dead to vote. There is a Court of Disputed Returns. That means that, in a State or Federal election, if anyone were foolish enough to discover the 20, 30 or 40 people whose names were still on the roll, the other 500 or 600 names having been cleansed from it, and vote in their names, that would show up after the election and the Electoral Commission could lodge its own protest and have that election turned over. So it is not particularly likely to happen. I can recall only one instance of the cemetery vote in my time in politics. That was in a Liberal Party pre-selection in 1975-76 in Victoria, where pre-selection had to be taken from a particular individual because half of Brighton's cemetery was found to have voted. That was the last major case. I say in conclusion that these allegations have received a lot of publicity. I am not critical of Senator Bishop for raising them. If allegations of impropriety are there, they should be raised. One could be a little dubious about the timing-the fact that it was the Thursday before the forthcoming election-but, leaving that aside, I am not critical of her for raising them. But I wonder what has happened to empiricism. I wonder why Senator Bishop did not apply some of the tests I have applied today before those allegations were produced. It would have meant a more balanced and a slightly less politically opportunistic approach. I repeat that, whilst I cannot say conclusively that the allegations made by Senator Bishop in relation to the Castlereagh by-election are not true, the general weight of evidence suggests that the so-called cemetery vote in those circumstances is a most unlikely occurrence. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs, follows the answer he has just given. I seek a little more information on the matters that he gave us a few moments ago. I ask: Is the Minister in a position to confirm whether or not the Mr Begg who was referred to by Senator Bishop in her speech was at the relevant times employed by the Australian Labor Party or by a Minister in the capacity described? I further ask: Has any attempt been made to contact Mr Begg to investigate the allegations which have been made, and which are purported to have been made by Mr Begg himself, according to the tape recording? Has he been interviewed? Having already heard about the sorts of empirical studies that have been undertaken since the honourable senator made her speech yesterday, I ask: What action is being taken to investigate the allegations allegedly made by Mr Begg about Mr Begg, and who is undertaking the investigation? Senator ROBERT RAY —I have just checked one detail with a colleague. I understand that at the time the alleged offence occurred, Mr Begg was an employee of Mr Hallam, who was a New South Wales State Minister. At a different time-probably I think earlier-he would have been in the employ of Mr Wran. As to whether I have made any attempt to contact Mr Begg-- Senator Chaney —I did not mean you personally. Senator ROBERT RAY —No, I have not. It is one of those awkward areas, if you like, of jurisdiction. If an offence occurred, it is essentially a State offence. However, there is a Federal interest in the matter because we supply rolls. If an offence occurred, the relevant question could be put to us as to why we supplied defective rolls. I very much contest that we did supply defective rolls at the time. I have not made any attempt to contact Mr Begg. I understand that a lot of people have but have not got a big response so far. I do not know Mr Begg personally. I have never met Mr Begg. I assume if I or the Australian Electoral Commission rang him today we probably would not get a response. Let me turn to the allegations. If it can be proved that the tape is genuine, that Mr Begg made those statements, there is a necessity for an inquiry somewhere. I would have thought that in the first instance it would be New South Wales-based. If that does not transpire in any particular way, I will look to see what Federal inquiries can be made so that this matter can be put, if you like, to rest forever. While I am on my feet, I might just answer an interjection that was made by Senator Michael Baume. He said, `Look, they could have not voted in the subdivisions; they could have all voted absentee'. First of all, we would need all of the names on the roll, and I am saying that they cannot be there. But even if they were, there would need to be signatures and those signatures are usually compared with the enrolment card, a la the first Nunawading one, in which there was a dispute because of a drawn vote and some names were excluded because the signatures did not correspond. So, in fact, there is another safeguard in terms of absentee votes. I can see that Senator Baume has given this matter a lot of thought. I am sorry that his latest ingenious solution just does not stand up. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. For the purpose of clarification, I ask the Minister whether he means, when he says `I have made no attempt to contact Mr Begg', that neither he nor the Commonwealth electoral authorities have made any attempt? Am I correct in taking his answer to mean that he is suggesting that the initial obligation to make an inquiry into this matter rests with State authorities, although there may be a residual duty on the Commonwealth? I understood his answer to be that, but I would just like it to be clarified. Senator ROBERT RAY —I confirm that I have not attempted to do so and, to the best of my knowledge, having spoken to the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Dr Hughes, he has not attempted to do so yet. He may well do so; and if he does, he does not have to inform me that he is in fact doing it. I do confirm that I think because it involves the State electoral Act, if there were any breaches it rests with New South Wales first of all, although there is, as I have explained before, a Federal interest because we have joint rolls. We are the agents responsible for cleansing those rolls. Again I state that I think we have done a fairly good job of doing that in that particular electorate. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the Minister's recent visit to China for the second meeting of the Australia-China Joint Ministerial Economic Commission (JMEC). Can the Minister advise on the prospects for Australia's trade and investment in China and any new opportunities which are likely to occur in this area? Senator BUTTON —I attended the Joint Ministerial Economic Commission held in Beijing on 8 March. Senator Aulich —Is that near Peking? Senator BUTTON —Yes, it is very close, Senator. One eats Peking duck in Beijing, if that is what the honourable senator is trying to suggest-which would probably be close to his mind. I was accompanied by the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy. Senator Chaney —You are a sophisticated lot. Senator BUTTON —Well, Senator Aulich is. I was also accompanied by senior officials from major economic policy departments and Austrade. At the time of our visit there was also a parliamentary delegation to China which, in a geographical sense, covered a much wider area than we did in connection with the Joint Ministerial Economic Commission. The JMEC was established by the Government to provide a ministerial-level forum to review and guide the development of Australia-China commercial relations. I remind the Senate that Australia's exports to China more than tripled from $A468m in 1983, the year this Government took office, to $A1,587m in 1986. I think the main achievement at last week's meeting was the conclusion of an arrangement under which Australia will provide, over the next three years, up to $200m in concessional finance for the supply of Australian goods and services for development projects in China. This arrangement should produce a substantial increase in exports of equipment and services to China, and a greater presence by Australian firms in the Chinese marketplace, which in itself is a very good thing. During the course of the Joint Ministerial Economic Commission we reviewed the work of several industry-based initiatives which operate under the mechanism of the JMEC in relation to wool, iron and steel, non-ferrous metals, transport, telecommunications and coal, including such matters as China's major investment in the Mount Channar iron ore mine and the opening of a large wool warehouse in Nanjing, which will take place this week. We also agreed to further cooperation in relation to machinery and electrical equipment. That cooperation is designed to encourage an additional penetration of the Australian market by Chinese imports in that area, amongst other things. We agreed on further collaboration in science and technology to help raise trade, investment and exchange in these areas. We also discussed with Chinese Ministers the possibility of commercial cooperation in aspects of the automotive industry and invited a survey mission from China to visit Australia later this year in connection with that. I suppose, finally and importantly, Mr Duffy and I obtained assurances from the Minister for Metallurgical Industry, Mr Qi Yuanjing, that Australia's share of China's imports of iron ore would be maintained at its current level of 70 per cent until the turn of the century. This, of course, will be of great value to Australia, particularly at a time when the prospects for exports of iron ore have not been particularly bright. I conclude by saying that there are recognised difficulties for Australian companies doing business in China. I think the Joint Ministerial Economic Commission was able to draw the attention of the Chinese side to these problems. For example, there will be a more diligent pursuit of the negotiation of a double taxation agreement as a result of the meeting and other things. I think it is a helpful forum. Of course, in the year ahead we will be better able to assess the results of that meeting than we can now. Senator COULTER —I address my question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. By way of preamble, I point out that my question arises at this time because of the proposal for a petrochemical plant in Kwinana in Western Australia, but that the question has general significance in relation to a number of petrochemical proposals which have been made since the early 1970s. Is the Minister aware that ethylene dichloride (EDC) and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) are intermediates in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from ethane? Is the Minister aware that both EDC and VCM are known potent mutagens and carcinogens? Is the Minister aware of the number of petrochemical plants which are involved in the manufacture of PVC from ethane which either make and export one of these dangerous intermediate products or use one of these products as a feedstock? In view of the number of proposals in recent years, the most recent now being considered in Western Australia, to turn ethane into EDC and/or VCM, to break the process at this most hazardous stage and to export these highly dangerous intermediate products to far distant sites for completion of PVC manufacture, does the Minister consider this arrangement satisfactory? If not, will the Minister undertake an inquiry-an inquiry which was not possible under State environmental impact study type procedures-perhaps under the Federal Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, with public hearings, to lay down better ground rules for the conduct of this potentially very beneficial, but also potentially very hazardous, component of the petrochemical industry? Senator RICHARDSON —I shall read some sections of my answer to Senator Coulter. I confess that whilst I know the honourable senator has an abiding interest in these things, some of the chemical names leave me a little cold. The first part of the question asked whether I was aware that ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer are intermediates in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride. Polyvinyl chloride is used in the manufacture of a host of plastic products used in our community, such as water pipes, food containers, flooring and electrical insulation. Both EDC and VCM are known to be mutagenic; that is, they are chemicals which can cause damage to genetic material. Additionally, VCM is listed by the International Agency for Research into Cancer as a human carcinogen. EDC is known to cause tumours in animals but it has not been confirmed as causing cancer in humans. I am advised that there is one plant in New South Wales that manufactures EDC and VCM as intermediates for the production of PVC on the same site, and that two PVC plants in Victoria import these intermediate chemicals. The land transport of EDC and VCM is subject to the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail, which is implemented through the relevant dangerous goods legislation of the States and Territories. The equivalent provisions for sea transport apply under the international maritime dangerous goods code. In the light of the potential hazards of VCM and EDC it is of course most important that all proper safeguards be observed when they are transported and that the relevant codes are kept up to date and are suitably rigorous. I am unaware of deficiencies having been identified in the present regulatory requirements covering the transport of EDC and VCM. Appropriate precautions are necessary at all stages, including the manufacture, storage and handling. The current proposal by Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd to establish and operate an integrated petrochemical complex in Western Australia does not involve a Commonwealth decision, and therefore does not come within the ambit of the Commonwealth's Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. However, I am advised that an environmental review and management program has been prepared on this proposal in accordance with requirements under the Western Australian Environment Protection Act 1986. This document has been released for public review and the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority is currently considering the environmental aspects of the proposal. In view of the actions taken by Western Australia and other States in relation to this matter, I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by a general inquiry at this time by the Commonwealth. Senator COULTER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister's reply referred to the transport of these very dangerous intermediate products, and I stress the intermediate nature of the products in the manufacturing process. Is the Minister aware that several years ago there was a very dangerous spill of VCM at the B. F. Goodrich Chemical Ltd plant at Altona and that in fact we have experienced the failure of the safe transport of these dangerous products in this country? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of the incident to which Senator Coulter refers. I understand that on that occasion the gas was blown away from residential areas by the wind and that no harm was caused to any individuals. However, it is obviously a dangerous business and, as I said in my original answer, any dangerous business needs to have rigorous controls. At this stage the controls would appear to be rigorous enough. It may be the case that after the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority's inquiry I can review what I have just said, but I will wait to see what that inquiry has to say. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer the Minister to the apprehension of Indonesian fishing vessels off the north-west coast of Western Australia and the crew members' subsequent processing in Broome. Can the Minister confirm or deny whether at least one crew member from the Saliputa was identified as belonging to the Indonesian special defence or security forces? If the answer is in the affirmative, can the Minister indicate what significance he would attach to this fact? Have there been other incidents of this kind where members of Indonesia's armed forces have been recognised among illegal fishermen as having been trained in Australian defence establishments? Is the Government prepared to review military training as part of the defence cooperation program considering the misuse of Australian-gained expertise in countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines and Fiji? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am informed that none of the members of the crews of any of the vessels referred to has been identified as belonging to any military or security organisation. I am unaware of any occasion on which members of Indonesia's armed forces have been recognised amongst illegal fishermen apprehended in Australian waters. It follows that none has been identified as having been trained in Australia's military establishments. The issue therefore provides no grounds for a review of our defence cooperation program. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer the Minister yet again to the coastwatch contract fiasco. Is it true that in the course of the coastwatch tender process, Amann Aviation Pty Ltd had disclosed, in confidence, to the then Department of Transport that Westpac-Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd had committed to provide lease finance sufficient to acquire the necessary aircraft to satisfy the coastwatch contract? Did the Department release this confidential information to Mr Campbell, the Labor member for Kalgoorlie, who then subsequently disclosed the information to Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd? Is this further evidence of the Government's disregard for proper and established tendering procedures? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no information whatsoever about the particular matters to which Senator Knowles refers. If she has any evidence to back up another assertion or allegation in a long series of assertions and allegations that have been made by both sides to that particular long running dispute, I would be glad to look at the matter further and respond accordingly. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I refer to media reports about the current level of unemployment in Australia, which is reported to be below 7.5 per cent nationally. Whilst I congratulate the Government on these figures, can the Minister inform the Senate what progress has been made in relation to youth unemployment in Australia? Senator WALSH —The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force statistics, which are for February of this year, have shown that Australia's current unemployment rate is 7.4 per cent, which is a full 3.5 percentage points lower than the unemployment rate at the peak of the Fraser-Howard induced 1982-83 recession. Senator Stone —The Bill Kelty induced recession; is that the one you are talking about? Senator WALSH —We know all about the wages explosion. As Senator Button has pointed out here before, I suppose Senator Stone was the then Government's chief bureaucratic adviser on how to design a wages policy, and was presumably quite happy with Mr Fraser deciding that it was more important to clear out to the royal wedding in May 1981 than it was to do anything about having a national wages policy. We know that the outcome of that first dangerous flirtation was to allow free collective bargaining to determine wages. We know that there was an increase of 13 per cent in 1981 and 14 per cent in 1982. We have had that flirtation with Senator Stone's policy, Howard's policy and Fraser's policy and we do not want any more of it, thanks. I am surprised that even with Senator Stone's propensity to come to predetermined conclusions, and then to try to get the evidence to support the predetermined conclusions, he has not had second thoughts about whether it is such a good idea to have decentralised free collective bargaining. Senator Stone —You are heading that way yourself. Senator WALSH —Not that way. Senator Stone says that national governments should make no attempt to coordinate wages policy. Senator Stone —You need some help. Senator WALSH —When I need some help, Senator Stone, I certainly will not go to you for it, whether it is about what offence the Tolpuddle Martyrs were convicted of, or anything else. Senator Stone —You even got that wrong. Senator WALSH —Oh no, I did not. Would the honourable senator like me to table the information? I think I can probably get it by the end of Question Time. I will table the documentary evidence of what the Tolpuddle Martyrs were convicted of. It was not of burning ricks; it was of taking a secret oath, as I said. Anyway, that is a personal dispute and we should not bore the rest of the Senate with it. The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. I ask the Minister to return to the question that he was asked. Senator WALSH —The threshold for the tolerance of boredom here should be pretty high, if practice helps. On the question of the youth unemployment rate-that is, the 15- to 19-year-old age group-it is true that this is considerably higher than the 7.4 per cent average unemployment rate. It is presently 19.2 per cent, which everyone acknowledges is too high, but that is a very marked improvement on the 23.2 per cent youth unemployment rate in February 1987, let alone the 27 per cent youth unemployment rate recorded during the depths of the Fraser-Howard 1981-82 recession. Senator Maguire —How much? Senator WALSH —It was 27 per cent for the 15- to 19-year age group during the recession of 1981-82. The youth unemployment figures are not available by States on a seasonally adjusted basis, but the available data indicates that New South Wales has seen the greatest improvement in its youth labour market during the past 12 months. It has also had the greatest improvement in the labour market generally. In New South Wales the unemployment rate for 15- to 19-year-olds seeking full time work declined by a full 7.2 percentage points in the year from February 1987 to February 1988. This was the highest of all the States. Senator CALVERT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health and relates to this Government's so-called commitment to work constructively in partnership with the non-government sector in the advancement of disability services. Is the Minister aware of the fact that the funding available to community and service groups under the Disability Services Act for capital purposes has been so severely cut that there are now many hundreds of disabled persons throughout Australia on waiting lists for placement in workshop situations. Does the Minister condone the deplorable situation in which supported employment institutions throughout Australia have not yet received their 1987-88 funding, some nine months into the financial year? Can the Minister appreciate what trauma this is creating among disabled people throughout Australia and the confusion and horror within these honourable institutions which will receive little or no funding for equipment and capital works this year while they continue to be inundated with requests to cater for more disabled people? Senator COOK —That is a very interesting question. I do not have a brief on it at the moment. Therefore, I propose to put it on notice and come back to the honourable senator. Senator CALVERT —While Senator Cook is looking at his brief on that matter, perhaps he could consider this supplementary question also. How does the Minister justify a situation where 78 centres which are successfully operating demonstration projects under the Act have received no firm future commitment on their funding, which expires in June? Will the persons living in supported homes under this scheme be tossed on to the streets? What right did the then Minister, former Senator Grimes, have to tell representatives of these organisations at the 1986 Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled conference here in Canberra that no group would be worse off but in fact they all would be better off under the new Act? The PRESIDENT —That was hardly a supplementary question. Senator COOK —Now that I have all the questions that the honourable senator wishes to ask, they will all go on notice and be answered in due course. Senator MAGUIRE —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he has seen Mr Paddy McGuinness's column in today's Australian Financial Review in which he cites one of the gurus of supply side economics, Mr Alan Reynolds, as saying in reference to this decade: In the US and the UK, the share of income taxes collected from the most affluent 5 per cent of taxpayers increased quite dramatically after higher tax rates were reduced. Does this constitute real evidence that supply side economics is not snake oil? Does it give credence to Mr Howard's claim that massive tax cuts for the rich would pay for themselves? Do this Government's taxation policies stand in stark contrast to the Opposition's position on taxation? Senator WALSH —In reply to the last part of the question, I do not believe one could get a contrast any more stark than that between a government that gets its arithmetic right and an opposition that cannot. That is particularly so when the error in the Opposition's arithmetic is of the magnitude of $1.5 billion. The Opposition's addition was about as credible as its policy concepts. Turning to the earlier part of the question, I have seen Paddy McGuinness's article; I believe he calls himself Padraic these days. I have not had a chance to check the United States data but I have some facts about the position in the United Kingdom. It is true that the proportion of total income tax paid by the highest earning 5 per cent of British taxpayers increased from 24 per cent to 27 per cent between 1979 and 1986. But before everyone gets carried away with that as being evidence, or even proof as some may suggest, that the supply side theory and the Laffer curve is soundly based, I should point out that some other more significant changes took place in that period. For example, The Economist of 23 to 29 May 1987 said: The government likes to point out that the proportion of total income tax paid by the top 5% of earners has risen from 24% in 1979 to 27% last year. This, it claims, shows that lower marginal tax rates encourage people to work harder. Part of the explanation is that the pre-tax earnings of the higher paid have risen more rapidly. In another part of the article it is pointed out: . . . wage differentials have widened: the lowest 10% of male earners have had a real pay increase of only 4%; the top 10% one of 22%. If we were able to extract the top 5 per cent from that 10 per cent we would expect the real pay increase for that group to be considerably higher than 22 per cent. In those circumstances when there has been a pre-tax redistribution of income or change in income skewed very heavily to the top end of the income scale, it should not be surprising that people at the top end of that scale paid a bit more tax than they would have before. I do not think I need to read any more quotations from Mr McGuinness's article, but I stress that that is a very important rebuttal of the United Kingdom situation, published in The Economist. Finally, it is a pity that this silly debate about snake oil-that is, supply side theory-is still being peddled in Australia because the magic wand solutions which that theory encourages are only impediments to the proper and rational resolution of the nation's economic difficulties. I know that Mr Peacock is embarrassed by having to peddle this rubbish in speeches he has to make publicly. The sooner he can persuade John Howard to drop his commitments to the supply side voodoo, snake oil theory the better. Alternatively, if he cannot persuade Mr Howard to drop this theory, the sooner he replaces Mr Howard as Opposition Leader the better it will be for rational debate of this important issue in Australia. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Education Services. It follows on from his earlier answer on unemployment. I have been informed by various officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service that the December quarter employment statistics have been placed under embargo by the Minister, Mr Duncan, and that CES officers have been told in writing that they are not to be released. Is this because these figures are so disastrous for New South Wales that they would prove to be the final straw for Barrie Unsworth and the New South Wales Labor machine, as well as for the Western Australian and Victorian governments which are also facing by-elections this weekend? Senator WALSH —I have not previously heard the wild allegations being thrown around by Senator MacGibbon in the last 30 seconds or so about an alleged suppression of December quarter employment statistics. He followed his false and wild allegation with a conspiracy theory-that is, that the figures have been suppressed because they would be bad news for New South Wales. First, I do not believe they have been suppressed at all but, secondly, all of the available evidence so far certainly does not fit the conspiracy theory because from the end of 1986 to the end of 1987 total employment in New South Wales grew by a full 5.4 per cent. I am surprised that Senator MacGibbon was not here the other day when I explained some of the financial consequences or ramifications of that massive growth in employment in New South Wales, one of which was that if only half of the additional people who found work in New South Wales-additional, that is, to the national average growth rate of 3.2 per cent, still extraordinarily high-were taken off unemployment benefits, that would help the Commonwealth Budget by some $500m. Basing that on only half those who would otherwise have been on unemployment benefits is very conservative. So there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that when the December quarter figures come out they will show anything other than that employment growth in New South Wales is extremely good, and for that period probably the best in Australia. If I may refer to some other evidence-again, I cited this the other day-advertised job vacancies in New South Wales as a proportion of the work force are vastly higher than in any other State, as is the increase in the amount of overtime worked during 1987. In other words, the growth of employment in New South Wales is spreading its benefits not just within New South Wales but in a very significant way to the Commonwealth Budget and to the rest of the country. It would be a tragedy if all that was to come to an end next week. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. While the Minister is in such a benign and benevolent mood he might also inquire why, if the figures are so tame and above board, one of my staff members has been unable to get any calls from the Minister's office regarding this embargo returned since lunch time yesterday. Senator WALSH —Senator Evans suggests that the Minister's staff might have more productive things to do. I do not know and cannot know the answer but I will see whether they have any comment to make. Senator JONES —In view of the highly welcome news of the stay of execution for the so-called Sharpeville six, will the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade outline the efforts of the Australian Government and particularly the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, in helping to bring about this successful result? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the Australian Government will continue to fight for the Sharpeville six to be dealt with honestly and to ensure the stay of execution becomes permanent in the form of an eventual reprieve? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is very welcome news that a stay of execution has been granted by the Pretoria Supreme Court-not the Government, the court-for the Sharpeville six to 18 April, based on new evidence concerning a key witness who claims that evidence he gave implicating at least some of the six was obtained under duress. This decision does not itself constitute the granting of a retrial but it does allow time for lawyers for the defence to prepare an application to the court for a retrial. In considering the application the court will determine whether or not there was a reasonable possibility that given all the evidence a new trial could produce a different result. I emphasise that the stay of execution was a decision of the court and one granted purely on legal grounds. It does not represent a commutation in any way of the death penalty by the South African President, which the Australian Government and other Western governments have sought. Nevertheless, we obviously welcome the opportunity which may now be available to have the case reopened, having in mind that the rejection of their appeal against sentence was not based on any conclusive finding that there was a direct causal connection between the conduct of the accused and the death of the victim but rather on the grounds that there was an alleged common purpose between the unidentified actual murderers and the six. The Australian Government's position remains as has been articulated on numerous occasions publicly and with a great deal of vigour by Mr Hayden and in direct communications he has made with representatives of the South African Government. Our position is that the execution of the Sharpeville six would exacerbate an already volatile political climate caused by the continuing denial of political freedoms to the vast majority of South Africa's people. We will continue to urge the South African authorities to demonstrate their readiness to reduce tensions and confrontation by commuting the death sentence in this case. Finally, we hope in this respect that we will have rather more support from the Opposition in making those representations than has been evident in the contributions to debate on this matter from Mr Spender, the Liberal spokesman on foreign affairs matters, and also from Opposition members such as Senator Calvert who spoke on the adjournment last night. They seemed to salve their consciences by making the odd cautionary noise to South African ambassadors at cocktail parties or over dinners. It is tremendously important that we as a nation and as a Parliament express a unanimity of purpose and a unanimity of moral vision when confronted with the inequity and the outrages perpetrated by that regime. Temporising of the kind we are hearing now, that we heard over and over again from people on the other side of this place; temporising of the kind we heard in a disgraceful fashion from Mr Spender, the purported spokesman on foreign affairs matters, does not help in any way to get justice into that society which manifestly lacks it at the moment. Senator PETER BAUME —I refer the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women to a report in the womens newsletter of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association indicating that a new equal employment opportunity Bill relating to public authorities in Victoria has proposed that authorities which do not produce an adequate EEO plan may have the Minister impose an employment quota on that authority. The report says: Where an authority does not comply with the legislation or any regulations made under it, the Governor-in-Council may `on the recommendation of the Minister administering this Act and the Minister responsible for that authority' impose an employment quota on that Authority. The quota may require the authority to recruit or promote a specified number of women for a specified period of time. Since quotas run counter to the stated intentions of the Federal Government and to its actions which have proceeded with guarantees that there would be no imposition of quotas, will the Minister assure the Senate that the Federal Government will not emulate the action of its Victorian Labor colleagues in introducing any Bill in which quotas might be imposed by the Minister or by the Government which the Minister represents? Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Baume would be very familiar with the Government's affirmative action legislation, because of course status of women issues were the reason he came into conflict with a number of his colleagues. I am not aware of the document from which Senator Baume quotes. I can say that the Federal Government has absolutely no proposal to introduce any further legislation. Affirmative action legislation was introduced and debated extensively in this place. Unfortunately, we are well aware of the divisions that occurred on the other side of the chamber. As for any new legislation, certainly the Government has nothing on its books or in its mind. I can only undertake to get a comment for Senator Baume about the article that he has raised. Senator GIETZELT —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications both in that capacity and in his capacity today of Minister representing the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General, Senator Tate's not being present. Has the Minister seen the reported comments of the National President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Elliott, in an address in London this week in which he said that what Australia needs, amongst other things, is strong leadership and limited democracy, and that ethnic Australians should not seek to maintain individual cultural differences. As it appears that these statements were made off the cuff, and maybe represent the inner thoughts of E1 Supremo of the Liberal Party, will the Minister concede that strong leadership and limited democracy are but a short step from dictatorship? What implications might such statements have for institutions such as the Special Broadcasting Service, in the unlikely event that the Opposition ever attains government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the reports of Mr Elliott's speech in a number of newspapers, including the Australian Financial Review of Thursday this week. Copies of the speech itself do not seem to be readily available, probably because Mr Elliott was prudent enough not to give wider release to his manifestly bizarre view of the world expressed in that speech, and maybe also because the odd crate of his best known product was part of the inspiration for its delivery. The speech reportedly describes Mr Elliott as prescribing, as a remedy to return Australia to greatness, strong leadership, singular purpose and limited democracy, as Senator Gietzelt has said. Mr Elliott went on to say that what Australia does not need are `special interest groups, like the Aborigines, who want handouts from the Government'. Not content with this, Mr Elliott went on to wax lyrical about pro-assimilation and his view that, if a person comes to live in Australia that person should `seek to become a member of the all-Australian team and not maintain individual cultural differences'. Quite simply, these statements not only are disconcerting in themselves but also give quite an alarming insight into the kind of society a future Liberal government would be under pressure to turn Australia into and the policies that such a government would certainly pursue if Mr Elliott were to achieve his well-known ambition to lead the Parliamentary Liberal Party. When he talks about limited democracy, what on earth does he mean? How limited a democracy does he mean? I suppose we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he would not immediately try to turn Australia into the kind of one-man authoritarian band that is symptomatic of his corporations. I do not know how far he would be prepared to go in terms of limiting the right to protest, the freedom of the Press or the rights of trade unionists, but certainly from the rest of the tenor of his speech, as reported, it would have an awful lot to do with limiting the democratic role and rights of particular minority interest groups in this country, including the Aboriginal people who, as reported, Mr Elliott does not seem to think have any role in this society. No doubt his initial limitation of democracy would be to return to the pre-1962 period and take away the right to vote from Australia's indigenous people. If this speech is any guide, no doubt he would also be attracted to the scrapping of land rights laws, which is, of course, already very much part of the New South Wales Greiner Opposition view of the world. From the point of view of my portfolio, the most alarming single thing about the Elliott speech is the total hostility and contempt it demonstrates towards the concept of multiculturalism. In the Elliott view of the world, the role and responsibility of ethnic communities in this country would be to applaud and no doubt barrack something like, `Good on you digger' as they watched the scrapping of the Special Broadcasting Service, the Ethnic Affairs Commission, foreign language education and any other institution or organisation that had anything other than a wholesome Caucasian flavour. As reported, it was a disgraceful speech. The content of it deserves much wider circulation because it does give a very great insight into what the Liberal Party and its leading spokesmen are all about, and what in particular a Greiner government in New South Wales would be all about, if they could persuade the Australian electorate into voting for Mr Elliott's party. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON —Today Senator Chaney asked me about Senator Bolkus's absence from Question Time, as he is in South Australia and I undertook to get some advice. I am advised that Senator Bolkus is in South Australia to meet with the Director-General of Consumer Affairs, Mr Colin Neaves, who is co-ordinating discussions on uniform consumer credit legislation, and also to meet with the United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia for urgent talks on the price impact of changes to retail trading hours in South Australia. I should add that Senator Chaney suggested, by way of interjection, that Senator Bolkus may be taking part in some campaign activities during the day of his absence. I am not in a position to affirm or deny that and I do not seek to do so. That could be possible; I do not know. The two specific purposes for which his absence is explained are as I have given. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I thank Senator Button for his answer, which the Opposition accepts. However, I just want to say that, should it transpire that Senator Bolkus's activities in Adelaide today are primarily directed towards the Port Adelaide by-election, the Opposition will move a motion regarding that matter next week. On that basis, we will accept what Senator Button has said about Senator Bolkus's appointments and absence today, take it in good faith and hope that it will not become necessary next week to revise any opinion that we might have. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yesterday in Question Time I was asked a question by Senator Knowles in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I have an answer. It may be more convenient to have it incorporated in Hansard and I seek leave to do so. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The Senate may be interested to know that since 1980 the Commonwealth has been undertaking widespread search operations in the Warnbro area to locate and dispose of unexploded ordnance. Taking account of the substantial land development occurring in the Warnbro area, the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments agreed in March 1986 on new arrangements for completing the search operations at Warnbro. They provided that the search of the Warnbro area would take place in stages and would continue as long as justified by the cumulative number of finds recorded at each stage of the process. In the period 1980-81 to 1986-87, the Commonwealth Government provided $4.11m for the Warnbro project. The appropriation for the project in 1987-88 amounted to $1.14m. Of that amount, $0.568m had been expended to the end of February 1988. The Commonwealth Government has no plans at present to extend this program to other areas. However, in accordance with its long-standing policy, it stands ready to render harmless any individual finds of unexploded ordnance, wherever they occur. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —The President has received a letter from Senator Hamer proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The cost to every Australian of inefficiencies, restrictive work practices and lack of competition on the Australian waterfront highlighted by the continuing chaos on the Sydney docks. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator HAMER(Victoria)(2.03) —This matter of public importance is a very appropriate one to be debated in this Senate because it is a matter which has far-reaching consequences for Australia as a whole; not just for New South Wales. Everyone knows that the critically weak element in our shipping operations is the wharfside. Everyone knows that waterside work practices and productivity have been appalling, but there is an additional problem. Our ports are vulnerable to being picked off by other trade unions upstream in the transport sequence. For example, two strikes in Queensland mines this year have already caused serious and expensive transport delays. Between 21 January and 9 February five ships were delayed at Hay Point and Dalrymple Bay, with a total loss of 38 ship days, because of a mining strike. Between 12 January and 5 February two ships were delayed in Gladstone, with a total loss of 33 days, again as a result of a mining strike. The effect of these sorts of strikes on our credibility as a reliable exporter is devastating. We are exporting into a highly competitive market. If we get the reputation, as I fear we have, of being an unreliable supplier, people will look for alternatives. The world does not owe us a living. If we do not earn it, we will not get it-a fact which seems to have escaped the present Government. We have 41 major public ports. We have a dozen privately operated commercial ports and numerous smaller ports. The efficient handling of goods in these ports is vital to our economic prosperity. We depend on the export of goods nearly all of which have to be exported by sea. As an island nation we have no other option. Delays and disruption on the waterfront cripple the economy, which is something we can no longer afford. Since the Hawke Government came to power our international indebtedness has risen by $58 billion. It is still rising, by $11,000m a year. The tragic feature is that this vast increase in indebtedness has not been going into investment in new, productive enterprises. Due to the gross mismanagement of the economy by the Hawke Government it has been going into consumption expenditure. We have not got any useful value out of this enormous increase in our indebtedness. Today, 64 per cent of our export earnings is required to pay the interest plus the repayments on our international indebtedness. We desperately need a rise in our export earnings. If we are going to export we must recognise that we are competing in a highly competitive field. If we wish to compete effectively, our exports must be of high quality, properly priced and our delivery must be reliable. Our ports play a crucial part in two aspects of that. Excessive port charges make them uncompetitive. In regard to reliability we must not have these random hold-ups in our ports. The nation as a whole suffers every time this occurs. There has been a dramatic change in the last 20 years or so in the nature of our cargoes from the old miscellaneous loading of ships. Now the vast bulk of our exports goes either as bulk cargoes or as containers. So I will concentrate on the bulk cargoes and containers. With regard to bulk cargoes, my colleagues Senator Parer and Senator Michael Baume will be amplifying my remarks. It is worth looking at a recent report by the Royal Commission on Grain Storage, Handling and Transport which was a devastating indictment of government actions and union behaviour in regard to wheat handling, which is a critical part of our exports and, therefore, of the economic prosperity of all Australians. Not surprisingly, because this was a sensibly handled royal commission, it came to the conclusion that what had to be done in this field was to go for privatisation-not on any doctrinaire lines but because only by that means do we get competition and only by competition do we get efficiency. Let me consider statistics for our grain handling terminals. In Sydney export handling is 17,000 tonnes per employee per year. In the United States it is 80,000. At the main terminal in Canada it is 120,000. I do not have time to go through all the many rorts that go on in these terminals, of which Senator Parer is well-informed, so I will just mention one-the idea that one closes down the whole terminal when the workers want to have a smoko together. The idea of staggering the smoko so that terminal loading operations can go on was not acceptable to the union. When the workers want to knock off together the whole expensive operation stops while everyone has a smoko. This is the sort of anti-social behaviour which adds enormous costs to our grain exporters, loses markets and costs the whole community very great hardships. As the Royal Commissioner pointed out, what we must do in these terminals is get rid of some of the restrictive work practices and, in particular, the unnecessary industrial disputes. Far too many of the industrial disputes in our ports are not related to work conditions at all; they are political activities by waterfront unions trying to conduct our foreign policy for us-whether we should export to South Africa, what we should do about Fiji and so on. These matters have nothing to do with the management the unions are dealing with. They have nothing directly to do with the unions. This is an attempt by them to take over the conduct of our foreign policy. This must stop. The community as a whole suffers from this sort of behaviour because, quite apart from the extra costs involved, our reputation is seriously damaged. Not only is our reputation as an exporter damaged but also the costs are substantial. It was estimated by the Royal Commissioner that restrictive work practices and industrial disputes add $1.50 a tonne to export costs. That sort of amount can be crucial when one is dealing with and trying to export in a highly competitive market. I turn now, as others will be dealing with the problem of bulk handling, to the question of containers. We all know that our waterfront is not performing well, but I do not think many people know how badly it is performing. Our container productivity-the rate at which we load and unload containers using essentially exactly the same equipment as other countries use-is about half that of more efficient ports in Asia and much lower than that of our trading partners. For instance, for every 100 containers handled in a given time in Australia-I repeat, by the same cranes, by the same equipment and with the same organisation-New Zealand handles 138 containers; the United Kingdom, 141; northern Europe, an average of 214; north America, 250; and Japan, 312. Using the same equipment, the Japanese unload containers three times as fast as we do. That is just not acceptable. If we do not load and unload our containers promptly our ships stay longer in port and our costs go up-and who pays them? First of all the exporters pay them but ultimately every Australian citizen suffers as a result of this sort of behaviour. We have also become a legend for our strikes. It is a legend I do not like very much. These random strikes and unreliable delivery cause frustration and anger in our trading partners. This is probably the most damaging feature of our export performance. In 1987 alone there were 250 separate industrial disputes involving stoppages on the Australian waterfront, affecting about 360 ships. The costs to Australian exporters and importers were incalculable. One cannot work in this situation. If one gets an export order which is delayed on the waterfront for weeks or even months, one does not get another order. People are not prepared to put up with that sort of unreliable delivery, which is quite beyond the control of the would-be exporter. Of the 250 separate industrial stoppages, New South Wales, not surprisingly, for reasons I will come to in a minute, had nearly half-114 of them. What has been happening over the years is that manning on Australian ships and on the wharves has reached a ludicrous stage through the power given to union monopolies. There is no sign of any serious diminution in manning numbers. This is a subject we must tackle. The point is that, in looking at our wharves, everyone knows what has to be done. I give the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) credit for knowing what must be done. However, I am not yet prepared to give him any credit for doing it. I will believe that when I see it. Nevertheless, he and I both know what must be done to sort out the problem on the wharves. We must eliminate the scope for demarcation disputes. We must eliminate the wildcat strikes on foreign policy grounds which have nothing to do with industrial conditions on the wharves but do great damage to our credibility as an export country. We must eliminate all the restrictive work practices which do not add anything to work safety or work satisfaction but have merely been imposed as a method of unions showing their power over management. We must get back to the doctrine of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. In order to get the pressure from management to achieve this, we must have proper competition. We all know these are the essences of what must be done. The question is: How do we achieve them? The solution of the Government is to set up another inquiry, this time an interstate commission. Over the years there has been inquiry after inquiry into the waterfront. The problem has been-this goes back to governments previous to the Hawke Government-that nothing much has been done. There are many entrenched interests on the waterfront-and not only the unions, by the way. Some aspects of management are also entrenched in maintenance of the present situation. This was perhaps acceptable, never satisfactory. Perhaps one could live with it while this country was economically performing fairly well. It was always a very damaging thing for our economy and always resulted in us living less well as a community than we should have. Perhaps one could argue that we must put up with this chaos on the waterfront because tackling it is going to be difficult and, after all, we can probably afford it. The Royal Commission on Grain Storage, Handling and Transport quoted Machiavelli. I think it is worth requoting him because there was a lot of truth in what he said. Machiavelli said: It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones. That might be an acceptable explanation of why we have been so long as a nation in tackling the outrages and economic inefficiencies on the waterfront, but this is a luxury we can no longer afford. Since the Hawke Government came to power our economic situation has crumbled disastrously. Whether we could afford it before the Hawke Government came to power, it is quite clear that we can no longer afford it. The answer surely must be to tackle these problems, not address them, which is the remark the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) persists in making. I am not certain what he means by `addressing them'. I suppose he means talking to them. I would like to see him doing something about them. The Minister, Senator Robert Ray, knows what must be done. I would like to see him doing it rather than setting up more inquiries. When one inquiry is completed there is lots of scope for a further inquiry, and the system goes on and on. What we need out of this economically inept Government is some action, not just talk and addressing problems, because the situation has deteriorated markedly in recent years. International indebtedness has ballooned disastrously and we must improve the performance of our waterfront so that we can export in order to have economic survival and, ultimately, recovery. I would like to turn to the particular problems of Sydney and Botany Bay. Sydney has always been a poor port, but there is a particular problem arising there because of the crisis in the container unloading organisations. About 90 per cent of containers go to major organisations. The whole container goes to an organisation and is unloaded by it. Ten per cent of the containers have consignments to various small businesses and must be broken up and redistributed in depots. In January there was a backlog of 1,000 containers in Sydney. It has since risen to 1,500. What is a worry is that the Ministers, first of all Senator Gareth Evans and now Senator Robert Ray, keep on saying that the situation is under control and it is all being fixed. I find two things worrying. The first is the damage being done to small businesses, because the people who deal with these unpacking depots in less than container loads are small business people who, for example, are importing material for clothing which they are going to export; people who are importing components which subsequently they are going to export. Small businesses are hit by these delays and we can hear the pathetic complaints of people who have had delays in consignments for a couple of months-apparently indefinitely-which to them are critical. The cynicism of the unions handling this is quite remarkable. A couple of proposals have been made about trying to increase the flow through these container depots. One was that depots other than union approved depots, waterside worker approved depots, should be allowed to unpack these containers. That was resisted bitterly and has still not been achieved, although it is worth noting that the non-approved Waterside Workers Federation of Australia depots will unload a container for about half the price of a union approved depot, but people are not allowed to use them. Where we have this enormous backlog the union will not allow other depots to unpack containers even though they could do it. These are blackmail tactics on the Australian community as a whole. Then there was this suggestion, `All right, if we have problems unloading them and you insist on them being unloaded in union approved depots, let us work two shifts'. One would think that that would be very popular. The work is relatively unskilled. We have excessively high unemployment. The suggestion was, `Let us work two shifts'. Of course, the shift workers would get the shift loading. But the union would not approve that unless a concession was made that their annual leave went up from four weeks to five weeks-an extra week on full award pay plus 17 1/2 per cent holiday pay loading. The union would not agree to that unless it got an extra one week's leave for all its workers for something which, surely, should be a matter of automatic provision. Here is a problem; here is an obvious solution but the union says, `No, we will stand over the community and we will not permit this to happen unless you give us a payoff'. Why should a union be allowed to exert this sort of blackmail on the community? Why does the Government not do anything about it? Senator Robert Ray, in answer to a question of mine yesterday, said quite accurately that this was not solely a Commonwealth responsibility; the State Government and its instrumentalities are heavily involved. They are. It is not surprising that the situation is far worse in New South Wales than it is in other areas of Australia. The reason is that we have a corrupt government in New South Wales that is heavily involved with militant union activities and will not stand up to them. We need a government that sees the problems-I can accept that the Government sees the problems-and is prepared to tackle them in the interests of the whole Australian community. This is what the country deserves from any Australian government. It is not getting it from this one. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications)(2.23) —Senator Hamer talked for about 19 1/2 minutes on the matter of the waterfront and then got in a paid political advertisement at the end. I think that is not a bad effort for Senator Hamer one day before the New South Wales election. It is a pretty fair effort for him to do it in that way. There is no doubt that shipping and waterfront issues have been a cinderella issue in politics in recent years. At least I am encouraged to see that honourable senators opposite have raised it in a matter of public importance. I think it has been an underrated and grossly ignored area of importance in the Australian economy. Not enough attention has been given to it by Labor governments or previous Liberal governments. Senator Hamer had a variety of things to say, mostly in a general and a critical sense. Senator Hamer said that I knew the solutions; therefore, I should implement them. I am not sure, but I think he is giving me too much credit. I did not hear any solutions coming from Senator Hamer today. Senator Michael Baume —Privatise. Senator ROBERT RAY —I did not see any solutions when Senator Michael Baume and Senator Hamer were both rookie members of the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1977. Senator Hamer probably did not have to move to the Senate, but he did and someone of the same political persuasion won his seat. They had 7 1/2 years to tackle what we all admit were the same sorts of problems that exist today. It may well be that since 1982 those problems should have been addressed faster and more vigorously because of changed economic circumstances, but they have always been there. I make the point that it is a bit too easy just to say that the solution should be there. Senator Hamer referred to Machiavelli when suggesting a solution to the waterfront problems. Why does he think Machiavelli centred his activities in Florence and did not move to Venice? It was because there were no ports in Florence. Senator Hamer referred to an economically inept government. I would love to be able to explore that in depth. I would love to make a comparison between the Hawke Labor Government and the Fraser Liberal Government, but that is another debate and we have had that on other occasions. However, I do say that when the Hawke Government came to power in 1983 and through to 1987 we were basically obsessed with getting the macroeconomic parameters right. We had to do that because of the economic circumstances at the time. Now we are equally determined to move on those microeconomic agendas that are so essential, of which shipping and waterfront are two. I move to what the situation is in Sydney and then I will move to the longer term plans. We concede that there have been significant delays in unpacking less than full container load (LCL) consignments at the Sydney international container depots due to the following reasons: there was a closure in December at the Consolidated Cargo Services Pty Ltd depot due to a breakdown in negotiations on revised working arrangements; there was a merger in December of the depot operations of Freightbases Container depot and Liner Services Pty Ltd; there was a closure of the Liner Services site which was accompanied by some industrial action; there were also some problems with Darling Harbour being reserved for bicentennial activities; and there was a significant increase in less than full containers in the November-January period amounting to 20 per cent. There are currently approximately 1,500 containers waiting to be unpacked. The problem has had a serious impact on some small importers, with a number of employees reportedly being laid off. Industrial agreements dating from the late 1960s have led to the development of two types of container depots in Australia. Firstly, we have the international depots which employ Waterside Workers Federation clerks and either Federated Storemen and Packers Union or Waterside Workers Federation operational labour. These types of depots can unpack and pack any international less than full container load shipments. Secondly, we have the Trans-Tasman depots which employ Transport Workers Union labour which can handle only LCL shipments associated with the New Zealand trade. There have been a number of meetings, however, between the Association of Employers of Waterfront Labour, depot operators, shipping companies, unions and users. Department of Industrial Relations and the Department of Transport and Communications officials have also attended some of these meetings. The Department of Transport and Communications has been working with importers to assist them in the clearance of urgent consignments. Discussions between industry participants have resulted in some progress in putting in place measures to deal with the container backlog. The Consolidated Cargo Services depot at Rozelle reopened on 29 February following agreement with the Waterside Workers Federation on productivity-based employment arrangements. This has increased unpacking capacity by over 100 containers per week. In early March, Liner Freight Services at Villawood engaged additional casual storemen and packers. This, together with the use of overtime, has increased the throughput by 30 per cent, or 70 containers, to about 300 per week. In addition, depot unpacking facilities are expected to open at Australian National Line (ANL) Port Botany as from 21 March. I think this is slightly in conflict with what Senator Hamer was saying, but I have only had a fax on my desk today confirming that, so I attribute no acts of commission to him in that regard. This facility will have a throughput of about 40 containers per week. However, the proposal to establish a temporary unpacking operation at No. 6 Darling Harbour will now not proceed. The intended operator, Patrick Stevedoring Co., claims that there was not sufficient client interest to make the facility commercially viable. However, that decision could well have been dictated by industrial relations consequences. Senator Hamer today said, `Look, we know what the problems are. Why don't we just wave a magic wand and do something about it?' Do we need another inquiry? Generally, I am pretty sympathetic to that approach. But one gets sick of people just saying, `There is a problem; let us have an inquiry'. I think we have to realise, though, that the last couple of inquiries in this area have progressed enormously. It was thought by the Government that one final inquiry would come up with the strategy required. So I do not think it is just a case of saying, `Look, we have a very hard problem; it is in the hard basket. Let us have another inquiry'. We have to be aware of the delicate matter of who has responsibility for this area. After all, a lot of ports are controlled by State governments. Therefore, using the Inter-State Commission was seen as a most appropriate device. I will spend a little time detailing what the Government's waterfront strategy is and the sort of timetable that we expect will be adhered to this year. The Government's strategy to improve the efficiency, productivity and reliability and the industrial relations record of the Australian waterfront was announced in December 1986. The strategy was developed in response to issues identified in the final report of the industry task force on shore-based shipping costs. The strategy involves four industry groups and the Inter-State Commission. The primary focus of the strategy during 1987 involves the four industry groups identifying and, where possible, addressing problems in their separate areas of responsibility. The strategy entered into its second phase in February 1988 with the announcement of public hearings by the Inter-State Commission. These hearings are directed towards a formulation by the Commission of a broad package of measures to address the more deep-seated structural problems affecting the industry. The structural adjustment committee of Cabinet met with the major participants in the waterfront strategy on 17 February 1988 to review progress in the strategy. Following this meeting, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) issued a media release on this subject. I have to say that Ministers were impressed by the evident commitment of all parties-and, remember, we have users, employers, unions and so on all involved in this process. We were fairly impressed by their willingness to work cooperatively to achieve change. Might I just interpose that that is why I see this final process as being so important. It will be much easier to make the changes necessary to get an efficient and reliable operation with the cooperation of everyone rather than confrontation. I think there is now a firm basis to expect that the strategy will result in agreements by the end of this year to a package of measures to achieve the significant improvements that I have talked about. The Inter-State Commission has a threefold task in the strategy: monitoring other elements in the strategy, preparing a long term integrated plan for the industry and developing effective performance indicators for each sector of the industry. It provided the Government with an interim report on progress in September 1987. In accordance with normal procedures for Inter-State Commission inquiries, the Commission has called for submissions from interested parties, which are due by 25 March 1988. If Senator Hamer would like to put in a submission, he still has four or five days in which to do so. The Commission will be holding public hearings commencing on 7 March and then continuing from 28 March. The Commission is to provide a draft report to the Government in July 1988, outlining possible elements of an industry reform package. This will be followed by further public hearings and discussions aimed at achieving agreement on a broad package of measures required to improve the efficiency of the industry, which will be the basis of its next report in November. So the timetable we are outlining is: public hearings, a report, further public hearings and a final report some time in November and expected Government action immediately thereafter. Something like four committees are working in this area. I might just go through the activities of some of them. The Stevedoring Industry Review Committee (SIRC) is made up of union and management representatives under the chairmanship of Sir John Moore. The Committee is addressing improvements to management and work practices in the stevedoring industry. The Committee concluded the first stage of its work program reviewing management work practices at the local level, with the settlement in October and November 1987 of the second tier agreement with three of the SIRC unions-the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia and the Stevedoring Supervisors Association. The agreement for the fourth union, the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, is currently being concluded following a port by port review of wharf security arrangements. The SIRC has now commenced the second stage of its program, examining designated national issues through a number of employer-union working parties. The issues include employment; deployment structures; mobility of labour between employers and between ports; the integration of labour classifications; development of career paths and training; communication, consultation and information sharing with the work force; performance standards and productivity; redundancy arrangements and job security measures. I think that is a fairly wide ranging area. We then have the Industry Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Ian Webber, Managing Director of Mayne Nickless Ltd. It is addressing commercial impediments within the industry, including inadequate communication. The Committee's Sydney and Melbourne working parties identified a number of priority issues which were addressed by specific project teams. In a report to the Inter-State Commission in January 1988 Mr Webber indicated that he believed the working parties were reaching the limits of their effectiveness, although they are continuing, wherever possible, to implement recommended changes in consultation with industry. We can see there that the Industry Committee has taken the suggestions about as far as it can go. We also have the Importer/Exporter Panel, which was formed under the chairmanship of Mr Ivan Deveson, Managing Director of Nissan Australia, to represent the views of customer industries. The Panel presented its final report to the Inter-State Commission in December 1987. The report concluded that fundamental reform was required of the waterfront, not just marginal improvements. These reforms included: a major restructuring package in the stevedoring industry; negotiation with the States on major port reforms; and the establishment of an organisation to market and operate inter-system rail freight services. The panel is continuing to monitor developments in the strategy from the perspective of client industries. Finally, we have the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which is a structure being used to pursue action in conjunction with State governments to deal with the problems in rail and port operations. I will not go into any more detail on the work of the Inter-State Commission, other than to say that it is not only the strategy with which it will come up that is important; it will also be important that all groups be involved in the decision making, because that will mean the eventual implementation of a proper waterfront strategy in such a way as to get it in by a form of consensus. Senator Hamer referred to manning levels and also included shipping. I draw the honourable senator's attention to some of the advantages of the Maritime Industry Development Council (MIDC) scheme. In fact within about one month's time the first MIDC ship, which has taken manning levels from 30 to 26 and now down to 21, will be on the run between, I think, Bunbury and Portland. The honourable senator, as a person with a lot of experience in this regard, would probably understand the developments made in that regard in terms of multi- skilling, having one mess and all those other features. I think it is a bit unfair on the Seamen's Union of Australia to say that no progress has been made in this area. In fact several hundred, almost 1,000 seamen's jobs have been lost in this country in the last few years. Yet they are still willing to support a scheme that will mean Australian ships with far less crew requirements. That comment was really an off-handed reference to shipping and we are basically dealing with the waterfront. I acknowledge that there are problems on the waterfront and that they have to be tackled. I do not acknowledge, and I will not agree, that they can be fixed tomorrow or next week. However, they can be tackled in this calendar year, and they must be. I hope that everyone takes the same sort of relatively constructive approach as Senator Hamer, because out in the community-among newspapers and some organisations-there is a deliberate attempt to distort the existing situation and stir it up without really wanting a solution. I am referring to some of those people in the National Farmers Federation and elsewhere who think that by being gung ho and tough they can ensure that things will flow automatically. The situation on the waterfront at the moment may not be the best, but it could get worse. But in terms of this country's future we need a cooperative approach wherever possible and not a mad, irrational confrontationist approach. I end my contribution by saying that the problems in Sydney are coming under control. I am not sure whether those problems have featured as a big issue in the New South Wales election campaign but before I sit down I wish all the Australian Labor Party candidates the best of luck tomorrow. Senator PARER(Queensland)(2.41) —I rise to support this matter of public importance submitted by my colleague Senator Hamer, drawing attention to: The cost to every Australian of inefficiencies, restrictive work practices and lack of competition on the Australian waterfront, highlighted by the continuing chaos on the Sydney docks. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) basically agree with the text of this matter of public importance and the words that he used about the method of tackling the problems. However, historically, his remarks may end up just as words even though Senator Ray probably believes them, but I doubt whether his Government will have the intestinal fortitude to confront the real issues. Australia is an island continent with dozens of natural deep water ports. We are blessed with such ports and per head of population we are one of the major trading nations in the world. We export about 80 per cent of our primary production and mineral products. With those sorts of facilities and resources we should have one of the great merchant navies of the world, both for the interstate movement of goods and for exports. Yet, our international shipping is virtually non-existent, while our coastal shipping marginally survives only because it is protected by monopoly-like arrangements. Considering the facilities we have, our coastal shipping is really non-existent. With few exceptions our ports are among the most costly and inefficient in the world. It is interesting to note that there are some efficient bulk ports, such as Port Hedland, Hay Point, Abbot Point and Gladstone. These are all run by free enterprise or as free enterprise organisations. Our foreign trading partners are well aware of the industrial mayhem on our waterfront. For example, in 1984, the Baltic and Maritime Conference urged its members to think twice about trading with Australia, while a South East Asian ship owner warned potential charterers to treat us as a `communist country or a war risk zone'. What a reputation to have! It is beyond belief that with comparatively small loadings, it is cheaper and more efficient to move goods on rubber tyres from Sydney to anywhere in Australia than it is by sea. This means that the cost to every Australian individual is enormous because it means funding a road system which would do justice to a country with a population about the size of that of the United States. To appreciate the abysmal state of our waterfront, I give a few examples of the rorts, restrictions and sudden strikes with which a manufacturer must contend if he sends his goods by ship from Sydney. First, he contacts a truck operator to take his product to the port. When the trucker finds out that he is going to the port of Sydney he loads his charge by something up to 50 per cent because he knows he will be inevitably delayed when he arrives at the port. When the goods are loaded onto the vessel it will be done by a gang of 15 people, when three or four would do the job in the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan or almost any other country in the world. Senator Messner —Fifteen? Senator PARER —Fifteen, if you are lucky. Overmanning in Australian stevedoring gangs blows out the cost of loading and unloading goods. For instance, stevedoring charges cost one exporter of scrap metal $15 a tonne. This is simply to load it from the dock onto the ship. This compares with a stevedoring charge for the same exercise of $3 a tonne in the United States and 65c a tonne in the United Kingdom. There is every chance that, a business having decided to move goods around Australia by ship and having got the goods to the wharf, the ship will then be delayed in sailing because of industrial disputation caused by a maritime union objecting to some aspect of foreign policy, such as a coup in Fiji, the policies of the South African Government or the problems of any government. If those two examples are not pertinent at the time, the unions will make problems up. The Australian Chamber of Shipping found that half of the industrial disputes on the Australian waterfront in 1987 were related to foreign policy issues. Who is the Government of this country? I think we know the answer to that. So we have delays, and the demurrage costs for these delays can be anywhere between $5,000 and $25,000 a day. Who pays? Of course, every Australian individual consumer-every wage earner, every family man-pays. The businessman might then find that the ship is crewed by Australian seamen who operate under the two-crew manning system. Under this system crews are rostered for 26 weeks at sea and 26 weeks leave a year-far in excess of leave allowances for crews in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. This means that every shipboard berth needs 2.25 personnel effectively to man the ship. Then, of course, a tug has to pull the ship away from the wharf. We find these very same conditions applicable to the crews of tugs, who never leave their home port. They are given the same conditions as if they were on an international run from here to Japan, Europe or wherever. The October 1986 report of the Maritime Industry Development Council entitled Moving Ahead states that as a result of this two-crew system our manning levels are more than double those of our trading partners. When the vessel arrives at the port of destination the same story will be repeated, except that it will be a mirror image of loading the goods on the ship, and the goods will have to run the gauntlet of the rorts and restrictions at the other end. Senator Sheil —Just within Australia. Senator PARER —Just within Australia. The net result is that the manufacturer says, `To hell with this', and uses road transport. In the domestic market he is in a fairly happy position because competition is offered by road transport. On the export market, however, he has no choice unless he produces relatively small high value products which can be transported by the airlines. In that case, of course, he would use the airlines. This country is, correctly, encouraging the growth of manufacturing in respect of both import replacement and exports. The collapse of the dollar, which reduced the comparative unit costs of labour in this country and at the same time reduced the purchasing power of every Australian for imported goods, should have given our manufacturing industry an enormous boost. There are many reasons why this did not eventuate in the way expected. There were some isolated cases of it occurring, and there were some improvements that we should all applaud. But a major impediment to the export of manufactured goods is our port costs and the disruption at the ports which deters buyers because, apart from costs, they can never be sure they will receive the goods when they need them. We all know of stories about people who have lost export markets simply because of their inability to have goods delivered at the correct time. I think Senator Hamer referred to the example of a business's inability to get goods for remanufacture here for a particular fashion market in the necessary time, meaning that the export market was in danger of being lost. It probably was lost. A survey last year of overseas countries importing materials from Australia found that their inventory levels are approximately 50 per cent higher due to the unpredictability of the shipping and waterfront industry. In the car industry manufacturers are trying to trim inventories with the just-in-time system but the fear of bare assembly lines causes many to cling to the just-in-case system; this means carrying extra stock. The management at General Motors-Holden's Ltd says that car companies build in as much as 15 days inventory supply to offset delays on the waterfront. This stock is worth more than $30m to $40m. That is another inefficiency-a flow-on, if you like, a multiplier effect-in the devastation caused by the inefficiency of the waterfront. The simple fact is that until we are able to lift the efficiency of our waterfront, both with respect to unit costs and reliability, we do not stand a ghost of a chance of improving our export of manufactured goods, which means continued balance of payments deficits and the continued loss of thousands of jobs for Australians in areas where we need to provide more jobs to give us a better industrial base in Australia. Just the costs of unreliability and uncertainty are at least as important as the direct costs at the waterfront. A graphic example of this was given in the report of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport, tabled in this place on Wednesday. The report noted that the Centre for Transport Policy Analysis estimates that a premium of $2 a tonne is added to shipping freight charges for grain because of Australia's industrial environment. In the five years to 1986-87 Australia has exported about 17.5 million tonnes of grain, mostly wheat. So this $2 per tonne premium is unnecessary and has cost the industry some $35m for one of our major exports. Senator Robert Ray spoke about the waterfront strategy. He took what on the face of it appeared to be a fairly reasoned view that he himself did not like committees but he thought that in the long run it would be helpful to have this final committee. I wonder how many final committees we have had going back over the years. He also referred to four committees currently reporting or having just reported. I have to say that I wonder seriously about this. The Government must know the problems. Everyone knows that the Hawke Labor Government is totally out of touch, but surely it cannot be out of touch to the extent that it does not know what is going on at the waterfront, the Achilles heel of Australia. Senator Messner —They are pretty incompetent, so they probably do not know. Senator PARER —Maybe Senator Messner is right on that. Just the other night I heard the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Mr Bill Kelty, say, `We won the last election'. The problem is that the very people who through their irresponsibility and industrial vandalism brought this country to its knees in the 1970s are now in government. Perhaps it is poetic justice that they are now charged with the job of trying to sort out the mess they created over the decade when the current Prime Minister was the President of the ACTU. It is important that we list the sorts of unproductive restrictive work practices, rorts, call them what you like, that go on, so that people are aware of them. As the Government does not appear to know that it is having an inquiry, we will give it a few indications. On the subject of non-productive working time, in the container terminals employees work a 35-hour week, but when meal breaks, smokos, shower time and walking time are deducted from their working hours, that figure comes down to 27 hours a week on full pay. On the subject of idle time, workers are kept at the ports at maximum levels through down periods in order to have sufficient manning levels at peak times. On the subject of strikes, Australia has topped an international shipping insurer's strike club statistics-fancy that-for eight years in a row for having the highest number of claims related to industrial disputes. In 1987 more than half the disputes on the waterfront were over non-work related matters-objections to what was going on in South Africa and Fiji. Senator Messner —Is this some South American country you are talking about? Senator PARER —It sounds like Mr Keating's banana republic or Senator Walsh's Argentinean road. The Australian waterfront is the Achilles heel of Australia. Sydney is by far the worst area in this country for industrial disputation, featherbedding, overmanning and rorts. Interestingly enough, two Labor governments-State and Federal-blame the other and say, `It is not our problem; it is your problem'. They are attempting to pass the buck, to do a Pontius Pilate in this regard and it is not good enough. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(2.56) —There is no question but that this is an extremely serious issue that has been brought up for debate in the Parliament today. I do not wish to detract from its seriousness, but as we all realise that the subject of this debate is not about problems on the Australian waterfront but the New South Wales elections tomorrow, I commence my contribution by offering my best wishes to the success of my Labor colleagues in New South Wales tomorrow. That is what this discussion is all about. I will be very pleased when next week rolls around and the election is over. Australia's Achilles heel at the moment is not the waterfront; it is the Federal Opposition. There is not much question about that. The interesting aspect about the debate so far has been this: one would get the impression from all the speakers opposite that all the serious and structured problems that beset Australia's waterfront happened yesterday. The fact is that these serious problems go back to the 1960s when containerisation was first introduced in this country and, in terms of some of the more deeply entrenched problems, considerably before then. It is interesting to note the laissez-faire attitude of those opposite when they were in government in terms of their record. They came in here today and started jumping up and down, trumpeting and screaming and yelling about what this Federal Government should do about it-indeed, this Federal Government is doing something about it-but the only thing on their track record to cope with the same problems was to have a laissez-faire attitude towards them. In 1977 their brilliant initiative was to hand the whole thing over to self-regulation. What a brilliant and successful strategy that turned out to be! It is the only thing on the track record of those opposite which is to their credit. The alternative view is very starkly displayed in this country in that this Government is not just tackling the structural problems on the waterfront. As those opposite know, to their discomfort, this Government is tackling successfully the entire restructuring of the whole industry base in Australia-not just on the waterfront but in the car industry, the steel industry and elsewhere. It has done so with a remarkable degree of success which, I predict, this Government will achieve on the waterfronts of Australia also. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) issued a public statement as recently as February this year which talked about the progress that has been made to date with the structural readjustment program that the Government is overseeing on the waterfront problems in Australia. In the opening paragraph of the February release, the Prime Minister announced: The Structural Adjustment Committee of Cabinet met today with the principal players in Australia's waterfront industry. The reduction of shore-based shipping costs is crucial to Australia's international competitiveness, and a central element in the Government's general economic reform strategy. I might say that it is a successful economic reform strategy. Those opposite always solve their industrial relations problems not by talking to the players concerned but by legislating against them-just like they did in Queensland. What we have as a result is not economic progress but anarchy. The Minister has spoken in detail of what is being done by this Government. The Inter-State Commission (ISC) is cooperating with the Stevedoring Industry Review Committee (SIRC) to make recommendations to the Government as to the restructuring of the waterfront situation. It might be useful for honourable senators to know what that is all about. The Stevedoring Industry Review Committee was not established for this purpose. It was established in July 1986 by stevedoring employees and unions as part of the 1986 stevedoring award settlement. Because of the constructive work that it then did it was decided to continue its role in the restructuring proposal. The first stage of the work was completed last year. The report has been given to the Government. The second stage of its work has now been commenced. The first stage was successful. It involved a series of meetings at major ports around Australia between April and August 1987 to review the restrictive work practices that we have been hearing so much about this afternoon. As I said, the second stage is now in place. It will involve an examination at the national level of a number of designated issues, including the mobility and integration of labour, the development of career paths and training, improved work force consultation, the enhancement of performance standards and redundancy measures. The examination will also concentrate on progress regarding the issue of training and career path development on the waterfront, that is, treating it as a career to improve waterfront morale. The SIRC parties have agreed that a major element in any reform package will be the development of appropriate training programs, increased multiskilling and career opportunities in the restructured waterfront industry. The Association of Employers of Waterside Labour and the Australian Council of Trade Unions recently met with the ISC and agreed that an in-depth study should be undertaken by an expert consultant on the needs of the industry in relation to this extremely important issue. Like other speakers in the debate so far, I do not want to suggest that I am not mindful of the short term problems that are currently being experienced in Sydney. They are very serious problems indeed, particularly for the small importers. I give some credit to Senator Hamer for the diligent way in which he has pursued this issue, as the Hansard record will demonstrate. A major problem, particularly for small businesses, concerns the partly loaded containers which have been held up for an inordinate period. The Government has been concentrating on this issue. Government officials have been working closely with industry participants to ensure the smooth introduction of industry measures to bring the container depot backlog problems in Sydney under control. The latest industry estimates are that with the additional capacity at Liner Freight Services at Villawood, the opening of the Australian National Line facility at Botany Bay and the improved performance of the P and O group Rozelle depot since re-opening in February, the number of containers awaiting unpacking should return to normal levels within about four weeks. I certainly hope that is the case. The Opposition's record in government on this issue is a very sorry one. The only initiative it took to deal with these deeply structured problems was to take its hands off the entire industry, to forget it was there, to leave it to self-regulation, an attitude of, `You sort it out for yourselves'. We are now reaping the benefits of enlightened policies such as that. The other side is now preaching to us that we are doing nothing about it when I have demonstrated that the waterfront situation is now being treated in the same manner as the special committee of the Cabinet has been dealing with the entire restructuring necessary for the whole of Australian industry. I conclude by saying, in response to Senator Hamer's remarks about `this economically inept Government', that I support what Senator Ray said earlier in the debate when he said that those strategies are working. I share Senator Hamer's and Senator Ray's concern about never-ending inquiries and the belief that the solution to any problem is to set up another inquiry. However, the fact is that the investigations and the restructuring that have taken place in other major industries in Australia have reaped positive economic benefits. We all know that with goodwill from all parties-it is essential if we are to get anywhere with anything that we have that-that the, I must say, overdue restructuring of the front line of Australia's import and export business, the waterfront, achieves the same degree of success. With respect, I do not think that Senator Hamer has much ground for talking about an economically inept government. As was just revealed the other day, the fact is that this Government has successfully created one million new jobs in just five years of government. That has not been accidental. That has not been as a result of serendipity. That has not been fortuitous. It has been as a result of the intense concentration this Government has given to industry restructuring. It has created those one million jobs mainly because of the successful outcome of those efforts. It has brought unemployment down to about 7 1/2 per cent. That is far from satisfactory, but a great improvement on the previous figures. In regard to economic management, I must say with some degree of personal feeling, in terms of the people I represent in the Northern Territory, that the Government has done so at the same time as it has introduced the family allowance package for the people who need money most. For those who do not know about the family allowance package-and a lot of us could be forgiven for not knowing about this reform, because none of us in this chamber are eligible for it-- Senator Michael Baume —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I wonder what the family allowance package has to do with the matter of public importance. Senator COLLINS —Mr Acting Deputy President, it relates specifically to the statement made by the opening speaker in this debate, Senator Hamer, as to the alleged economic mismanagement of this Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —I rule that if the matter is raised and no one is prevented from continuing, some reply would be all right. Senator Michael Baume —I am not surprised. Senator COLLINS —Mr Acting Deputy President, I trust that that interjection was not a reflection on your ruling. I would not like to think that it was. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The ruling has been made. Senator Michael Baume —My lack of surprise remains. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Please desist, Senator Baume. Senator COLLINS —The fact is that the positive results of industry restructuring are there to be seen. I am not amazed that Opposition senators do not like hearing about those because they do not want success stories in this country. All they want is failure. That is all they want so that they can pick up a few points, on this occasion this afternoon for the benefit of their embattled colleagues in New South Wales. Senator Parer —Who is embattled? Senator COLLINS —I think that we are down to desperation stuff if the debate in the Senate yesterday is anything to go by. That package of support for low income earners in Australia is, I point out to honourable senators opposite, in respect of families who need it most-the average family of a husband, wife and three children, earning around $300 a week-and has resulted in the equivalent of $100 a week in additional salary. Bill Kelty said about this package-and this is pretty heady praise from the union movement-that it has been a reform achieved by this Government in one Budget that has put into the pockets of people who need it money that would have taken the union movement 50 years to achieve with industrial action. That is what Bill Kelty said about it. I ask Senator Michael Baume: `Why have we been able to do that?'. I will tell him why. It is because of the success of this Government's concentration on restructuring industry in this country-not just on the waterfront but across the board. As a result, the Government has been able to bring down a budget with a zero deficit. That is the reason we have been able to do things such as that. The Australian community is the beneficiary of it. It is called good government. I close by saying that I share the concern of all honourable senators in this chamber about the serious situation on Australia's waterfront and, in particular, the very serious situation in the Sydney ports. The fact is that this Government is moving positively to do something about it. I hope that on receipt of the report in July from the people who are working on this, the Government will succeed in introducing a restructuring of the waterfront in Australia that has been as successful as the restructuring of industry that has been carried out by this Government so far. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.10) —I rise to support Senator Hamer's matter of public importance, namely: The cost to every Australian of the inefficiencies, restrictive work practices and lack of competition on the Australian waterfront highlighted by the continuing chaos on the Sydney docks. Anyone listening to Senator Collins would have noted that he was certainly not on the wharves, he was more all at sea, particularly in the last section of his speech. It is intriguing to hear both him and the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) say that the Opposition has no record to be proud of in this area. On two scores he is totally wrong: in the first place, when this Opposition was in government the man who was the head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bob Hawke-- Senator Parer —A vandal. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —He was an economic vandal, as my colleague Senator Parer has said. In Opposition we have consistently been pressing this Government, as have our New South Wales colleagues, on this essential matter of the waterfront in Australia. We have been making recommendations particularly on getting rid of restrictive work practices, privatising the operation and making genuine competition available in that area whereas the Labor Government in Canberra has been talking for five years. For 12 years the Labor Government in New South Wales has been doing other things which appear to relate much more to the back hip pocket than they do to decent administration and cleaning up both the wharves and the corruption which has abounded in that State. I think that we should look at exactly what 12 years of Labor government in New South Wales and five years of Labor government in Canberra have brought to this industry. Let me quote what the Maritime Services Board of New South Wales warned only a few weeks ago. It stated: New South Wales ports will face catastrophe unless the backlog of uncleared LCL (less than container load) containers at Sydney's depots is cleared up within a few weeks . . . That was on 22 February. That container backlog has not been cleared, it has worsened. So the catastrophe that the Maritime Services Board warned would take place is, in fact, taking place. It is a catastrophe for people, small businesses in particular, who have large amounts of money involved in idle stock, in vital parts for their manufacturing process and in the many other items that are being nonsensically and improperly delayed as a result of maladministration at both State and Federal levels. This has been getting worse at a time when, for deliberate, disgraceful and dishonest political purposes, this Government and the New South Wales Government have been pretending that it is getting better. Senator Collins got up here a few moments ago and said, `Oh, in a couple of weeks all the backlog will have gone'. I remind the honourable senator that in February when the New South Wales election was announced, a strange statement came from Senator Gareth Evans in this place. When Senator Hamer raised this matter, he said, `Don't worry, everything will be all right'-the New South Wales election was four weeks away-`because in four weeks the backlog will be cleared'. Senator Hamer —Two weeks. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am sorry, he said that it would be cleared in two weeks-before the New South Wales election. That statement could not possibly have been right at the time and no one with any knowledge of that industry or that problem could have properly pretended that the statement was right. It was a base and disgusting political stunt aimed at hosing down yet another example of incompetence in New South Wales and, of course, another example of the failure of the two Labor governments in Canberra and Sydney to solve problems that have been manifestly in evidence for such a long time. But this disgraceful performance in this chamber by Ministers coming in with information that the most simple inquiry could have demonstrated was patently false, and which was delivered with the purpose of misleading the voters of New South Wales, is intolerable. I only hope that the people of New South Wales will recognise that the disastrous problems on the waterfront-the catastrophe, according to the Maritime Services Board in New South Wales-has been covered up by a conspiracy between Labor Ministers in the Federal Parliament and Labor Ministers in the State Parliament deliberately to mislead the people. The fact is that this backlog has not improved-not on your life! It has now got considerably worse. As the Maritime Services Board said three weeks ago: The stage is being reached where it will become impossible for the Board to keep shipping and cargo handling operations in the ports isolated from the troubles that are occurring farther down the line- that is, with the less than container load containers, 1,500 of which are now clogging the few container depots which, as Senator Hamer says, are allowed to operate by union fiat. Unless the union lets a depot work, it cannot; it is not allowed to handle these containers. Even Senator Ray admitted that. He said that different unions look after different depots. There is one union that looks after trans-Tasman trade. It is not allowed to handle containers from any other destination. If it did, the result would be a demarcation dispute-an inter-union dispute. Who pays for the inter-union dispute? The people of Australia pay for it. The costs are borne by ordinary Australians. The Maritime Services Board also went on to say that it was concerned that New South Wales ports would suffer a long term loss of trade because numbers of importers with cargoes caught up in the congestion might in future seek to route their goods through interstate ports. Of course, that is already happening. I noticed an item the other day which reported that the Brisbane board, which apparently has a far more efficient operation than that of New South Wales, is now out to attract Sydney cargo. This report said: Over the next few days the Port of Brisbane Authority and the Brisbane Port Users Group will be attempting to persuade Sydney's business community to send its LCL goods through Brisbane. Sydney's importers, who have been forced to wait up to eight weeks and longer for the delivery of LCL goods, will be told-in these advertisements that are to appear soon-that in Brisbane their cargo can be unpacked within a few days of discharge. I draw to the attention of the voters of New South Wales the fact that Queensland does not have a Labor government. I suppose that one could say to those importers or those people awaiting goods that are in containers at ports, `If there is one simple positive thing you can do about getting your goods delivered, it would be to make certain you do not have a Labor government in New South Wales', at least on the evidence of this report from Queensland. As I see it, the interesting thing about Senator Gareth Evans's claim that within a couple of weeks the problem would be overcome is that since that statement the number of containers in the backlog has increased by 50 per cent. These delays are sending many small businesses to the wall. Wholesalers and retailers in the seasonal industries, of course, are dramatically affected. But on top of that, Australian manufacturing exporters are also being affected because imported components are now being subjected to these excessively long and ludicrous delays. Bans, stoppages, demarcation disputes, outdated work practices and so on have turned the Sydney docks and container depots into a sort of industrial disaster area. The small businesses that are being crippled with these two-month delays on the waterfront are getting no special relief from anyone. They are getting no special relief through any action by either the State or the Federal Labor governments. There is plenty of talk-talk, talk, talk. Senator Hamer pointed out that there is a lot of talk. Senator Robert Ray agreed, but added that this time the talk would lead to something. Twelve years of a State Labor government has led us nowhere except to crisis point, and five years of this Labor Government has simply led us to more talk. Bankruptcy is facing so many of these people who are caught, who are the unwitting victims in this disgraceful situation. I have here a letter which outlines the problem as it was only a week or so ago. The letter reveals to me the following: One depot has, either on site or at terminals awaiting movement to the depot, about 1250 containers to be unpacked. On current figures these containers alone will take 37 working days (nearly 8 weeks) to unpack plus the additional containers that are arriving in that period. Another depot has a backlog of about 400 containers-a delay here of about 31 working days (nearly six weeks). Some depots are arranging Saturday unpacking for a fee of $115. This will do little except force everyone to pay an additional $115. There are already more requests than can be handled. This is seen by many people as a sort of bribe or inducement to pay an extra $115 to get their containers handled. The intriguing thing is that in the time taken to handle 10 containers at Australian ports, 14 are handled in the United Kingdom, 20 in Singapore, 21 in northern Europe, 25 in North America and 30 in Japan. Here we are falling steadily behind. Senator Robert Ray says, `Everything is being fixed up. We've got some temporary arrangements'. Half of these arrangements have come undone. Whose fault is it? Senator Robert Ray was very revealing about that. In an answer to Senator Hamer yesterday he said: . . . these matters are not strictly Federal matters . . . In other words, `Don't blame us; it's the State Government's fault'. I repeat that, when pressed on this chaos, this disaster, Senator Robert Ray, as the responsible Minister in the Hawke Labor Government, said, `These matters are not strictly Federal matters'. Whose are they? When we ask Mr Sheahan, the relevant Minister in New South Wales, he says, `I've got no power to act'. I quote from a recent newspaper report: The NSW Minister for Transport, Mr Terry Sheahan, was yesterday quick to respond to calls by the waterfront industry to intervene in the clearance of LCL jamming Sydney's depots by pointing out he had no legal authority to take action. After 12 years of continuing problems on the waterfront-we heard from the Labor speakers today that there have been continuing problems; they complained about the previous Liberal Government not solving them-after 12 years of Wran-Unsworth mess, Mr Sheahan says that he has no legal authority to take action. The article went on to say: . . . while Mr Sheahan is sympathetic to the crisis legally he could not intervene . . . Mr Sheahan is reported as saying: The delays are occurring in the privately owned depots . . . The unions are involved in restrictive work practices and some extraordinary standover tactics. Mr Sheahan was asked by the private sector to step in and direct that this backlog be removed. The article stated: On restrictive work practices and demarcation disputes, the Minister's spokesman said that all three unions involved . . . were all under the Federal Award. Here we have a scandalous situation which is bringing disaster to many small businesses in Australia and inconvenience to many Australians who are awaiting shipments. It is causing massively increased costs to those who will be receiving the benefits of those imports. All those things are happening. On the one hand the Federal Government says that it is not its fault and on the other hand the State Government says that it is not its fault. Both are Labor governments, both have been there too long, and there is no doubt when we look at the crisis on the wharves in New South Wales that it is time for a change. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.25) —The matter of public importance before the Senate this afternoon allows one to talk about the impact the waterfront chaos in Sydney is having on Australian families. The matter of public importance states: The cost to every Australian of inefficiencies, restrictive work practices and lack of competition on the Australian waterfront highlighted by the continuing chaos on the Sydney docks. I want to stress the impact this is having on every Australian. Within the area in which I take an interest, I know of the growing number of families who are not able to obtain housing since Labor has been in government. The number of people now on the waiting list for government houses has grown dramatically in the five years since Labor has been in office. In the vicinity of 100,000 families are now in the queue for public housing who were not there in 1983. A large number of people are waiting for government assistance in order to purchase houses. The number is much larger than previously has been the case. We know about the public hospital queues of people waiting for medical attention. We know that 100,000 Australians are waiting for surgery in the government hospital system. All of this flows from the fact that Australia is no longer competitive. The economy cannot afford to provide Australians with the sorts of services we believe they should have. In fact, the numbers are far greater now than when the Liberal Government was thrown out of office in 1983. Labor should be thoroughly ashamed to go to the polls in the New South Wales election with this record around its neck, a record of so many Australians suffering as a consequence of its five years of administration. As the New South Wales election has been mentioned this afternoon, it is appropriate that some of these things should be brought forward. Health services now are worse than they have been for 30 or 40 years in this country. There are far fewer facilities and beds in the public hospital system. Far fewer procedures and services are available through the Medicare system. Far fewer pharmaceuticals are now provided than was the case previously. Of course, people know that these days they have to pay $10 for a prescription they used to be able to obtain much more cheaply and much more readily. Many families have been forced out of the private hospital system because they cannot afford to pay the cost of private health insurance in addition to what they have to pay by way of the Medicare levy. That levy, which was one per cent, is now 1.25 per cent. In fact, the cost is about 3.15 per cent of income, with the rest being paid out of the taxation system. The reality is that there are many thousands of families without private cover who cannot get what they need by way of health services under the Medicare system. It is a complete myth to suggest that under Labor everybody is covered for health care. They may appear to be, but those who are sick know that that is not the case. Those who are sick, or whose elderly family members are sick, know just how difficult it is to get health care. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) talks in the other place about people booking for surgery. He does not seem to realise that people do not book for something they do not need. It is very disruptive of family life to have to wait a couple of years for a hip replacement or a prostate gland operation or for so many other things. A breadwinner may well be out of work for a long time, not being able to pursue employment because he is awaiting surgery. The Minister for Community Services and Health would tell us that such a person is on a booking list, as though this is something that one would choose to have done over a weekend. This is what has happened to Australia in the five years since Labor was elected in 1983. I have referred to housing, to the number of people who are homeless or living in caravans and who would prefer to have their own homes. But what about the effect on a family having to live first here and then there as and when they are able to obtain employment or housing? They have to move from one place to another and take their children to different schools. They have to make new friends, establish new contacts in the community and perhaps they have to get a new doctor and get to know new people who will provide the services that they are accustomed to. That is completely disruptive to family life. The children in that situation do not have the same opportunity to establish social contacts and to become socially mature. They are constantly being put into new classes and having to get used to new people around them. They have very little chance to get an education that will enable them to get on in the world, to obtain employment and satisfaction and pleasure from what they will be doing in their lives. I think those who glibly refer to the figures in relation to housing, without really considering the implications of having to move frequently, have no idea at all about what it means to those involved. It shows a complete lack of care. We hear about equity and justice and a great many other things, but the Australian Labor Party has very sorely let down the people of Australia in not being able to provide the sort of stability that many on lower incomes would want. Many single parent families know exactly what I am talking about. The matter of public importance that we are discussing-the cost to every Australian of the inefficiencies and restrictive work practices on the Sydney docks-is real to this population. I hope that the people of New South Wales will think about these things tomorrow when they go to the polls, because they surely will have an opportunity then to say to the Labor Party exactly what they think about the way they have been let down. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(3.32) —I would like to join in this debate. I have been thunderstruck today to hear all the problems we have on our waterfront, and I hope that the people of Australia who have been listening to this debate have also been thunderstruck. The malpractices occurring on our waterfronts, and particularly in Sydney, have been costing us literally billions of dollars a year. This fact has been stressed today, and I am pleased to discuss it in light of the New South Wales State election tomorrow. I hope that people are well aware that due to what their local State Government and the Federal Government are doing, costs are increasing. I listened to the number of inquiries that have been suggested to try to rectify the situation, but that will not fix the waterside problems because the waterside workers have all the muscle. Redundancy is what they are on about. Listening to Senator Parer today talking about featherbedding, double handling and the time off, particularly at Newcastle, with Friday afternoons off and early knocking off times and the numbers of malpractices that are occurring on our waterfronts today, should make us feel ashamed to face the world. To hear that it is more expensive to transport materials from one Australian port to another than it is to ship them overseas, is horrifying. Senator Michael Baume —It takes longer to unpack a container here than to bring it from Europe. Senator SHEIL —That is right. I know that the Australian Customs Service has been trying to speed up and streamline its activities to get things through the wharves. But until we can fix our waterfront problems this country will not go ahead and prosper as it should. The oncosts that are being put on people because of this are shameful. Senator Michael Baume —It is worse in New South Wales than in any other State. Senator SHEIL —That is right, but the people in New South Wales have a chance to express their dissatisfaction tomorrow, and so they should. They should give their Government a clear indication that they want something positive done to fix this problem-something like what was done in Queensland with the problem concerning the electricity unions. Contrary to what the Labor Party senators mentioned in the debate this afternoon it has not resulted in problems in Queensland; in fact, it has solved problems. I think the rest of Australia could take a good look at what has happened in Queensland in facing up to union malpractices. Also it gives a good idea of how to commercialise government authorities because now we in Queensland can let contract work; the contract is carried out on an economic basis and when it is finished we are not left with a huge bureaucracy. That is the end of that contract, then we let another one. That is one of the easy ways in which privatisation could be started off in Australia. I have innumerable quotes here from newspapers. The first is from the Daily Telegraph on 19 February which refers to the New South Wales State Transport Minister, Terry Sheahan, who said: . . . the New South Wales Cargo Facilitation Committee- That is another one of these bodies with very nice names-- Senator Michael Baume —They are the ones which tell the lies. Senator SHEIL —Quite right. The quote continues: -which represents unions, importers and the Government-is investigating the delays as a matter of urgency. Mr Sheahan said that what was needed was `a little less investigation and a lot more action'. He is dead right there! There was a call on 21 January to curb the wharf unions again in New South Wales, particularly in Sydney. I shall read a little quote from the New South Wales Waterside Workers Secretary who said: `If you wander down to Darling Harbour, you'll see lots of commercial berths filled by tall ships. `The Government should be spending money on making the ports more efficient, rather than on circuses like that.' Then there was a media release by Senator Fred Chaney about the crisis on the Sydney waterfront. He wondered about the lethargy shown by the waterside workers on the docks. In answer to a question in the Senate, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) said he was considering a police investigation into the waterfront. That is another one. I do not know what the police will do. Senator Stone —We had one of those. It was called the Costigan inquiry. Senator SHEIL —Yes, we had one of those. It was supposed to be into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia and it wound up on the bottom of the harbour. The union is going on just as merrily as before. We have an enormous backlog at our ports because of these activities. What is the good of the Australian Customs Service speeding up its operations when there is a backlog of containers and part containers at the ports. This is ruining the smaller businesses and some of the larger ones. At Sydney's four major unpacking terminals there is a backlog of months, not just weeks. Some of the smaller importers have had to be closed because of the backlog. The unions are forcing this backlog because they want to negotiate terms and conditions for more featherbedding in a crisis situation. Businesses are going broke and are likely to give in to anything. I see the waterfront as a Chicago-style muscle operation that is cruelling the pitch in Australia and I urge all honourable senators to support the Opposition's urgency motion today. I hope that the people of Australia-and particularly those of New South Wales-have woken up to the conniving between the Government and the unions which is really destroying our economy. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.39) —I rise to make a few brief comments upon this matter. I do so after having had the benefit recently of attending a conference in Newcastle of the H. R. Nicholls Society of which I have the honour to be President. At this conference a number of fascinating industrial relations questions were being discussed. The reason for the choice of Newcastle as the venue for that conference was that probably no single city in Australia has suffered more in recent times from the depredations of the trade union movement-or of the trade union bosses. Senator Michael Baume —Wollongong has. Senator STONE —I defer. Senator Michael Baume points to Wollongong and there is a powerful argument for that point of view. Let Wollongong and Newcastle contest the honour. They are both in New South Wales and both are supposedly in the charge of the New South Wales Labor Council, the body that runs New South Wales and the New South Wales Government. They are both there, so I am fairly neutral about the choice between the two. As I said, the choice of Newcastle for that conference was made because, in the view of its conveners, Newcastle had an eminent claim-I will not now say a pre-eminent claim out of deference to Senator Baume-to being the city in Australia which has had more destruction done to it by the actions of our trade union bosses than any other. But I have to say that although that is still the case the activities recently on the Sydney waterfront are bidding fair to put Sydney also up there to take the flag. We used to have a thing in this country-or in New South Wales, which is still part of Australia, despite the best efforts of the trade union movement and the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party-to prevent it being so called Wran's navy. That, as honourable senators will recall, was the body of ships all lined up outside the ports of Newcastle and Wollongong waiting for somebody to let them come into the ports to be loaded. Senator Michael Baume —It destroyed our export credibility. Senator STONE —It destroyed our export credibility in the process, as Senator Baume very sagely observes. Nowadays we have on the Sydney waterfront people who are called Unsworth's uglies. Senator MacGibbon —That is the better looking of them. Senator STONE —That is the better looking of them, as Senator MacGibbon quite rightly says. My credentials in this matter are obviously good. If I were a parochial Queenslander like Senator Jones, Senator Burns or Senator Reynolds-we have a whole battery of Queenslanders on the other side of the chamber, for a change-I would be welcoming this development. I would be welcoming the demise of the port of Sydney because nothing will so quickly kill off the commercial viability of a great sea port-which Sydney undoubtedly is-than activities of the kind we have been hearing about this afternoon on its waterfront. Of course if Sydney is to be killed off by activities of that kind, where will the trade go? It will go to other ports such as Brisbane and Melbourne-but I suspect more to Brisbane because Melbourne is not without its problems, too, as we are all well aware. I have been living in Queensland for the past 12 months and it is extraordinary that I cannot remember one strike during the whole of that time. There may have been one for 24 or 48 hours on the coalfields about some particular matter or other but apart from that I cannot remember a strike in Queensland during that time. I lived in Melbourne for 2 1/2 years before that and there was a strike every second week. If there was not one on the buses there was one on the trams, on the railways, in the ports or at the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. The activity going on in this area is a disgrace to Australia, a disgrace to the trade union movement and a disgrace to the Government. It has been pointed out by earlier speakers this afternoon that one of the difficulties in this exercise is finding out who is supposed to be responsible. I agree that there are some divisions of responsibility in this area and it is perfectly true that not only is the Commonwealth responsible but also the New South Wales Government must bear its more than full share of the blame. Nevertheless, the fact that it is hard, once again, to attribute final responsibility as between a Labor government in New South Wales and a Labor government in Canberra does not mean to say we should not attribute any responsibility at all to anyone, which seems to be the view coming from the Government, from the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Robert Ray), who spoke earlier in the debate, and from others on that side of the chamber. My belief is that the Government is very much to be condemned for the fact that this situation has been going on in Sydney for a very long time now and had it not been for the matter being raised by this side of the chamber we would never have heard about it in this place. The Government has been doing its best to keep quiet about it ever since these practices began. Meanwhile, business people in Sydney-particularly small business people, as I think Senator Sheil observed when he referred to part container loads-are going out of business. They simply cannot get their goods cleared through the ports. They have orders and contracts. They have made promises to their customers and their customers will go back to them when the orders that they are waiting on are three months late because the customers are also businessmen waiting to get on with their business of supplying their customers. It is a disgrace. Mr Unsworth made a big fellow of himself by invoking the emergency powers in New South Wales to deal with a matter which was going to affect very much the whole breadth of voters in New South Wales. But has he stirred a single finger on this matter? The problem affects only the business community in New South Wales and he does not care about the business community in New South Wales. He does not care about the small business people in New South Wales. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 3.45 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 109) Senator Boswell asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 November 1987: (1) Does the expression `another person' as used in paragraph (9) of section 160zh (9) of the Income Tax Assessment Act include `The Crown'. (2) For the purpose of the capital gains tax legislation, is the cost base of a new lease from the Crown which has been granted upon the expiry of a previous lease over the same (or substantially the same) area held by that lessee, the market value of that new lease as at the date of commencement of such a new lease. (3) Does section 160zu of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 operate so as to deem an acquisition by the lessee of a `fresh lease' (being a lease from the Crown for a term of 20 years) by virtue of the automatic extension granted by the Land Act Amendment Act passed by the Queensland Parliament on August 27, 1986 to be the acquisition of a new lease; if not, does any other section of this Act. (4) If the answer to (3) is `yes'; (a) when is the lessee deemed to have acquired the fresh lease (that is, is the acquisition deemed to have occurred upon the expiry of the original lease or on the passing of the relevant `extending' legislation); and (b) what is the cost base and indexed cost base to the lessee for his deemed acquisition of the `fresh lease' (that is, is it the market value of the fresh lease as at the date of the expiry of the original lease or is it the market value of the fresh lease (if any) as at the date of the passing of the relevant legislation). (5) If the lessee of a pastoral holding is deemed to have acquired the ``fresh lease'' created as a result of the automatic extension conferred by statute for a `nil' cost base, then is the whole of the proceeds of sale received on the disposal of the pastoral holding during the period of the 20 year extension subject to capital gains tax; if so, what action is being taken, either by amendment of legislation or issue of appropriate rulings, to ensure that assessments on this basis do not issue. (6) For the purpose of the capital gains tax legislation, what is the cost base to the lessee of a new lease from the Crown which was issued to that lessee in exchange for the agreed surrender by the lessee of a previous lease over the same (or substantially the same) area. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The honourable Senator is referred to my press release of 28 January 1988 in which I announced that the Government has decided to amend the capital gains tax provisions in relation to Crown leases. In particular, rollover relief is to apply on the renewal, extension or conversion of a Crown lease of land made since 19 September 1985 where the new or extended lease is over the same or substantially the same land. This will have the effect of preserving capital gains tax exempt status where the original Crown lease was acquired before 20 September 1985 and, in other cases, of ensuring that no capital gains tax liability arises until the lease is disposed of to a third party or is otherwise terminated. (Question No. 253) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Were the amounts of extra income, over and above pensions, which could be earned by Department of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Department pensioners, before income taxation became payable, as follows: (a) 1984-85; between $14 and $15 weekly (b) 1985-86; between $10 and $11 weekly (c) 1986-87; between $9 and $10 weekly (d) 1987-88; between $3 and $4 weekly. (2) What would be the annual cost to revenue of, for instance, increasing the pensioner taxation rebate from $250 to $350. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The cost to revenue of increasing the pensioner rebate from $250 to $350 in respect of the 1988-89 year of income is estimated to be $130 million. Senator Walsh —On 9 October 1987 (Hansard, page 936), Senator Coulter asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer concerning the tax deductibility of expenditure on tobacco advertising including, in particular, expenditure by the tobacco industry on an advertising campaign to prevent the enactment of legislation in Victoria to ban such advertising. The Treasurer has supplied me with the following additional information: The Commissioner of Taxation, who is responsible for the administration of the taxation laws, advises that costs related to the normal advertising of a company's products are deductible for income tax purposes under the general deduction provisions of the income tax law. Those provisions authorise the allowance of a deduction to a taxpayer for outgoings incurred in deriving assessable income or necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for that purpose, to the extent that they are not of a capital, private or domestic nature. The Commissioner does not accept that contributions by tobacco firms to an industry fund to be used to finance a campaign designed specifically against the Victorian Government proposals, would be deductible under those general provisions. Such contributions would relate to the preservation of the status quo rather than to the promotion of a company's products. The Courts have held that expenditure incurred in preserving the capital structure of a business is of a capital nature and thus not deductible.