Wednesday, 23 March 1988 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator D. J. Hamer) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. Your Petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not introduce timed calls in the absence of widespread community support. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Panizza (from 10 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 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 83 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 1985-86 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 Bjelke-Petersen (from 391 citizens), Burns (from 312 citizens) and Macklin (from 326 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: millions of dollars of taxpayers money is spent at each Federal election in Australia in the drafting, production and distribution of How-to-Vote cards which are unnecessary and pollutant and that this waste is not desirable or essential in assisting the electorate to vote informatively for their parliamentarians. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to introduce legislation which requires that the registered How-to-Vote cards of all political parties and candidates for political office must be placed under glass in every polling booth within obvious sight of all voters, thus making it unnecessary for How-to-Vote cards to be distributed at future federal elections. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. 2. Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium-137 and Caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. 3. Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X-ray, etc.) 4. Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 964 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 Childs (from 800 citizens), Durack (from 16 citizens) and Gareth Evans (from 710 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: concerns in relation to young peoples' access to the Commonwealth Young Homeless Allowance. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: consider the report prepared by the Young Homeless Allowance Reform Group and request that the implementation and legislation be reviewed in order to ensure that young people in genuine need receive the allowance without undue delay. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Patterson (from 78 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that; they are concerned that the valuable social function of the A.B.C. as a broadcaster independent of censorship, editorial bias or reliance on other than public funding should be threatened. Your petitioners therefore ask Parliament to disallow the passage of any legislation that would render the A.B.C. subject to such forces and in particular resist any change to the present principle of the A.B.C. receiving sufficient public funding to enable it to carry out its Charter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 82 citizens). Petitions received. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —On behalf of Senator Chaney, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the Senate- notes the reasons given by Senator the Hon. Nick Bolkus, Minister for Consumer Affairs, for being absent from the Senate on Friday, 18 March, and is of the opinion that- (a) in the absence of some over-riding ministerial or personal obligation it is the duty of Senate Ministers to give priority to meeting their obligations to the Senate; (b) the reasons given by Senator Bolkus do not constitute an adequate reason for absence; and calls on the Leader of the Government in the Senate to ensure that Senate Ministers attend the Senate as required to perform Senate duties, including attendance at Question Time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) records its gratitude for the meritorious service rendered over a period of seven years by the former Secretary of Defense of the United States, Caspar Weinberger; (b) commends his actions for the furtherance of the peace and security of the world and for his defence of the interests of Western democracies; and (c) notes with approval his great interest in and support for the affairs of the Pacific nations, particularly Australia. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the request of the Victorian group Pensioners for Peace that their thanks be conveyed to all those in who keep up the pressure on the Government to cease the mining and export of uranium; and (b) further notes the invitation conveyed by the Pensioners for Peace to all those concerned for peace and disarmament to join them in peace marches and rallies on Palm Sunday, 27 March 1988, which in Victoria begins in the Treasury Gardens at 1 p.m. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the repeal of the Australian Rifle Club Regulations (Repeal) as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 17 and made under the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) applauds the success the New South Wales National Party achieved in the 1988 State election, with an increased vote in rural areas for the Party; (b) notes the obvious benefits of having a coalition between the National and Liberal parties; (c) notes that the result highlights clearly how out of touch the New South Wales Labor Party has become with its grass root support level; (d) notes that this is also reflected in the performance of the Labor Party at the Federal level, where the Party has lost direction, lost its support base and is lurching from one crisis to another on a daily basis; and (e) warns the Federal Labor Government that the unpopularity in the community towards it and its policies is likely to continue until the Government adopts the policies advocated by the Opposition which will result in the increased productivity which is required if living standards are to be raised. Senator PARER(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates Brisbane Lord Mayor, Sallyanne Atkinson, and her Liberal team on a fine win in the local council elections on Saturday, 19 March 1988, in which Alderman Atkinson increased her vote by 11 per cent, reflecting the Australia-wide rejection of the failed policies of the Australian Labor Party; and (b) calls on the Hawke Government to urgently reassess its policies and, in particular, to make a genuine commitment to work for the speedy removal of outdated and restrictive work practices which constitute a major barrier to Australia becoming a more productive and prosperous society. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the West Australian Sheffield Shield Cricket Team on their magnificent win, taking out the Shield honours in Perth on Tuesday, 22 March 1988; and (b) notes that Western Australia's victory is their 11th such victory in 41 years of Shield cricket and their 9th in the past 17 years. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the massive swings against the Australian Labor Party in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly seats of Balga and Ascot at the by-elections on 19 March 1988; (b) further notes that these results, and the verdict of electors in other States on 18 March 1988, confirm the abandonment of Labor by many of its traditional supporters; and (c) condemns the Hawke Government, whose economic policies have produced a severe decline in Australian living standards, particularly for families with dependent children. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Labor Government for its failed economic management as reflected in falling living standards and excessive taxation; (b) expresses its concern that any additional taxation of superannuation would considerably worsen living standards and tax levels; (c) congratulates Judy Fuller and the South Australian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia for the effective way in which they have communicated these key issues to the people of Port Adelaide; and (d) calls on the voters in Port Adelaide to vote for Judy Fuller at the by-election this Saturday, 26 March as the only effective means of communicating to the Federal Labor Government their dissatisfaction with its performance. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the remarks by defeated New South Wales Premier Mr Barrie Unsworth, that there is a disenchantment with the Labor Party around Australia and that the Federal Leadership had lost touch with traditional Labor values, as evidenced by Mr Hawke and other Labor leaders `dressed in black ties, smoking cigars and hobnobbing with the representatives of capitalism'; by defeated Minister for Housing, Mr Frank Walker blaming the Federal Government for the loss and saying, `quite frankly, at the moment I don't think he is a Labor man'; and by the former Minister for Environment, Mr Carr criticising Mr Hawke and other senior Ministers for high living at a time when the Federal Government has been imposing economic restraint; (b) further notes the remarks by Senator Richardson that the Labor Party `has forgotten what the common people are all about; we don't understand them any more'; and (c) commends the people of New South Wales for removing from office the Unsworth Government and replacing it with a Liberal-National Coalition that is pledged to govern in the best interests of all the people of New South Wales. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates Premier elect Nick Greiner and the New South Wales Liberal Party and its coalition partner, the New South Wales National Party, on their landslide election victory last Saturday; (b) applauds the people of the west of Sydney on their historic rejection through the ballot box of years of neglect by successive Labor governments; (c) particularly notes with pleasure the winning of the new seat of Minchinbury, in Sydney's west, by Mrs Anne Cohen, for whom Senator Bishop had the honour of being campaign patron; (d) notes that the huge swings in the election resulted from the recognition by the electorate of the arrogance and loss of touch with the people that permeates the ALP at both State and Federal levels; and (e) notes the demise of the mythology that has surrounded the right wing ALP machine in New South Wales which depicted such machine as infallible. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates Mrs Jan Wade, the new member for Kew in the Victorian Legislative Assembly; and (b) notes that Premier Cain claimed that the by-election was a referendum on gun control laws and calls on the Hawke Government to take into account the decision of the electors of Kew when formulating its policy on firearm control. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the great concern of Australia's 836 local authorities at the possible implementation of the Cameron report on road funding; (b) condemns the Government for reneging on its road funding commitments over the past three years; and (c) calls on the Government to maintain the total current real levels of expenditure on roads and to maintain road funding as a special purpose grant not to be absorbed into the financial assistance grants paid to the State or local governments. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognises small business as the basis of a free enterprise system and the main contributor to Australia's wealth and employment and condemns moves by this socialist Government in forming budgetary and other policies that form a corporate State strategy led by big government, big business and super unions; (b) calls on the Federal Government to recognise in its business tax review the unique financing requirements, employment creation role and market structure aspects of small business compared to those of large public corporations; (c) calls on the Federal Government to implement policy in three areas of tax that would directly benefit small and owner-operated businesses: (i) First, to extend the required date for payment of sales tax by 30 days to the 21st of the second month following the sales in order that the sales tax be paid after most payments by debtors have been received; (ii) Second, that the maximum superannuation tax deduction allowed for self-employed small business persons be increased from the present $1,500 to a level being equal to the deductions allowed for a company-sponsored superannuation scheme; and (iii) Third, that the capital gains tax on small business be abolished, noting that the tax on goodwill is a tax on the skill and hard work of the proprietor, hence the capital gains tax is a disincentive to both established and new small businesses; and (d) rejects the Federal Government's attempt to establish an Australian Securities Commission that would have sole authority with respect to all aspects of corporate activity, noting that this centralist approach does not recognise the differences that exist in market conditions between small business in different States. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the high regard in which the Director of the Affirmative Action Agency, Valerie Pratt, is held by many companies which have had dealings with her, and, in particular, her understanding that effective equal employment opportunity will be more efficiently introduced by building on the spirit of cooperation shared in the pilot program, rather than by a heavy-handed reliance on the naked terms of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity) Act 1986; and (b) believes it is important within the terms of the legislation to appreciate the varying capacity of companies to implement effective EEO as a consequence of the different `corporate cultures' generated by varying historical, geographical and industry related influences. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the Western Australian Cricket Association and its captain, Graeme Wood, on again winning the Sheffield Shield being the eleventh win in 41 years, and the tenth in 21 years; (b) congratulates the Association's President, Mr Bernie Prindiville, the Chairman of the Executive Committee, Mr Bert Rigg, and the Chief Executive, Dr Tom Ivankovich, for their foresight in putting forward policies that not only have put Western Australia on top of the Shield competition, but have developed a cricket ground second to none in Australia; (c) notes that the WACA has concentrated on developing local young talent, rather than high priced imported cricketers; and (d) notes with concern the lack of performance of the more populous States and hopes that such a situation will not last long so Australia can once again regain its rightful position on the top of world cricket. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the remarks by defeated New South Wales Labor Education Minister, Mr Rod Cavalier, that one reason for his Government's defeat on Saturday, 18 March 1988 was that `the right wing thugs of the Labor Party machine created the illegitimacy that hung over the Premiership of Barrie Unsworth'; (b) notes with concern the continued dominance by what Mr Cavalier describes as `New South Wales right wing thugs' over the Hawke Labor Government; and (c) congratulates the Greiner-Murray Liberal-National coalition in New South Wales for restoring decency and integrity to government in New South Wales. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the preoccupation of the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, with defence equipment at the expense of our defence personnel, with the resulting imbalance in the Defence budget; (b) notes the extraordinary cost burden to the nation of recruiting, selecting and training replacements for those personnel who have left the Defence Force; and (c) calls on the Hawke Government to urgently implement measures which will keep our experienced defence professionals in the Australian Defence Force. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Mr Deputy President, I am relieved to be able to advise the Senate that the matters I wish to raise in notices this morning have nothing to do with cricket, football or elections anywhere in Australia. I give notice that, six sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Australian National Railways By-laws, being General By-laws Amendment No. 1 dated 27 November 1987 and made under the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is examining aspects of these by-laws concerning the need for strict liability offences and the consequence of the absence of a penalty for a particular offence. This is merely a protective notice to preserve our freedom of action while we await correspondence from the Commission. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109a, I give notice that immediately after Question Time today I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of the Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Committee was concerned about the effects in this legislation of placing on the defendant a burden to adduce evidence that the defendant did not know that a person accepting a bet was a bookmaker. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee has, on balance, accepted the view of the Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, that in this case, because of the law enforcement problems arising, the placing of this evidential burden is necessary and not unduly restrictive of a defendant's rights. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Committee's brief correspondence and the Minister's reply. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- The Hon. John Brown, M.P. Minister for Arts, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 19 November 1987 the Committee considered the Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987 (being A.C.T. Ordinance No. 61 of 1987 tabled in the Senate on 17 November 1987). The Committee has some concerns about sections 17b, 17c and 17d which place evidential burdens on defendants. As is the case with strict liability offences, the Committee's practice is to seek and carefully examine the justifications for the inclusion of such provisions. Subsection 17b (1) of the Ordinance provides that a person shall not, except at a race meeting, knowingly place a bet with a person who, in accepting that bet is acting as a bookmaker. Subsection 17b (2) goes on to provide that: In a prosecution under subsection (1) in respect of a bet, the accused shall be taken to have known that the person with whom the bet was placed was, in accepting the bet acting as a bookmaker unless: (a) the accused adduces evidence to the contrary; and (b) that evidence is not rebutted by the prosecution. Subsection 17c (1) provides that a person shall not knowingly have in his or her custody an instrument of betting (i.e. anything used designed or adapted for betting) for a purpose related to unlawful betting. Once again subsection (2) provides that the accused shall be taken to have had the instrument in his or her custody for a purpose related to unlawful betting unless contrary evidence is adduced and not rebutted by the prosecution. Section 17d concerning instruments of gaming is in similar form. Thus, in each case, although the requirement on the prosecution to prove knowledge in the usual way is initially provided for, that obligation is removed by the respective subsections (2). The Committee, in approaching the issue of reversals of onus, is guided by the recommendations of the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings (P.P. No. 319/1982). That Committee set out certain tests as to when evidential burdens should be imposed on defendants. The Committee accepts that these tests are not hard and fast rules. They perhaps better represent ideals which might yield to the exigencies of real prosecution problems in significant areas of the criminal law. In such circumstances, after careful weighing of the conflicting interests of the individual defendant against those of the general community, a justifiable decision may reasonably be taken to depart from the golden thread. However, the Committee will not usually accept reversals of the evidentiary onus of proof in criminal proceedings arising under delegated legislation unless adoption of this course is clearly justified. In this instance the Committee would appreciate your comments on the need for the reversed onus in each of these provisions. In expressing some concern about this the Committee particularly has in mind the fact that an express requirement is imposed on the defendant to ``adduce'' evidence. This appears to suggest that a defendant must be put to the test by actually calling evidence rather than by relying on evidence obtained from examination or cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses. A provision which refers instead to there being ``evidence to the contrary'' might be preferable. The Committee would welcome your comments and advice on the various aspects of the issue raised by this letter. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman Senator Bob Collins Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA, ACT 2600 Dear Senator Collins I refer to your letter of 27 November 1987 to the previous Minister the Honourable John Brown MP concerning the Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987. The Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987 was introduced to combat increasing illegal gambling in the ACT by amending the Unlawful Games Ordinance 1984, the Games Wagers and Betting-houses Act 1902 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Territory and the Gaming and Betting Act 1906 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Territory. The Committee has expressed concern about what it sees as a reversal of onus in relation to sections 17b, 17c and 17d of the Gaming and Betting Act 1906 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Territory. Section 17b makes it an offence to knowingly place a bet with a person who in accepting the bet would be acting as a bookmaker. Subsection 17b (2) provides that the accused shall be taken to have known that the person with whom the bet was placed was, in accepting the bet, acting as a bookmaker unless the accused adduces evidence to the contrary and that evidence is not rebutted by the prosecution. Section 17c deals with a person having in his or her custody an instrument of betting and section 17d deals with custody of an instrument of gaming. Both sections 17c and 17d have subsections that are couched in terms similar to subsection 17b (2). At the outset I should point out that the Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987 was introduced by the previous Minister the Honourable John Brown MP as a direct result of the establishment in the ACT of illegal casinos by interstate operators following a number of failed prosecutions under ineffective ACT laws. Further, the crackdown in State jurisdictions on this type of activity had led operators to look elsewhere to continue their operations. It is without question that the ACT must have legislation that is not only comparable with State legislation but also legislation that makes it clear that any person who engages in illegal gambling in the ACT risks apprehension and prosecution. You state in your letter that the Committee is guided by the recommendations set out in the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings (P.P. No. 319/1982). That Committee recommended that only the evidentiary burden may be reversed in certain circumstances. Although the question of reversing the persuasive burden of proof does not arise in the context of the Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987, I would point out that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in its discussion of the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 (10th Report, 3 June 1987) has accepted that there are circumstances in which the persuasive burden of proof may be reversed in criminal proceedings. It also sets out tests as to when the persuasive burden should be imposed on defendants. That is, where the matters to be raised by way of defence by the accused are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused and it would be extremely difficult and costly for the prosecution to be required to negative the defence. Your Committee expressed concern that section 17b, 17c and 17d of the Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987 removed the obligation on the prosecution to prove knowledge in relation to offences in those sections. However, those provisions do not remove the need to establish knowledge of the commission of the offence; the reversal of onus only operates with respect to one of the elements of the offence. For example, in respect of a charge under section 17b, the prosecution must establish that a bet was placed with a person acting as a bookmaker, at a place other than a race meeting. Whether the defendant knew that the person accepting the bet was acting as a bookmaker is a fact peculiarly in the knowledge of the defendant, and it would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence as to the state of knowledge of the defendant. Similarly, for offences against section 17c or 17d, it would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant whether or not he or she had the instrument of betting or instrument of gaming for a purpose related to unlawful betting or gaming. In these circumstances it would be easier for the defendant to adduce evidence that the purpose was not for unlawful gaming and betting than for the prosecution to lead evidence that there was a purpose of unlawful gaming or betting. The Committee also commented that the use of the term ``adduce'' in the relevant sections suggests that the accused must be put to the test by actually calling evidence. The word `adduce' is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as meaning `to cite as proof or instance' and in the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning `to bring forward or allege, to bring forward (verbally) for consideration, to cite, to allege'. There would seem to be no judicial statements that suggest the word has a different meaning in legislation than it does in ordinary usage. I have received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that evidence lead by the accused in examination in chief or elicited from Crown witnesses during cross-examination would be evidence adduced by the accused. Evidence emerging through the tendering of written documents by the Crown or from Crown witnesses during examination in chief would be tested by the accused during cross-examination and any such evidence obtained from cross-examination would be evidence adduced. I should add that sections 17b, 17c and 17d were modelled on section 42ea of the Air Pollution Ordinance 1984. The nature of illegal gambling with its likely attendant activities of prostitution, drugs and violence, demands that such assistance as may be necessary in proving offences-consistent with preserving the legitimate rights of the accused-should be given. I consider that the amending legislation does that. The legislation is the result of extensive discussions between officers of my Department, the Australian Federal Police, the Attorney-General's Department and the Director of Public Prosecutions and is designed to respond to the growing community concern about illegal gambling. I hope this information is of assistance to the Committee. Yours sincerely GARY PUNCH Senator COLLINS —For the convenience of the Senate, I seek leave now to move to postpone notice of motion No. 1 to a later hour. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I move: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Collins, be postponed to a later hour. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That Regulation 3 of the Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 284 and made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I hope that honourable senators have noted that I removed the usual word `short' from that request so that later I am not accused of misleading the Senate. I have given notice that tomorrow I will move that regulation 3 in the Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendments)) Regulations be disallowed. When I move it, I hope the Senate will accept this motion as a formal motion. The Committee, on a bipartisan basis and for reasons of principle, has agreed to take this extremely unusual, if not unique, course of action. The Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, has assured the Committee that the Government will not oppose the Committee's motion of disallowance. Mr Deputy President, the background to this matter is relatively straightforward. In December last year certain freedom of information regulations were made, one of which removed the Australian Bicentennial Authority from the schedule of bodies to which the Freedom of Information Act applied. As honourable senators will know, this matter has been the subject of political comment and criticism outside the chamber. However, the Committee is not concerned with, nor is it acting in response to, any political issue arising from this regulation. On 4 January this year the Committee's own legal adviser, Professor Dennis Pearce, now the Commonwealth Ombudsman, alerted the Committee to the possibility that the regulation infringed the Committee's bipartisan scrutiny principles concerning personal rights and liberties. The Committee has corresponded with the Attorney-General about the effects of the regulation and has concluded that it should be disallowed. Regulation 3 has the effect of repealing part of the schedule which is part of the earlier regulation that prescribed the Authority as a body made subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Under the Acts Interpretation Act disallowance of a regulation that repeals a part of an earlier regulation will have the effect of reviving that repealed part as if it had never been repealed. It is precisely this return to the status quo that the Committee, as a matter of principle, seeks to achieve at the earliest possible opportunity with the cooperation of the Senate and with the assurance of the Attorney-General that the motion will not be opposed. I will shortly seek leave to table the Committee's correspondence on this matter so that interested senators can apprise themselves of the facts before tomorrow. However, I wish briefly to explain the central issue of principle as the Committee understands it. In May 1986 the Attorney-General's Department gave the Auditor-General advice that the Audit Act did not apply to the Australian Bicentennial Authority because the Authority could not be regarded as `a company over which the Commonwealth is in a position to exercise control'. That was the legal test to be satisfied before the Audit Act could apply. A few weeks later the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet asked the Attorney-General's Department whether the same reasoning applied to the question whether the Australian Bicentennial Authority was a company subject to Commonwealth control for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. I interpose here that the Australian Bicentennial Authority is a company limited by guarantee and the Freedom of Information Act applies to a company only if the Commonwealth Government is in a position to exercise `control' over it and it is a body prescribed by the regulations. In November 1986 the Attorney-General's Department advised that the same reasoning was indeed relevant and therefore the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the Authority. In May 1987 a further opinion was sent to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet confirming this advice. Late last year, in the light of these opinions and as part of a larger tidying up exercise, freedom of information regulations were made which, among other things, omitted the Authority from the schedule listing the prescribed bodies subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The kernel of the legal opinions produced by the Attorney-General's Department was that although the Commonwealth Government made certain appointments to the board of the Authority, and although it had other general powers of direction, it was not in a position to `control' the general meeting of the members of the company and legal precedents had held that nothing less than this is what `control'-that is, legal control-amounts to. The Committee does not necessarily suggest simply that that legal opinion was or is wrong. The Committee has taken the view that the question whether the Freedom of Information Act is, as a matter of law, capable of applying to the Australian Bicentennial Authority is a very complex issue which only the courts could finally determine. The Committee considers that many factors combine to cloud and obscure the clarity of this entire issue. The Freedom of Information Act has long been thought to apply to the Authority. Indeed, between 1982 and 1986 the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Attorney- General's Department, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Australian Bicentennial Authority itself have all assumed that the Act applied to the Authority. The Australian Bicentennial Authority Act gives the Commonwealth a very wide range of very large powers over policy directions and finances of the Authority. None of the leading cases which have discussed the concept of control of a company has dealt with the kind of hybrid company that the Authority is by virtue of the statutory powers which to some degree the Government can exercise legally to regulate and control its activities. None of these points was addressed to the Committee's satisfaction in the advisings given by the Attorney-General's Department. For all these reasons, the Committee was reluctant to accept that the opinions about the non-applicability of the Freedom of Information Act were definitive and unassailable. Furthermore, there have been reports in the Press that, even within the Attorney-General's Department itself, doubts were entertained at a high level about the uncertainty of the state of law on this matter. What has happened, though, is that regulation 3, by repealing the earlier references to the Authority, has placed it absolutely beyond doubt that the Freedom of Information Act does not now apply. Although the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has foreshadowed a Bill to remedy this situation, and although the Authority itself has undertaken to respond to freedom of information requests as if it is legally bound to do so, the Committee has taken the view that it is wrong in principle for delegated legislation to be used to place beyond doubt that important rights do not exist. Prior to regulation 3, there was a strong possibility that freedom of information rights did exist as a matter of law and these could and would have been protected, if necessary, by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court of Australia or the High Court of Australia. However, the latest regulations, by indisputably removing such rights that might have existed, have, in effect, removed the right of the courts to decide whether they did exist. In place of that judicial right is substituted the opinion of the Attorney-General's Department that under the present law no such right can exist in this instance. Although the Authority's undertaking, given through the Prime Minister, to respond to freedom of information requests is commendable, and although the remedial Bill is on its way, the Committee's approach to such situations has always been that the rights, where they exist, are best protected by good laws and strong courts rather than by administrative promises, no matter how certain it is that these promises will be acted upon. The Committee cannot foresee the future. We cannot guarantee the future course of events regarding the proposed Bill. We cannot underwrite what I am sure are the undoubted bona fides of the Authority. We simply cannot say that, regardless of the nature of any particular freedom of information request submitted to it for an essentially voluntary response, the Authority will unfailingly respond in the way the law would otherwise oblige it to respond. It probably will, but the Committee cannot give such a guarantee, and principle requires that the best possible guarantee should be given. That guarantee is the guarantee of the law as interpreted and applied by the courts. All the dictates of principled action in the cause of preserving personal rights point to the desirability of disallowing regulation 3 in order to restore the status quo until the Prime Minister's remedial legislation is in place, as I am certain it very soon will be. Honourable senators will have an opportunity to debate in full whatever aspects of this matter they wish to debate in a political context when that legislation is before the Senate. I stress that to explain why, in order to preserve the principles upon which this Committee operates, I would like this matter to be treated tomorrow as a formal motion. There will be ample opportunity to debate this issue fully when the Bill is before the Senate. I would ask honourable senators to give serious consideration to this statement, to the correspondence that I will table and to the Committee's traditional bipartisan and non-political role when tomorrow I move that the motion to disallow regulation 3 be passed as a formal motion. The issue of principle is clear. Of course, because it must have confidence in its own legal opinions, the Government will not oppose the motion, believing that, as a matter of law, the Freedom of Information Act cannot apply to the Australian Bicentennial Authority, regardless of the fate of regulation 3. That is the Government's prerogative. The Committee is simply less confident and we are compelled to act on the basis of principles that have guided the Committee's actions in difficult decisions for over 56 years. The Committee is anxious, in a bipartisan spirit, to remain above the politics of this situation. A remedial Bill will, hopefully, very soon make this statement and tomorrow's disallowance merely a matter of history. But until then, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee must act in defence of the principle that the right to freedom of information about the affairs of the Authority should be a legal and enforceable right as far as the law as applied by the courts will allow. That was the situation until regulation 3 was made. Disallowance will return us to that preferable situation while we wait for the legislation. The early passage of the remedial Bill will produce the ideal, long-term solution to any remaining legal doubts in this matter. I seek leave to table the Committee's correspondence and a copy of this statement for the information of honourable senators. Leave granted. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales) —by leave-I wish to speak in my capacity as Deputy Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. As honourable senators know, the Committee is a bipartisan committee. We engage in a strictly technical scrutiny of delegated legislation to protect the rights of individuals, and the proprieties of parliamentary government, from erosion by Executive law-making. We do not debate the merits of regulations. Members of the Committee, by long established tradition, do not use the Committee for the purpose of political point-scoring while acting for or on behalf of the Committee. We have examined these freedom of information (FOI) regulations which removed the Australian Bicentennial Authority from the schedule of bodies subject to the Freedom of Information Act. We have examined the Attorney-General's legal opinions which suggest that the Commonwealth does not have a sufficient degree of power over the Authority to make it a body subject to Commonwealth control. That control is the legal test for the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act. The Committee doubts however that in all the circumstances, if the Authority's name had been left in the schedule, a court would have decided that the FOI Act did not apply to the body. The matter is not beyond doubt because under the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act the Commonwealth Government has a number of quite strategic and direct statutory powers over the Authority. It is open to argument that the Attorney-General's Department has not given these statutory powers their proper weight in determining the legal meaning of the word `control' in the context of this particular legislation. In a situation of such doubt, the Committee prefers, as a matter of principle, to leave it up to the courts to determine, if necessary, whether the Freedom of Information Act applies to the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Regulation 3 removes from the courts any right to decide whether the Act applies because it expressly and unequivocally removes the Authority from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Previously it was thought that individuals had a clear, justifiable, right to freedom of information regarding the Authority. Doubts were raised about that proposition. Now by virtue of the regulation there are no legal rights whatsoever. Disallowance of regulation 3 will revive the previous regulation and restore the status quo pending the passage of a Bill to place the entire matter beyond doubt by providing that the FOI Act does unquestionably apply. The Committee has acted in good faith and in a non-political way, which is as it should be. However, nothing I have said precludes a political scrutiny of this matter by this chamber-at this time or when the remedial Bill is introduced. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I congratulate all members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on the action they have taken. Clearly, this Committee is living up to the highest traditions established many years ago in its bipartisan approach and, as its Chairman and Deputy Chairman have said, its non-political role. I am sure that former Senators Wood and Wright on our side of politics and former Senator Cavanagh on the Labor side would be delighted if they could hear the words-and indeed they may well have done so-expressed here today by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Committee. As a former Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Committee, I recognise the courageous action of the Chairman and Government senators. It is not easy to approach one's executive with a bipartisan, non-political approach to a matter in which one believes the rights of the citizen may be being interfered with. That is especially difficult for members of the Australian Labor Party because of its strict Caucus rules. This courageous action by Government senators demonstrates that this Committee is probably the most powerful Committee of this Parliament-and, I suspect, of any legislative chamber in the world-in protecting the rights of all Australians. I thank the Committee for its actions. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-As a member of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I wish to express my total support for the view stated on this matter both by its Chairman, Senator Collins, and its Deputy Chairman, Senator Bishop. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —On behalf of Senator Giles, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will move: (1) That, for the purpose of the inquiry and report by the Committee of Privileges on the circulation and submission of petitions to the Senate: (a) the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records and to move from place to place, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives; and (b) a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. A Say, A Choice, A Fair Go-The Government's National Agenda for Women-Report. 2. Agreement Between the Commonwealth of Australia and K.K.F.C. Proprietary Limited-dated 28 January 1988-section 9b of the Fisheries Act 1952. 3. National Health and Medical Research Council-report of the 102nd session-Canberra, November 1986-clause 19 of the Order-in-Council which constitutes the National Health and Medical Research Council. 4. National Library of Australia-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 27 of the National Library of Australia Act 1960. 5. Transport Containers-Industries Assistance Commission Report. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.38) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- LAYING CHICKEN LEVY BILL 1988 This is one of two Bills which are being introduced to establish standby research levy arrangements for the egg industry. The intention to do so was foreshadowed last year in the second reading speech on the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill 1987. Under current arrangements for research sponsored by the egg industry with the aid of matching Commonwealth grants, egg producers contribute towards research through a levy imposed on their operative hen quota issued under State or Territory law. While these arrangements are the least costly way of raising the funds required, they depend on State hen quota systems remaining in operation. Abolition of hen quotas by any State will render the existing levy inoperable. As a precaution against such an eventuality, it is necessary to provide an alternative mechanism for securing producer contributions to research that could be brought into operation at short notice. The mechanism agreed on with industry is a levy on chickens hatched for egg production. A similar levy on chickens hatched for meat production provides industry contributions to the chicken meat research scheme. Against that background, I now turn to the provisions of the Bill before the Senate. Under the Bill, a levy is to be imposed on laying chickens hatched after the date on which the levy is brought into operation. The levy will be payable by the proprietor of the hatchery. Laying chickens are defined as female chickens that are to be raised for egg production. In accordance with the wishes of the industry, it is provided that the standby levy will be brought into operation on a date to be set by proclamation, which is to be not earlier than recommended by the Australian Council of Egg Producers. Where a hatchery produces less than 1,000 laying chickens in a financial year levy will not be payable. Similarly laying chickens which are destroyed or die within 48 hours of being hatched are also exempt from levy. A maximum levy rate of 10 cents per chicken is provided for in the Bill, with the operative level to be set by regulation after considering recommendations from the Australian Council of Egg Producers. The level set cannot exceed the recommended rate. The maximum rate of 10 cents per laying chicken is the same as the maximum rate per quota hen which is specified in the hen quota levy legislation. Under that legislation, the current operative rate is 3.25c per quota hen. The operative rate for the laying chicken levy would be fixed in the light of advice by the industry at the time, after consideration of research requirements. Arrangements for the collection of the proposed levy have been provided for in a separate Bill which I will presently place before the Senate. The sole purpose of the standby levy arrangements is to ensure that an alternative levy mechanism is ready for use if and when needed, so that the ongoing egg research program is not deprived of funding for a prolonged period. Accordingly, no new financial commitments for the Commonwealth or industry are involved, although there would be some increase in collection costs to government and clerical costs for industry. I present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable senators. LAYING CHICKEN LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1988 The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery for the collection of the levy which may need to be imposed under the Laying Chicken Levy Bill, if the occasion arises, in place of the existing levy for egg research. As mentioned in the second reading speech on the Laying Chicken Levy Bill, similar levy arrangements exist for meat chicken research funding. In the main, levy payers will be the same in both cases and provisions of this Bill are consistent with the provisions of the Meat Chicken Levy Collection Act 1969. Over the years, the industry has developed highly specialised strains of poultry for meat and egg production respectively. The two types of bird are quite distinct in their characteristics, and different husbandry practices are employed in their raising from the point of hatching. It is intended that chickens of the meat strain be levied under the meat chicken levy and those of the egg strain be levied under the laying chicken levy. Like the meat chicken levy, the laying chicken levy is to be collected by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy on chickens hatched during a month, with two months being allowed for payment. Apart from this, the Bill contains administrative arrangements of a kind needed in all levy legislation. Where appropriate, the arrangements have been harmonised with industry practice. Clause 19 of the Bill is a deeming provision enabling the proceeds of the laying chicken levy to be channelled into the Poultry Research Trust Fund, which is the present repository of funds for egg research. The provision is necessary because the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 requires that where a new research levy is introduced, a Research Council and a Trust Fund be established. This is not desired in the present case, as a new levy is merely to replace an old one, and it is intended to make use of the existing Poultry Research Council and Trust Fund. The deeming provision makes that possible. Since the levy on laying chickens would be paid monthly rather than twice a year as is the case with the existing hen quota levy, its introduction would bring some increases in clerical costs for both industry and the Commonwealth. However, in many cases the levy would be paid by those already paying meat chicken levy, i.e. hatchery owners producing both types of chickens, and increased administrative costs to them should be minimal because of synchronised payments and use of data already kept. Similarly collection costs to the Government would rise only to a moderate extent. I present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)-At the request of honourable senators, I seek leave to move a motion relating to the discharge of General Business Orders of the Day from the Notice Paper. Leave granted Senator Lewis —Notice of motion No. 52, which is standing in my name, is one of the notices which it is intended to withdraw. I do not wish notice of motion No. 52 to be withdrawn; I wish it to remain on the Notice Paper. Could that notice of motion, by leave, be withdrawn from Senator Richardson's motion? Leave granted. Senator RICHARDSON —I move: That General Business, Orders of the Day Nos 3, 5 to 8, 16, 17, 24 to 31, 33, 35, 37 to 39, 42 to 46, and 48 to 51, be discharged from the Notice Paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)-On behalf of honourable senators, I withdraw General Business Notices of Motion Nos 2, 15, 16, 18 to 21, 23 to 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 to 41, 43 to 45, 47, 50, and 55 to 59. Senator JONES(Queensland)(10.41) —On behalf of Senator Aulich, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training: Education for active citizenship in Australian schools and youth organisations. I seek leave to incorporate a short statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- In pursuing this inquiry, the Committee will take the view that a major aim of education for active citizenship should be to provide students with: (i) an understanding of how government works (at the Commonwealth, State and local level), (ii) an appreciation of the role of the community groups and non-government organisations, and (iii) motivation to be active citizens. The Committee will consider: (1) available evidence concerning the degree of understanding of Australia's political processes among young people in the Australian community. (2) current programs and other provisions made in Australian primary and secondary schools, and in youth organisations, for education for active citizenship. (3) the adequacy of teacher education programs for this purpose. (4) the availability and suitability of teaching resource materials. (5) any other relevant matters. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Hill had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all 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''. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(10.41) —I rise to speak on the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, which is a Bill to amend the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and for related purposes. The main thrust of this Bill is that it clarifies and strengthens the provisions of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. Under the World Heritage Convention, to which Australia is a signatory, an area needs to fulfil one or more of the following four criteria in order to be placed on the World Heritage List: (i) be an outstanding example representing the major stages of the earth's evolutionary history; or (ii) be an outstanding example representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man's interaction with his natural environment; as distinct from the periods of the earth's development, this focuses upon ongoing processes in the development of communities, of plants and animals, landforms and marine areas and freshwater bodies; or (iii) contain superlative natural phenomena, formations or features, for instance, outstanding examples of the most important ecosystems, areas of exceptional natural beauty, or exceptional combinations of natural and cultural elements; or (iv) contain the most important and significant natural habitats where there threatened species of animals or plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation still survive. Australia already has seven areas on the World Heritage List. These areas are: the Great Barrier Reef, the Lord Howe Island group, Kakadu National Park, the Willandra Lakes region of New South Wales, Uluru National Park-that is, Ayers Rock and Mount Olga-western Tasmania's wilderness national parks and the Australian east coast temperate and sub-tropic rainforest parks. However, it is a particular principle of the Convention that it is not intended to provide for the protection of all properties of great interest, importance or value, but only those exhibiting the most outstanding features from an international viewpoint. The World Heritage Convention was adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation general conference in 1972. Australia ratified the Convention in 1974 and it came into force in 1975. Besides Australia, countries which are party to the Convention include New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada. Countries which are signatories to the World Heritage Convention undertake not to damage their cultural and natural heritage deliberately and to take the necessary legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures in order to protect their heritage. Only national governments can nominate areas for World Heritage listing. The World Heritage Committee has the responsibility of determining whether an area is to be listed. Together with 20 other nations, Australia has served as a member of the Committee each year since 1976. Nominations for World Heritage listing are thoroughly investigated by the World Heritage Bureau and also by internationally acknowledged scientists who are nominated by the Bureau. The Bureau is elected by and from the World Heritage Committee at its annual meeting, and its members hold office until the following meeting of the Committee. In the debate on this Bill, which has now proceeded over quite a few days, the coalition Opposition has expressed fears about the application of the provisions of the Bill. Senator Panizza spoke particularly about Shark Bay in Western Australia. I intend to talk more about that area later. We cannot continue in the same way as we have done in the past. That is, in the light of current knowledge and experience it can no longer be regarded as feasible to allow an owner, leaseholder or licence holder of land to do exactly as he wants with a piece of land. There are countless examples of such a restriction. For example, the owner of land in an urban area cannot build exactly what he wants on his land. Any construction must be in keeping with local building and planning regulations. In at least one Sydney suburb and at least one outer Perth suburb householders cannot cut down a tree on their land without permission. In the United Kingdom, the owner of a house that is classified as part of the National Estate-as is the case with relatives of mine in Dorchester-cannot do any alterations or refurbishments without the express permission of the relevant heritage authority. That is how it should be, because if land, whether rural or urban, is degraded and if our natural or cultural heritage is lost, not only our generation but also future generations will be the poorer. We can only own or lease for the period of our limited lifetimes. Thank goodness we have moved on from what used to be a standard joke about Australia, to the effect that if it moves, shoot it; if it does not, cut it down or dig it out, and sell it to the lowest overseas bidder. We have indeed moved on from that position and that is why the Government has seen fit to introduce this legislation, which is supported by the Australian Democrats. As I said previously, this legislation will clarify and strengthen the protection offered under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. The Bill will amend the definition of `identified property' which is protected by the World Heritage Act in order to follow more closely the format of the World Heritage Convention, about which I spoke earlier. This means that property which the Commonwealth Government believes may be of World Heritage value and which is subject to an inquiry with regard to its World Heritage status will be protected against damage or destruction during the investigation. Surely that is only common sense. The legislation makes provision also for other amendments to the World Heritage Act which will rectify problems that have arisen with its operation since its enactment in 1983. The amendments include the provision of ministerial power to appoint inspectors under the Act for the purpose of obtaining information concerning the making of proclamations and regulations or of determining possible breaches of the Act. It is proposed also that sections of the Act deemed invalid by the High Court in the Tasmanian dams case can be repealed. The provisions of the Act with regard to compensation are to be simplified. That of course is very important because if anyone is to be disadvantaged by this legislation, obviously adequate and fair compensation should be paid. I should like to speak now about Shark Bay. That area has been referred to previously because of the possibility of World Heritage listing of that area. Because it is extremely relevant to this debate I shall quote a passage from the Shark Bay Regional Plan, which was published by the State Planning Commission and the Department of Conservation and Land Management in Perth, Western Australia., in March 1987. The document states: In 1975 the Environmental Protection Authority recommended to the State Government that the significant land and marine conservation values of Shark Bay be conserved through a system of Nature Reserves and National Parks on land and water. These recommendations have not been implemented, although accepted by the Government of the day. However, it has become clearer with each passing year that the environment of Shark Bay must be conserved, not only for scientific or educational interest, but also because the environment is essential to the continued economic prosperity of the region through its fishing, pastoral and tourist industries. This need has become particularly critical since 1985, when the road to Denham from the Overlander Roadhouse on National Highway 1 was sealed and the number of visitors to the area increased dramatically. In 1986 the Government decided that a plan should be prepared for Shark Bay which would achieve the intent of the E.P.A. recommendation, while providing for the region's development, community and conservation needs. This plan suggests how this combination can be achieved and it is significant that it has involved the co-operation through consultation of the Shark Bay community, government departments and lay groups keenly interested in the area. This is what would be involved also in the World Heritage listing as advocated in the publication A Sustainable Future for Shark Bay: A Response to the Shark Bay Region Plan put out by the Shark Bay Action Group, representing the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Conservation Council of Western Australia. The report noted: The Shark Bay region has been recommended for World Heritage nomination by several independent parties. The advantages that such designation would provide for the future management of Shark Bay's special areas demand solid support form regional planners in their position as community liaison experts. The primary aim of this submission has been to collaborate on the massive task of a comprehensive response to the draft Shark Bay Region Plan prepared by the State Planning Commission and the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I should like to allay some of the fears of Senator Panizza and other Opposition senators who have spoken in the debate. Although obviously a detailed examination and investigation is required of the physical properties of an area submitted for World Heritage listing-in the case of Shark Bay this would include both the terrestrial and the marine component-nonetheless the human component must also be considered as part of the investigation. Again I quote from the report: In parallel to recognising the Shark Bay area's physical context and significance, the human system must also be referenced. By virtue of its unusual natural features, renowned beauty and relatively easy access, Shark Bay has demonstrated very definite emotive links with the State, National and global human community. Scientists, conservationists and holiday makers all have their legitimate concerns for the future of the area. These links have very pragmatic implications since the adoption of tourism by the local community as a major economic base. It is therefore incumbent upon our delegated public servants and decision makers to facilitate wide public input at as many stages of plan formulation as possible; to be evaluated and weighted after objective analysis of the message. I wish to quote selectively from some of the recommendations, but before doing so I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the recommendations of the report A Sustainable Future for Shark Bay. They are recommendations (1) to (23) and they appear on pages 6, 7 and 8 of the report. Leave granted. The recommendations read as follows- SHARK BAY AND WORLD HERITAGE Recommendations and Conclusions Summary (1) The Shark Bay region is an environmentally sensitive area which has a number of faunal and floral, geological, aesthetic and cultural attributes that make it suitable for World Heritage Listing. However, the environmental characteristics which make it worthy of consideration for the World Heritage List are threatened by a variety of human activities which, if uncontrolled, have the potential to degrade and even destroy the heritage values of the Shark Bay region. These activities include mining, grazing, sandalwood extraction, fishing, and tourism. (2) The international significance of the Shark Bay region is recognised in the IUCN's (1982) indicative inventory of natural sites of World Heritage quality. The four criterion for including a natural property on the World Heritage List are all met by the Shark Bay area. International significance of the natural values of the region are further enhanced by the presence of fauna (including migratory birds and whale species) that are subject to international conventions and treaties concerning their conservation and the protection of their habitat. (3) The World Heritage significance of the natural property of the Shark Bay region are also strengthened by the area's cultural values. (4) The cultural property aspects of Shark Bay do not by themselves justify nomination to the World Heritage list. (5) The World Heritage values of Shark Bay should neither be seen to exist nor managed in isolation from each other. (6) The Shark Bay Region Plan (SBRP) (State Planning Commission and Department of Conservation and Land Management 1987) in its current form does not adequately provide for the protection of natural property neither does it meet the conditions of integrity for the natural property of World Heritage value in the Shark Bay area. (7) One of the most important factors in examining the integrity of an area is related to its size and shape. The SBRP (1987) makes no mention of the problems of size and shape of the conservation areas it proposes. Furthermore, the SBRP (1987) tends to see zones of land use as isolated units rather than as an integrated structure. This is a major shortcoming of the plan and casts serious doubts as to its ability to provide for sound ecological management and for it to establish a regime of implementation which would fulfil the conditions and requirements of the World Heritage Convention. (8) The Environmental Protection Authority's (EPA) (1975) System 9 recommendations provide a far more appropriate management strategy for the Shark Bay region, and with relatively minor modifications to allow for some of the values identified in the SBRP, should be used as the basis for World Heritage nomination. (9) No attention is paid in the SBRP to the notion of minimal viable area. Similarly, consideration needs to be given to the provision of buffer zones. (10) The existing salt mining operations at Useless Loop should be allowed to continue provided they do not interfere with fish nursery areas vital for the local fishing industry and the habitat of trans-equatorial migratory waders. Upon completion of the salt mining operations the land should become a national park. (11) Proposed development of a gypsum mine on Peron Peninsula should not go ahead because both the mining site and the loading facilities would adversely reduce the conservation and recreation values of the area. (12) Fishing practices may need to be curtailed or modified in certain instances in order to prevent either the depletion of certain populations of marine fauna, including nursery stock, and/or the degradation of certain marine habitats. (13) The System 9 study recommended the creation of an aquatic reserve on the eastern shoreline of Shark Bay. This recommendation should be implemented with the western boundary being extended to include prawn nursery and seagrass protection as recommended in the SBRP (1987). (14) Aquatic reserves should be declared on the western shorelines of Bernier, Dorre and Dirk Hartog Islands; and in the Freycinet Estaury, as recommended by the SBRP (1987). (15) The waters on the northern tip of Peron Peninsula presently recommended for recreation and commercial fishing by the SBRP (1987) should be declared an aquatic reserve. (16) The remaining area recommended as recreation and commercial fishing by the SBRP (1987) should be declared a marine park (as per the System 9 recommendations) with recreational use as its prime function, and with commercial fishing activities being carefully managed. (17) In all the protected marine zones close attention must be given to overfishing of the fisheries resource by amateurs. A catch limit should be introduced to help achieve this goal. (18) The pastoral industry, as it at present exists in the Shark Bay region, does not provide a basis for the management of the area along the lines required for World Heritage listing. Pastoralism's impacts are such that they threaten the integrity of the region as an ecological unit and, hence, reduce the possibilities for fulfilling the criteria for World Heritage listing. (19) Tourism, provided it is suitably managed, is compatible with World Heritage nomination at Shark Bay. It should also produce significant economic and educational benefits. (20) To ensure the minimum desired level of direct Commonwealth involvement in the region the management plan for a Shark Bay nomination should meet the requirements of integrity laid out by the World Heritage Committee. The SBRP does not fulfil these requirements, and any nomination of Shark Bay under the SBRP may well result in either the rejection of the nomination, placement of the nomination on the World Heritage in Danger list, or acceptance of the site subject to modification of the management plans. (21) The following should be undertaken to ensure that legislative and management objectives of World Heritage listing are met: (21a) The creation of State legislation to cover the area of the nomination. This legislation should be matched by the enactment of regulations at the Commonwealth level under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. A body similar in structure to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority would be ideally suited to the particular needs of the Shark Bay area. Such a body would also provide an avenue for the channelling of Commonwealth funds to assist in the management of the region. (21b) The establishment under legislation of a board of scientific advisers to provide a sound basis for the management of the natural and cultural property of the World Heritage site. (21c) The establishment under legislation of a management body which would include input from Commonwealth, State and Local Government consistent with the objects of the legislation. (22) To ensure full consideration of the implications of World Heritage nomination an independent committee of inquiry should be established to investigate the benefits and costs of listing. During the period that the committee meets no new projects should be undertaken in the Shark Bay region which would substantially damage the resources that listing would be designed to conserve. (23) Shark Bay is clearly of World Heritage quality and steps should be taken as soon as possible to nominate the region to the World Heritage list. Senator JENKINS —I thank the Senate. I did not wish to quote selectively from the recommendations without all of them being incorporated. Recommendation (1) states: The Shark Bay region is an environmentally sensitive area which has a number of faunal and floral, geological, aesthetic and cultural attributes that make it suitable for World Heritage Listing. However, the environmental characteristics which make it worthy of consideration for the World Heritage List are threatened by a variety of human activities which, if uncontrolled, have the potential to degrade and even destroy the heritage values of the Shark Bay region. These activities include mining, grazing, sandalwood extraction, fishing, and tourism. The operative words in that first recommendation are `if uncontrolled'. It does not state that these activities should cease; merely that they should be managed correctly. Recommendation (10) states: The existing salt mining operations at Useless Loop should be allowed to continue provided they do not interfere with fish nursery areas vital for the local fishing industry and the habitat of trans-equatorial migratory waders. Upon completion of the salt mining operations the land should become a national park. That is typical of the recommendations. In other words, the recommendations are rational, sensible and take into consideration the whole area-that is, the economic and human sides of it. Recommendation (11) states: Proposed development- in other words, it is not going- of a gypsum mine on Peron Peninsula should not go ahead because both the mining site and the loading facilities would adversely reduce the conservation and recreation values of the area. What we have here are balanced recommendations. Some of them are not firm recommendations; they are recommendations for further discussion and investigation. Part of recommendation (7) states: One of the most important factors in examining the integrity of an area is related to its size and shape. The SBRP (1987)- that is, the Shark Bay Regional Plan of 1987- makes no mention of the problems of size and shape of the conservation areas it proposes. That is also an important recommendation because, as it says: This is a major shortcoming of the plan and casts serious doubt as to its ability to provide for sound ecological management and for it to establish a regime of implementation which would fulfil the conditions and requirements of the World Heritage Convention. Recommendation (16) states: The remaining area recommended as recreation and commercial fishing by the SBRP (1987) should be declared a marine park- that goes back to a 1975 Western Australian report- with recreational use as its prime function, and with commercial fishing activities being carefully managed. Again, that is an example of the correct sort of balance. Recommendation (19) states: Tourism, provided it is suitably managed, is compatible with World Heritage nomination at Shark Bay. It should also produce significant economic and educational benefits. So, unlike statements made in debate by members of the coalition Opposition, tourism is not excluded from an area which has World Heritage listing. Recommendation (22) states: To ensure full consideration of the implications of World Heritage nomination an independent committee of inquiry should be established to investigate the benefits and costs of listing. During the period that the committee meets no new projects should be undertaken in the Shark Bay region which would substantially damage the resources that listing would be designed to conserve. Again, that is just common sense. Finally, recommendation (23) states: Shark Bay is clearly of World Heritage quality and steps should be taken as soon as possible to nominate the region to the World Heritage list. Remarks made previously by Senator Panizza about the possible World Heritage listing of the Kimberleys in Western Australia are unfounded on the basis of fact or even realistic speculation. World Heritage listing of the Kimberleys would not mean that there would be fewer people, tourists or schools. It could very well mean the reverse situation, certainly regarding tourism. When I was in the Kimberleys recently I looked at two new tourist developments. One is currently under development at Cable Bay, which is close to Broome. It is a development by Lord MacAlpine. Many of the local people there feel that it is over-intensive. I think that it needs to be looked at more closely. I saw a very different type of tourist development at Cape Leveque which is under the management of a husband and wife team-white managers. They are setting up a development involving a maximum of 15 chalets dispersed throughout the area. The whole tourist development would be managed by members of the local Aboriginal community many of whom would work there. The development would be both exclusive and unique. It would probably be an expensive holiday, but those from overseas who want to do something different and very Australian would certainly find it there. They would be taught Aboriginal craft making by members of the local community and Aboriginal methods of fishing. At the same time, the area's integrity would be maintained and people would have tourist comforts. I commend that type of tourist development, which is totally sensitive to the area concerned and bears in mind the area's assets. Certainly, it is not designed to spoil them in any way. The serious situation of pastoralists at Shark Bay needs to be taken into consideration sensitively, as we must always do when we talk about people's livelihoods-meaning, sometimes, the investment of a lifetime's savings. Only the other day I spoke to a pastoralist from the Shark Bay area who took up his lease only a few years ago. The pastoralists are sensitive to the degradation previously caused by the overstocking of animals, particularly hoofed animals, in sensitive areas and also by the adoption of European farming methods. Due to our previous ignorance and blissful unawareness-almost blissful innocence-our natural resources, which are not renewable unless we take care of them, have been seriously exploited. In Western Australia in particular we have vast tracts of land which are seriously degraded. Soil erosion and wind erosion in particular pose a very serious problem. As far as Shark Bay is concerned, only six pastoral leases are in jeopardy. Not all of the leases have actually been taken up. In some cases the land has been used as an investment. Of course, it is very important that any compensation due to any pastoralists or others in the area should be fair and more than adequate. In conclusion, the economic and other benefits of not protecting Shark Bay are absolutely nil. To place it on Heritage listing and to meet the consequences of that placement sensibly, rationally, with sensitivity and with due regard to the local people involved, can be regarded not only as a bonus to the Shark Bay area but as a benefit to Australia as a whole. Senator Panizza —What are you going to do with the people you drive off? Senator JENKINS —Did Senator Panizza not hear what I said earlier? Senator Panizza —Yes, that is why I came in here. Senator JENKINS —I spoke a lot about that earlier. Australia is a unique island continent. Currently we are `celebrating' 200 years of European settlement. Enormous damage has been done, as I said before, during those 200 years because European farming methods have been used in fragile areas. The destruction to our east tropical rainforests in New South Wales has been an ecological disaster. Fortunately, to date we have not destroyed areas which remain off the beaten track-areas such as Shark Bay and the Kimberleys. Australia is logically an area in the world in which conservation is absolutely critical. It is still possible to save whole areas. The tourism industry has enormous potential for Australia. What do international tourists want to see? They want to see what is unique to Australia-indeed, what is unique to the world. If we destroy that, then we will destroy our tourist industry. In many of these areas there is a lot more money to be made by tourism-- Senator Panizza —Than the pastoralists? Senator JENKINS —Yes. The way things are going, tourism is an up and coming and very economically viable industry. Certainly as far as tourism is concerned, we do not want at Shark Bay developments such as the Observation City development at Scarborough in Western Australia. Areas such as Shark Bay and the Kimberleys in Western Australia need to be surveyed by a task force which would be composed of architects, tourist agents, conservationists, farmers, pastoralists, graziers, local people and whoever else may be concerned. World Heritage listing properly managed and controlled, as this legislation seeks to do, can only be to the benefit of all Australians. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.08) —The Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 is straight-out socialist legislation. I say that because it consolidates the Federal Government's land grab of State lands. These are lands that were vouchsafed to the States under our Constitution. The legislation absolves the Federal Government of any responsibility under its own laws and it precludes the States from any appeal to our courts should they feel aggrieved because of the actions of the Federal Government. On top of that, like all socialist legislation, this Bill has to create a new police force-which it is doing; the greenshirts they have been called-with unusual powers. The Government seeks to reintroduce the midnight knock on the door-even the midnight knock on the door on one's car. Although these people cannot search one's house, they can still knock on the door at midnight. This is why I describe the Bill as socialist legislation. It is typical of such legislation. Just last week Senator Walters introduced a Bill to require the Commonwealth Government to consult the owners of any property that was to be involved in World Heritage listing and to advise the owners of progress in the Federal Government's attack on them. That Bill was rejected by the Government with assistance by the Australian Democrats. I think that the people of Australia should be made well aware of the Democrats' action in doing that. I can understand this Federal Government moving ahead in its own socialist style, despite all the rebuffs it is experiencing around Australia at the moment in both State and Federal areas. It is just like this Government's brazen effrontery to persist with a Bill such as this. Not only that; in respect of the Queensland rainforest, I think this Government gave the industry six months to stop logging. Six months is not time enough to readjust in any industry. I cannot imagine the Government doing that to the automobile or textile industries. However, the Government gave the Queensland forestry industry six months to stop. That was a thoughtless, cruel and heartless action by the Federal Government. Of course, another thing the Government has done is to elevate the friction and abrasiveness between governments in Australia to the international arena. It is embarrassing for our country to have these types of arguments highlighted in the international fora. One would think that, as a result of the speeches of many honourable senators involved in the debate on this Bill, the Government would be taking more notice of the hostility that the Bill and the World Heritage listing generally are causing in the country. I am pleased to note that now other people are waking up to this. There is a new coalition being formed in Australia of farmers, business people and other concerned groups to attack World Heritage listing, which is having a most detrimental effect on the Australian people. I notice that even the media are starting to take a new look at World Heritage listing because they realise the enormous responsibility that should be assumed by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, in regard to the enormous power he has to list areas. I suppose that when we take the broad view we see that Australia has come through about four stages of government. First of all we had colonial government. We then developed our Constitution and moved to cooperative federalism. Then as the taxing powers went to the Federal Government we moved to the stage of coercive federalism. That was boiling along nicely. Now it appears that we have entered a stage of conniving federalism. However, a consistent theme through all the stages of government has been one of increasing federal power. The Federal Government is now attempting to bypass the people by not having referenda on these sorts of things, by bypassing the Constitution and by bypassing the States. Senator Cook —It has been done constitutionally. Senator SHEIL —In the case of Queensland and the World Heritage listing of the rainforests, there was no consultation at all. It was done by fiat, by an act of the Cabinet. The Government is using the executive power of the Cabinet. This has been tested in the High Court. The High Court has agreed that the Federal Government has the power to do that. However the Government is responsible to the people at the next election-which is when Senator Cook will get his. It is becoming obvious throughout the country at the moment that power resides with the people and that they are being bypassed at the moment by a specious use of the treaty power. I do not cavil at the use of treaty powers. We have, indeed, about 1,500 Acts extant in Australia today in regard to which treaty power has been used. They mainly involve matters of international trade and commerce, international transport, the airlines, pollution, Antarctica and things such as that. However, those treaties are all a result of cooperation for the peace, order and good government of the country. However, this kind of legislation is not. It is just a case of the Federal Government forcing its will on the States and people of Australia. It is offensive. It is objectionable. Senator Cook —It is acting in accordance with the Constitution. Senator SHEIL —The Australian Labor Party and the Labor Government have decried and demeaned our Constitution. However, when they want to use it, they use it to its full. That has been done here in the past by honourable senators. I must say that the Labor Party uses the power of the Constitution when it wants and destroys it when it does not want it. However, the unilateral listing of the Queensland wet tropical rainforests is an affront, particularly as there was no consultation-as was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That never occurred. The listing gives no recognition to the action taken by Queensland in respect of that State's rainforest management. Queensland had zoning laws in respect of controlling these forests. It had a land management program that involved conservation and preservation. That program was one of balanced development. I suppose Queensland has well over 50 per cent of Australia's rainforests. New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania have 10 or 12 per cent each and the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia have very little. South Australia probably has none, although it may have had some in the past. The point I am making is that the Labor States-and this included New South Wales until recently-have destroyed or removed most of their rainforests. This Government is moving against only those States which have rainforests and which happen to have conservative governments. In other words, this legislation has nothing to do with conservation or preservation; it has everything to do with power and control over land usage. The Federal Government is expanding its power over the land at the expense of the States. New powers will be granted to the Minister under this legislation. A list of powers is set out under the heading `Unlawful acts' in section 9 (1) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. The section states: Except with the consent in writing of the Minister, it is unlawful for a person, whether himself or by his servant or agent- (a) to carry out any excavation works on any property to which this section applies; (b) to carry out operations for, or exploratory drilling in connection with, the recovery of minerals on any property to which this section applies; (c) to erect a building or other substantial structure on any property . . .; (d) to damage or destroy a building or other substantial structure . . .; (e) to kill, cut down or damage any tree . . .; (f) to construct or establish any road or vehicular track . . .; (g) to use explosives on any property . . .; (h) if an act is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to particular property to which this section applies, to do that act in relation to that property. I repeat that the section begins with the words: Except with the consent in writing of the Minister . . . A lot of people think that the only difference between World Heritage listing and not being listed is the fact that the Federal Minister can stop one from doing certain things. Obviously, that is not so because with his consent one can do all of the things I have mentioned. I see this simply as a transfer of land management usage from the State government to the Federal Government. That will be the absolute effect of the introduction of this legislation. As I have said, Queensland has over 50 per cent of Australia's rainforests. We have managed them well and we are proud of that. Of the rainforests we have, 80 per cent is in a pristine state and 20 per cent has been logged for about a century. The area that has been logged is being included in the World Heritage listing, which I think is a testament to the good management of the Queensland Government. Having been to the rainforest area in north Queensland and having had a good look at it, I have come to the conclusion that logging is a good idea for all forests. The pristine forest is impenetrable and unable to be used. One cannot manage its water catchment; the felling of trees cannot be controlled; there is no prospect of tourism; and nobody can enjoy the area. But what is the situation in respect of the logged areas? By logging, I do not mean clear-felling, as was portrayed by the media previously, probably because of ignorance. But having had another look at this matter, the media has realised that in any hectare of rainforest there are about 15,000 trees. Logging involves the felling of six to 10 selected trees-not just any trees-about every 40 years. That is what is meant by the logging of rainforests. Trees are felled selectively in our logged areas. Old big trees which fall over cause a lot more damage to a rainforest than is the case if they are selectively logged and felled according to a plan. In addition, light is let into a logged area which allows regrowth to take place. New trees are able to grow because of the elimination of big trees which sap the growth of younger trees. Also, selectively logged areas encourage trees to fruit more, which attracts birds and animals. That is where all the action is. In fact, we find that birds and animals prefer the garden of paradise to the garden of Eden. Planned logging and snigging tracks are used for the management of water catchment areas. They also allow tourists to enjoy the rainforests. They can be used for research into flora and fauna and for educational and recreational purposes. This is what has been happening in the 20 per cent of rainforests that we have been logging. I think there are a lot more benefits in the logged than in the unlogged areas. In addition, of course, logging provides quite a deal of industry. When one considers the forest industries that are derived from the activities that I have been mentioning plus the industries that manufacture forest products, the Queensland Government really should be congratulated and encouraged, not bludgeoned as it is being bludgeoned under this Government with World Heritage listing and the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. One of the things that is concerning me at the moment is the increasing locking up of areas of Australia under various pieces of national parks legislation, World Heritage listing and other forms of listing that preclude the exploration and development of our country. Today about 20 per cent of Australia is locked up and exploration is precluded. I think it is very important that we know what we are locking up. Exploration causes very little damage. I think it is vital to our country that we do this before the Government proceeds to list a whole lot more new areas such as those that have been mentioned in debate here today. Western Australia is affected. Of course, Tasmania has been affected. Queensland is affected in terms of the Great Barrier Reef and rainforests. The Government is now threatening to put on the World Heritage List the Channel Country which covers an enormous area of Queensland. I think we want to know what is being locked up. If we want to be in a position to preserve anything and to do any good, we have to have the economic capacity to do so. By restricting our ability to develop and use our assets, we will reduce ourselves to a state where we will not be able to preserve anything. There is just one other item I want to mention, and that is the inspection of this Bill by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Committee pointed out that the Bill leaves the determination of acts which are unlawful to regulations. According to the Committee, the regulations would come into force and would continue in force unless and until disallowed. There is no prospect of amending those regulations. I have pointed this out to the Minister, and I hope that he will keep it in mind when he responds to the second reading debate. I merely conclude by saying this is socialist legislation which consolidates the Federal Government's land grab of State land. The legislation absolves the Federal Government from action in its own courts. It precludes the States from applying to the courts for relief. It creates a new police force and it does not provide for consultation with owners of land that is proposed to be listed on the World Heritage List. It is a concept that should be, and I am sure will be, rejected by the people at the next election because that is our only way of stopping the Federal Cabinet going ahead in this high-handed manner. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(11.25) —I am very pleased to be following Senator Sheil because he, like previous speakers from the Opposition, has identified a fundamental philosophical difference between the framers of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, as supported by the Australian Democrats, and the position of the Opposition. This was identified by Senator Puplick and Senator Alston and now it has been further elaborated by Senator Sheil. I am surprised at Senator Sheil's arrogance in setting his judgment about the management of water catchments in tropical rainforests against the management which nature has carried out for some 3,000 million years and suggesting that he knows better. That seems to underlie the attitude which the Opposition has taken. I congratulate Senator Collins on his speech. I think he gave an excellent answer to many of the assertions made by the Opposition in relation to this Bill. In doing so, he particularised the claims made against the Bill and his objection to them. I think he did that extremely well. But I do not think that either he or the Government has covered adequately the philosophical objections which can be raised to the Opposition's position on the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. The thrust of my remarks will deal with that philosophical base and why the Democrats are strongly supporting this Bill, which clarifies and makes more effective the legislation protecting World Heritage areas. In his speech, Senator Puplick spoke of the National Estate, suggesting disparagingly that it was being preferred and given primacy over the rights of individuals. Senator Walters also spoke in pejorative terms about a landowner not being permitted to subdivide land as though that was an unalloyed natural right which citizens should have. We have also just heard Senator Sheil speak pejoratively when he listed the things which one may not do in World Heritage areas without the permission of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). I would like to defend and extend the idea that we need to control not only World Heritage areas but all parts of Australia as if they were World Heritage areas because we are at a very crucial stage in the history of human development and of evolution on the face of this planet. I think it was the German philosopher Hegel who said, `Freedom is the recognition of necessity'. In using that expression, he pointed to the need to understand exactly where we are and to conform with the restrictions which nature places upon us if we are going to have true freedom. Honourable senators opposite speak as though freedom is a natural right which is not constrained, but there are considerable restrictions in the exercise of our human activities. It is only by conforming with and perfecting our understanding of nature that we can have freedom. Let us look at where we are in relation to our custodianship of planet Earth. Let us compress Earth's history into a 24-hour period and suppose that the world began at midnight. From that time until 5 p.m. the next day the planet was lifeless, undergoing great geological transformation, some features of which subsequently became important to man. Life first appeared at 5 p.m. and by 11 p.m. dinosaurs dominated the scene. Mammals emerged at 11.30 p.m. and, from amongst them, man burst forth at one second to midnight. We are so very recent that if a cosmic observer of this diurnal evolution were to blink, our presence might be missed altogether. Let us change the time context and expand our human time on earth to a 24-hour period. Let us suppose that we shared our last common ancestor with another animal species at midnight. It is thought, from immunological and protein sequence data, that this occurred about six million years ago. On the 24-hour scale, we were living in groups in Africa, recognisably human, and using simple tools by about 2 p.m. the following afternoon. We became expert hunters and gatherers, developed comprehensive languages, complex cultures and expressive art forms but did not settle to growing crops or herding domesticated animals until 11.58 p.m. Christ came by at 11.59 and 30 seconds and Australia was visited by Captain Cook at six seconds to midnight. Six seconds out of our 24 hours on Earth is hardly a representative sample. Yet all of the industrial development and the pervasive exploitative attitude-the attitude that is coming from the Opposition-that has accompanied it occurred in this minuscule interval. How arrogant it is that we should use this tiny sample of our period on Earth as the basis for extrapolation into the distant future. Herein lies a very significant paradox which needs to be clearly understood-that is, that unless one takes a particular religious view, in no sense is Homo sapiens the preordained pinnacle of a climaxing evolution. We just happen to be one of the end products of that continuing process which, without the interruption and disturbance created by modern man, would continue long into the future, but while we are in no sense a predetermined climax, we are nonetheless now responsible for the further course of evolution on this whole planet. Indeed, by certain acts we could, quite easily, truncate further evolution on the planet. This is a paradox which places an enormous responsibility upon us. It is in that context that we must see the protection of the genetic diversity on the planet, of World Heritage areas and of habitats and everything else involved in the continuation of that evolutionary process. Perhaps it is not going too far to say that the primary function of human civilisation from hereon should be the protection of the evolutionary process so it can continue as it would have continued before we burst upon the scene so very recently. Having looked at that large time scale, I turn now to the forest situation-the particular matter of concern in relation to north Queensland-and I am reminded of a visit which I made to a museum in the south-west karri forests of Western Australia. This museum dealt with the recent history-the last 150 years or so-- Senator Cook —The Manjimup one? Senator COULTER —Yes, of timber getting in the south-west of Western Australia. Anybody who has visited that area cannot but feel incredibly emotionally moved by those forests. That museum details the ways in which the early timber cutters spent four or five days in cutting down one large karri tree. On the wall of the museum is an enormous karri tree section. The rings on the tree are indicated with arrows and, if I recall it correctly, that tree started its growth at around the time of the signing of the Magna Carta, a copy of which we have here in King's Hall. There is another ring somewhere out near the periphery which shows the time when Captain Cook arrived in Australia, and further out other rings indicate more recent events in the history of Western Australia. While taking all this in, one sees right beside this enormous section on the wall a video description of the way in which we can now remove these large trees from the forest in as little as 20 minutes. It explains in very glowing terms the marvels of modern technology whereby we are able to remove, in as little as 20 minutes, these giants which have survived in the forests for as long as 1,000 years. Frankly, when I saw that I felt somewhat sickened that one should take such a simple view of our responsibility. I turn to a remark which Senator Alston made in his speech last week, in which he questioned the need for legal mechanisms, injunctions and the like whereby we can interfere with the processes of timber cutting in short order. He said, among other things: . . . we are not dealing with a transient piece of the environment or something that can be destroyed by a few simple movements of vehicles or men; we are dealing with something that is of enduring quality and, presumably, of outstanding significance. Against that background it is very difficult to imagine how something which, for perhaps thousands or millions of years-certainly for the past 200 years-has stayed in place without too much desecration or violation of its integrity can all of a sudden at the whim of a Minister be the subject of a court action on the basis that irreparable harm will flow unless an interim injunction, an interlocutory, is granted. The fact of the matter is that we now have the power to destroy these areas incredibly quickly. It is in recognition of that that this Bill grants powers to provide those sorts of injunctive measures which can protect areas from incredibly rapid and vicious onslaught. Senator Sheil referred to a cost-benefit analysis. He expressly mentioned the moves in the last few days of the National Farmers Federation and other bodies which wish to put in place a cost-benefit analysis in relation to the preservation of areas of particular interest. I point out, as I have done on a number of other occasions, that we would have no objection to such a proposal, provided that the national accounts took proper account of and kept records of both the flow of resources-of money-through the economy and the stock of resources. For instance, if we cut down a tree which has been living for a thousand years, we deplete our stock by the value of that tree and we increase the flow by the value in terms of a fallen tree. We do not increase our wealth one iota by cutting down the tree; we increase our wealth only by the value which we add to that tree by turning it into a piece of furniture or some other useful item. If we were to keep our accounts in that way, if we were to keep both a flow account and a stock account, we might then more properly assess what was a benefit and what was a cost. I would like briefly to contrast the exploitative attitude of the Opposition towards the environment with that which we see in the indigenous population of this country. Most indigenous people around the world have come to terms with a sense of belonging to the environment. In this year, the Bicentenary of Australia, I believe that one of the important tasks we should be addressing is that of bringing that sense of being part of the nature-that element of Aboriginal culture-fairly and squarely into dominant white culture. Unless we do, we will really go down the gurgler. In conclusion, I point out-the Democrats have used this expression before-that we have not inherited this Earth from our forebears; we have borrowed it from our children. I believe that that does not go far enough. Another notion is that of stewardship; that we have a responsibility to care for the land, to care for the environment. Again, I do not believe that that goes far enough, because it presupposes a necessarily dominant position for humans in relation to the environment. I think the correct position is to recognise our evolutionary dependence upon the environment, our being part of that life process, and to recognise that trees, and all living things, are part of our flesh and that we damage life at our own peril. That is the sense that we need to put in place if we are to ensure that evolution on the face of planet Earth continues into the distant future and is available to be enjoyed by our own descendants. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.42) —I rise to speak to the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill moved by my colleague Senator Robert Hill: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert: ``consideration of this Bill be deferred pending the report of the interdepartmental committee which is currently looking at land use''. I believe that there are compelling reasons why this Bill should not be proceeded with at this stage. I propose to come to those in just a moment. However, some of the remarks that Senator Coulter made in asserting that this Bill should be passed, and passed without amendment, I think should not be let go without some comment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Puplick, you have to confine yourself to the terms of the amendment and the response to Senator Coulter may not come within those terms. Senator PUPLICK —I am aware of that, Mr Deputy President, but I will give it my best shot. There is an attempt to rush this Bill through because it is now half a second to midnight, or whatever it is, as distinct from deferring the Bill so that it can be properly considered and the other factors brought to bear in that consideration. Those factors, referred to in the amendment-namely, matters dealt with in the report of the interdepartmental committee-are of very great importance. It is simply not true to assert that, in seeking this deferral, the Opposition is somehow arrogant in terms of believing that it knows better than the processes of nature, any more than it is arrogant for Senator Coulter to assert that we are now in control of the processes of evolution. That is an equally outrageous and stupid comment to make. The trouble with that approach is that it comes from people who claim that they love nature, red in tooth and claw or whatever, but who really despise human beings-there are too many of them, they are too destructive and they pollute the environment. If Senator Coulter believes that, all I can say is that the remedy in his own case lies very much in his own hands. It is also certainly not a valid point to say that what we have is the opportunity to go back and live like native peoples around the world in sympathetic harmony with our environment. That may have been an option 201 years ago; it is no longer an option for modern Australia. Therefore, the question of the deferral of this Bill pending the report of the interdepartmental committee is an important matter. There was a report yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald which not only added to the weight of argument but indicated that an advisory body was going to be set up by the Government to examine the economic costs of all National Estate and World Heritage proposals, that such a proposal was being advanced by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and that such a study would seek to weigh economics against aesthetics and would seek to bring a balance of evidence to bear on the question of whether areas should proceed to World Heritage listing. Under this legislation the regulations declaring parts of the wet tropics of north Queensland are to be repealed and other regulations are to be made in their place in an identical form once the Bill has received royal assent and has been proclaimed. It is quite clear that there has not been brought to bear, particularly in the public domain, a full examination of the issues which impact upon the decision to proceed in this fashion. In October last year the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) announced that consultants had been appointed to undertake a series of studies-specifically on the implications of World Heritage nomination for the forestry industry by ACIL Australia Pty Ltd; on the implications of World Heritage nomination for the mining industry by the National Environmental Consultancy; on rainforest tourism potential by the same firm; and on alternative employment creation by the Institute of Applied Environmental Research. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The amendment refers specifically to one particular interdepartmental report. Senator Puplick is entitled to speak to that only. He has already spoken to the Bill as a whole. I do not see how other reports are relevant to the interdepartmental report, but the senator may be able to show me how it is. Senator PUPLICK —I shall certainly endeavour to do so. Undoubtedly, the interdepartmental committee would want to have access to these significant consultants' reports which are being prepared for this purpose. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think that is a rather tenuous link. You will have to do a little better than that. Senator PUPLICK —The interdepartmental committee is one which has been notified to the Senate by virtue of a series of questions asked of Senator Richardson. He was asked whether such a committee was being established. He indicated to us that as a result of the difficulties being faced by him in Caucus-under assault by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and various others-this interdepartmental committee has been established to look at the question of land usage. I am putting to the Senate that until such time as that interdepartmental committee has had the opportunity to evaluate and to report on this matter the legislation should not proceed in its current form. I was saying that the interdepartmental committee presumably would have access to those consultants' reports which the Minister has said not only have been given out but have been received by the Minister and which the Minister is deliberately suppressing, deliberately not making available to the Senate and deliberately not making available to the people of Australia. Presumably they would be made available to the interdepartmental committee. The study to which I was referring when you, Mr Deputy President, rightly drew my attention to the necessity to specify the relationship between them and the interdepartmental committee was the one being undertaken into alternative employment creation by the Institute of Applied Environmental Research at Griffith University. The two others, again at Griffith University, are into social aspects of the listing and the regional economic implications. All of those would be available to the interdepartmental committee. They are not available to Parliament, they are not available to the public, they are not available to the people of Queensland-- Senator Boswell —I got them under the Freedom of Information Act last week. Senator PUPLICK —My colleague Senator Boswell says he has made application under the Freedom of Information Act. Senator Cook —He said he has them, so they must be available. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Cook will have to do better than that. Senator Cook —You have just said that they are not available. Senator Boswell said he has them, so the evidence is that they are available. Senator PUPLICK —The fact that they have not been presented to Parliament, despite the assurances of the Minister that they would be provided to Parliament, as distinct from being potentially discoverable under freedom of information legislation- Senator Cook —Actually discoverable. They are in the possession of your colleague. Senator PUPLICK —No. Senator Boswell has said that he has made a freedom of information application. We do not know whether that will be granted. We do not know whether the mechanism will be put in place to delay the granting of that until after this Bill has proceeded. We do not know what the cost is going to be apart from the application form-whether Senator Boswell will be charged $1,500 in the way in which the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has been given bills for $7,000 worth of information-and to say they are discoverable when we do not know that that is the case, we do not know the cost and we have the Minister's assurance that they will be made available to the Parliament but are being deliberately suppressed from Parliament until this legislation is dealt with, is simply not a good enough excuse for Senator Cook to try to persuade Parliament otherwise. The matters that I believe need to be carefully considered as a result of the report of the interdepartmental committee report also touch on the way the Government is proceeding on the matter as far as the specific part of the nomination relating to north Queensland is concerned. In order not to put a strain upon our relationship, causing the Deputy President to interrupt me on a number of occasions in order to speak to this amendment, I might confine myself to a series of speeches in committee, particularly if the Bill is taken as a whole. Presumably that will allow me a far greater degree of latitude in this matter. I hope honourable senators bring their toothbrushes. The timing of the passage of this Bill seems quite unnecessary. The High Court in its recent decision on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry legislation has made it quite clear that the Commonwealth has the power under the current legislation to act in the way in which it wishes. If its intention is purely to secure the protection of the tropical rainforests of north Queensland, the Minister has the power under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act to prevent things from being done or to authorise things to be done as he sees fit. Why then is it necessary to put this Bill through in this particular form at this stage when an interdepartmental committee, which is looking at the question of land use, presumably is addressing itself to the underlying principles of World Heritage listing and their management in relation to alternative plans for land use around Australia? The Opposition simply does not believe that there is justification for this Bill being proceeded with before all the evidence is on public record. That evidence comprises the evidence both of the consultants' reports to which I have made reference and the report of the interdepartmental committee which the Minister has told us is looking at land use management questions. Therefore, I simply indicate that the Opposition will be pursuing that particular amendment. We do not believe that the urgency has been established in the light of both the High Court's decisions in the case to which I have referred and the other parts of the Bill dealing with the establishment of inspectors, the regime relating to compensation, or the Government's attempt to get out from the provisions of its own impact of proposals legislation. In those circumstances, and with the proviso that I shall raise a number of other matters in committee, I simply emphasise that we shall be pursuing our amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Boswell, before you begin I should warn you that as you have already spoken in the debate, you are confined to speaking on the terms of the amendment moved by Senator Hill, which reads: Consideration of this Bill be deferred pending the report of the interdepartmental committee which is currently looking at land use. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.57) —Mr Deputy President, I shall be careful as I do not wish to transgress your ruling, but this is a very important issue on which I feel very passionately. I use this opportunity to represent the people of north Queensland, as I do on every occasion that I can speak, in order to put their concerns before the Senate. I am debating this issue with as much force as I can. I support Senator Hill's amendment-that is, that consideration of the Bill be deferred pending the report of the interdepartmental committee which is currently looking at land use. Senator Watson, to his credit, asked a question on 17 March as to whether any form of committee was looking at land use. In his reply the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) reluctantly admitted that there was an interdepartmental committee investigating land use which would report at the end of April. We are nearing the end of March and we have four weeks to wait for that very important report to come before the Senate. I see no reason-and ask the Senate to back me-why we have to rush into this matter. Logging cannot be continued up in the north Queensland rainforests; the regulations are down; the proclamation has been signed by the Governor-General; logging has stopped and a $33m industry is down the drain; the jobs of 3,000 people are finished-sold out. Therefore, there is no need for us to hurry through the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. A decision made in haste is often repented at leisure. I feel that we are offering Senator Richardson an escape hatch through which he can withdraw after the rout-the only word I can use to describe it-in the New South Wales election, the biggest political rout in history. Senator Richardson said of that election, `The Labor Party has forgotten what the common people are all about. We don't understand them any more'. That is a truism offered by Senator Richardson. I would never call people common. The people to whom Senator Richardson was referring are the decent working men and women of Australia who make our economy tick. They were traditional supporters of the Australian Labor Party, but they have said, `We do not want Labor any more. We do not want a Labor government looking after conservation issues. We do not want you to be all things to all men. We send you here with the bulk of our votes-or at least, we did-to represent us, not to represent a mish-mash of trendies, conservationists, feminists and gays. We want you to represent the decent working men and women of Australia. But, like Pontius Pilate, you have completely washed your hands of us'. But on Saturday night Labor members wore their hair shirts. In other words, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Labor members have said they are sorry but have forgotten what the common people are all about. They do not understand them any more. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I warn Senator Boswell that he is getting rather wide of the amendment. Senator BOSWELL —I am sorry, Mr Deputy President, that I am transgressing your ruling. I will try to get back to the interdepartmental committee report. That report is expected in three or four weeks and there is no need to make a decision on this Bill. I suggest that the Labor Party has made a great mistake and the Opposition is now offering an escape hatch. Labor members should go back and lick their wounds. They should say honestly to the people, `Let us await the IDC report'. While the Labor members are awaiting that report, they can go into Caucus and listen to the views of some of the more reasonable people in the Labor Party. There are a few reasonable members of Caucus, though not many. Certainly Senator Button shows a bit of wisdom from time to time, as does the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), a person to whom Labor members should listen. Senator Richardson has an opportunity to back down gracefully by saying that the Government will have to await the IDC report before any decision can be arrived at. Senator Richardson can go to his greenie mates and say `I am not prepared to make any decision until the IDC report comes down'. His greenie mates will have to buy it because of the position of people in north Queensland who have lost jobs. Senator Richardson has sold out his unionist mates. They could be given a reprieve if the Minister said to them, `The Government has done the wrong thing by its unionist mates. We have sold out the worker and have three or four weeks to recover these decisions'. If the Government ignores the IDC report, Senator Richardson will lead the Labor Party over a cliff into the sea, like a bunch a lemmings. He will have to wear it. If he makes a decision before the IDC report comes down and decides to rush ahead and destroy 3,000 unionists jobs in north Queensland, as well as destroying towns in the area and devaluing the price of workers' homes, also ruining many small businesses before the report is published, he will have to wear it politically, as the Labor Government wore it in New South Wales. The Minister must take a fair degree of responsibility for that because he is the recognised power broker in the Senate and in New South Wales. It is no good the Minister saying that the Labor Party has forgotten what the common people are all about and that Labor does not understand them any more. The Minister should have said, `I have forgotten what the common people are all about. I have lost touch with them as I hobnob with the captains of industry and society'. What about Senator Richardson's grass roots? He has neglected them. I am offering the Minister an opportunity to come out from under. He does not deserve it, and should take the consequences. But I offer him a way out by saying that he should tell the Government to do nothing until the IDC report comes down. There is another reason that I am concerned as to why the Government is rushing ahead with this Bill; my colleague Senator Puplick alluded to this matter in his remarks. A total of $300,000 of taxpayers' money has been spent to inform the Senate on socioeconomic impact studies and environmental impact studies. Eight reports have been requested, commissioned by the Minister, and yet he has not had the courage to present those reports to Parliament. He has not allowed us to debate the issue with any scientific evidence. The Minister has been frightened to put that scientific evidence before the Senate and he has forced all his colleagues, and indeed Opposition members, to make decisions without the advantage of that evidence. If those reports supported the Minister's argument on World Heritage listing, I believe that he would have introduced those reports into the Senate in 35 seconds flat. But the Minister has not put down those reports because they will not support his arguments. He is running for cover and that is another-- Senator Richardson —Show us the NORMA scientific report. Senator BOSWELL —I will present the Northern Rainforest Management Agency scientific report. I will present the report from the professor at the university at Townsville. Senator Richardson —The name you are groping for is Harris. Senator BOSWELL —I will present the report from Professor Percy Harris to the Parliament this afternoon if I am given the opportunity to table it. Senator Richardson should try to understand his grassroots support. He is on the way out. If he does not repent and see the light, what has happened to the New South Wales Government will happen right throughout Australia as one Labor government after another falls and, finally, the Federal Government will fall. That will be exactly what the Labor Party deserves when it admits that it has forgotten what the common people are about. It does not understand them any more. That is the greatest truism that I have heard in the Senate. I have been constantly telling the Minister that for the last six months. He has forgotten what the people are all about and they have forgotten him. They will continue to do so until he represents again the once great tradition of the Labor Party, that of looking after the working men and women of Australia as the Labor Party has neglected them. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(12.07) —To illustrate the humbug that has surrounded this debate in the last few weeks, I can do no better than to quote Senator Puplick. Senator Puplick has had a bit to say about World Heritage in the past and this has differed markedly from what he has had to say in the last few days. Just so that we understand what Senator Puplick thinks of the values, let me quote him exactly. In a Press release in August last year he said: The Queensland wet tropical rainforests are worthy of inclusion on the World Heritage list; they are unique; they are of international significance; they contain one of the greatest and scientifically most significant concentrations of unique flora and fauna in the world. Australia is the only industrialised country with remaining tropical rainforests and we have a responsibility to protect them. That is the only thing Senator Puplick ever got right on the question of rainforests in north Queensland. We have to protect them and, fortunately, this Government is honouring that obligation. What the Opposition has done today in another desperate attempt to do anything to stop us from protecting them typifies the humbug that has surrounded us now for weeks in this debate. Members of the Liberal Party of Australia do not represent a majority. Senator Puplick's words, that I have just read out, ring true. His actions show something entirely different. Of course, what they show is that when the crunch came he could not convince his colleagues. Here they are, whipped and beaten, doing anything they can to get out from under on World Heritage listing. The Sydney Morning Herald carried a report this morning, which should not have shocked the Liberal Party and the National Party in Queensland. It certainly did not shock the Government. Dr James Thorsell, the executive officer of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, said that north Queensland rainforests were `clearly of World Heritage calibre'. Dr Thorsell is one of the key officers who will report to the World Heritage Bureau on the nomination by the Australian Government of the wet tropics at the end of this year. Dr Thorsell is acknowledging what all the scientific evidence has acknowledged so far-that is, that clearly these areas are worthy of heritage listing and that we have to make sure that they are listed. On the other hand, Senator Puplick says that a Liberal government would not nominate any areas for World Heritage listing if an individual State did not agree. So he is really saying that, in the case of the wet tropics in Queensland, because the Queensland Government will not agree, that is it; it is all over; nothing is saved; nothing gets nominated for World Heritage listing; and the Queensland Government becomes the arbiter of heritage listing in Australia. That is more than a disgrace. Senator Walters —Have you spoken to Ahern? Senator RICHARDSON —The honourable senator asks me whether I have spoken to Premier Ahern. I have made arrangements to speak to Premier Ahern and that will take place very shortly. I have been trying to speak to him for a very long time and, finally, I am having some success. One wonders how long the forests would wait for protection under Senator Puplick's plan of State veto. Just where are his principles? If Senator Puplick believes that there is a responsibility to protect the rainforests-and those are his words-just what is he prepared to do about it? So far, we have seen him coming into this chamber only twice to try to contribute in the debate to make sure that we do nothing to protect them. It is a pathetic attempt to hide some of the embarrassment of the Liberal Party over World Heritage issues, but it is not the only pathetic attempt being made in that direction. Last week we had a big shock when the Leader of the Queensland Liberals, Dr Angus Innes, leaked copies of the World Heritage nomination of the north Queensland rainforests to the Press. He claimed that our nomination was fraudulent and this was shown up in the document. It is hardly a secret document. Copies of it were sent to the Queensland Premier and to Senator Puplick in January, so it was not a great shock to me that people would suddenly find out about it. Far from trying to hide the document, we have made it public, we have made sure that people have had access to it, and it has been available to anyone who has requested a copy. Apparently, we have been told that the nomination was fraudulent because it stated that the rainforest was in very good condition and this contradicted claims that the listing was necessary because the State Government could not be trusted to look after the area. I just wonder how pathetic some of these attempts can get. If people lack the fortitude, the vision and the courage to stand up to the National Party, the Liberal Party, Senator Puplick and Mr Innes will have to bear that responsibility in the end and it will fall heavily upon their shoulders. The document about which I have just spoken clearly states that the condition of the forest ranges from relatively pristine areas to various stages of regeneration following disturbance and degradation over 100 years, from logging in some cases. Some of those areas that have been logged still retain heritage value, so they have been nominated. Some do not, so they have not been nominated. We have never made a secret of the fact that not all the rainforests in Queensland are up to World Heritage standard and that is why we chose not to nominate all of them. There is nothing fraudulent in the Commonwealth's action in trying to protect these rainforests. The only fraud in this whole bitter campaign has been the Queensland Government's attempts-I think the word `misrepresentation' is far too weak a word-to create hysteria over this listing. Unfortunately, that has been endorsed by a spineless expediency shown by the Liberal Party. The moral bankruptcy involved in bowing down to the Nationals on this really makes my mind boggle. Of course, the fraud is a clear example of why Queensland never could have been trusted to manage those rainforests. It was demonstrated three weeks ago when I released the maps prepared by the Queensland Forestry Department just how great this fraud was and just how far the Queensland Government was prepared to go in misrepresenting its case. The Queensland Government's Forestry Department, in its attempts to justify the continued logging of the forests, has attempted to create a folklore, a new myth, that only 25 per cent of the rainforests had been logged, and, therefore, we had nothing else to worry about. The world could be reassured. Conservationists did not need to panic. The Queensland Government neglected to tell the world that the only reason there were any virgin forests left at all was that either they were on very steep slopes and so were inaccessible or there was no commercial timber in them anyway. A report by two independent Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) scientists who analysed the maps for the Commonwealth found that, of all the rainforests in the wet tropics between Townsville and Cooktown, 35 per cent in State forests and timber reserves had been logged. If we include rainforests on private land the figure was up to 45 per cent. By the Queensland Government's own maps the figure was 45 per cent. The Forestry Department either confused itself or, in an attempt to confuse others, responded by claiming that less than 20 per cent, or about 167,000 hectares, of the rainforests are zoned for logging. That was never the issue. I was putting on the record the history of logging in the wet tropics. The forestry department tried to get out of its embarrassment by talking about the amount of forest that it intended to log, not the amount of forest that has been logged. The reason that much of this remaining rainforest, some of which is on private land, is not in the heritage area, is that the malicious and hysterical campaign waged by the Queensland Government did so much to worry private landholders. In the end the barren legacy that will be left by the Queensland Government, by Senator Puplick, and by the spineless performance of the Liberal Party, if it were to succeed, would be no rainforests at all. That is where the industry was heading, and it was heading that way for a long, long time. Senator Puplick revealed extraordinary environmental ignorance this week when he said that we could applaud Queensland's rainforest management. I can excuse Liberal Party spinelessness in one sense, I suppose, with Queensland's buy and sell, bash and burn attitude to the environment that it has always had. However, it is going just a bit too far for Senator Puplick to attempt to have us believe that Queensland's management of national parks is, to quote him, `of the highest order'. That is simply too hard for anyone to stomach. Let us critically examine this claim about Queensland's rainforest management. In 1986 about 2 per cent of Queensland was reserved as national park. All other Australian States with the exception of Queensland have reserved and set aside for national parks a minimum of 5 per cent of their areas, which is of course the recommendation of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Only 45 per cent of Queensland's biological diversity is represented in its national parks. In New South Wales and Victoria the figures approach 100 per cent. In Queensland the richest and most diverse natural heritage that we have in Australia is being left to rack and ruin by a government that has a cavalier, development at all costs attitude. That Senator Puplick can endorse that State's rainforest management shows just to what extent he must have been defeated within his own party. I shall go even further and give some examples of Queensland's national park management and the commitment to national parks demonstrated by the Queensland Government. At Lawn Hill in the north-west of Queensland, Brazilian millionaire Sebastian Maia, after buying a pastoral lease at a bargain basement price, stalled a national park proposal for years and years. The original proposal was for more than 80,000 hectares of land. After a personal visit to the property by the then Premier Bjelke-Petersen, the park was finally declared but, guess what, it comprised only 12,000 hectares. In Queensland, if one is rich enough and complains loud enough one does not have to worry about a national park; one can ride straight over it. Senator Boswell —We can win elections. Senator RICHARDSON —When it comes to winning elections I hope Senator Boswell will look at the results of last Saturday's local elections in Cairns and Townsville, located right in the area where Senator Boswell told me that the conservation movement would be routed. On the contrary, it has routed the Opposition. However, let us look at some specific proposals. I instance proposed national parks at Cape York Peninsula, Shelburne Bay, Iron Range and McIlwraith Range which have been on the books for more than a decade. What has happened to them? At what stage are they? What about Bayfield National Park, which was first proposed in 1960? A few weeks ago, of course, we heard that half of that area is to be utilised for sand mining before any of it is declared. We still do not know what will happen there. Bribie Island was promised as a national park three years ago. What has happened to it? All we know now is that a town site for 200,000 people will not be allowed on the island; we have not been told just how much will be allowed. What has happened to that national park? Only 200 of the 800 islands on the Great Barrier Reef are protected as national parks from development. Why is that? Why is it that a national park on Masthead Island off Gladstone, promised two years ago, has never been delivered? Why is it that the Queensland Government tried to sell off Lindeman Island to East-West Airlines? Why has the Queensland Government tried to do all those things? The answer is that when it comes to national parks the Queensland Government does not care, and never did care. Senator Boswell —We were trying to give some of your fellows a job, that is why. Senator RICHARDSON —I might say that even Bjelke-Petersen backed off selling Lindeman Island. It is interesting to note that Senator Boswell still supports that sale. We will ensure that many people in Queensland find out that Senator Boswell still supports selling off Lindeman Island. That is typical of his attitude, and typical of his party's attitude. Of course, at the time Sir Edward Lyons was the chairman of the company trying to buy the island, so I can understand why Senator Boswell would have that attitude; I can understand that only too well. If we proceed beyond Queensland's procrastination and prevarication on national parks, we should look at what is represented by the Opposition's performance in the Parliament in the past few days. The memory of the Australian public will certainly not be as short or as selective as that of Senator Puplick, who claimed that I had consistently refused the offer of the Queensland Government to discuss the World Heritage listing. If one examines the facts, one sees that four years ago the Australian Heritage Commission recommended that this area should be nominated for the World Heritage List and that attempts to discuss anything with the Queensland Government ever since have been doomed to failure. For three long years the Commonwealth Government attempted to discuss that matter with the Queensland Government, but it did not get us very far. The State which has 54 per cent of Australia's rainforest refused to compromise or alter its destructive logging schedules in any way. In September last year, just four months after the Commonwealth Government announced that it had no option but to proceed with World Heritage nomination, former Premier Bjelke-Petersen-Senator Boswell will remember him because he was the senator's patron-was in north Queensland whipping up local fervour. His geriatric, bigoted rantings at that time were pretty fantastic. Senator Boswell —Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: Senator Richardson's remark about the former Premier was derogatory, and I ask that he withdraw it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No protection is given to former members of parliament. I call Senator Richardson. Senator RICHARDSON —Sounding like an erratic emperor, Bjelke-Petersen ranted as his empire crumbled. To indicate the sort of discussion that Senator Puplick encourages, I should like to quote part of what he told the troops in north Queensland on that occasion. Bjelke-Petersen said: We're at war-we are really at a war, in a war situation, not the Brisbane Line, but we are at war in this part of the State from Townsville north. That was the prelude to my visit to Ravenshoe. I should like to believe that Premier Ahern has a different view. I really would like to believe that, and I am sure that he has. However, Premier Ahern still has to talk to his Cabinet members about world heritage. That Cabinet has a pretty fair record. It includes Brian Austin, who seems to think that there is a connection between AIDS and the rainforests simply because Brazil has both. There is Bob Katter Jr, whose crowning political achievement is apparently convincing the Queensland Government that there should be no more national parks on Cape York Peninsula. There is Martin Tenni. Who could forget Martin Tenni? He has earned a pretty sordid place in environmental history in Queensland by his not so private advice on the question of the Daintree road in 1984, when he was saying that what had to be done was to `do as much damage as possible so the greenies will never get this world heritage'. They are the sorts of attitudes with which Premier Ahern will have to compete. However, I am sure that he will manage. Senator Walters —Come on, Graham, you are out of touch. Senator RICHARDSON —If ever I have to get in touch I shall not be asking Senator Walters. The times are a'changing in northern Queensland, fortunately. The timber companies and the timber workers who have been bullied for so long and have not cooperated with the national government, are now cooperating and I am delighted about that. The financial analysis of the timber companies is proceeding apace so that when I announce the compensation package I shall be in a position to do the right thing by them. On the score of that cooperation it has to be remembered that on 11 December, which is some time back, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wrote to Premier Ahern, saying that he would like to discuss the issue with the Premier. Less than two weeks later Premier Ahern said that he would fight to the end. Time and again I have asked for talks with the Queensland Government. My hopes are buoyed because some talks have now been agreed to. One never knows one's luck in the big city; even in Brisbane one never knows one's luck. We shall see how that goes, and I shall take some delight in reporting on it to the Senate. I shall go a little further and talk about our commitments in Queensland, and Senator Puplick's statement about how we should trust Queensland's national park management, and why this Bill is not necessary. I should like to say something about Dr Ross Hynes, the person who advises the Queensland Government on forestry and national parks. Recently he described me as a `numbers kneecracker'. He often gets his cliches slightly confused, and that is another example of that. However, the examples of his advice that I want to give are a little more serious than that. His scientific colleagues are more than concerned that the forests should not be logged. What happened with the NORMA scientific report is the classic example of the Queensland Government on the run on the issue. Dr Hynes's performance has been castigated by all sides. Senator Puplick, without even the hint of a blush as bright as his bow tie, stood up in the Parliament and told us that the Liberals would have expected the timber industry to agree to a voluntary moratorium. I would have thought that the actions of the timber industry in Queensland over the last however many years one wanted to count would never lead one to that conclusion. Certainly, the discussions it had with me did not leave that to any imagination. It made its position very clear. For more than a century it has made its position very clear. The rainforest timber industry has always wanted to operate in virgin forests because it is in virgin forests that it can get the best timber. That is why the argument is so passionate and intense now. The best timber has been running out. The areas of virgin forest are not there any more; there are very few left. Is it any wonder that, with the last few fragments of old, accessible forests and today's technology, this would arouse so much passion among the environment movement. There is no doubt that, with logging going at the pace it is, industry is on the verge of collapse. It has nothing to do with World Heritage; the industry is doomed anyway. I can show honourable senators headlines of the Ravenshoe Press going back to 1986, such as `Ravenshoe under threat'. That was long before World Heritage nomination. Ravenshoe was under threat because the Queensland Government, in one hit, halved the quotas; there were none left. If any politician had bothered to listen over the past decade or so to the foresters and mill owners in Queensland, he would have been told that the good timber was running out. That is why in the old days they needed only a handful of species and now they need over 100. There just is not the good timber left. If we are to preserve what is left, we have to act now and pass the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. All that has happened with World Heritage Listing is that the timber industry, the Queensland Government, Senator Puplick, those who have shown spinelessness and Senator Boswell and his colleagues, have looked for someone else to blame. Obviously, the World Heritage listing is a convenient whipping boy, so away they go. That will not change what has happened to the rainforests of north Queensland. The really embarrassing advice which the Queensland Government received from the scientific sub-committee of NORMA in the last few weeks is worth a few more words. Senator Boswell said that he would like to get permission to table it. I will be in anything that I can do to assist Senator Boswell in this endeavour. The committee is chaired by Dr Hynes, whom I mentioned earlier. Despite what happened with its political masters, the work of that committee is very welcome. The report has real significance. One has only to listen to the Queensland Minister responsible for the environment, Mr Muntz, to work out just how significant it was. It was not the work of one scientist; rather, it was the synthesis of input from 14 scientists, all of whom have expertise in rainforests. Their combined work found that the area had World Heritage value. Senator Parer —Why are you worried about going to court? Senator RICHARDSON —However, Mr Muntz, Senator Parer and others do not want to listen to the scientists. Those rantings and explanations as to why it was not right vary dramatically according to whom one listens to. Even Mr Muntz could not work out why it was not right. He gave three different answers in the space of two days. That happened because they set up a committee when they were sure of the outcome. With the acknowledged scientific expertise of Senator Boswell, Senator Parer, Mr Muntz and others, it was thought that in no way would the scientists find that the area had heritage value. However, they woke up one morning and discovered that the scientists said it had heritage value. That was the end of the day when it came to scientific evidence. The Queensland Government will seek no more because it knows what it will find. As to Mr Muntz's claim that the report was a preliminary one which had been stolen, it was available in the CSIRO library in Atherton. The idea that it was not available is just ridiculous. The next excuse was that it contained computer errors. However, they have backed off that excuse now, because it did not contain such errors. We are not sure what the third excuse will be. Perhaps Senator Boswell can tell us. Perhaps he has the insight into the problem. I suspect that, as usual, he will tell us nothing. In November, the NORMA Chairman-that well-known north Queensland knight, Sir Sydney Williams-put out a Press statement claiming that north Queensland would be paralysed by the listing. He said that there would be no more roads and powerlines. He went through all the hysteria and nonsense that has gone on for a long time. Like all good messenger boys, he put out the release which had been prepared for him by the Press Secretary of the then Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I know from discussions with the staff of NORMA, how embarrassed by that and the scientific committee's report they really are. I want to turn to some of the criticisms that have been made as to the powers of search and seizure. We have heard about Richardson's greenshirts. We have heard about this new environmental police state that I seek to create through this legislation. The rights of private citizens will not be diminished under the legislation. What I will demonstrate now is just how moderate the legislation is when it comes to police powers. It contains no power of seizure or arrest, so it cannot be regarded as draconian. It contains powers to obtain information only. Inspectors cannot enter a property without permission or a judge's warrant, unless they believe that there are serious circumstances. Senator Boswell —`Unless'. You must think we are gullible. Senator RICHARDSON —I will tell Senator Boswell about the Queensland Government's laws. Let us hear about the Minister Geoff Muntz's gestapo and what powers it has. Section 56 of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service legislation gives the Director, his officers and employees the power to enter any land or waters at any time, without previous notice, without warrant, to inspect forest products or for any national park purpose. The Tasmanian Government is not real bad on this either. I am glad that Senator Walters is in the chamber. Let me give a couple of examples. Section 41 of the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Act gives authorised officers the power to seize anything on reasonable grounds. Section 42 gives the power to search any premises, including private homes. Section 43 gives the power of arrest without warrant, even for failing to give full name and address. That is what Tasmania and Queensland are about. I am referring to their Acts. In a report entitled Privacy and Statutory Powers of Intrusion, which was produced in October 1981, the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia identified 54 provisions under its State Acts which authorised search and seizure and only 14 of those required a warrant. Far from talking about the shock, horror proposals contained in this Bill, we ought to look again at Western Australia. The Carnarvon Banana Industry Act 1961 to 1980 entitles any inspector not only to enter premises but also to inspect books, accounts, records and documents. The only safeguard is that he must enter the premises at a reasonable time, which is pretty decent of him. One would hope also that inspectors or veterinary surgeons in the Western Australian Department of Agriculture would be discreet about the times they go in. They have similar powers. I was a bit worried about Senator Walters. Apparently, she depicted someone at her car late at night flashing something at her. Fortunately, we discovered that it was a badge. So we were able to have our delicate sensibilities satisfied. Looking at the powers of arrest and seizure that the Acts in her State give people, one is in a lot more trouble in that State. Some of Queensland's Acts are much worse. There are no worries about Richardson's greenshirts and brownshirts. Already in Queensland one can have one's property entered and searched. One can be arrested. It requires no warrant. It requires nothing. I did a very different thing in looking at this legislation. I would never agree to the draconian practices in which Senator Walters's Liberal Government in Tasmania or Senator Boswell's Government in Queensland are involved. I could never agree to it, and never would; and of course, I have not. In terms of the impact of this Bill the reality is-- Senator Walters —Give us a bit of detail. Senator RICHARDSON —If I had an hour and a half, I would. However, I am afraid I do not get that. I am given only some of the time necessary to try to answer some of the misrepresentations that Senator Walters and other honourable senators opposite have perpetrated in this place. Unfortunately, it is not long enough. All I can say, in conclusion, is that the later amendment moved by Senator Puplick is pretty typical of his performance in this debate. it is a desperate attempt to do anything at all to stop World Heritage listing going ahead. There is no substance in it, so there is nothing to answer. All that Senator Puplick and Senator Boswell said is, `Don't list it. Let's delay. Let's procrastinate. Let's do anything we can'. Further to that, as far as the Bill's so-called draconian provisions are concerned, there are none. What the Government is concerned about is not only saving Queensland rainforests but also setting a procedure for the future for the World Heritage to make sure that all citizens know their rights; that we all know in which direction we are heading. This Bill does no more and no less than that. I would hope that the Senate can speedily pass the Bill so that we can all make sure that our World Heritage areas get some protection. There are not many such areas left. There is no big list that the Government is about to draw up, but our great areas need preservation. The rainforests are one such area. I am proud of all we have done to save them. Whatever other areas need saving, we will look at them as well. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Hill's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Alston, R. K. R MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Gietzelt, A. T.Beahan, M. E. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Evans, Gareth Zakharov, A. O.Foreman, D. J. Archer, B. R. Sibraa, K. W.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Jones, G. N.Hill, R. M. Button, J. N.Short, J. R. Haines, J.Chaney, F. M. Tate, M. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Aulich, T. G. Foreman, D. J.Beahan, M. E. Gietzelt, A. T.Black, J. R. Giles, P. J.Bolkus, N. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. McLean, P. A.Coates, J. McMullan, R. F.Collins, R. L. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. J.Cooney, B. C. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devereux, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, A. R. Sanders, N. K.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R.Jones, G. N. Crichton-Browne, N. A.Button, J. N. Hill, R. M.Haines, J. Short, J. R.Tate, M. C. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Given that since the election of the Hawke Government an average single income family is paying $15 a week more tax; that the average price of a litre of petrol has gone from 44c to 57c while world oil prices have halved and that this rise is thanks to a trebling of the excise under Labor; that foreign debt has more than trebled and now stands at around $7,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia; that an extra 700,000 Australians have slipped below the poverty line; and that the prices of average cars such as the Commodore and the Ford Laser have increased by 57 per cent and 63 per cent respectively since the start of the car plan, will the Minister confirm that in 1986-87 real disposable income fell by 1.2 per cent-the first time in 30 years that this important measure of family welfare has gone backwards? Does the Minister agree that the only way to reverse this situation on a sustainable basis is to achieve real productivity growth? Given the present stagnant situation, what steps will the Government take to lift productivity? Senator BUTTON —I am not able to go through Senator Chaney's lexicon of political propaganda. I understand that that will be debated in the matter of public importance debate later today. Senator Stone —You are not disputing that these are facts, are you? Senator BUTTON —Oh, come on, Senator! I think that there are alternative figures on many of those matters which lead me to the conclusion that they are matters of dispute rather than fact. On the question of productivity, one cannot wave a magic wand when one is in government in order to improve productivity across the economy. There are a number of things happening, industry by industry, which are designed to improve productivity and which involve improved investment, improved labour force relations, better management techniques and so on. Senator Chaney asked me a very general question which is not susceptible to precise answers. The matters I have mentioned are in train and will continue to be so under this Government. Senator CHANEY —I note the Minister's answer and, by way of a supplementary question, I point out that this Government has been in power now for five years and has indicated that it wishes to continue following the policies that it has pursued to this point. It is clear that productivity is stagnant. Does the Government have in mind any changes to policy to tackle this fundamental problem which must be solved if we are to have any sustainable rise in living standards in this country? Senator BUTTON —My answer to the original question was that the Government has a number of policies relating to the issue which Senator Chaney raised in his question. Only yesterday I answered a question from Senator Chaney about the Government's wages policy. In my answer I indicated that, in terms of discussions about wages policy, the Government was primarily concerned to see a moderate wage regime and that in the negotiations about this the issue of productivity should be regarded as paramount. That is a very important macro-policy which is relevant to the questions that Senator Chaney asked, quite apart from numerous other factors which are taking place on an industry by industry basis. Senator DEVEREUX —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of remarks made by Senator Lewis in an interview on 2GB yesterday, 22 March, when he alleged that the export market development grants (EMDG) scheme was defaulting in payments to approved firms? Is it true that, as Senator Lewis stated, there is a $64m shortfall in funds under the scheme? Is it correct that, as also alleged, Australian firms with legitimate claims for export assistance under this scheme will have to wait until next year's Budget to receive funds due to them? Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis's remarks have been drawn to my attention. Once again, his particular political views and role have not let him have a clear sight of the facts in this matter. Senator Lewis may not be aware of this but on 20 March-well before he participated in this radio program yesterday-I announced an additional-- Senator Lewis —Two days before. Senator BUTTON —One cannot afford to be two days behind in this game. I announced that an additional $64m would be made available to finance claims under the export market development grants scheme. Senator Lewis —Once again government by Press release. I warned you about that yesterday. Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis makes the great plea of the illiterate in saying that governments sometimes make announcements by Press release. Press releases are capable of being read and are useful vehicles of communication with the bulk of the electorate. Perhaps, in Senator Lewis's case, we should have Press releases in braille or something similar to help him out. Senator Lewis —You are the Leader of the Government in this place and you have a responsibility to the Parliament. Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis should not distract me from my answer. He probably does not want to hear it. I understand his motives. The scheme to which I referred, which is administered by Austrade, as Senator Lewis might know, aims to encourage small to medium sized Australian exporters to develop overseas markets for goods. There are specific programs within the export market development grants scheme. It was first introduced in 1974 and revised in May 1985 to help ensure a more effective targeting of export assistance. I must say that throughout the scheme's life the grants payable have generally exceeded the amounts provided in the Budget. This is because the scheme is responsive to exporters' claims as well as exchange rate movements. It is thus very difficult to estimate total Budget requirements. For example, for this financial year the Government initially provided $109m to cover claims made by exporters for 1986-87; actual commitments amounted to $146m. Taking account of previous backlogs, this left the scheme with a shortfall of about $64m for claims to be processed by 30 June 1988. The increase in claims under this scheme can be attributed to the 26 per cent increase in exports of manufactures and services during 1986-87-something which never happened in the Opposition's time in government-and the 14 per cent depreciation of the Australian dollar during the year. This Government has a firm resolve to help Australian firms improve their export performance through this scheme and related Austrade administered schemes. Equally, we need to ensure that government funds are spent effectively. To this end, the Government is reviewing the EMDG scheme to ensure better targeting and to help avoid substantial shortfall situations in the future. In looking at Senator Lewis's remarks about the EMDG scheme-inaccurate as they were-I had occasion to read the rest of what he said in that little bobby-dazzler radio interview, full of factual errors as it was-a nice little discussion based on totally false assumptions. I will mention one other false assumption that Senator Lewis made. He asked me yesterday about concessional finance that was made available to help the Australian company, Austoft Industries Pty Ltd, one of the two producers of sugarcane harvesters in the world and probably the best, to market its goods in Cuba and Nicaragua. In yesterday's radio interview Senator Lewis said: We made a grant available, a concessional finance arrangement, just to keep the Labor Party's Left wing happy because that is why these loans were made. Senator Lewis comes out of the cold war of the 1950s; in fact he is still there. That grant was about helping an Australian company, which is world competitive, in a difficult market and one of the only export markets available to it-Cuba and Nicaragua, which are big producers of sugar. I intend no disrespect to the left wing of the Australian Labor Party; the left wing of the Labor Party would not have such a stupid view as that. It probably did not even know that it happened. It is only in the minds of people such as Senator Lewis that this sort of mind-boggling 1950 vintage politics is still about. In making concessional assistance available to exporters, a wide range of countries has to be considered. I do not want to mention some of the other countries. Senator Lewis can run them through the political spectrum if he likes, but this has nothing to do with politics. It is about helping Australian exporters, and helping them in difficult market situations. I invite Senator Lewis to look at the way the scheme operates and to come back and ask me some questions about the concessional financial arrangements that we have made available to countries other than Cuba and Nicaragua. I have seen Senator Lewis's Press release. It represents an extraordinary misrepresentation both of the Government and of very fine Australian companies such as Austoft. Senator PATTERSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Has his attention been drawn to the report of the Victorian Young Homeless Allowance Reform Group which calls upon the Government to review the social security legislation and its implementation? Is the Government satisfied with the current legislation? Is the administration of the allocation of this allowance satisfactory or are there problems? What is the estimated cost per head of applicant, including costs of local government youth workers assisting applicants, of administering this $26 a week allowance? Senator BOLKUS —The question that is raised is of concern to government. In response to the last part of the question, I do not have any specific statistics but I will endeavour to obtain them for the honourable senator. However, a number of newspaper reports recently have indicated concern that the new arrangements for the young unemployed are leading to increased youth homelessness. This, of course, is something that the Government is monitoring very closely. Our position is that it is too early to monitor the effects of the recently introduced jobsearch allowance. The young homeless allowance, however, is available to young people who have to live away from home without parental support. That is one Government program which we are gearing towards the particular problem that is raised by the honourable senator. I should also spell it out that the Government's policy is aimed to ensure that parents who are able to provide more support for their children do so, but also that there should be government support and protection where parental support is not an option. The young homeless allowance, which was introduced in July 1986, was increased in January of this year from $73.28 to $76 a week. The payment represents an increase of some 50 per cent in the normal rate of payment for 16- and 17-year-olds without parental support. It has been of concern to the Government that we establish reasonable and workable criteria for treating young people as independent of parents, and this is one area of social policy in which there have been difficulties. There is on the one hand the problem of unnecessary incentives to leave home to be considered. The Government's position is that the effectiveness of the young homeless allowance will be kept under constant review. Having in mind the fact that I have promised to provide further information, I should also mention for completeness that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is conducting an inquiry into problems faced by Australia's homeless youth. Its report is expected to be available in September 1988. I assure both the honourable senator and the Senate that the priority issue that has been raised is under constant review by the Government in terms of both our financial commitment and our keenness to keep under constant monitoring the effectiveness and the implementation of our programs. Senator PATTERSON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President. I asked the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Victorian Young Homeless Reform Group but in his answer he did not give me any information as to that. I ask what response the Minister has to the following statement made by the Homeless Allowance Reform Group: The guidelines are so strict and narrow and the administrative procedures so time-consuming that young people are forced to wait months to get it, because the Government has put more effort into ensuring that those who are not eligible will not get the Youth Homeless Allowance rather than ensuring that those who are homeless are supported. Senator BOLKUS —The answer to the first part of the question is that my attention has not been drawn to that specific article. Senator Patterson —I will give you a copy. Senator BOLKUS —I thank the honourable senator. In respect of the second part of the question, I thought I made it clear that the Government, in working out and monitoring its policy, is keeping under constant and close review both the effectiveness and the implementation of the young homeless allowance. As a consequence, the issues that the honourable senator raises are very much to the forefront of the Government's monitoring considerations. Senator COLLINS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has his attention been drawn to an article by Gerard Henderson which appeared in the Australian newspaper on Monday, 21 March? Mr Henderson stated in that article: Voluntary work contracts are the obvious answer to the calls for productivity and enterprise level negotiations that are so essential if Australian industries are to become truly competitive on world markets and if we are to get rid of our appalling restrictive work practices. N.S.W. can take a national lead here. Is the Government persuaded by the argument that a system of voluntary work contracts is the answer to improving Australia's overall economic performance? Senator WALSH —In answer to the last part of the question, the Government is not persuaded. Senator Tambling —I wonder why. Senator WALSH —I am about to tell the honourable senator. If he tunes in he will hear why. There are a number of reasons for that. The first and most obvious one, probably, is the success that the accord has achieved. That is, following the wages explosions of 1981 and 1982 when, under the Howard formula, wages increased by 13 per cent and 14 per cent respectively, the accord over the next four or five years has led to a very substantial decline in real wages and an even more substantial decline in real unit labour costs. That is something that had to happen, because the wages explosion that John Howard presided over had driven the Australian economy into the deepest recession since the 1930s and led to massive unemployment. That was a major factor in that recession and the consequential unemployment. Since that time more than a million additional people have been employed. The Australian economy has grown at what is by Australian standards a high rate and simultaneously unemployment has fallen and real wages have declined. Senator Stone —The international debt has grown at a phenomenal rate. Senator WALSH —There is no precedent in Australian economic history-as Senator Stone would know very well, even though he is not too good on some British labour history-for a decline in real wages, necessary as it was in the circumstances, at the same time as the economy was growing quite strongly and unemployment was falling. That is the most obvious reason. There are less obvious reasons, one of which was highlighted in the Australian Financial Review of 11 March. It gives an account of two former executives of Repco who were eased or, one should say, squeezed out of their jobs by a Mr Cafiero, who has apparently taken over the management of Repco. I suppose the orthodox theory to which Senator Stone subscribes would say that Mr Cafiero must have been a very efficient manager. If that is so, there is nothing in his record to support it. He presided over the near bankruptcy of Chrysler before moving on to De Lorean and presiding over its ultimate bankruptcy. So there is nothing in Mr Cafiero's background to suggest that he was a particularly good manger. He did, however, manage to get rid of the former executives, Messrs O'Brien and Roberts, who were sacked but not told why. They were given no explanation. The Financial Review reported: O'Brien and Roberts took legal advice immediately and their lawyers, Corrs, Pavy, Whiting & Byrne, advised them to use the Industrial Relations Commission to have their case heard. The reason for that was that they had contracts which they thought would protect them in the circumstances which had arisen; that is, that they got the sack without even being told why. Their lawyers suggested that they go to the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC). The article continued: Apart from being less expensive, they could expect to be heard within a matter of weeks, rather than an estimated two and a half years through the court system. That was 2 1/2 years through the court system, and a matter of weeks in the IRC. Just as another aside, a snide Press release was put out by Andrew Hay who, as we know, has a long association with the Liberal Party as a staffer in Parliament House, among other things, and is a would-be Liberal member of parliament. The snide Press statement by Andrew Hay criticised Messrs O'Brien and Roberts for going to the Industrial Relations Commission. The real point is that if people like Messrs O'Brien and Roberts, who were the finance director and the manager of a large company, had contracts drawn up which in the end were found to be dud contracts, not enforceable at all possibly and certainly not enforceable within 2 1/2 years, and could be dudded in that way, what hope is there for the ordinary employees of a company to be protected against unjust dismissal or whatever through a contract? Senator JENKINS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an account in the West Australian newspaper of Friday, 18 March, which stated that almost 160,000 passengers have refused or failed to pay the Federal Government's airport arrival fee in its first two months of operation? Can the Minister confirm the figure of 160,000 passengers? If not, what is the correct figure? What feedback has the Minister received from the tourist industry and from international tourist bureaus concerning the effect of the $5 arrival fee? Is the Minister convinced of the advisability of retaining the fee in the light of widespread opposition to it and the difficulty in collecting it? If the fee is to remain, what steps will the Minister take to make it more acceptable to both the airlines and the travelling public? Senator REYNOLDS —I have to advise Senator Jenkins that I cannot confirm the figures she has quoted, though she has drawn those figures to my attention. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has advised me that he and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories have met with airline representatives on three occasions. The Government and the airlines have raised a number of options but discussions have not yet been finalised. The Government wishes the discussions to be completed before announcing any final options, so any media reports about numbers as quoted by Senator Jenkins or possible resolution of these differences are obviously premature. However, I note that Senator Jenkins has a particular interest in this matter and I assure her that as soon as it is appropriate to make a more detailed response to her question I will certainly ensure that full details are given to her. Senator JENKINS —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that reply and the assurance that details will be available. However, are we then to presume that the present haphazard situation of collection-that is, that some pay and some do not-is to continue for the time being? Senator REYNOLDS —That question is essentially one for the airline industry. What we are trying to do and the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories have been working on, is to resolve with the airline industry the concerns that have been raised, but it is premature at this stage and I am not in a position to pre-empt any announcement that might be forthcoming following those discussions. Senator GILES —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister seen reports alleging government disregard for families headed by sole parents? In view of the Hawke Government's clearly stated concern for the living standards of families with dependent children, what has been done for sole parents, whose households are amongst the poorest in Australia? Senator BOLKUS —I thank Senator Giles for raising this question and say to her that an accusation I have heard in recent days is that sole parents are amongst those parts of the Australian community that the Government has allegedly disregarded. I should, for the sake of the record and for the sake of public debate, make the record clear, firstly, about the Government's commitment to alleviating the poverty problems of sole parents-a very needy group in the community-and secondly, on the commitment of the Government over recent years in those areas. I believe the Government's record in these areas has been a very proud one and one that critics obviously disregard. In making an assessment of the Government's position, obviously they work from a position of ignorance. We have taken a number of steps to alleviate poverty in this area. We have increased payments for children from $10 a week to $22 a week and, for older children, to $28 a week. We have taken steps like increasing the mother's/guardian's allowance from $6 a week to $12 a week, which is a 100 per cent increase. We have extended the allowance to cover all sole parent pensions and beneficiaries. The Government's commitment in the area of poverty has led to changes in the poverty trap problem and as a consequence assistance to sole parents means that they can now earn quite an amount each week before they start to lose their pensions. The amount that can be earned by a sole parent with three children has been increased from $48 to $76 a week-almost a 60 per cent increase. In the last Budget the Government also introduced an earnings credit scheme, a scheme that means that sole parents just starting work or who from time to time do casual work will now be able to earn more and not jeopardise their pensions in the process. I should mention also that the record of this Government has been to increase the availability of child care places. In targeting our priorities in that area, sole parents have been one of the major beneficiaries of the Government's program. Sole parents have become a priority group for Commonwealth Employment Service and labour market programs. Government information and records indicate that sole parents are becoming major users of the range of labour market transition programs. I should also mention that in last year's Budget the Government made changes to the eligibility criteria for sole parents' pensions. Although those changes make it more difficult for sole parents to receive a pension in particular circumstances, the changes reflect our belief that sole parents should be encouraged to move out of the social security system, where possible, and become financially independent, but at the same time consider and take care of those in grave need. I should emphasise also that we have provided training courses for sole parents who are no longer qualified for pensions. Senator Bishop —You don't have to read it all. Senator BOLKUS —We have a reaction from the Opposition. It seems that honourable senators opposite come in on cue every time. I should take this opportunity to mention in response to them that the Government's approach in this area contrasts very starkly with their policy. It is on record that the Opposition would decimate labour market programs, would destroy child care programs, would shed public housing responsibilities and cancel the pensions of every sole parent whose youngest child is over 10 years of age. Senator Bishop —Is this for next Saturday? Senator BOLKUS —No, it is not for next Saturday. This has been ongoing Government policy and something of which honourable senators should be reminded from time to time. In closing, and with reference to the stark contrast in the records of the Government and the Opposition, I should say that the Government is still committed to doing more for sole parents. As honourable senators might know, we are introducing a child support scheme. The other plank of the Government's program in this area will be consideration of the Cass review of social security, particularly those recommendations for sole parents. That consideration will be proceeding in the next few months. In response to Senator Bishop and others, I should say that under the Australian Labor Party sole parents do have a chance of leading a decent life. Under the policies of Senator Bishop they have Buckley's chance. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer to the statement he made on 15 December last in which he announced the extension of the coastwatch contract to Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd for 18 months and amongst other things stated that it would be paid: . . . with necessary allowances for the acquisition or modification of equipment. I ask the Minister: Has the Government paid Skywest the sum of $1.28m under this item of that contract? What has Skywest expended this money upon? Is it a fact that Skywest is currently operating an interim coastwatch contract with eight aircraft only? Is this in accordance with the terms of the interim contract? Is this figure, if it is correct, the number of aircraft which were being operated by Amann Aviation Pty Ltd when the Minister terminated its contract on 12 September last year? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am a little short of up-to-date information on this matter. The 18-month interim contract was in the process of being negotiated when I had most recent advice before me. I am not quite sure what the final terms of that negotiation are. I shall take the question on notice and give Senator Durack an answer as soon as I can. Senator McKIERNAN —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to Press reports today about exports from Australia of motor vehicles and automobile components which point to substantial growth in export sales to Japan, Europe and the United States. Are these latest reports indicative of future growth prospects for Australian car and parts manufacturers? Also, what levels of exports may we expect in future years? Senator BUTTON —I have seen some of the Press reports to which Senator McKiernan refers. I think there are signs to support cautious optimism about the export performance of the motor vehicle industry in Australia. Last financial year exports of motor vehicles and components totalled $637m, which was an increase of 64 per cent on the 1985-86 exports. This compares favourably with the 23 per cent increase in manufactured exports as a whole over the same period and reflects the significant progress being made by the industry towards world competitive manufacturing. The industry is adopting a fresh approach to export possibilities. There have been a number of factors, including the devaluation of the dollar, which have helped that process. The industry is also capitalising on its expertise in low volume production, and a number of niche export market opportunities in the United States and Europe are emerging. Press reports in various newspapers today refer to export deals with Ford in Japan, Nissan and Mitsubishi in Japan, and sales of automotive components to Japan. Australia is now the third largest importer of automotive components into Japan. Also, the Press reports refer to sales of components by Ford Australia to its European parent plants and increased sales from Holden's engine establishment at Fisherman's Bend to the United States and Europe. On the basis of these announcements by companies and the figures which are available to date, the industry estimates of $1.2 billion in exports by 1992 will be easily attained and are well within the industry's grasp. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and follows the answer he has just given on motor vehicle exports. The Opposition welcomes those exports, but in light of the fact that the price of a Ford Laser has gone, from the time of the commencement of the car plan, from just under $8,000 to over $13,000, an increase of 63 per cent, the price of a Commodore in the same period has gone from a little over $11,000 to about $17,500, an increase of 57 per cent, and the price of a Falcon has gone from over $12,000 to over $17,000, an increase of 43 per cent, I ask the Minister: Since one of the objectives of the car plan was to produce more competitively priced vehicles for Australian consumers, is there any prospect of the very steep rises in motor vehicle prices being slowed down, or even reversed, and to what extent is the car plan succeeding in providing cheaper vehicles for Australian consumers? Senator BUTTON —The rapid increase in car prices in the domestic market followed closely and dramatically from the devaluation of the Australian dollar in 1985 and again in 1986. That is, first of all, because the price of imported cars went up significantly, but also because the price of significant components in motor vehicles, imported largely from Japan, went up very significantly at that time. The motor vehicle industry reflected more dramatically than any other industry, I suppose, because of its vulnerability to component imports, the changes in the value of the dollar, particularly as against the yen. Senator Messner —Taxes and interest rates surely had something to do with it. Senator BUTTON —Taxes and interest rates may have had some marginal effect on it at various times, but we have debated that issue before in this place, particularly in relation to the fringe benefits tax. There is no doubt that for a variety of reasons, associated with Government macroeconomic policy in the difficult trading environment in which this country was situated, Government decisions of one kind or another had some effect on the car market. I do not retreat from that at all. My recollection-and I will get Senator Chaney the figure-is that as distinct from the year 1986-87, in the year 1987-88 there has been a quite distinct decline in the acceleration of motor vehicle prices, if acceleration is the right-- Senator Chaney —A reducing rate of increase. Senator BUTTON —A reducing rate of increase, yes. But even Senator Chaney would admit that that is better than an accelerating rate of increase. Senator Chaney —It is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Senator BUTTON —Absolutely, Senator; I would not put it any higher than that. Let me say that, relatively speaking, Australian motor vehicle prices compared with those in other countries are not abnormally high. I shall try to get Senator Chaney some figures. Senator Messner —That is not right. Senator BUTTON —As I said, I shall try to get Senator Chaney some figures on that and Senator Messner can look at them at that time. It is an objective of the car plan to reduce relative prices of motor vehicles in Australia. I believe that we still have the capacity to attain that objective over time. Any future announcements about the car plan will partially go towards helping with that process. Senator SCHACHT —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance, who represents the Treasurer, been drawn to an advertisement in yesterday's Australian Financial Review for companies to enter into arrangements with Carlton Football Club for $65,000 entertainment packages in the guise of `visible advertising signs'? Would the `favourable tax implications' advertised as available with this package be consistent with the taxation arrangements proposed today by the President of the Carlton Football Club as they would affect the club's supporters in buying a ticket for the outer? Is the Government contemplating implementing these new taxes for football fans? Senator WALSH —There are three questions there. The answers are yes, no-and as to the third question, whether the tax advantages described are real, I do not know the answer to that one and I shall seek an answer from the Treasurer. I have seen the advertisement, and for those handicapped people from the north who may not know it, I should mention that the President of the Carlton Football Club is one John Elliott, better known probably as President of the Liberal Party. Senator Robert Ray —I wouldn't bet on it. Senator WALSH —Outside Melbourne, Senator Ray. Do not be parochial about this. Outside Melbourne or outside southern Australia he is better known as President of the Liberal Party. The advertisement, as Senator Schacht's question states, says that for $65,000 a company can become a sponsor of the Carlton Football Club and that the company representative will be able to take seven guests along to several of John Elliott's presidential lunches, have the three-course corporate lunch, as much booze as one can drink at the footie in the afternoon and get to the footie free as well-all the nine games at Princes Park and one at VFL Park, `along with favourable tax implications'. The clear message there is that the company will be able to write off the $65,000 as advertising expenditure. I shall seek an answer from the Treasurer as to whether that would be allowed. I was asked whether this advertisement was consistent with the statement made today by Mr Elliott, President of the Liberal Party. The answer is definitely no. Mr Elliott, as President of the Carlton Football Club, is soliciting and promoting a device, brazenly proclaimed in the terms of that advertisement, for him, his ilk and their mates to bludge on the taxpayers, go to the footie free, gobble the free lunch, swallow free booze all afternoon and then claim the whole lot as a tax deduction against the company. That humbug was compounded today when he appeared on the Schildberger program advocating yet again a broadly based consumption tax which I understand, and according to today's Australian Financial Review, Mr Peacock is also contemplating, but which the Financial Review says, in the end, he will not have the stomach to go ahead with. In other words, not only is Mr Elliott brazenly advertising and soliciting for people to join him in bludging on the rest of the taxpayers with free trips to the footie, free lunches, free booze and the whole lot being claimed as tax deductible, but also he has the audacity the very next day to say that all the ordinary people who pay their own way when they go the footie, who have to buy their booze if they drink there, who have to buy their own pies, will get taxed on them as well while he is still sitting in his corporate box paying nothing for it and claiming the whole lot as a tax deduction. Senator McGAURAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. Numerous accounts are emanating from the Latrobe Valley in Victoria regarding the heavy-handed approach by union officials in threatening unionists not to sign a petition opposed to the Cain Government's gun laws. Has the petition signed by 1,000 Latrobe Valley unionists from 13 separate unions protesting against the Victorian Government's gun laws been drawn to the attention of the Minister? Is the Minister aware that these petitioners propose withdrawing payment of their union dues unless union contributions to the coffers of the Australian Labor Party cease forthwith? Will the Minister support, on public interest grounds, the right of rank and file unionists to protest in this way against what they believe to be union inaction on gun laws, or will he sit back and allow compulsory unionism to take effect? Senator BUTTON —I always accept that it is the right of any group in the community to express its views on political matters in a free society in a way it thinks appropriate, provided it is not accompanied by violence or other activities which might be regarded as socially undesirable, such as we have seen in a couple of instances recently in one industry. I am not sure that this question is, in any sense, within the province of the Minister for Industrial Relations. Busy as he is and `hands on' Minister as he is, I do not think he would devote much of his time to assessing the feelings of particular people in particular unions in relation to the gun laws issue. However, that may be wrong. I will certainly pass the honourable senator's question on to the Minister and see whether I can extract an answer from him. But I sincerely think it is not something which would normally come within his province as Minister. Senator BEAHAN —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training been drawn to an article entitled `Improving Australia's Competitiveness', by Dr David Clark of the University of New South Wales, in today's Australian Financial Review? In that article Dr Clark asserts: The average Australian employee gets paid for 57 days a year they are not at work. Ignoring the poor grammar in that statement, is it factually correct? Does the repeated assertion of supposed facts of this type help or hinder the improvement of Australia's competitiveness? Senator WALSH —The short answer to the question is that the assertion made by David Clark and quoted by Senator Beahan has absolutely no foundation. Moreover, he published the same false assertion on 10 November 1986 and 11 November 1987. I will detail the broad facts of the situation and I am leaving aside the 20 per cent, or thereabouts, of the work force who are casual employees and, therefore, do not get any holiday entitlements at all. Quite a few of them work for 20 hours a week or more-it is not just a couple of hours-but I am leaving them out of it. The typical Australian worker, excluding those casuals, gets 20 days paid annual leave, 11 or so public holidays-and that is a bit imprecise because it varies from one State to another-and entitlements to other types of leave, such as long service leave and sick leave. If all employees remained in their jobs long enough to qualify for long service leave they would accrue between six and seven days per year, although figures published by the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes suggest that a substantial number of employees do not remain in one job long enough to qualify. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not publish figures on sick leave but I understand that a Confederation of Australian Industry survey about two years ago came up with a figure of five or six. So when we put them all together we get a figure of just above 40 days a year instead of the 57 that David Clark has asserted. Most of the ideas that David Clark puts forward are quite sound. It is a pity that he spoils it by lack of attention to detail and then compounds that by a continuing lack of attention to the same detail, even though it has been drawn to his notice. It is damaging in two other ways in the broader field. Firstly, presumably many high school teachers and perhaps even other teachers of economics would regard that as an authoritative article and pass it on to students as a fact. Secondly, the wider public-employees who know that they are not getting the alleged 57 days a year-are likely to be dissatisfied because of that and people overseas are likely to perceive Australian industry to be less competitive than it is because the alleged number of paid holidays of various types, or leave of various types, has been exaggerated by David Clark by some 40 per cent. Senator POWELL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. In light of the Government's intention to have all species of plants included under plant variety rights (PVR) legislation by March 1990, including all Australian native plants, beginning with all eucalypts in July this year, and in light of the Government's protestations that patents will not be able to be applied to discoveries but only to new varieties created by plant breeders, can the Minister tell the Senate how he will ensure that no patents will be granted for discoveries when, as yet, there is no completed, comprehensive inventory of Australia's native plant species? For example, botanists estimate that approximately 10 per cent of native species are, as yet, undescribed. Does the Minister agree that, until such time as a full inventory is made, it will be impossible to guarantee that discoveries are not being claimed to be newly bred varieties? Finally, therefore, how can the Minister guarantee that no Australian native plants will be included under PVR until such a complete inventory is made? Senator COOK —The answer to Senator Powell's question, of which she had the courtesy to give me notice just before I came into the chamber-- Senator Knowles —We thought that these were questions without notice. Senator COOK —She is a courteous senator and it is entirely appropriate that notice be given if it is the choice of honourable senators opposite so to do. I am just paying my regard to an honourable senator who showed me that courtesy. That is entirely appropriate. Senator Knowles —Just when you are unable to answer questions without notice. Senator COOK —I have never had one from the honourable senator, so she would not know. The answer to the question is that the inclusion of native species will promote their development and cultivation for the benefit of Australians rather than overseas commercial interests and discourage harvesting and destroying the bush to obtain access to Australian species. Protection from improper exploitation of varieties found in the wild can be achieved without excluding native species from the plant variety rights scheme, while still allowing these breeders who develop and improve varieties and cultivation the opportunity to gain benefits for their efforts in making these plants available to people in Australia and overseas. To ensure that discoveries direct from the wild are not granted rights, the applicant will have to demonstrate selective breeding practices through at least four generations, or propagation cycles, or will have to demonstrate that a mutation has occurred under cultivation before a variety is eligible. Applicants' premises and methods will be carefully inspected to ensure that the claims made are accurate. In determining whether a variety is new the Registrar must make inquiries as to whether it is known to exist. If it is not a known variety, meets the criteria for development and cultivation and conforms with the other legislative requirements, it is eligible for rights. In seeking comments on a known existence of a variety, a description of the proposed variety will be published in the Plant Varieties Journal and will be sent directly to people who are known to have an expert knowledge of the plant species. In this way the whole community will have an opportunity to comment on the known existence of the variety. As mutations are always occurring, a complete inventory of Australian varieties may never be available. Therefore the inquiries made by the Registrar will determine whether a variety is known to exist. If the development of Australian native species is not encouraged under plant variety rights, the current practice of overseas interests taking our species from the wild and having them protected under plant variety rights in other countries will escalate, with no benefit to the Australian people. Macadamia is the classic example of an Australian native which was commercialised in Hawaii and is now considered by many to have originated there rather than in this country. Similar commercialisation of Australian varieties is occurring on a large scale in America, Israel, New Zealand and Europe. Australia is one of the only countries that exclude discoveries, and any further restriction on the development of native species would be to the detriment of this country. Encouragement of the development of native plants in cultivation will help protect the Australian bush from the ravages of those trying to gain commercial benefit direct from the wild. Senator POWELL —Mr Deputy President, I address a supplementary question to the Minister for Resources. In the Minister's response he said that a complete inventory may never exist. I ask whether that means that the Minister would agree that the claim that no discoveries would be eligible for patent is therefore a hollow claim. In asking that question, I should say that I am not concerned about the question of Queensland nuts. I think we have a lot of that species, and perhaps we do not have any problems there. Senator COOK —I absolutely concur with the last comment about Queensland nuts. The difficulty of compiling a complete inventory of Australian varieties is, as I said, that mutations are always occurring, and therefore this is an ongoing proposition. So one cannot say that the known plant varieties at a particular time will always be listed as the total representation of all plant varieties henceforth. Therefore I do not agree that it is a hollow claim. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications. The Minister's attention has no doubt been drawn to media reports about the adequacy of coastal surveillance operations in Australia's north. In these reports retired Air Marshal Evans was reported as suggesting that Australia's north was wide open. Does the Minister agree with this assessment? Senator ROBERT RAY —I have seen some reports of evidence given by Air Marshal Evans some days ago. Indeed, I think probably a month ago similar remarks were made. I point out that the Department of Transport and Communications is responsible for getting these contracts up and running, and my colleague Senator Tate then has the responsibility for coastwatch coordination. However, it should be clearly understood that this is a civil function. Australian's coastal surveillance was never intended to give a blanket coverage of every inch of our coastline against every imaginable intruder. If we were to provide such a service it would probably run upwards of 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the Federal Budget outlays in any one year. I cannot agree that the present coastal surveillance is ineffective. Recent evidence of the discovery of Indonesian shipping vessels in northern Australia is evidence of that. I point out that those vessels were disguised, and were discovered as a result of the photographic ability of coastal surveillance. At the moment, given the previous problems that existed with the contracts, the government has asked Mr Hudson to review the whole matter, taking into account views expressed by Air Marshal Evans and similar people, and to make recommendations as to what should be the future course. I hope to have that report by some time in April and we can then start to progress that future action, which will be the coordinating agencies and the manner in which future coastwatch operations will be undertaken. Senator Boswell having addressed a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate- Senator Gareth Evans-Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the honourable senator to canvass the proceedings of the Senate and a vote taken earlier today? My clear understanding of the Standing Orders is that that is out of order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Boswell is reflecting on a vote of the Senate. In its present form the question is not acceptable, and Senator Boswell should attempt to rephrase it. I call Senator Boswell. Senator Boswell having proceeded to rephrase his question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Boswell should resume his seat. That question is a reflection on a decision of the Senate, and therefore is not in order. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I preface it by reminding the Minister that in the United States of America, a member of the Administration who takes up a lobbying position within a year of leaving office is liable for prosecution under the Ethics in Government Act, and that Michael Deaver is currently serving a well publicised gaol sentence for perjury relating to just such an offence. While I recognise that there is no such law in Australia, I also remind the Minister that his Government does have guidelines for lobbyists which it has chosen not to enforce in the case of Mr Mick Young, and that there is also a law preventing a Minister from drawing both his full parliamentary pension and his salary from some government appointments. The Minister will also be aware that the former Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam, although he retired prior to the passing of this provision, on his appointment as Ambassador to UNESCO voluntarily agreed to a reduction in his salary equal to his parliamentary pension payment. I ask the Minister whether, in the spirit of that provision, Mr Mick Young has, at the very least, agreed to a reduction in his parliamentary pension equal to his fees and free travel as a consultant or lobbyist for Qantas. Senator BUTTON —Last week Senator Messner, I think it was, asked me a question on the same point about Mick Young's superannuation. Senator Newman —No, it was not. Senator BUTTON —I was asked such a question last week, and I answered it. I thought the question was asked by Senator Messner. However, if Senator Newman was not listening, or had something else in mind, I shall go through it again. The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act provides that superannuants-- Senator Chapman —It was a different question. Senator BUTTON —Well, Senator Newman asked about three questions-- Senator Newman —Shall I repeat the question? Senator BUTTON —I certainly do not want the honourable senator to repeat it. In so far as the guidelines are concerned about people who engage in lobbying activities, the guidelines will be scrupulously followed. Mr Young or anybody else will not be given any special privilege, advantage or access by virtue of his background as a former Minister. I take that to be the main point. Of course, there is a confusion between consultants and lobbyists. As I understand it, Mr Young's position is-- Senator Newman —What is it? Senator BUTTON —It is a matter of public knowledge about which I thought Senator Newman might have informed herself. Mr Young has been appointed as a consultant by Qantas Airways Ltd; not as a lobbyist. I do not propose to carry on this debate with Senator Newman about a whole range of questions and confusions which are in her mind. I will just say that the guidelines in respect of lobbyists will be scrupulously observed. Senator NEWMAN —I ask a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President. I think that the Minister was so busy trying to think of how he was going to get out of it that he did not listen to the question. Therefore, I draw his attention to the fact that when Mr Gough Whitlam was appointed as an ambassador he agreed voluntarily to a reduction in his salary equal to his parliamentary pension payment. I ask the Minister whether Mr Mick Young has, at the very least, agreed to a reduction in his parliamentary pension equal to his fees and free travel as a consultant or lobbyist for Qantas. Senator BUTTON —I am unaware of any such offer by Mr Young. I would be very surprised if he made it. I appreciate his intelligence in that regard. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Senator Gareth Evans —Ask him about `Ollie the Grub'. Senator MAGUIRE —I refer to an address given earlier this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition to the international economics students conference, entitled `Our Statutory Authorities: Salute Them or Sell Them', in which he canvassed the liberalisation of entry into the markets of Telecom Australia and Australia Post. What was the previous coalition Government's policy in respect of competition between the public and private sectors? Has the present Government maintained that policy? What was the fate of the reports of Mr Neil Brown's Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia and the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission? What are the budgetary implications of returning to the former coalition's policy? Senator WALSH —Senator Evans was quite correct with the interjection; I would rather talk about the double-dip that Senator Newman's husband is in for with his parliamentary pension plus his defence services pension, neither of which he has relinquished. I suppose it would be out of order to do so, so I had better answer the question. I have read the address that Mr Howard gave at lunchtime today in which he said that the Liberals have not finalised their plans for Australia Post and Telecom, but have decided that those organisations will not be privatised. There was a bit of double-think there because several pages of Mr Howard's address effectively presented arguments as to why, in his view, they should be privatised, but, in the end, it came down, as it always does, to the hard truth that on such matters the National Party tail wags the Liberal Party dog. Mr Howard knows very well that the National Party would not allow that to happen, even though it now has rationalist luminaries in its ranks such as Senator Stone. Overlooking that and a couple of other bits of double-think that came through in the speech, the previous coalition Government's policy in relation to competition between the public and the private sectors is probably indicative of what a future coalition government-should there ever be one-would have. It is epitomised in its 1981 ministerial statement on the Review of Commonwealth Functions (RCF). I notice, incidentally, that one organisation which Mr Howard definitely said was to be privatised was the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. The 1981 RCF statements also said that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation would be privatised, but that proposal was dropped within about six months. The other point I want to make about the 1981 statement is that the then Government decided to abolish the Australia Post Courier Service to ensure that the post office could not even compete with the private sector. It was, however, allowed to retain an express service for postal items only. In other words, it was permitted to retain an express service for postal items but could not pick up the additional business that flows on virtually without cost because that was to be protected for the private sector. The underlying philosophy of doing that, of course, was a self-fulfilling one; that is, if conditions and regulations are imposed on a publicly-owned business enterprise or service which do not apply to a privately-owned competitor, inevitably the publicly-owned enterprise will be less efficient and less profitable than the private competitor. I suspect that, should the Opposition form a coalition government again, we would see a repeat of that sort of regulation-not of deregulation-in a way that favoured private sector operators rather than public sector operators. Senator REYNOLDS —On Friday last Senator Peter Baume asked me a question relating to the Victorian Public Authorities (Equal Opportunity) Bill. At the time I undertook to look further at the issues he raised. The report in the women's newsletter of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association is accurate and relates to Victorian equal employment opportunity legislation. However, as I said last Friday, the affirmative action and equal opportunity legislation introduced by this Government refers to programs for achieving equal opportunity for women, but we do not have contract compliance or quotas. The legislation states explicitly that employment promotion must be on the basis of merit. It rejects quotas. Employers set their own objectives and forward estimates. It has no harsh penalties, the only sanction is being named in Parliament. I think that that in itself is a penalty. Whether or not it is regarded by companies as a harsh penalty is for them to determine. I think that the very good role that Ms Valerie Pratt is playing-I note and commend Senator Vanstone for her comments about Ms Pratt this morning in a notice of motion-and the very conciliatory role that she is adopting in working through our new legislation is very important and appropriate and it is the way in which we will bring about important changes. As I said on Friday, the Federal Government has no intention of changing the legislation. Senator BOLKUS —In Question Time yesterday, Senator McLean asked me a question about the authority of unsigned letters from the Department of Social Security. The Minister for Social Security has supplied me with the following information: The Department of Social Security dispatches a substantial amount of correspondence to its clients each day and the type of communication may vary from individual prepared and signed letters or questionnaires to computer generated letters or questionnaires. The authority for requesting any action of a social security client resides in the Social Security Act 1947, as amended; not the letter sent to the client. The letter merely communicates the request. Such requests for action are usually based on section 163 of the Act and this is generally stated in the letter. Under section 163 a formally signed request is not necessary. The Department of Social Security does not expect there will be a significant increase in automated unsigned letters. In fact, technology is moving at such a rapid rate in this area that the computer production of signatures on automated communications in the social security environment may well be a development of the future. The Department expects that these developments will have a greater potential for providing safeguards in access to official letterheads. Senator COOK —On 18 March last Senator Calvert asked me two sets of a series of questions each in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. The questions concerned disability services and they were quite detailed. I have quite a long and detailed answer from the Minister for Community Services and Health, as befits the question. Therefore, I table the document and seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Expenditure by this Government on services to people with disabilities has certainly not been cut. Overall expenditure has increased from $74.4m in 1982/83 to $150.8m in 1987/88-a growth of 102 per cent. In 1987/88 alone, $9.8m has been spent on new and upgraded services. Some 84 new projects commenced and an additional 30 were assisted to expand. Some 8,000 clients benefited from these initiatives. It is not correct that funding for capital has been severely cut. Funding of capital equipment and maintenance under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act and the Disability Services Act has never been an automatic entitlement to service providers and requests for funding in this area have always exceeded available Commonwealth funding. Money for essential equipment and maintenance claims is available in this financial year and State offices of the Department should be processing claims towards the end of this month. Requests will be assessed on the basis of whether the funding will specifically help the service provider deliver better outcomes for people with disabilities in the service. All funded organisations have now signed contracts with the Department of Community Services and Health under the provisions of the Disability Services Act. The block grant method of payment which has been introduced allows organisations much more flexibility than in the past to manage their services. All organisations have received 1987/88 funding and I am not aware of any organisation which has waited 9 months to receive 1987/88 funding. I recently approved 140 proposals at a cost of $2.53m (and a 1988/89 cost of $1.57m) for transition funding to help service providers, including sheltered workshops, reorient their services to meet the principles and objectives of the Disability Services Act. This is part of $6m available in 1987/88 and $15m in 1988/89. Funding for the establishment of new services will again be available at the beginning of the next financial year and organisations with large waiting lists should be considering establishing new services to provide for this unmet need. All demonstration projects that presently provide direct client services have been assured that they will continue to receive funds in order to maintain the services they provide. The specific funding arrangements are still under consideration, but each service will be consulted in regard to future funding levels. Senator WALSH —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation-to add information to an answer I gave during Question Time last Friday. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, are you seeking leave to make a personal explanation, or is this a parliamentary answer? Senator WALSH —Mr Deputy President, I am seeking to supply information additional to that which I supplied in Question Time last Friday. Senator Stone and I had an exchange relating to a dispute between us that goes back to the H. R. Nicholls Society meeting at Mooloolaba in June last year, when Senator Stone asserted that the Tolpuddle Martyrs were transported for crimes against property, specifically for burning hayricks, rather than legitimate trade union activities. To settle that matter I refer Senator Stone to Henry Pelling's A History of British Trade Unionism, published by Pelican in 1963, from which I will briefly quote: The six men were tried at Dorchester and were found guilty under an Act of 1797 which forbade the `administering or taking of unlawful oaths' for seditious purposes. This was straining the statute, for there was no evidence that the labourers had a seditious purpose in mind . . . I table photocopies of four relevant pages from the book. Senator WALSH —During Question Time on Wednesday last week, Senator Stone asked me: . . . is it true to say, as Mr Unsworth said last night, that the Minister `hasn't got much association with the Labor Party'? If so why has the Minister been concealing that fact from all of us . . . I refer Senator Stone to an article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald regarding comments by Sir Robert Sparkes relating to `fantastic allegations' being spread by extreme right wingers in Queensland, in which it is reported: Sir Robert said that public meetings in Queensland were being told that he and the Federal finance spokesman, Senator John Stone, were `socialists'. From `some kind of wheat farmer' to another, I wonder who has been hiding his light under a bushel. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —During Question Time, clearly in answer to an organised dorothy dixer, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, made an unwarranted and, indeed, untrue attack on me. What I said yesterday about the grants scheme, in essence, was that the Government should not have risked $17m of taxpayers' money when there was a shortfall in the grants scheme which subsequently grew to $64m. The fact that the Minister announced something two days ago is irrelevant to what I said, although I might add that he should have acted long before he did to overcome the shortage of export market development funds. The fact remains that when Cuba and Nicaragua defaulted on their loans, the export market development grants scheme was up to $64m in the red. I might add also as a personal explanation that I have not made and do not make any attack on Austoft Industries Pty Ltd or on the export market development grants scheme. The way to help Austoft through the difficult times of the sugar industry is not-I repeat, not-to make what the Minister himself described as `a very risky' loan to Australia's sugarcane competitors to enable them to become more internationally competitive. Why not lend the money at those low interest-- Senator Bolkus —Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Lewis has now moved from explaining where he has been misrepresented to debating the question. I ask that you pull him up. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have been listening to Senator Lewis's remarks. There were quite substantial remarks by Senator Button about Senator Lewis's contribution. He is entitled to put them in context, but he must not enter into debate on the matter. Senator LEWIS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. We are talking about my misrepresentation in relation to Austoft. I say to the Minister: Why not lend the money at those low interest rates to Australian growers to enable them to buy the equivalent plant or, if he has to do so, make a grant to Austoft, not throw away $17m of taxpayers' money in an unrepayable loan to Cuba and Nicaragua? Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given earlier today, I now withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for disallowance of the Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Honourable senators are advised that parliamentary catering services resumed at 2 p.m. today. The Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia is still in dispute with the Joint House Department, and parliamentary catering service staff have resolved to continue lightning strikes. The Department is this afternoon notifying the dispute to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to address the causes of the serious decline in Australian living standards. 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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.16) —The Opposition has brought forward for discussion the following matter of public importance: The failure of the Government to address the causes of the serious decline in Australian living standards. I suppose that the millions of Australians who are feeling the stress of their declining living standards, who are, as one constituent in the electorate of Balga put it to me last Saturday when I was walking around in the polling booths, finding it difficult, even with a night job, a second job, to raise the money to pay the bills, will be very consoled to know that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is the most senior economic spokesman in this place, contributes to the debate in the way we have just heard-namely, to come in here to tell us a little story about the Tolpuddle Martyrs. Senator Stone —He still got it wrong. Senator CHANEY —Whilst that might be amusing, and Senator Stone has interjected to say that, in any event, he got it wrong, I think it is a mark of why we need to bring this matter forward for discussion that we can have the most senior economic Minister in the Senate simply prepared to ignore a debate on something which is a major concern to the men and women of Australia. The position of the Government seems to have been set out by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, in remarks which were reported from him this morning when he said that `economic policy was working like a charm'. Again, the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands and, literally, millions of Australians who are feeling the squeeze will no doubt be consoled to know that Mr Keating believes that the Government's economic policies are working like a charm. I suppose, too, that the hundreds of thousands, indeed, again millions of Australians who have just administered a sharp rebuke to the Labor Party in a series of elections around Australia might have expected something a little more in the way of response than the `business as usual' remarks we have had from members of the Government since that time, including Ministers in this place. Today we heard Senator Button, in response to various questions, indicating that as far as the Government was concerned it was business as usual. We had Senator Walsh extolling the virtues and the success of the prices and incomes accord-his expression was `the success of the accord'-in Question Time today, which he measured as having delivered substantial declines in real wages. It may well be that the Government and the changes in our terms of trade brought us to a point where there was an imperative that there be a decline in real wages. The sad thing is that there has been absolutely nothing coming forth from the Government which would indicate that it sees some means in hand to reverse that decline, to ease the pressures that are being felt so solidly by the voters-indeed, the people who work in Australia, whether they be voters or not. Again, it was typical of the Government that when I raised in Question time this afternoon with Senator Button the steep price increases that have been experienced in respect of motor vehicles, he immediately gave us the ingenuous answer that that was principally because of devaluation. That was without any regard, of course, to whether the quite extraordinary devaluation of the Australian dollar that we saw a couple of years ago was in any way related to the actions of this Government and was, indeed, avoidable. It is so easily forgotten that the enormous rises in prices that people have had to pay for imported goods have not come out of thin air. They are something which flow from a loss of value of the Australian currency which, in itself, is related to the lack of economic management of the present Government and, not least, to the big spending Budgets and high taxing Budgets which marked its first two years in government. This matter of public importance is brought forward at a time when it is quite clear that there is an extraordinary amount of unease within the Australian community. That unease is in no way confined to your State, Mr Acting Deputy President, which has just so remarkably rejected the New South Wales Labor Government. What we saw either on the same day, or in the recent past, was the same public unease evidenced in the ballot box in South Australia in the by-election for the seat of Adelaide, in the two State by-elections in my State of Western Australia, in the single by-election in Victoria and, of course, in the city council elections in Queensland, which was not a revulsion against the status quo but a strengthening of support for the Liberal administration of the Brisbane municipality. I would like to record in the early part of this debate, which will, of course, focus on economic issues-issues which will be addressed by me, Senator Stone and Senator Lewis on behalf of the Opposition-that the unease in the community is not solely economic. There is a far wider sense of disquiet and concern. All that we are addressing in this debate this afternoon is one element of where the Australian Labor Party is seen to have failed the Australian community. Serious questions are being asked about what sort of society is being produced under the virtual Labor government of the whole of Australia over recent years. There is widespread concern about crime rates. There is widespread concern about lack of respect for institutions and for values being put at risk. I believe it is important that in the remaining weeks of this session we should also have debate on some of the other issues which are causing such great concern in the community. There is a real confusion, and I do no more than remark on it at this time. It seems to me that there is a growing resentment, for example, against minorities in the community. I express some personal concern for that. But I believe that that is arising from a situation in which there is not a seeking of equal treatment but, rather, a display of difference in a way which is causing concern among those who feel that the rights of the majority are threatened. Mr Acting Deputy President, I know that in this respect there are very difficult issues for the Australian community. I know that you have had a great deal of concern in this respect throughout your own political career. I do no more than remark at the beginning of this debate that there are strains in the Australian community which I believe should be addressed and which this Government has dealt with in a thoroughly negative way. I mention Aboriginal policy as one example of where we have moved backwards instead of forwards. Many Labor supporters would share that view. I believe that just as the Government has been arrogant and contemptuous of those who have brought forward for consideration concerns about the direction of this country, it has been arrogant about those areas which, in the past, it has claimed to make its own. I think it is also important to note that the disquiet in the community is not just about the Labor Party. There is also a deep disquiet about the role and functions of trade unions in this community. The diminishing membership of trade unions is one mark of that. The almost universal view that trade unions have too much power is another mark of it. The fact that trade unionists themselves substantially share that view is an indication again that this is an area in which reform is needed. Yet, again, this Government responds with arrogance and, indeed, with contempt, to those who criticise the status quo and bring forward suggestions for change. One of the unhealthiest aspects of debate in Australia at the moment is the fact that quarrelling with this Government brings forth a torrent of personal abuse. The other day, Senator Lewis made a point to me. He said, `Mark it. When you criticise this Government the response will be in personal terms'. That is true. The reality is that this Government has made an art form of abuse. In particular, the Ministers who carry the primary responsibility for economic policy-Mr Keating and Senator Walsh-have been leaders in that. Words such as `sleazebag' and `scumbag' have become part of the vocabulary of this community because of what has been said by the political leaders of this Government, and those who are entrusted with the economic health of this country in particular. I hope that we can have some debate which is free from the negatives of the debate which has taken place in the past. The contempt and arrogance of this Government is marked by the speaking team which it has put forward in this debate. We put forward this debate in the context of a substantial rejection by the Australian community of the Labor Party on the basis that there has been an enormous squeeze on living standards. I mean no personal disrespect in what I have just said about Government speakers. I see there is some jollity about the fact that I am suggesting that Senator Bolkus and the new senator for the Australian Capital Territory, Senator McMullan, are in some way unworthy participants in this debate. They know that that is not my point. My point is that this country faces critical economic problems and not one of the economic spokesmen for this Government is participating in this debate. It may well be, of course, that the economic spokesmen simply do not have any answers because they do not know what to do in the May statement, they do not know what to do about the national wages policy and they do not know what to do about the excessive power of the trade unions. It may be that they are too embarrassed to take part. But we are to get a response on the declining living standards of Australia from a Minister who is in charge of consumer affairs. He will be backed up by backbench members of the Labor Party for whom I have respect. But it is a measure of either the arrogance of this Government or its incapacity to deal with the matters that have been raised that no economic spokesmen will participate in this debate. I hope there will be no dispute that the economic concerns of the Australian people are very real. It was, I think, fashionable in Labor circles to laugh at those economic concerns when they were principally the concerns of farmers and small businessmen. Those concerns were raised in the early years of this Government before the squeeze on living standards had really begun to bite. Now the squeeze is on almost every Australian. I suppose some people have done fabulously well out of the Labor Party, and that includes those Labor Party apparatchiks who have found their way into this place. I have previously commented on the 27 trade unionists and five Labor bureaucrats who have found their way into the Parliament over recent years. They have certainly looked after themselves very well. The truth is that throughout the towns and suburbs of Australia there is real hardship and difficulty. A polling booth worker I spoke to last weekend at a by-election in Balga, which is in the heartland of Labor territory in my State of Western Australia, said to me, `I have to moonlight because I cannot pay my bills'. He said, `I have supported the Labor Party all my life, but it has made life impossible for me'. Another example of the arrogance of this Government has been its preparedness to laud itself as well as to abuse its critics. Mr Keating is famous for his vituperation; he is also famous for his self-praise. He is also well known for his convenient on-again, off-again arguments. Privatisation is vandalism in one year; it is a necessary economic reform in another. Mr Keating is the man who said that Europeans would be lighting candles in their cathedrals if they had an economy like that of Australia. I can only say that his judgment on that matter, like his judgment that economic policy is working like a charm, is sadly awry. It is not true in his electorate; it is certainly not true in Balga. The reality is that to an Australian on a modest or medium income the prospect of purchasing a new car has now become a nightmare. I have given the figures already. There has been a 60 per cent increase in the price of a small car. This is the sticker shock that any car salesman will tell us about. That purchase has become an impossibility for a substantial number of Australian people who thought that they were in the middle income category. Simple things like paying rent have become a nightmare. Rents have skyrocketed, most of all in Sydney where there is quite an extraordinary crisis. In Perth, which is my city, rents went up by nearly 30 per cent in one year. So we have a situation where renters, who in Australia are generally not affluent people, have been put under enormously heavy pressure by the policies of this Government, one of which was the negative gearing policy which the Government has been forced to reverse. This Government has sought to meet that problem by putting more money into public housing. The effect has been-and we might hear from the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) on this-that in four years of Labor rule, the waiting lists for public housing have increased by something like 50 per cent. There have been huge increases in expenditure, but the overall economic approach has been such as to throw an increasing number of needy Australians onto the public housing lists. The reality is that a housing list of something like 100,000 when Labor came to government has become something like 150,000 today. Taxes and charges for middle and lower income Australians have become a nightmare. The figures show quite clearly that such Australians are paying a higher proportion of their incomes in tax than ever before. Unemployment might be slightly down; but again, perhaps we will hear from Senator Bolkus about that. I think it is one of the proudest boasts of this Government-one of the things that I would be most pleased about if I were in the Government-that there has been a real increase in employment. I think all Australians should be very positive about that point. But what about the situation for the unemployed? There has been a slight diminution, a reduction of a couple of percentage points, in unemployment. The reality is that when one looks at the duration of unemployment one realises that a significant number of Australians are locked into extraordinary periods of unemployment. There has been a really massive rise there. I am glad to see Senator McMullan, who will be participating in this debate later, nodding. This is the sort of problem that is a nightmare for those who are caught in that trap. The Government has done a lot in this regard. It has conducted great crackdowns on the unemployed. Imagine how we would have been branded as attackers of the weak and the unemployed if we had had a crackdown on the unemployed in the same way as the present Government. It has made a massive attempt to cleanse the unemployment rolls and yet there has been a substantial increase in the period for which people are on unemployment benefit. That is one of the most sobering and negative features of the present Government and perhaps that is one reason for having Senator Bolkus, who represents the Minister for Social Security in this place, participate in the debate. Another matter to which I wish to refer because it is part of this general pattern of hardship is the fact that families with dependants have been sadly neglected by this Government for five years. The Government has acknowledged the cost of dependency for less than a quarter of Australian families. It has turned assistance for families with dependants into a matter of welfare and about 25 per cent of Australian families are getting some increased assistance under the family assistance supplement, which is an extension of the family income supplement which I, on behalf of the Fraser Government, introduced in 1982 for implementation in 1983. The reality is that all families outside that bottom quarter have seen their position, relative to that of the rest of the community, deteriorate under this Government. There has been no adjustment of family allowance and no adjustment to the taxation allowance for spouses. If honourable senators talk to middle income people who are trying to look after a spouse or who have a spouse working part time and who are trying to educate, house, clothe and bring up children, they will find that those people are experiencing enormous difficulties and they have received absolutely no acknowledgment from this Government in the last five years. In this context many people are restless and resent the black tie and cigar image which has been referred to by Labor spokesmen. Let me touch on that very quickly because it can be seen as a footling criticism. If it is a criticism which suggests that Labor Ministers should not be in close communication with business, I reject it. I accept that Ministers of this Government should be in the closest possible communication with the business interests of this country, just as they should be in close communication with other sections. But as a former Minister for Social Security, my own experience is that one cannot understand the problems that one is administering and the people whom one is seeking to serve if one does not spend time with them. Whilst the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) may see crowds in shopping centres rushing to touch his hem-that is a marvellous thing for the Prime Minister and I am sure he enjoys it-my own experience as a Minister trying to look after the interests of less fortunate Australians was that if one does not spend time with them, one does not really understand the bits of paper that are put in front of one. I believe that Labor and Liberal supporters alike are entitled to be concerned about whether this Government has made any real attempt to retain its connections with the working men and women of this country and with those who for various reasons cannot work. Whilst rejecting that tall poppy attack syndrome which says that a Prime Minister should not talk to a top businessman, I still say that there is a serious question about whether the people who shape and lead this Government have enough contact with the reality of Australia to properly govern this country in the general interest. Very little time is left for me and I am grateful that Senator Stone and Senator Lewis will follow me in this debate. I am sick of this Government blaming the terms of trade. The terms of trade have turned around and suddenly the Treasurer is not talking about them. Commodity prices have risen and have helped to ease the situation, but suddenly there is no talk about terms of trade. The Government's response to the decline in our terms of trade was disastrous and it caused many of the difficulties we now face, just as its cosy relationship with the trade unions has stopped it from tackling some of the wealth destroying practices which are also part of the problem for the men and women of Australia. The reality is that taxes do not have to be so high. The Australian Financial Review now shows cartoons of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer awash with money. That is the reality. The Government is overtaxing and that is part of the reason for the hardship that is being experienced in the Australian community. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(3.36) —I rise in this debate to address the issue of the alleged failure of the Government to address the causes of the serious decline in Australian living standards. The matter of public importance which has been brought before the Senate today is nothing more or less than a scurrilous attempt to mislead the Australian public. We are being asked to treat the Australian public as a mob of mugs with short memories. Today we see the birth of the Australian Amnesia Party-appealing to people out in the electorates who cannot think back more than two or three years. Was it not the last Liberal Government that presided over a massive decline in living standards? Was it not Senator Stone who was the Secretary to the Treasury during the term of that Government? Was it not the Howard-Stone double which presided over such a massive decline and which went to the last election promising further cutbacks and burdens for the Australian population? Let us look at the record. When we came to government we were left with the legacy of a $10 billion deficit and an economy out of control. More importantly, we were left with a structural imbalance in our terms of trade. Today we have been asked to turn things around overnight by the wave of a magic wand. Senator Chaney said that there has been a turnaround in our terms of trade and asked why things had not been fixed up overnight. I am sure that his economic knowledge goes much further than to expect us to believe him when he makes those sorts of prognoses. The new catchcry is that the Australian Labor Party has lost touch and the average working person feels that Labor no longer represents him. This claim is coming from all sections, but it is hypocrisy when it comes from members of the Liberal Party of Australia. What do they mean by this? Do they want us to forget that the Liberal Party opposed every wage rise for workers under the Hawke Government? Do they want us to forget that it was the Liberal Party in government that opposed 19 out of 21 applications for wage increases? Senator Stone —What happened to real incomes during the time? They rose. Senator BOLKUS —Babble on! Does it mean that Mr Howard, as Leader of the Liberal Party, forgets that he touted a policy of tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for welfare at the last election? Does he ask us to forget that it was the Hawke Labor Government which created one million jobs? Was that an illusion? Does he ask the Australian public to believe that Labor's commitment to equity through measures such as the family assistance package does not exist? Mr Howard, Senator Chaney and others in the Opposition are basically saying, `We are the people for the time because we want to exploit the cynicism in the Australian community. We can lead them on. The times suit us. We have once again seen the opportunity to mislead and misconstrue'. At a time when the Press Gallery is running around wondering how the Government is going, it was interesting to note the results of a public opinion poll this morning. It showed the Labor Party's popularity down from the last election by 2.8 per cent. However, it showed that the Liberal Party's popularity is down 10 per cent from its position in July 1987-from 46 per cent to 36 per cent. This indicates to me-- Senator Chaney —That you cannot rely on polls. Senator BOLKUS —It indicates to me, firstly, that we may not be able to rely on polls but, secondly, that the degree of cynicism that those opposite expect in the community is not there. Their shallow, easy, bandaid responses are not getting through. The Sydney Morning Herald summed up the situation rather succinctly in an editorial on 3 March 1988. Talking of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), it stated: . . . to maximise the Liberal vote, he turned his back on economic rationality. He- that is Mr Howard- seems to have damaged the Opposition's credibility with business generally . . . It goes on: He will be without the intellectual direction and policy content that made him an attractive alternative to Mr Peacock. He will become Mr Peacock's poor substitute. It is rather curious also that the dry politics which have been presented to us by the Federal Liberal Party as the panacea for our ills were not supported in New South Wales. The Sydney Morning Herald said of Mr Greiner: The first big Liberal victory since 1983-will it be won by a politician who is dripping wet? Let us look at the record. Let us look at the reality. Let us compare our record with that of Senator Vanstone's Party in government. If the people out there are being asked to believe the allegations that the Opposition has made here this afternoon- Senator Vanstone —You are being asked what is happening now. Senator BOLKUS —If Senator Vanstone has something to contribute, either in Question Time or in a debate, she should get herself on a speakers list. She should not just sit there cack-ling away, disrupting the debate. I ask her to be quiet and to listen for a second. Let us judge the Government's record and let us judge the basis from which the Opposition is starting in this debate. We talk about jobs. Under this Government there has been a growth of one million jobs-about 200,000 a year. The unemployment level is down from the 10.5 per cent that we inherited to 7.8 per cent. It should be noted that, if participation rates in the economy were what they were in 1983, the real level of unemployment now would be 3.7 per cent. I am one of those who applaud the increase in participation rates but, if we are to compare like with like, that should be noted. We should also compare with that record the fact that in the same operative period under the Liberal Government unemployment rose from 6.3 per cent to 10.5 per cent. Where is the Opposition's credibility on employment? Where is its credibility on growth in the economy? It presided over real negative growth, whereas this Government has presided over positive economic growth. We talk about wages. It is rather interesting to digress for a moment and analyse Senator Chaney's contribution. He is concerned about living standards in the community and spent most of his speech talking about the sensitivities of doing too much for minority groups and his concern about our being too close to the trade unions. I would have thought that if Senator Chaney were looking at the most disadvantaged in our community, those with the greatest needs, he would be looking at the minority groups-at women, at the ethnic community and at wage and salary earners. He would not be coming in here in the context of a debate that he has put up and arguing that the Government is doing too much for those groups. We go on to the next step. Let us look at the wages record. The Opposition that comes here today concerned about falling living standards has opposed every wage increase application during the term of this Government and 19 out of 21 during the term of the previous Fraser-Howard-Stone regime. Senator Stone —Under whose regime living standards rose. Senator BOLKUS —We will get to that in a moment. The reality is that, given the policies of those opposite, had they been in a position to have those policies implemented, a worker on $300 a week now would be earning $239 under the Howard-Stone policies. I say to Senator Messner and Senator Stone that if the Opposition's claims and arguments had been put through the arbitration system-- Senator Messner —What is your authority for this? Senator BOLKUS —I would never look to Senator Messner for an authority on anything. Let us go on to tax cuts. Senator Stone presided over the Treasury. He and his colleagues come to us now showing great concern about the decline in living standards of ordinary Australians. Let us compare the record and the promises. We have been responsible for three cuts in personal income taxation-in November 1984, December 1986 and July 1987. We have gone to the people with the intention and a real, meaningful desire to cut taxes, but what has the Opposition done? Its latest proposition on tax, put forward at the last election, was to abolish the assets test, to abolish the fringe benefits tax and to abolish the capital gains tax, all in all costing revenue $1,320m-money from those who can best afford it. Where is the concern for the ordinary wage and salary earner there? We then go to the social wage. Our social wage policies have been questioned by Senator Chaney. Let us go across the board. He mentioned housing. We have provided an additional 70,000 rental dwellings in our five years of government, compared to 40,000 during the term of the Government of which Senator Chaney was a member. We have spent $5.3 billion on public housing during our time in office, more than three times the $1.7 billion that Senator Chaney was responsible for spending. We have provided home loans to 72,000 low income households compared with the former Government's 50,000. I am not saying that we are living in utopia, but Senator Chaney's credibility gap was on show for the whole 20 minutes in which he participated in this debate. Not only are we into direct involvement in housing in the ways that I have mentioned, but also the success of the first home owners scheme cannot be doubted. Since the inception of that scheme we have provided assistance totalling $1.2 billion. Families can get up to $6,000 deposit or interest subsidy and it has helped set up over 270,000 households. Compare that to the meagre ad hoc responses that were made from time to time by the Liberals. I turn to child care, which is a major concern in the community, particularly to women and sole parents. We have approved 110,000 places with an expenditure-- Senator Tambling —What has that got to do with living standards? Senator BOLKUS —Someone asks what it has got to do with living standards. It has a very basic connection with living standards. Senator Tambling's ignorance and the ignorance of the Opposition are shown very clearly on this issue. The provision of child care has a great impact on people's capacity to earn, to live. I am sure that Senator Vanstone, who has turned quiet for the first time in the last three weeks, would totally disagree with Senator Tambling's assessment of the situation. As of June 1982 there were 42,000 child care places. We have increased that figure to 110,000. Once again, this does not represent utopia, but it shows that we are very much down the right track. One of the Government's major forthcoming concerns is the longer term unemployed and training programs for them. Under Fraser and Stone such assistance was not part of the dry economics at the time; it was rejected. Our policies are very much geared towards helping the long term unemployed get into the work force. In talking about assistance to low income earners and low income families, I turn to the Government's family package-assistance to low income families. I would like to read, for the information of cynical senators opposite, a letter that appeared in the West Australian of 14 March. It is not a Government gimmick or a public relations exercise; it is a letter that appeared unsolicited, written by a Mrs Kelly Spencer, Hovea Terrace, Kensington-someone I had never heard of. It reads: Extra money I would like to thank the person or persons in the office or department who devised, developed and approved the family allowance supplement for working families. The extra $88 per month is a real Godsend. It means I can buy my son a winter dressing gown and a pair of joggers . . . And if I really want to spoil us I may even be able to buy a piece of meat for a Sunday roast. This letter highlights the major concern shown by the Government for the poor in our community. The family allowance supplement package is geared towards giving assistance to 600,000 families with 1.2 million children. It is geared towards the Government's pledge to do away with child poverty. It is based on a payment of $22 per week for each child per family, a child from birth to 12 years old. It has a very high eligibility test. Under this Government child payments for people on social security have increased in real terms by 59 per cent. Under Senator Chaney's Government they decreased in real terms by 35 per cent. Opposition members are fully mindful of the fact that in July they went to the people prepared to cut the social wage by $7.8 billion. They said, `We do not care where it comes from, we will find the cuts'-$7.8 billion. What a hide they have today to cry crocodile tears over the decline in living standards of ordinary Australians. Not once did they address adequately the basic problems in the community. Not once did they show real concern for the living standards of all Australians. They went to the people with a program which would cut back all those areas I have mentioned, and more. When I mention more, let us look at something as basic as age persons pensions. Under the Liberals, pensions dropped in real terms by 2.4 per cent. In March 1983 they were 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. Under this Government they have increased to 24.5 per cent of average weekly earnings. Senator Chaney —Why do you think people are so unhappy? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Chaney says he does not understand what this has to do with the motion before the chamber. Well, a basic concern to many Australians is the rate of their pensions and the rate of their social security incomes. But the disregard of those concerns of ordinary Australians was shown once again today by Mr John Elliott, the President of the Liberal Party. One does not know which part of the Party he is in these days but once again he is showing disregard for not only the living standards of ordinary Australians but also, may I suggest, the living standards of Liberal Party members in this place. He has come out in support of a consumption tax, something that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has opposed-something the Liberal Party national President is strongly in support of. This Government rejected a consumption tax because of its effect on ordinary Australians and ordinary Australians' living standards. The Liberals persist regardless and in doing so show the hypocrisy with which they treat the Australian electorate. The reality of this Labor administration has been to protect the interests of our constituency and of all Australians at the same time. As I have said, we have presided over an increase of one million jobs. The job growth in Australia under this Government has been more than twice that of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries and four times the growth under the previous Government. The unemployment rate is at its lowest level for 5 1/2 years. There is nothing more basic to the level of living standards of Australians than employment. This Government's record is far in excess of anything the Opposition was able to achieve. In closing, let me go back to where I started. By bringing this motion before Parliament today the Opposition, in some cheap political endeavour to maximise any vote in Port Adelaide, is asking the Australian people not only to forget the record of Howard, Fraser and Stone but also to forget the promises of last July, the disregard for their living standards. It has also asked the Australian people to forget statements made as close to this motion as today. A consumption tax in the way Mr Elliott is proposing would have a disastrous impact on the living standards of Australians. What Mr Elliott has done today is show the hypocrisy of this afternoon's manoeuvre. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.54) —The matter of public importance which we debate today, brought on by the Opposition, is this: The failure of the Government to address the causes of the serious decline in Australian living standards. So far we have heard from one Opposition and one Government member and I think we have come no closer to looking at causes, although there has been a sense of `anything you can do I can do better'-or worse, depending on whether one is in the high income or low income bracket. It seems, as it very often does to the Australian Democrats in this place and elsewhere, that the tunes are very often similar. We do not deny for one minute that there has been and continues to be a serious decline in the living standards of a great many Australians. We are happy to be involved in a debate about the causes of those declines. As I said, we tend to find a similarity in the tunes played on both sides of this House because the economic agenda in Australia has been shifted to the right. The Hawke Government, the Opposition and the business community appear to be abandoning the role of government that people have expected since the depression of the 1930s. That is the sort of role that saw the Government setting broad social parameters to direct society. The Government played a role in reducing inequality by providing income, education, health and social security services and by ensuring that all Australians benefited from industrial development and economic growth. Today the role of government seems to be seen by both sides of the House to be increasingly limited to serving the immediate aims of Australian and international businessmen and financiers. This shift has come about because the Hawke Government and its predecessors have encouraged the Australian economy to become overly dependent on the fortunes of the world economy and, with that, the whims of international financiers and transnational corporations. It is fascinating to see reported in the Press on 5 March the release by the Federal Opposition of a document called Five Years Hard Labor in which the Opposition appears to be complaining about the fact that this has happened. The document says: . . . through economic mismanagement, Labor has systematically whittled away Australia's economic sovereignty and delivered us firmly into the hands of foreign bankers. This is a move which was applauded by the Opposition, a move not taken by the Opposition when it was in government only because those people who wanted to introduce foreign banks into Australia and deregulate the economy to the extent that it is now deregulated could not hold sway over Prime Minister Fraser at the time. What they wanted to do has been progressively done and continues to be done by this Government. What we always hear from the Opposition side when these moves are made is a bleating which says, `Gee whizz, they have done it again, stolen some of our policies'. Of course the big losers in all of this are the ordinary Australians, low and middle income earners, and those dependent on government income support. Let us look at what is happening first of all with the external sector-issues of foreign debt, foreign borrowings and foreign ownership. Our gross foreign debt which was below $6 billion in 1975 had risen to more than $35 billion in 1983. It is now more than $110 billion and still growing. The problem associated with that debt is now the paramount economic issue in Australia. It means that we must, first of all, pay interest on the debt. To do this in foreign currency we export more, import less, borrow more or sell more Australian assets-farms, homes, land and industries-to overseas investors. Of course, eventually we must reduce the debt. In the meantime, we pander to those who lend to us because they need to be encouraged to lend to us again when borrowings need to be rolled over. Those who have loaned to us demand cuts in expenditure, tax cuts for businesses and higher income earners, less government borrowings and reductions in the level at which our industries are protected. They are not concerned about the social consequences in Australia of these actions. Our level of indebtedness continues to grow, albeit at a slower rate. Instead of trying to reduce our indebtedness, the Government is encouraging us into greater and greater debt. It is not the ordinary Australians, the people we are discussing today whose standard of living is declining, who borrow overseas. About two-thirds of our foreign debt has been borrowed by our private business sector. In the late 1970s it borrowed heavily to invest in our resources industry, anticipating a resources boom that never happened. Since the deregulation of our financial market and the floating of the Australian dollar in late 1983, Australian enterprises have borrowed to finance share speculation and takeover activity. The Government continues to encourage borrowing by allowing the taxpayer to subsidise foreign borrowings through the process of negative gearing, a process which the Democrats consistently have opposed in this place and which the Government has yet to do anything about. I refer to borrowing on unproductive company takeovers and mergers and then not paying tax on the interest of those borrowings. One looks at what happened with Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The buying and selling of BHP, Elders IXL Limited and Bell Group Limited shares, in the struggle for control of BHP since 1983 have added over $9 billion to our foreign debt and cost at least $680m in revenue. Let us look at foreign investment, an area that is typical of the Government's shortsighted approach. We are so desperate for foreign currency that the Government has reduced the controls on foreign investment in Australia. Foreign investment has almost doubled in the past 12 months from $9.8 billion in 1985-86 to $18.5 billion in 1986-87. The Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) has suffered staff cuts and the Government is exempting more and more transactions from its surveillance. I feel that the FIRB should properly be renamed the foreign investment approval board. The short term benefit that Australia gets is foreign currency. However, it also means that increasingly Australian houses, farms, factories and industries are sold to overseas owners, the price of a house to a struggling Australian family rises and more of our media is sold off to foreign buyers. In many ways this has the effect of lowering our standard of living. Transfer pricing is another issue in the external sector with which the Government has not come to grips. Australia is converting at a rapid rate its foreign debt problem into a foreign ownership problem, which opens up further avenues for tax evasion by transnational companies. A company that operates in many countries can shift profits around, and does, from country to country, so that the biggest profits are made in countries that will tax that profit at the lowest rates. That process is another that the Government is not addressing and is another cause of a loss of revenue to this country, and consequently down the track a lowering in the living standards of many Australians. The more Australian industry is owned by transnationals, the more tax revenue will continue to be lost. Last year the Commonwealth Auditor-General told the Australian Taxation Office that billions of dollars of revenue may be lost in this way. The Australian Democrats have been pointing this out to governments since 1977. Now our Tax Office is beginning to investigate such schemes. Only last week the Tax Office announced that it had discovered that $1 billion was transferred to an Australian company operating in Monaco. . . . as part of the setting up and implementation of profit shifting, transfer pricing and other intended tax avoidance schemes'. That is a quotation from a report by the Tax Office. If Australia cuts its company tax rates to counter this form of tax avoidance, other countries will cut their tax rates further, business will be very happy with this downwards spiral, we could get close to a zero rate, but it would be at the expense of ordinary Australians and of the poor. It is the logical conclusion of an international competition to produce the lowest tax rates for industry and investors. It is an international downward spiral into which we have been tightly locked by this Government. Taxation in general can be used to encourage or discourage particular economic activities and to redistribute incomes and access to services which promote equality of opportunity. The Hawke Government and the Opposition parties, which in recent times have been mesmerised by New Right economics, are inclined to use our tax system to allow business to do whatever it wants and to redistribute more income and wealth to the wealthiest Australians. In regard to this matter of public importance it is certainly not all Australians whose living standards have gone down. Australia now has over 30,000 millionaires; 10 per cent of the Australian population owns 60 per cent of the wealth of Australia while at the same time over two million Australians live below the poverty line. The Government's response to this is to give the biggest tax cuts to the highest income earners and to cut the provision of basic services-health, education, child care and so on. Now the Government seeks to pander to big business in Australia, which wants corporate tax rates to be cut. Ten years ago pay as you earn (PAYE) collections accounted for 53.7 per cent of total revenue and company tax for 17.8 per cent. Now PAYE taxpayers contribute 55.8 per cent and company tax has fallen to 12.7 per cent. Let us not forget that this has been during a period of significant wage restraint. Between June 1983 and December 1987 the consumer price index rose by 36 per cent and in that same period the average male award rates of pay rose by 23 per cent only. In 1985-86 corporate taxes as a proportion of gross domestic product in Australia were lower than in Britain or Japan. Yet we hear all this bleating from both sides of politics about the necessity for lowering corporate tax rates here as well. Once social security levies borne by employers are included, Australian companies enjoy the second lowest tax burden in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The lowest overall corporate tax rates are in Turkey. Despite a nominal corporate tax rate of 49 per cent, we well know that many of Australia's biggest companies pay very little tax. In 1987, the Adelaide Steamship Company Co. Ltd paid less than one per cent of its profits in tax, Bell Group 10.46 per cent, and Elders IXL 10.48 per cent, and so on. That is the sort of picture which leads to a reduction in the living standards of ordinary Australians. The businessmen who complain that pensions are draining our system fight to protect superannuation concessions that amount to over $3 billion of government revenue forgone. They also ignore the fact that under current superannuation concessions those on highest incomes get the highest government subsidised benefits, while low income earners, social security recipients, women-who do not participate at anywhere near the same level as men in superannuation schemes-and those who work part time, an increasing proportion of our work force, get little or no benefit from over $3 billion of annual tax concessions. Taxes can be used one way or the other and indirect taxes could scarcely be topped for taxes which have the potential to be regressive. This morning on Michael Schildberger's show on ABC radio the Liberal Party President, John Elliott, was campaigning very hard-once again exceeding his brief to speak only on current policies in the Liberal Party-for the introduction of a broad-based consumption tax. On that program, I understand, he said that he and Mr Howard were at one on that issue. It is an issue which if carried out would be very much to the detriment of the living standards of a very great many people in Australia. It appears that this is to be the subject of a major national conference or meeting of the Liberal Party the week after Easter. I am sure that the voters of Port Adelaide, to whom I am sure the Opposition has addressed its thoughts in bringing forward this matter of public importance, will be interested in this development. Those voters will recall vividly that Paul Keating-the other heir apparent of the other conservative party in this place-went to the National Taxation Summit pushing hard too. But for community groups, the welfare sector, political opposition from the Australian Democrats, among others, and the unions we might now have such a tax. We have seen creeping growth in indirect taxes in any case, even though the whole issue was knocked on the head. We saw in last year's Budget increasing indirect taxes on wine, and we saw the introduction of indirect taxes on milk and fruit juice, taxes which only the Democrats opposed. This extremely regressive form of taxation is a creeping form of taxation. There is an obvious need for tax reform. Australian Democrat electorate surveys have just begun on the question of raising the tax threshold to avoid poverty traps which exist for pensioners and low income earners. We have had a 100 per cent response at the beginning of this survey on the question of tax reform. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(4.09) —The most remarkable feature of this debate is the fact that Senator Chaney could say all the things he did say with a straight face. This matter of public importance looks like something that has come out of a time warp. Five years ago it would have been entirely appropriate because the government of the day was failing to address the causes of the serious decline in Australian living standards. Today that is not the case. I shall shortly deal with some of the comparisons, records and reviews of the current economic circumstances in order to deal with that question. Before I do so, I wish to refer to comments made by Senator Chaney and Senator Powell. I waited with interest to hear Senator Chaney's articulation of the causes of the serious decline in Australia's living standards but he never referred to them. He gave an interesting little discourse and detoured through obviously what was the trivia and minutiae of the market research of the Liberal Party of Australia and said, `If I throw something in about minorities this will pick up a few people in Port Adelaide; they might be worried about that too', but he never actually mentioned anything about the causes of the serious decline in Australia's living standards. If honourable senators had listened hard they might have thought that there was some reference to the 1983 Budget and he even reluctantly acknowledged that perhaps something had happened to Australia's terms of trade. But beyond that there was nothing. There was certainly no reference to the 1982-83 recession which he imposed upon us and which perhaps, which is not unusual for a recession-- Senator Stone —Induced by the trade union movement, Senator, as you know perfectly well. Senator McMULLAN —It is true that the Government at that time was not in proper control of the economy-there is not any doubt about that-and I think the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate (Senator Stone) and others should take responsibility for that. There was a recession and they were responsible. But Senator Chaney's detour through trivia did not in any way deal with the causes. He had the grace to refer to the fact that the Government made an outstanding contribution to the living standards of one million Australians because it had put them in jobs. I would like to refer to some of the contrasts in a moment. On a couple of occasions, for those former Western Australians, such as Senator Stone and me, Senator Chaney threw in the name of a working class suburb such as Balga just to prove that he has been to one. I think it is the first time that he has visited Balga since the last by-election there in 1973. Senator Knowles —Of course, you would know, Senator, wouldn't you? Senator McMULLAN —I think I have been there slightly more often than the honourable senator. Senator Knowles —How long is it since you have been there? You wouldn't have a clue. Senator McMULLAN —Fortunately, I have lived in Canberra for seven years and I have not had to put up with that sort of problem recently. When the by-election was held in Balga in 1973-the Australian Labor Party only just won that-Senator Chaney might have been there. He has not been there since but he thought that he would throw in a couple of references to prove how in touch he was. In the course of that he was trying to establish that the Labor Party was out of touch. Just to show how in touch the Liberal Party is, I am reminded of a photograph I saw in the newspapers and on television during the last election, which I enjoyed tremendously, of my friend and former counterpart, the director of the Liberal Party, Mr Eggleton, Mr Howard and the President of the Liberal Party, the then Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr Elliott, going for a campaign review, trotting up the steps of the Melbourne Club. Perhaps they were going there to get in touch with the electorate, to get in touch with the feelings of ordinary Australians in that home of the elite. No wonder they came up with the tax policy that they did. I am sure that it was very popular in the dining room of the Melbourne Club. It reminds me of an anecdote from Mr Peter Howson's diaries in which he said, `I felt the need to get in touch with the electorate so I went to lunch at the Melbourne Club'. Not only did he do that regularly but also Mr Elliott, Mr Howard and Mr Eggleton did it during the last election and that is an example of with whom they are in touch and whose interests they serve. I will make only a brief reference to the contribution of Senator Powell because it was not an unusual Australian Democrat contribution. She really said, `If only the world were different things would be easier'. That is true. If only we could disentangle ourselves from the international economy the world would be a much easier place and the economy could be managed, but we cannot. We actually have to trade to survive and we have to live in the international economic community. We cannot wish away the problems. We cannot say, `If only the world were different'. We have to deal with the world as it is. I would like now to deal with some of the Australian economic facts as they are and to look at some of the comparisons. I would like to look at some things initially besides wages, although I want to come back to that because, as Senator Bolkus said in his contribution, there is a very important point to be made. Living standards are more than just wages, even if Senator Tambling was unable to appreciate the relationship between child care and living standards somewhat earlier. Let me refer to some of the comparisons between the performance of this Government in dealing with issues that affect the living standards of ordinary Australians and the performance of the previous Fraser Government in which Mr Howard was Treasurer. I will not dwell on the question of jobs because it was so well covered by Senator Bolkus, but there are one million more Australians in employment now compared with a fall of 186,000 in the last year of the Fraser Government. Unemployment has fallen to 7.4 per cent. I do not pretend that that is a satisfactory level; nobody could find a 7.4 per cent unemployment rate satisfactory; it is still too high. But we must compare it with the fact that in the last year of the Fraser Government and because of the legacy which this Government inherited there was an increase of a quarter of a million people who were unemployed and the rate was higher than 10 per cent. Inflation is on track to be at 6 per cent by mid-year compared with 11.5 per cent when the Fraser Government was removed from office and, of course, that was not the high point; it had been 12.3 per cent during that year. Senator Chaney referred to the fact that there has been an increase in waiting lists for public housing. One of the reasons undoubtedly is-we all know the lead times in dealing with these matters-that in the last 12 months of the Fraser Government there was a 20 per cent fall in housing commencements; a 16 per cent fall in housing finance approvals and commencements were at the lowest level for 20 years. Of course, that creates the backlog of demand for housing. A 20 per cent fall in commencements and a 20-year low in housing commencements must cause a shortfall in housing. It has. It is a backlog that needs to be overcome. It is being overcome. Having made some comparisons, let me turn to some more explicit references to the record of the Hawke Government in dealing with issues of relevance to the living standards of Australians. I have referred to the question of jobs which have been created at more than twice the rate of the Western industrialised world and four times the rate of the Fraser-Howard Government. I have referred to the decline in the unemployment rate. Senator Bolkus referred to the introduction of the family package of tax-free cash assistance for families. I have referred to the question of inflation and the fall in recent times in interest rates. We have the raising of the age pension by 8.4 per cent in real terms; the introduction of the home and community care program to improve the choices available to elderly Australians in need of care; assistance to 270,000 young families through our first home owners scheme; the doubling of funding for public housing with 220,000 more families now living in public housing; a 28 per cent increase in real terms of general recurrent funding for each child at school and a trebling of the financial assistance for poor students and the restoration and improvement of Medicare which has protected almost two million Australians who previously were without health insurance. We have more than doubled the number of child care places that were provided under the Fraser-Howard Government. Underpinning all this, we have reformed the tax system to make it fairer and more efficient and, as Senator Bolkus said, we have delivered tax cuts three times in the period we have been in office which has created a tax saving of approximately $14 per week for someone earning $400 a week. That is not a perfect record. Nobody likes to be in government in a time when there has been a decline in real wages. I should not imagine that anybody would prefer that to be the situation. Nobody would deny that the international circumstances with which we have had to deal have made the decline in national living standards inevitable as they have had their impact on gross domestic product in Australia. I would like briefly to review some of the other current economic circumstances that indicate the broad economic situation in which Australia finds itself, the competence with which this Government has adjusted to those international economic demands that have been imposed on it and with which it and many other countries have had to deal. I refer to the overview of the economy provided in the latest Treasury Round-up which states: Information available since the stockmarket decline points to a continuing growth in the Australian economy, further improvement in the current account of the balance of payments, and easing consumer price pressures. It goes on to refer quite accurately, at that time in February, to the improvement in the Australian dollar but, of course, could not possibly refer to the March situation where the dollar is back at above 74c. In other areas of the overview it states: The upturn in housing activity remains strong. Notwithstanding a small fall in December, the number of private residential building approvals (seasonally adjusted) rose by 14.5 per cent in the December quarter 1987. Associated with the lift in new building activity, the number of housing finance approvals for new dwellings (seasonally adjusted) rose by 22.8 per cent in the December quarter. That compares with a 20 per cent decline in the last 12 months of the term of the Fraser Government. With regard to the labour market trends, The Round-up said: After some apparent hesitancy immediately following the share price fall, employment grew strongly in December and January and the unemployment rate fell. Further, it said that the balance of payments is $2,000m lower than the deficit recorded in the same period in 1986-87, and that the gap between Australia's inflation rate and that of our major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners narrowed. No-one says there are no economic problems still to be confronted. No-one says that the Australian economy has not been through a difficult period. What must be said is that there have been substantial economic and social achievements in that context, and the conditions have been created in which real wage decreases can start to be turned around-as the most recent Economic Planning Advisory Council paper on medium term growth pointed out. It is inevitable in dealing with the matter of public importance raised by the Leader of the Opposition that we must look at a comparison of the alternative Government's policies for living standards. As Senator Bolkus said, the Liberal Party and the National Party have opposed every wage rise that workers have sought during the term of the Hawke Government. In fact, they opposed any wage increase on 19 of the last 21 occasions on which increases were sought. By way of comparison, under the wages policy within the accord there has been a series of indexed wage rises totalling more than 22 per cent. Therefore, a worker who received $400 a week in March 1983 when the Australian Labor Party first came to power is today receiving at least $90 a week extra as a result of national wage price increases. That is $90 a week that has been opposed at every step of the way by the representatives of the Liberal and National parties. Senator Stone —What has happened to the real wage after tax? Senator McMULLAN —Unless one is paying 101 per cent tax one cannot be worse off if one is receiving $90 more than if one had received no increase. Senator Stone —After inflation you can. Senator McMULLAN —No-one is denying that there has been a decline in real wages. However, if the total level of wages were less, one's real wage would necessarily be even lower. Senator Stone —No, that does not follow at all. Senator McMULLAN —It most certainly does follow. If one is receiving $90 a week less, one cannot be better off. To look at it another way, someone who today has a weekly wage of $500 would be receiving only $408.76 under the Opposition's policies, because it opposed every single wage rise sought under the accord. To make that comparison is not enough. The increases that the Government has been able to deliver have not been sufficient to sustain real wages. No-one can be pleased about that. Nevertheless, the increases have been substantial. It is fascinating to imagine how living standards for ordinary Australian families would be better if wages were $90 a week less. Of course, an indication of the Opposition's policies in times of constraint upon real wages can be determined from the Opposition's attitude during the period of the wages pause. At that time the sum total of the Opposition's attitude towards prices-which it has presumably conveniently forgotten as I did not hear Senator Chaney mention it-was to do nothing at all. We must address the causes of this serious decline, about which Senator Chaney has been shedding such crocodile tears. Obviously, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said in the House of Representatives yesterday-I had to refer to his speech because there was no reference to this in Senator Chaney's speech-those causes relate to commodity prices and external factors. In conclusion, it is interesting that the Opposition parties have just discovered that the fundamental reality of Australian politics today is the decline in real wages. When the voters are next confronted with a Federal general election they will have to decide how the Opposition's policies of no wage increases, tax cuts for the rich and welfare cuts for the rest, the destruction of Medicare and the like will enhance their real living standards. I am confident of the decision the voters will make. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.24) —The matter of public importance before the Senate this afternoon is the failure by the Government to address the causes of the serious decline in Australian living standards. As has already been observed by Senator Chaney, not one Minister involved with economic matters is participating in the debate this afternoon. Senator Walsh is not here, Senator Button is not here and Senator Evans is not here. Without meaning any undue disrespect to Senator Bolkus, I should have to say that he would not be considered a foremost economic spokesman for the Government in this or, indeed, any other place. Initially I direct my remarks to the second part of the motion-that is, the serious decline in Australian living standards. Senator McMullan did at least attempt to address the issues before the chamber. That was certainly a novel approach, judging from the performance of Senator Bolkus, who preceded Senator McMullan in opening the debate for the Government. I was glad to hear Senator McMullan at least concede that there has been a fall in real wages in Australia. I see Senator McMullan nodding and I am glad to have his confirmation, because of course real wages have fallen. However, the fall in real wages is not all that is at the heart of the serious decline in Australian living standards. Rather, the primary reason is the fall in real wages after tax-the fall in real disposable incomes, as the economists call it in the jargon that they feel it necessary to use. I sought the agreement of the Government Whip, and he was good enough to agree, to my seeking leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table prepared by the Parliamentary Legislative Research Service, which sets out some figures on this subject. With the agreement of the Senate I seek that leave. Leave granted. The table read as follows- STATISTICS GROUP Department of the Parliamentary Library REAL DISPOSABLE INCOME, AVERAGE PERSON(a) ($p.a.) Year Income(b) Tax(c) Disposable income(d) Real disposable income(e) 1982-83 ... 17,630 2,486 15,144 21,406 1983-84 ... 19,121 2,743 16,378 21,655 1984-85 ... 20,434 3,148 17,286 21,922 1985-86 ... 21,717 3,619 18,098 21,177 1986-87 ... 23,220 4,133 19,087 20,425 1987-88 ... 24,610 4,151 20,459 20,459 (a) Person with dependent spouse and two dependent children. (b) Average weekly total earnings for all male employees. Figure for 1987-88 based on budget estimate of 6% income. (c) Tax less spouse rebate and family allowance. Includes Medicare Levy. (d) Income less tax. (e) Constant 1987-88 prices deflated by movements in the Consumer Price Index. Figure for 1987-88 based on budget estimate of 7% increase. Compiled at request by the statistics group of the Legislative Research Service. Senator STONE —I thank the Senate. According to the figures prepared by the Parliamentary Library in 1982-83 the real disposable income-that is, after inflation and after tax-of a male employee with a dependent spouse and two dependent children was $21,406. In 1986-87 that same employee receives $20,425 a year. That is a significant fall over the course of four years, during the whole of which period this Government has been in office. Though I do not have the figure for 1987-88, all the indications are, based on the Government's own forecast, that the figure will either fall again or, if it rises, will rise by the most marginal amount. The fall in real incomes after tax in 1986-87 was the first time in 30 years that this important measure of family welfare went backwards-and it did so during the term of the present Government. It is also important to note that in thinking of how one arrives at calculations of incomes after tax, one has to take account not only of tax rates but also of what used to be called concessional allowances. The two most important elements in family incomes, apart from the actual wage or salary, are the dependent spouse rebate and the family allowance, properly so-called. Under this Government both the family allowance and the dependent spouse rebate have remained unchanged in money terms. In other words, both of those factors have fallen by approximately 30 per cent in real terms after adjusting for the inflation that has occurred during the life of the present Government. Real disposable income is income after tax and after adjustment for inflation. Let us consider what has happened with taxes and inflation. Under the present Government taxes have jumped sharply, particularly for the single income family. One has only to look at the publicly available figures to see that a single income family on average weekly earnings was in March 1983, when this Government came to office, paying 17.5 per cent of income in tax. In January of this year that same family had to pay 22.5 per cent of its income in tax. That represents an additional 5 percentage points of income being used to pay taxes. Equally importantly, in some ways, whereas five years ago the marginal tax rate-that is to say the tax rate being paid on the last dollar of income being earned by a wage and salary earner-was only 30 per cent, today it is 40 per cent. He pays 40 per cent if he goes out and works a bit more overtime or does something of that kind. Tax for single income families has risen by 80 per cent during those five years, which is far higher than the rate of increase in money incomes. It is not just inflation that has been running faster than the rise in money incomes in some years; the rise in tax-take from people has been running much faster. Hence the residual, what is left, in the pay packet after adjustment for taxes and inflation has declined sharply. The problem with tax under the present Hawke-Keating Government is not confined to income tax. During this Government's period of office, the excise on petrol has more than trebled. When this Government came to office it was 6c a litre; today it is 20c a litre. Although the world price of oil has halved in the last five years-it was about $US34 a barrel when this Government came to office and about $US16 a barrel last month-the price of petrol has risen by almost 30 per cent, from roughly 44c a litre in the March quarter of 1983 to roughly 57c a litre in the last quarter of 1987. All motorists are aware that the Government has had its hand in their pockets not merely by way of income tax but by way of petrol tax. There has been a whole host of imposts. Time will not permit me to go through them all, but I will take one because it also illustrates the value one can place on the assurances one receives from the present Hawke-Keating Government. When Mr Hawke gave the rural policy speech on 23 February 1983 during the election campaign, he said: Labor has pledged not to impose a sales tax or any excise on wine. However, in the 1984 Budget-less than 18 months later-his Treasurer (Mr Keating) duly introduced a wine sales tax of 10 per cent, as it was then. As I have said, the other new and increased taxation imposts under this Government are too numerous to mention within the time available to me. So much for taxes. What about inflation? Under the present Government, the cost of living in Australia has risen at a rate far exceeding the rates of our major trading partners abroad and is still doing so. It is still rising at double the rate of our major trading partners and, in the case of some of the more important ones, the rate is much more than double. In the 12 months ended December 1987, the Australian consumer price index rose by 7.1 per cent. In the United States the figure was 4.5 per cent; in France, 3.2 per cent; in the Federal Republic of Germany, one per cent; and in Japan, 0.4 per cent. Those are the kinds of comparative performances which I think are being hammered home to Australians year after year-not merely as a matter of academic interest but because those relative rates of inflation in this country are what, in the end, determine the rate of depreciation of our dollar against the currencies of the other countries concerned-that is, the deutschemark and the Japanese yen. The continual depreciation of our currency is what, in turn, feeds our domestic inflation and wage-price spiral which feeds back into the cost of living for Australians. One can cite many arid statistics on the cost of living, but this phenomenon hurts Australians when they fill up their cars with petrol-a matter to which I have already referred-or replace their cars. Senator Chaney has already referred to the fact that in the past three years or so there has been an explosion in the price of motor vehicles in Australia. He quoted the price of a Ford Laser having risen by 63 per cent between May 1984 and December 1987. It may be that a more representative vehicle-certainly, it is the one which puts the best complexion on it from the Government's point of view-would be a Ford Falcon, the price of which rose by 43 per cent during the same period. Everybody who contemplates having to replace a motor car these days is confronted with what Senator Chaney quite rightly referred to as `sticker shock'-that is, shock at the sight of the price sticker on the vehicle, if it has one. The matter of public importance before us speaks not merely about the fact that there has been a serious decline in Australian living standards but the Government's failure to address the causes of that serious decline. I want to spend my last remaining minute or two dealing with that subject. Why are real incomes not rising? Real incomes can rise in only two ways. They can rise because, once again, we benefit from the `lucky country' syndrome-that is, a movement in the international terms of trade which is favourable to us; the price of our exports rises, through no effort on our part, and suddenly we can buy more imports and be richer as a consequence. In that sense living standards can rise. That has not happened, although one of the things about which the Government has been conspicuously silent is that during 1987-88 our terms of trade have improved by something like 7 per cent. Yet, notwithstanding that, real incomes in Australia are still falling. That is one way in which real incomes can rise. The other way in which real incomes can rise is the fundamental way because it is the only way we can influence it ourselves-that is, by increasing our productivity; by increasing our production per worker, per head of population in the end. What is happening in that area is a national scandal. We have a whole battery of restrictive work practices-we have restrictive trade practices also-imposed on us by our trade union bosses. Partly as a consequence of that we have a very poor record in terms of business investment. That is not a criticism of the business men and women making those decisions. They are confronting a situation in which the after-tax return on such investments is very heavily depressed. On some measures, it is little more than half of what it was in the late 1960s. Even on the most favourable measures, it has not recovered to the level of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Under those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that we are not getting increases in productivity. Until we get increases in productivity, we cannot hope to stem this serious decline in Australian livings standards to which this matter of public importance is addressed. In the immortal words of Senator Richardson last Monday, this Government `has forgotten what the common people are all about-we don't understand them any more'. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.38) —The terms of the matter of public importance are: The failure of the Government to address the causes of the serious decline in Australian living standards. I was not able to hear all of Senator Chaney's contribution in opening this discussion for the Opposition, but I have no reason to dispute my colleagues Senator Bolkus and Senator McMullan who pointed out that he had nothing to say. I then listened to Senator Powell, on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I found one of her comments most remarkable, that is, that this country has become overly dependent on international markets. I am not sure whether I can conclude from that that Senator Powell suggests that we should build a wall around Australia or go back to trying to build the one we thought we had for a while, or what she proposes. If I understand anything from what Opposition speakers-not the least being Senator Stone in his contribution-or our own speakers in this debate are saying, it is our relationship with the rest of the world that is critical. Senator Stone —I did not say that, Senator. Senator CROWLEY —I am about to paraphrase what Senator Stone said to show that that is what he did say. Senator Powell also seemed to suggest that it was the Australian Democrats who helped in the debate against Mr Keating's option C. I must say that I think that Senator Powell was off on a remarkably misdirected Australian Democrat shot there-allowing all power to the Australian Democrats but not, I suggest, any real understanding. We have just heard Senator Stone's contribution to the debate. He referred early in his speech to the serious decline in Australia's living standards and then said that he would come back to the causes of that decline later. He balanced his contribution to the debate by addressing the causes-that seemed to be the opening line of Opposition speakers to the debate-in only the last three minutes of his speech. In fact, he conceded very significantly that the terms of our trade are critical to the wealth of this country. In fact, I think that in his remarks he conceded de facto the point made by any number of speakers for the Government. I refer not only to the remarks of my two colleagues speaking for the Government in the debate today and the spokespeople for the Government in the debate in the other place yesterday, but also to the numerous times in which there have been speeches on behalf of the Government in this sort of debate over the last five years. I think it is important in particular to read what was said by members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives yesterday. I refer to page 1121 of the House of Representatives Hansard for 22 March 1988. In that debate Mr Howard said: I return to the question of the slump in living standards. It is undeniable that one of the reasons why living standards have fallen over the last five years is the adverse effect on the Australian economy of the downturn in commodity prices during that time. The Opposition has never at any stage over the last five years denied that fact. Never at any stage have we sought to argue that that is not an element. That is a statement from the Opposition. From the mouth of Mr Howard yesterday and, I think, from Senator Stone's mouth today, we have a clear understanding of one of the most significant causes of the decline in Australian living standards. As the Opposition has acknowledged, it is as a result of `the adverse effect on the Australian economy of the downturn in commodity prices during that time'. That is something that cannot be sheeted home to the Government. It is something that the Government has had to deal with. It is something the Government has dealt with. I think it is important to acknowledge that the Opposition says that that is the case. The Opposition knows precisely the cause of the serious decline in Australia's living standards. However, somehow the Opposition has failed significantly to address the problem today-although I must say that Mr Howard made those remarks in speaking to the same matter of public importance yesterday in the other place. Lest anyone hasten to say that I misquoted or only partially quoted Mr Howard, I add that he went on to say in spite of accepting the contribution to the downturn in the terms of trade that commodity prices cause, that it was the Labor Government's policies in its first two years out of five years in office that made a `direct and major contribution to the decline in living standards' of the Australian people. Mr Howard said that in particular the expansionary fiscal policy of the first Labor Government Budget and its allowing the highest deficits in Australia's post-war history were very significant contributors to the decline in living standards. I turn now to page 1124 of the same House of Representatives Hansard to quote from Mr Keating's defence-which I think says it as well as anything in response to those statements by Mr Howard. When the Government came to office, it had to deal with the enormous difficulties left to it by seven years of coalition government. In particular, I refer to the massive deficit, massive unemployment and double digit inflation left to it. Mr Keating said: In changing Australia this Labor Government did not ram it into a recession with increasing unemployment, so that the unemployed took the brunt of the losses. We did it sympathetically to that working class constituency out there. We said, `We are unable to provide massive increases in real wages, but we will ensure higher employment growth'. Clearly, that was the aim of the Government. Clearly, that is why the Opposition cannot hold its head up in bringing forward this matter of public importance for debate today. As Mr Howard has acknowledged, it is a matter of fact that falling commodity prices have been the root cause of the decline in the living standards of Australians. In large part it is true that there has been a reduction in real wages-although Senator Stone was not accurate in relation to all wage categories. I noted that when he was addressing figures in regard to Australian wage earners he somehow slipped over the benefit now available to workers as a result of the superannuation contribution. As well as that, the Government, appreciating the difficulty on its hands, has been at pains to extend, increase and target its spending under the social wage. My colleagues have actually highlighted some of those points. I want to pick up on those points again. While it is true that there has been a drop in real wages, it is also true that huge and very successful efforts have been made by this Government to ensure that there is a buffer against the difficult times through the development and promotion of a social wage. We have seen the creation of one million new jobs in the five years since we came to office. It is true that for people already in the work force it may not seem of direct benefit to have the bloke or the girl next door get a job. However, workers who examine seriously what happens to their tax expenditure and how the Government has to focus its costs will know that for every worker out of work there is a loss of revenue to the Government and a direct outlay in terms of social security payments. Certainly too, people who were previously unemployed and who have now got jobs know very well that they are far better off now than when they were locked into the poverty of benefits and/or pensions. I do not think that we should blush at all for overseeing the creation of one million jobs in those five years. It is an extraordinary, quite fantastic, achievement. It is a rate twice that of any of our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development competitor countries. Certainly, it is four times the best that the Opposition could do when it was managing things. I noticed that Senator Townley interjected in the course of Senator Bolkus's speech and asked his reason for citing child care as a contributor to the living standards of Australians. What a remarkable line! Senator Knowles —Senator Townley? Are you operating in a time warp? Senator CROWLEY —I beg Senator Knowles's pardon; Senator Townley's name was given to me. I could not see who said it. Is Senator Lewis going to claim that it was him? Someone from the Opposition said that child care-I know it was not Senator Knowles-- Senator Lewis —Senator Townley has not been in this Parliament since the last election. Senator CROWLEY —I beg the pardon of honourable senators. I wonder who said it. One Opposition senator seemed to insist-it was a man, so I ask Senator Knowles and Senator Bjelke-Petersen not to worry; it was neither of them-that expenditure by the Government on child care which has resulted in a more than doubling of child care places in the last five years has not contributed at all to the living standards of Australians. That is an absolutely remarkable confession of a failure to understand what child care provisions are about. These places are not a kind of whimsy on the part of government. They represent the Government's recognition of the fact that if we are to be on track for economic recovery and increased productivity in this country, then we have to make provision for all people who want the opportunity to work, to train, to study and to contribute to the productivity of this country, to enable them to do so. If such people have a responsibility for children, they need child care. Child care is a hard economic necessity. Child care is part of this Government's overall economic understanding. It is a recognition by the Government not only of the economic necessity and reality of child care but also of the social justice implications of it. Any women or men who are currently benefiting in their work or study because they have proper and comprehensive child care provisions know very well how important that child care is to their own living standards and as a contribution to the Government's program towards increased productivity and recovery. As well as child care places, we have also seen an enormous increase in the number of children staying on at school to year 12. The Government has a direct policy to encourage children to do so. In fact the results are remarkable. I notice from the matriculation results in South Australia this year that the retention rate for year 12 is not the 50 per cent that the Government hoped to reach but well over 60 per cent. Already in my State retention rates have gone from 36 per cent in 1982-83 to over 60 per cent in 1987-a remarkable turnaround. This is, of course, a critical part of this Government's economic program for recovery and proper and full participation of all its citizens. This is clearly of benefit to the living standards of Australians. At the same time, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of tertiary places available for those children who finish school or those older people in our community who make the decision to come back into study. According to the last figures that I saw more than 49,000 extra tertiary places had been created in the years of Labor government until 1987. I see that the figures presented the other day by the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) indicate that there has been a considerable increase on that number this year. Again, that opportunity to study is part of an improvement, and the prospect of further improvement, in the living standards for Australians. I will not cite again the housing figures. Senator Bolkus said that 70,000 new houses had been started under Labor compared with 40,000 under the coalition Government. Senator Chaney interjected and said, `But the waiting lists are longer'. Can I conclude that Senator Chaney argues that we should not build houses so that we can keep the waiting lists shorter? I have never heard a more specious argument in all my days. My colleagues have spelt out the targeted and splendid increase in living standard provisions for low income workers by means of the family allowance package. This package not only provides $22 for children under 13 years of age and $28 for children between 13 and 16 years of age, taking into account the extra costs involved with older children, but also provides rent assistance of up to $15 for people in the private rental market. As well as that, there has been an increase in the allowance which parents receive to help them deal with the costs associated with the care of disabled children. The Opposition takes no account of the targeting by the Government of increased expenditure in the social wage area clearly because of its cheap preference for scoring mean political points. None of the people who are beneficiaries of the community service programs, of the increased expenditure in education, of our great Medicare contribution that guarantees that the previously uninsured two million Australian are not denied access to health care, will be other than appreciative of what has happened since the Labor Government came to office. There is a furphy around that we have not been true to Labor policies. It is a furphy. In fact, it is now becoming something like a gross lie. It is certainly not the case. The living standards of Australians have declined only in the real wages sense. The Government's achievements in other areas, such as community services which were made during very difficult economic times, need to be on the record. The Government needs to be congratulated for dealing with that very difficult situation of the loss of income and wealth to this country. We should also take into account the consequence of that in terms of the living standards of Australians. In addition, we should take note of the benefits that the Government has been able to provide for so many Australians, particularly those at the lower income level and pensioners and beneficiaries, during that time. This Government has taken steps to ensure that, while living standards have to be addressed when times are tough, it makes its contribution. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.53) —I rise to support the matter of public importance brought forward by my colleague, Senator Chaney, namely: The failure of the Government to address the causes of the serious decline in Australian living standards. I draw attention to the fact that not one senior Minister, not one economic Minister in this Government-not Senator Button, not Senator Walsh, not Senator Evans-has been prepared to join in the debate today. This is a clear indication of the way in which this Government has become arrogant and uncaring about the decline in Australian living standards. This decline cannot be denied. In fact, the last speaker, Senator Crowley, openly admitted the decline. Real disposable income-that is, people's income after they have paid their taxes-actually fell in 1986-87. Over the past five years the Hawke Government has presided over the unprecedented hocking of Australia to the rest of the world. We are now more in debt than at any time since the Great Depression. We are in debt to foreign creditors and financial markets. The boast of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that he has restored Australia to economic prosperity is a nonsense. Last night's Melbourne Herald reported two examples to demonstrate the nonsense of the Treasurer's boast. A family comprising a husband and a wife, both in full time employment with three teenage children, gave details of their difficulties in meeting their financial obligations on $900 a week combined income-and rightly so as the story revealed. By comparison, the plight of the other family-a single income family on $400 a week with three children-can only be described as desperate. Five years ago, before this Government came into office, both families would have been living reasonably. They would not have been well-off, and, certainly, the single income family would have had to spend very carefully. But they would not have been desperate. The two-income family probably would have been paying off their own home. Now that option is out of their reach, even on a combined income of $900 a week. In my State of Victoria, the cost of home ownership has doubled and redoubled in the past five years and has put home ownership out of the reach of thousands of ordinary Australians. The price of a modest home has risen from $40,000 to $80,000 and, within the last two years, has redoubled to as much as $160,000. How on earth can a young couple afford to buy a home at those prices? But, of course, we know that the Australian Labor Party has always had a secret agenda to reduce home ownership in Australia. Ordinary Australians recognise that there is no value in their money these days. They know that their standard of living continues to decline under this Government. Frequently, young people tell me that they have tried to save for a deposit to buy a house but that it is extremely hard to keep any of the money that they manage to save. They shop at the supermarket and the same amount of money buys less and less with each passing month. They move to cheaper cuts and shop around for specials, and even then they cannot save. Constant and never ending price increases are destroying Australian initiative. People can no longer afford to buy quality clothing. The cost of footwear has increased by 40 to 50 per cent and children now wear runners, rather than shoes. A family with three kids would be lucky to get any change out of $100 from an outing to the movies and a takeaway meal. Few can afford it. The drop in attendances at agricultural shows demonstrates how many children today are being denied this treat as parents are forced to tighten the purse strings. Federal, State and local government charges increase annually. People tell us that the cost of living has risen by more than 50 per cent in the past five years-that is an average of about 10 per cent per annum. They are not wrong. The figures produced by the `world's greatest Treasurer' would not show such an increase, but ordinary people know that that is the sort of increase that they have to cope with. Meanwhile, what is the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) doing? He is playing golf, gambling and smoking cigars with his wealthy mates. He is fishing from their luxury launches and congratulating them on becoming multimillionaires under his Government. The comparison between Australia under this Government and the South American countries under their dictatorships is becoming more pronounced. In Australia now, the poor get poorer, the middle income earners get poor, those on fixed pensions are unable to cope and superannuants are taxed to take away their savings. Of course, those with the right connections in the Australian Labor Party have no trouble in becoming richer and richer. As in South America, the gap between the very very rich and the very poor is becoming very, very wide. Of course, the mates get all the perks. Neville Wran gets the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Brian Burke gets Ireland so that he can research his family history. Chris Hurford retires to the United States of America. Mick Young takes his superannuation before the May mini-Budget cuts superannuation to ribbons. But he is not satisfied with his superannuation plus an income from Qantas Airways Ltd; he gets the Prime Minister to act as his employment agent. Cronyism and rorts have been elevated to an art form by the Australian Labor Party in office. Apart from the many publicly known jobs for the boys, there are some 27 former Labor Party apparatchiks who are now members of this Parliament. Meanwhile, our national debt continues to rise. At the end of December 1987 our gross foreign debt was almost $112 billion or around $7,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Our net foreign debt is almost $87 billion, representing an almost four-fold increase since June 1983. As a result, 20 per cent of our export income is required just to meet interest payments on the net debt, while two-thirds of our export income is required to meet principal repayments plus interest. yet Mr Keating continues to promote himself as `Australia's greatest Treasurer'. A chief executive officer of a public company who incurred such a debt would get the sack and, given the chance, the voters will do the same to this Treasurer. Inflation in Australia has been running at more than double the rate of our major trading partners. By the end of 1987 the consumer price index in Australia was at an annual rate of 7.1 per cent, compared with 4.5 per cent in the United States, 0.4 per cent in Japan and one per cent in West Germany. In the five years since the Hawke Government came to office the excise tax on petrol has more than trebled, rising from 6c to 20c per litre, even though during the same period world oil prices have fallen from around $US34 a barrel to $US16 a barrel. In other words, while world oil prices have halved, Australians are paying almost 30 per cent more for petrol. The number of new car registrations has fallen from 452,000 in 1984 to 358,726 in 1987. This is not surprising when one considers that the price of a car such as the Laser has increased by 63 per cent, the Commodore SL by 57.5 per cent and the Falcon GL by 43 per cent. In the same five years of this Government's office a case of beer and a bottle of scotch have each increased by about 50 per cent. That is an average rate of about 10 per cent a year and that is the sort of increase that people have come to expect under this Government, regardless of the official figures. Meanwhile, this Government has implemented draconian taxation measures which particularly affect the pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayer. Under the guise that `taxing benefits all Australians'-what rubbish-taxpayers are being ripped off by bracket creep. Average weekly wages exceed $500-that is, about $25,000 a year-and the maximum rate of income tax cuts in at $20,000, substantially below the average weekly earning rate of Australian employees. Further, what the taxpayers do not lose in income tax they have ripped off them in sales tax, excise or tariffs. Tax per week for PAYE wage earners has risen between 40 and 60 per cent and tax paid after Medicare levy and rebates as a share of gross income for a taxpayer on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and two children increased from 18.8 per cent in September 1985 to 20.2 per cent in September 1987. After the final instalment of the Hawke Government's income tax cuts in July 1987, tax bracket creep meant that a single income family was paying $15 a week more than when Labor came into office. Real disposable income fell by 1.2 per cent in 1986-87, the first time in 30 years that this important measure of family welfare had gone backwards. Young families have had to scrimp and save, make all sorts of economies and even go into debt in order to survive. So-called wage increases have not kept up with rising prices, higher income tax and rising costs of government services such as telephones, water and rates. About 80 per cent of young families frequently have trouble meeting family bills and expenses and Australia now has one of the world's worst levels of personal and consumer debt, with record numbers of people being forced into bankruptcy and a 20 per cent increase this year. Today there is a new poor-the young Australian with a family and total family income of less than $25,000 per year. Such people face the crisis of frequently finding that there is no money for clothes, medical care or even food. The number of homeless has increased from 10,000 in the 1970s to 40,000 today. Under Labor, Australia is now a less fair and more unequal society than it was five years ago. More than 140,000 young Australians are unemployed. But the real problem for the unemployed is the term of their sentence under this Government. Also, 25,000 young Australians are locked out of tertiary institutions and 100,000 low income Australians are condemned to hospital waiting queues because of Medicare. After five years of Labor, an additional 700,000 Australians have fallen below the Henderson poverty line and single income families with two children have suffered a $42 a week decline in their standard of living. It is clear that the Government has failed to address the real needs of Australia and has failed to do what needed to be done when it came into office-that is, to cut government expenditure. It has squeezed Australian taxpayers to increase the revenue of this country in order to meet additional expenses. Even now, after last Saturday's electoral debacle, Government Ministers and members of the Australian Labor Party are still talking about spending their way out of their electoral troubles. But spending more and more money means raising higher taxes. It means more inflation and a further decline in Australian living standards. The sooner this Government realises the problems it has created for ordinary Australians, starts to cut its expenditure, tries to reduce taxes for the ordinary people and tries to reduce the government add-on costs which arise around this nation, the better this country will be and the sooner our living standards will rise. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance is concluded. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I welcome the National Agenda for Women report entitled A Say, A Choice, A Fair Go. I must point out that any Australian woman who accepted an invitation-as I did-to the launch of this report, which turned out to be a shopping centre extravaganza and a campaign stunt for the New South Wales election, would have been excused for thinking that this was an extraordinarily important document. I certainly believe that it is. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a series of speakers at the launch said it was important, and yet here we are being presented with this report in the normal line of government reports with a five-minute period in which to speak on it. Compare this with significant ministerial statements which we often get in this place and other exercises on defence, foreign affairs and even parliamentary privilege, which can take up hours and hours of the Parliament's time. However, I suppose that I should be grateful-and so should all Australian women-that this report at least appears at the top of the list today and that this is a broadcast day. I suppose, as usual, women have to be grateful for small mercies. This is a book of promises, even a book of platitudes; but I am afraid that I must draw attention to some of the issues in it which really need to be questioned. One welcomes the promises and looks forward to their being carried out, but I feel that we have to ask some questions. Child care is an issue which is obviously addressed in a report on a national agenda for women. I ask: What about child care? The lack of substantial support, in spite of the figures which have been put forward in the earlier debate and no doubt will be put forward in other contributions on this report, is evidenced by the fact that we still do not have our 20,000 new child care places. I ask when the Government will address the demands of day care providers, who are increasing in number since child day care positions have been increased under the Government's policy. When will these providers be given acceptable remuneration? When will we reach a stage when fees for child care can very often cost people the same amount as some fairly exclusive private secondary schools? Questions of women in the paid work force are addressed. There is still, however, enormous discrimination in the paid work force. I have to ask: When will the Government eliminate the express discrimination against women which still exists in some 550 Federal awards? When will the Government remove all the remaining exemptions to the Sex Discrimination Act which are not clearly justified on occupational safety grounds? When will the Government implement the promise of the Prime Minister to bring the sex discrimination provisions within the brief of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? When will it evaluate any discriminatory impact of wage productivity decisions? Issues of poverty need to be addressed. Women and their children still constitute the majority of Australians living in poverty. Women are still significantly worse off financially after divorce than men. Women in Australia still earn only some two-thirds of what men earn. Women are still discouraged, implicitly and explicitly, from education that will facilitate their financial security. The Government, in making a list of promises such as this one, has to be reminded that it is women who have suffered most in, and have been excluded from, education because of the implementation of the so-called higher education administration charge. That is an ongoing problem. We have to deplore, after all the Government's promises, the fact that the Prime Minister says in his foreword that the Government will be watching the progress of Australian women closely, but then at the end of the document the Government excuses itself from providing any resources to address the many issues that it raises in this report. Perhaps a note of warning should be sounded here. Women very often have to say, `Well, this little bit will have to do us'. But women will not always put up with that, and we may reach the stage where more and more Australian women come to agree with Eva Cox, who pointed out in the Age of the 11th of this month that she is not sure whether we can actually afford men in this society, that men comprise 90 per cent of those in prison, 70 per cent of alcoholics, the bulk of drivers involved in serious accidents, et cetera. She went on to suggest that a program of equitably calculated knackering might change the behaviour habits of men and that this might make them less costly. Her remarks are accompanied by a cartoon in which a woman says to her child, `I'm sorry about daddy, but he was a cost the economy just couldn't afford.'. She concludes her remarks by saying: If the boys keep running things their way, feminists might one day take over and decide on some more drastic cuts. Since most of the decision-makers in government are men, I suggest that they read Eva Cox's article. It might provide some incentive towards action, not talk, when it comes to women's issues. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(5.13) —It is a matter of considerable satisfaction that we now have this document, A Say, A Choice, A Fair Go, which is the Government's policy paper in response to a consultation held with Australian women as widely as it was possible to make it. That consultation was in response to the United Nations conference held in 1985 during which delegations from 160 nations worked upon a document on forward looking strategies to the year 2000. It was a reasonable assumption that a document covering such an enormous range of traditions and cultures, of degrees of poverty and wealth, of very large nations and nations with widely disparate standards of living, should not necessarily be appropriate in every respect to Australian women, and therefore the assumption that we should make an effort to consult Australian women was a totally justifiable one. That consultation was completed last year, the document emanating from that was used as a basis for a Government review and now we have the Government's policy paper. Internationally, this process that we have undergone is seen as a model. As far as we are aware, Australia is the only country to have taken this action to consult so widely with its own women in order to find out from them what they believe should be the priorities for government action between now and the year 2000. I think everybody will be aware of the fact that 1975, as International Women's Year, was soon seen to be a very small beginning, and even the decade for women in many respects was barely enough to change the position of many women in the world. The Government's response is stated in each case in relation to what Australian women saw as their priorities as a short statement of the situation, followed by specific objectives to the year 2000 and an action plan for the next five years. A careful reading of this document, rather than the rough perusal that a few of our journalists might have made, will show that very firm undertakings have been given. In relation to income security, for example, the Government's plans are well worth noting. I note the commitment to introduce a fairer and more reliable system of child maintenance assessment, the commitment to work towards total payment under the family assistance supplement for each child and the commitment to continue to focus on reaching disadvantaged groups. Our commitments in relation to domestic violence will be of enormous importance to many Australian women. We recognise the role that local and Stage governments have to play as well. We undertake as a Commonwealth Government to cooperate with State governments, to continue to highlight the need for training for people, and to ensure that an education campaign is undertaken by the Commonwealth Government to draw to Australia's attention the fact that violence against women and children is completely intolerable and will not be tolerated by a civilized society. I note Senator Powell's reservations. I think many of us could draw attention to many such deficiencies, not particularly in this document but in the way in which Australian society has responded over the last 10 or 15 years to the very legitimate aspirations of women. There are still far too many awards in which there are discriminatory provisions, but there are a great many more awards covering the vast majority of Australian women workers from which the discriminatory provisions have been removed. What we still lack is not so much equal pay but equal opportunity for women to fulfil their potential, to have access to the whole range of occupations and to have access to the higher paid jobs. As we know, through our affirmative action programs and through our sex discrimination legislation, we have set in place at least the structures whereby Australian women can be treated as equals with ordinary men. I think the day when ordinary Australian women have exactly the same opportunities as ordinary men will be the day when we can say that we do not need any more affirmative action or any more agendas for women. Just to cap the story about Eva Cox and her absolutely accurate assessment of the enormous cost of men to Australian society, I note that she used that as justification for suggesting a differential tax which might then compensate for the enormous cost created by men in comparison with women. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.19) —I rise to speak on the paper A Say, A Choice, A Fair Go which is, as I said in launching this document in South Australia the other day on behalf of the Government, along with my colleague in the other place Elizabeth Harvey, a blueprint, if you like, for women to the year 2000. It arises out of the consultation process that Senator Giles has just alluded to. It is a quite remarkable document because it brings together the consequences of a remarkable series of consultations. I think the points made by Senator Powell are somewhat carping and disappointing. While of course we acknowledge that there is very much more to do, that is what the National Agenda for Women document is all about. We have to acknowledge also what has been achieved on behalf of women by this Government. We now have a document that says that women shall be part of a national agenda. They are not a marginal tacked on to the edge part of government. They are mainstream in that agenda. They are rightly there because they represent just over 50 per cent of the Australian population. The desires and wishes of women spelt out in the document as set in the agenda, and responded to by the Government in this document, are as comprehensive as one can imagine. Of course, women are everywhere and women do all sorts of things. What women want-really what most Australians want-is income security, opportunities to exploit the choices available to some citizens. We want those opportunities available to all. We want those opportunities available to women. We want them to have that income security by being able to participate in the work force, by seeking and getting training, education-tertiary training and tertiary education. They are the sorts of things that are well under way already and I think need to be put on the record as part of the preamble to this national agenda. The national agenda acknowledges the great distance we have come. It says we have a long way to go, but I do not believe we should look at the document negatively and say, `So what? You say this, but what have you done?' For the record, some of the things we have done include having introduced the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984, established the affirmative action program, as well as the equal employment opportunity legislation. We have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We have given very high priority to the representation of women on government boards, authorities and instrumentalities. Well over 120 women have been appointed to such positions. We have increased the supply of child care by more than 50 per cent in the past two years. Although the 20,000 places are not in place yet, 1988 has not finished either. The Government is well on target to that commitment. We have certainly significantly increased the funding for women's refuges. We have enormously assisted the training of a specific work force that is largely women, that is nurses, with the transfer of nurses' education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. We have established the National Womens Consultative Council which provides the mechanism for government to continue to hear the voice of women in the community. As well as that, many of the things we have achieved on behalf of women were mentioned in the previous debate on a matter of public importance-all the way from housing, to income support, to Medicare, to the home and community care program, to children's services programs and the increases that I mentioned in retention rates in secondary schools and increased places in the tertiary sector. I note that this year more than 50 per cent of people in the tertiary sector are women. I understand it is the first time that more than 50 per cent of our tertiary students are women. That is a remark- able achievement. It is an indication of the Government's commitment and shows the way women are responding and exercising the opportunities that are presented to them, because they are no longer an adjunct to society but are being recognised as mainstream. Much of the work this Government had to do when it came into office was to address the way women had been forgotten, ignored or positively discriminated against in times past. The examples are legion, I do not need to go into them now, but I believe with this document we have a blueprint for the year 2000. We have the ambitions and aspirations of women documented. It is up to them to see that the Government achieves them. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.24) —Senator Crowley has been telling us what the Government achievements have been for women according to the paper we are now debating-A Say, A Choice, A Fair Go. I point out that it does not say what the Government has failed to do for women. There are a whole crowd of so-called achievements by this Government, but what the Government has done is means tested family allowances for mothers and their children, failed to increase family allowances, and failed to increase the dependent spouse rebate. It has created an economic climate where home ownership is impossible for the lower income families and, indeed, for the average young family starting. Prices for homes have more than quadrupled since this Government came to power. As was mentioned in the previous debate, $160,000 is just common now for quite a modest home. We have been told that there is an Office of the Status of Women in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that coordinates the development of government policies. What is the status of women about if it is not pointing out to the Government where it is letting the women of Australia down, where it has not increased the finance for mothers at home-and that is a very large area. This paper says that a choice for women has been to take up higher education and for young girls to stay in secondary schools. We have been given this odd figure that between 1982 and 1986 the retention rate of young girls in secondary schools has risen by 12 per cent. That is an extraordinary claim because in the years 1984 and 1985, the retention rate has gone up only 1.5 per cent. The next year, 1985-86, it has gone up only 2.5 per cent. The big increases were when unemployment was running at its all-time high. Naturally young girls stayed on at school. So, the Government is suggesting it is a good idea to keep young girls unemployed and therefore they will stay at school. That is what this report seems to be suggesting if one looks at the statistics properly. If one looks at the average duration of unemployment for young girls, one finds it has risen in the same years, from 1982 to 1986, from 31 weeks to 38 weeks-a wonderful achievement by this Government. Then, if one looks at what Senator Crowley was bragging about, that is caring for families in the lower income range, one finds very large poverty traps for single income families. Once again I point out to the Minister the result of legislation the Government has brought down. I take the case of a single income family with two children where the wage earner earns $330 a week and then does a little overtime. Senator Richardson knows what I am referring to. This wage earner does 7 1/2 hours overtime for which he earns $90. Then the Government gives him only $8.59 for that $90. Indeed, if only the Government would lower tax, as is our policy, and not take from that low income earner the $40-odd and then give back $35 of it and add all the extra administrative costs, that family would be better off. I appeal to the Government, if it is really trying to help the low income, young families, particularly the women, it should lower taxes, not take the $40 off them. It should give them back $35 in their-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper formalises an agreement between Taiwanese fishing interests and Australia and is supposedly based on the premise outlined in the first few paragraphs, that the Commonwealth is desirous of promoting the development of fisheries off the north-west of Australia. This agreement states that it is the intention of the Commonwealth that the Taiwanese interests in this instance should facilitate cooperative agreements with Australian enterprises. I am pleased to read this. I have always advocated that the fishing industry needs to take advantage of our great national resource and develop a strong export industry which would provide many thousands of jobs and crucial foreign exchange. This report does not lead to the making of any of those agreements. What it eventually does is allow Taiwanese boats to come in and fish our natural resource. It seems that it only pays lip-service to involving Australia in the development of its own resource. This is despite recommendations in reports such as the Archer report, which emphasises that foreign fishing interests be granted access to Australian fishing zones only under joint venture arrangements which will maximise Australian participation in the development of the fishing resources and promote the future development of an Australian based export industry. Approval for these joint ventures will be granted subject to the conditions that Australian participation and equity in the operations be increased progressively and that foreign capital, vessels and crews be phased out over a designated period. I am sorry to say that this paper does none of those things, but envisages moving our fishing resources to foreign countries. The industry feels that the fisheries would be far better off if they were left under State control. As it is, the Commonwealth is left with the majority of the area of the 200 mile zone. Having done little to encourage Australian deep water operations, the fear is that the Federal Government is anxious to raise more revenue and will offer those waters to overseas fishermen at the expense of our local industry. The paper that is now before the Senate seems to give strong backing to this argument. Every effort must be made to retain the first right of access by Australian fishermen to these areas. At present our fishing industry is lacking in sufficient deep water expertise and boats to take immediate advantage of such fishing rights. All that is needed is time and encouragement for joint venture programs to develop the required expertise and vessels. Our booming export industry could be nipped in the bud if licences such as these are continually and prematurely given to overseas interests. I am not knocking KKFC Proprietary Limited and people such as George Raptis who are involved in deep water fishing. I am saying that the Government should be encouraging those people and helping them to get out and develop deep water fishing rather than flogging off the fisheries to other countries. If I may give an example, during 1985-86 over 400 vessels from Japan, Korea and Taiwan were permitted access to restricted areas and fisheries in the Australian fishing zone. Access fees totalled a very small $4m. Only one joint venture agreement was signed between Australia and Thai interests which provided for the Australianisation of the operation. Several other proposals from Japan were approved in principle. In 1987 Commonwealth fishing licences were issued to 215 Japanese interests, 82 Taiwanese and eight Thai operations. The single agreement that is before the Senate tonight allows us to bring in 45 pairs of trawlers. I believe that the revenue the Government will raise will be only $500,000. This is not giving the Australian fishing industry-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(5.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the report This report came to us very recently and I have not had time to study it in detail. However, I take this opportunity to commend the National Health and Medical Research Council on its report, and also to emphasise the nature of much of the content which pertains to preventive medicine as well as research in treatment areas. The topics addressed include obesity in childhood and adolescence, the effect of pelvic inflammatory disease on fertility in young women, problems associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and problems associated with monitoring the nutritional health of Australians. There is strong emphasis on prevention on which I commend the Council. The Council also requests the Government to consider a larger appropriation of funding for the Health Development Fund of the Council and I commend this request. Such funding has the effect of increasing the social and emotional well-being of our community and decreases in the short and long run Australia's health bill, thus contributing to our economy. There are two other issues I should like to raise concerning researchers in Australia. I am concerned that many of our research institutions are suffering the problem of the graying of researchers. Young researchers have come to me, especially in the medical area, asking for consideration to be given to seeding funding for young researchers, especially in medical research where it is often easier for established researchers to obtain funds; young researchers are left without incentives and encouragement, and they leave our shores, thus contributing to the brain drain which Australia is suffering. Another area of policy has affected the number of researchers encouraged to stay in Australia, particularly in areas such as medical research. Researchers are being wooed and lured overseas by the fact that we are making the situation so difficult for them to work in this country. As a result of recent changes in taxation laws, we have penalised researchers choosing to spend some of their research and teaching time in Australia and some overseas-for example, in the United States. The changes are a disincentive for researchers to carry out the dual roles of teaching and research across two countries, and many have decided to leave our shores. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government Papers has expired. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the third report of 1988 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator McKIERNAN —I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 3, dated 23 March 1988. Consideration resumed. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole? Senator Puplick-No; I would like the Bill to be taken clause by clause. Clause 1(Short title). National Health and Medical Research Council Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.40) —This Bill is entitled the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. I put it to the Committee that it has far less to do with the question of conservation than it has to do with the redistribution of power and, in particular, the centralisation of power within the hands, not just of the Commonwealth Government, but indeed the Commonwealth Minister. I put it to the Committee that this piece of legislation has far less to do with issues of the environment than it has to do with the desire of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) and his Government to give them the power to intervene in a large number of areas and, in particular, to do so in a way which also frees them from the necessity to abide fundamentally by environmental impact legislation and environmental control legislation which is otherwise in place and would otherwise be applicable to the Commonwealth itself. The Bill has far less to do with the principles of conservation than with attempting to shift from the Australian courts their responsibilities to adjudicate matters brought before them in the normal fashion under Australian law, to transfer decision-making out of the hands of Australian authorities, other than the Minister's own hands, and to make changes to proclamations which have already been made to statutory rules which have already been made, for the purposes of remaking those in an identical form but under a different regime. This Bill provides a large number of things which we do not believe are in any way directly connected with the principles of conservation. It provides new definitions which are objectionable. It provides new enforcement authorities which are objectionable. It provides a perverted use of the judiciary which is objectionable. It provides changes in the compensation regime which are half-hearted and inadequate. It provides a regime dealing with the civil liberties of Australians which are objectionable. It provides penalties which are objectionable. It provides systems, allegedly, of the transfer of information in a fashion which is certainly without proper control and without proper definition. It provides the out for the Government to deal retrospectively with matters with which it should have been more careful, in terms of its own behaviour, under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and, as I have said, it goes to the whole question of north Queensland. Interestingly, despite all the hours of debate which have taken place on this Bill, the Minister spent 26 minutes in his reply to the second reading debate dealing exclusively with the question of north Queensland. He failed to address himself in any way to any of the criticisms made about the actual system of inspectors; he failed to address himself to the criticisms made about the compensation issues which are arising; he failed to address himself to the question of the effective exclusion of the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 from the Commonwealth's own Acts; and he failed to address a number of the concerns which were not directly related to the Queensland wet tropics. As I have said, fundamentally, this is not a piece of legislation about conservation. It is a piece of legislation about the Minister's power and about the power of the Federal Government in relation to the legitimate role which the States should play in our Federation. That has been the basis throughout of the Opposition of the Liberal and National parties to this piece of legislation, despite the attempts of the Minister, in the course of his reply to the second reading debate, to assert that somehow there was a lack of commitment on the part of the Liberal and National parties towards a proper conservation regime within Australia. That charge is one which can easily be refuted. There is no doubt that the Minister deliberately avoided addressing himself to the questions of Commonwealth-State relations and the way in which this Government goes about the process of conservation in Australia. His attempt to say, for instance, that the offers made to him by the Ahern Government for negotiations over the course of the last several months were such that he could claim that there had not been an offer on the part of the Queensland Government to enter into meaningful discussions about all this, is quite spurious. There is no doubt that the new Government of Queensland has consistently made it clear to the Minister that it is in a position to discuss these matters with him. It is also true that the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) agreement, which his predecessor entered into with the State governments of Australia in 1984, quite clearly set out a methodology whereby the Commonwealth gave an undertaking not to proceed on matters of World Heritage listing and certain areas of conservation legislation without the consent of the States involved. That was the clear agreement made at the CONCOM meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for conservation matters, yet that has been clearly and deliberately put to one side by the Government because of its desire to change the balance of power and authority as far as decisions about conservation legislation in Australia are concerned. As I have said, this whole matter has been largely rendered unnecessary by the decision which the High Court of Australia made when it pronounced judgment most recently on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry legislation. That, in itself, was also part of the deliberate attempt by the Minister and his Government to use the external affairs power and to seek to expand the ambit of Commonwealth powers in environment and conservation matters. This piece of legislation is integral to the whole approach that the Government is taking on this matter. Mr Temporary Chairman, I put it to you and to the Committee that for a Bill to be entitled the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill, when it is primarily a Bill about the redistribution of power and authority within the Australian Federation, is in itself typical of the disingenuous approach which this Government takes to conservation legislation in general. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.48) —It constantly amazes me that Senator Puplick could be the Minister for the environment. He is the Opposition spokesman on the environment and thus lays claim to be the Minister for the environment in a coalition government governing Australia. The environment will be in a very sad shape indeed if that day comes to pass and the coalition actually achieves its goal and regains control of Australia, because Senator Puplick has no interest whatsoever in the environment. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator SANDERS —Listen to Opposition senators braying. Senator Boswell —Nutty as a fruit cake. Senator SANDERS —As Senator Boswell says, they are as nutty as a fruit cake. Listen to the troglodytes scream. Listen to them represent their constituents, not the people of Australia. Their constituents are the mining companies, the woodchippers, the uranium miners, and anybody-- Senator Richardson —That is right. Senator SANDERS —Senator Richardson agrees with me. They represent anybody who would rip off the resources of this country. That is who they represent and that is who they are screaming for at this moment. Senator Puplick made much of the centralisation of power by the Federal Government. Why not? Is Australia not a nation? Do we not have a nation here? As a matter of fact, we do not. Unfortunately, we have a collection of petulant-- Opposition senators interjecting-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! There are too many interjections on my left. Senator SANDERS —Mr Temporary Chairman, thank you for protecting me from this rabble. We have a collection of petulant, parochial States, each one defending what it sees to be its own best interests and the interests of those who control the State governments-that is, the miners, the woodchippers, the rip-off artists and the developers. What we have is not a country but a collection of vested interests. We must have a country. We should have a country. We need stronger Federal control, not weaker Federal control. Our national parks system is a travesty. It is really nothing but a collection of State preserves which are called national parks when no one else wants them. When someone wants them for woodchipping or damming, as happened in Tasmania, they can be revoked. In Tasmania the Lake Pedder National Park was revoked by an Act of Parliament when the Government wanted to flood it. What we need is strong Federal control, not the weak mishmash of control which we now have and which Senator Puplick defends. Senator Parer —Comrade Sanders. Senator SANDERS —I hear the typical rejoinder from the right wing troglodyte. Anyone who disagrees with Opposition members is said to be a communist. They imply I am a communist because I call for rational use of our resources. Senator MacGibbon —Go back to your Kentucky Fried Chicken. Senator SANDERS —Now we hear a reference to Kentucky Fried Chicken from our right wing aviator from Queensland, Senator MacGibbon. It must be difficult to fly an aeroplane with only one wing. I should like to say that I did not agree with Senator Puplick when he said that this Bill is not in the best interests of conservation. Of course it is in the best interests of conservation. However, it is not in the best interests of those who control the Opposition parties, namely, the miners, the woodchippers and those who would despoil our natural resources. What is the position in respect of compensation? Recently I spoke to people from Cape Tribulation. I doubt that Senator Puplick has done that recently. Land values have actually risen in the areas nominated for World Heritage listing. So, would Senator Puplick say that those land owners who are benefiting from the World Heritage listing should pay back to the Federal Government the amount by which their land has increased in value? What we have here is not compensation at all. What we are doing is handing a gift to the people in these areas. If Senator Puplick were to be logical I believe he would want to extract that portion of the value of that land which has increased as a result of World Heritage listing and pay it to the Federal Government. I am sure that the Liberal Party would be very glad to be able to enrich the coffers of the Commonwealth in that way. Senator Puplick —Tell me why their properties have been specifically excluded from World Heritage listing. Senator SANDERS —A lot of the people I know whose properties were excluded wanted desperately to have them included. If I have a criticism of Senator Richardson it is that he did not include sufficient private properties in the nomination for World Heritage listing. He failed in his inclusion of private properties. I hope Senator Richardson will make amends for that. Senator Puplick said that the coalition does care about the environment. I think the voters would be very interested to hear that because I do not think the voters know that the Opposition does care. Senator Panizza —What about New South Wales on Saturday? Senator SANDERS —What happened in New South Wales? What happened is that the people of New South Wales showed that they abhorred corruption more than they abhorred woodchipping. That does not mean that they approve of woodchipping. New South Wales had a corrupt Government. I agree with that and will say so in public. Senator Boswell —Are you saying that Senator Richardson is corrupt? Senator SANDERS —I did not say that Senator Richardson is corrupt. Senator Richardson is a paragon of virtue in this place. He certainly has far more care for the environment-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —Senator Sanders, I draw your attention to the fact that the Committee is considering clause 1 of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. Senator SANDERS —I am sorry, Mr Temporary Chairman. This lot is so obstreperous that they have misled me in my efforts to confine my remarks to the Bill. Senator Walters —You are a nut. Senator SANDERS —Now we hear from one of the Tasmanian troglodytes that I am a nut. I find that when the Opposition has no facts to support its presentation it stoops to personal vilification. I find that is simply not called for in this chamber. I should like to point out to Senator Puplick that he simply has not presented any facts in his speech to make me change my mind about the Bill or its need. The Australian Democrats will support the Bill in the committee stage. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.55) —May I start by quoting Senator Richardson because I think it is very important that the people of Australia realise that at last he understands the situation, that the penny has dropped. He said, `The Labor Party has forgotten what the common people are all about; we don't understand them any more'. He really has put his finger on what his Bill is all about. I repeat that he said, `The Labor Party has forgotten what the common people are all about; we don't understand them any more'. Australia needs a strong economy. I am sure that if Senator Walsh had the carriage of this Bill he would at least agree with that statement. We do need a strong economy. Yet, since this Government has been in office, Australia's overseas debt has been ever-increasing. There has been a decreasing export of our minerals in particular. Between 1984-85 and 1986-87 there has been a dramatic 38 per cent fall in field exploration expenditure. That is calculated on actual dollars. That occurred because of the uncertainty and confusion about the Labor Government's policies. It is very important that the Minister realise that minerals account for 40 per cent of our exports. I believe that this Bill, which is the most draconian ever to come before the Senate, will result in people not being prepared to invest in our exports at all. Senator Richardson is very keen to have his Bill passed tonight. He is so keen that at the moment he is dictating to his backbenchers to keep quiet. He wants to push his Bill through. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I point out, Senator Walters, that we are considering clause 1 of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. Would you please relate your remarks to that clause. Senator WALTERS —Clause 1 provides for the title of the Bill, as I understand it. As such that clause pertains to the whole of this legislation. I should like to dwell in little part on the dirty tricks that the Minister has indulged in. At the conclusion of the second reading debate he said that there had been a lot of furphies in the debate. Senator Richardson —`Wide misrepresentations' will do. Senator WALTERS —He said there have been wide misrepresentations, if he likes to call them that. However, when talking about the inspectors Senator Richardson said that they would have to obtain warrants, or something else, unless, he then said, in subdued terms, they thought it so important that they should enter property without them. He then went on to try to say that Queensland and Tasmania have far more draconian police state legislation, but gave no detail of the legislation about which he was talking. He may as well have been referring to search by police in certain instances. However, this Bill does not provide for search by police. It provides for search by an inspector who the Minister so designates. We will deal with that when we reach the relevant clause of the Bill. The other day when we debated the National Estate legislation that I had put up, the Minister spoke at length about the letter which the Fremantle City Council sent to me. What he did not say, when I pointed out that it was the only letter I had received from local government, was that the Director of Planning of the City of Fremantle is Jeremy Dawkins, the brother of Minister Dawkins in the other place. I said also that a couple of months previously Jeremy Dawkins had been appointed to the Heritage Commission by the Minister opposite-the same Jeremy Dawkins who is the brother of John Dawkins. That is an example of jobs for the boys in no uncertain terms. The Minister read the letter from the Fremantle City Council as though it was an unbiased letter-not a letter from a person who had just been appointed to the Heritage Commission by the Minister; not a letter from a council whose members are unbiased; but a letter written by a council of which Jeremy Dawkins is a member. That is an example of the sort of dirty tricks in which this Minister engages. Is it any wonder the Australian Labor Party was beaten so badly last Saturday when the Minister carries on in that fashion? I will not elaborate any further. I will wait for the committee to reach the various clauses in which I am particularly interested. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in detail many of the questions that I have. Senator Sanders —I am sure he will. Senator WALTERS —I think that all honourable senators would ignore Senator Sanders from the Australian Democrats because, quite honestly, even the Minister believes that he is of no consequence. I will wait until we reach the various clauses in which I am most interested. Senator Richardson —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I never said that Senator Sanders was a person of no consequence. He is a person of great consequence indeed. I would hate to think that it was ever on the record as otherwise. Senator WALTERS —Mr Temporary Chairman, if that was a point of order-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —As you said, Mr Temporary Chairman, there is no point of order. Of course Senator Sanders is of no consequence. He got about one per cent of the vote back home. He got here only on Labor Party preferences. At least he is being honest. Once paid by the Labor Party, he is sticking very closely to it. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.03) —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) will recall that on 17 March this year I asked him whether the Government had established an interdepartmental committee (IDC)-either formally or informally-or some sort of working group, to look in detail at matters of environmental legislation with a view to getting a greater input from departments, for example, the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. I asked what the precise nature of any such interdepartmental committee or working party was and what it was specifically undertaking at present. The Minister responded by saying that, apart from a Caucus discussion, the only IDC which he could recall was an IDC currently looking at land use. He said: That may report towards the end of April. It will report to a range of Ministers and I anxiously look forward to seeing it. I then asked for details of that inquiry into land use and the Minister undertook to give them to me. I thank the Minister for the information relating to the interdepartmental committee on land use and also the additional information, of which he was not aware at the time. He has since informed me that there was a second IDC on forestry in addition to the one on land use. I thank him for the information he supplied regarding the IDC on land use. However, I am concerned that he reneged on one aspect. He indicated that he would be quite happy to give me precise details and I then asked why there was some secrecy about the IDC's terms of reference. The Minister will recall that the Opposition put forward an amendment. Given the fact that the Government had those IDCs on environmental matters relating to land use, forestry, conservation and the impact that other departments could have or should have on those matters, we thought it desirable-seeing that one of those committees was due to report by the end of April-to defer the legislation until it had reported. That seemed quite a reasonable response, but unfortunately the Minister has some concern about the need to get this legislation on the statute books with some undue haste. It would appear that the Government acknowledges that this is an imperfect piece of legislation and that a number of inquiries are running on the issue. Therefore, I ask the Minister: Is the advisory committee to examine the economic cost of all the National Estate and World Heritage proposals, which was foreshadowed by Mr Kerin on 22 March, one and the same as the interdepartmental committee on land use? I ask the Minister to address his mind to that issue. I think that there is some confusion in the public mind about this host of committees. It would appear that potentially there could be at least three committees. Perhaps the Minister can advise me whether the committee which was foreshadowed by Mr Kerin on 22 March is one and the same as the interdepartmental committee on land use to which he referred in answer to my question. If that is not the case, I ask the Minister: What is the link between the interdepartmental committees on land use and forestry and the proposed advisory body? Further, when were the interdepartmental committees on land use and forestry established? Were they established at the same time? To whom will they report? In light of the fact that we have a knowledge of the existence of those two interdepartmental committees and that the Opposition lost very narrowly the vote to amend the conservation legislation earlier today, I ask: Does the Minister feel obliged to recommit the Bill to a vote in this chamber in light of the new information that has come to his and to my notice? When are the interdepartmental committees on forestry and land use expected to report? Does he have some more precise information on that, because I think that we are entitled to have it? Will the Government give consideration to deferring the Bill until both reports have been brought down? I think that our earlier amendment related to the interdepartmental committee on land use, but the Minister will acknowledge that there are a number of other committees. This shows that the Government has some real concern about the impact of environmental legislation. For example, the Minister has acknowledged that the interdepartmental committee on land use involves departments such as the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Treasury, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Aboriginal Affairs and his own Department. The Minister has not told me the terms of reference because of so-called secrecy provisions. I regret that. I wonder why there are secrecy provisions. The Minister was limited to telling me that all that will be looked at are the decision-making processes relating to land use. There seems to be a bit of duplication. For instance, the forestry IDC involves the departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; Industry, Technology and Commerce; Primary Industries and Energy; and the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. That committee will look at forest resource management and proposals put forward by the Forestry and Forest Products Industry Council and the Australian Conservation Council. In fact, in view of all these committees and all these concerns, can the Minister tell us whether he will provide some amendments in the near future, pending the outcomes of all the IDCs? I repeat: If the Minister is so concerned about all the IDCs, will he give us an assurance that pending the outcome of the reports of the IDCs there will be amendments to this legislation in the near future? Obviously, the Minister would not be intending to set up all these bodies and inquiries if there were no concern about the legislation. If there is concern about the legislation, why does the Minister not defer it or at least give the Senate some assurance that he will bring forward certain amendments based on the sorts of recommendations that such bodies are likely to make? All these bodies are involved in reviewing the policies and decision-making processes which are now applied to a range of Commonwealth decisions which affect land use and conservation generally in Australia. Further, since one aim of the reviews is to improve existing arrangements and to develop new principles and criteria to apply to Commonwealth land use decisions, I think that my requests have a great deal of validity. Finally, does the Minister-I hope he is noting these questions-consider that the existing practices and legislation are deficient? If he considers that they are not, why has it been necessary to set up the various committees? Why, therefore, is it necessary to have an IDC that will investigate forestry as well as an IDC looking at land use? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —I remind the Senate, although I am sure Senator Parer does not need reminding, that we are debating clause 1 of this Bill. Senator PARER(Queensland)(6.13) —I thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I rise to speak on clause 1 of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. The genesis of the Bill is the World Heritage listing of the northern rainforest. We all know the history of that, when, following the last election, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), on advice from people who, basically, had no scientific knowledge, recommended that an area of far north Queensland be listed as soon as possible with the World Heritage Commission. As has been so clearly outlined by Senator Puplick, those of us on this side of the chamber have no objection to World Heritage listing of areas-- Senator Richardson —Ha! Senator PARER —That is, provided that it is done in the right way. There are two main criteria for World Heritage listing. Firstly, the area must be capable of being listed. Secondly, it must be capable of being managed. Of course, this means that consultation must be carried out between the State Government and the Federal Government. Senator Richardson will say that there is no necessity that it must be carried out. However, brochures from his own Department clarify the process for nominating Australian properties. Senator Puplick has indicated that in July 1984 at a meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers: some guidelines were agreed to apply to new nominations of Australian sites to the World Heritage List which involved full consultation with the State and Territory Governments. These guidelines were reaffirmed at the November 1987 meeting. They were reaffirmed as recently as 1987. Senator Richardson —I reaffirmed them. I was there. Senator PARER —Senator Richardson reaffirmed them but he has not put them into practice. Notwithstanding the telexed invitation to the Prime Minister of this country by the Premier of Queensland, there has been no consultation. I think also that it is worth quoting further from the same document, which states: the Government's approach to World Heritage listing is a positive one.The Prime Minister has said that ` . . . we will consider nominations from all States for areas they believe should be given World Heritage status and we would work to have these areas accepted for World Heritage nominations'. There is the rub. There has been no consultation. Even worse than that, I have not heard any honourable senator on the other side of this chamber or, indeed, any Australian Democrat, say one word about the individuals-Senator Richardson's constituents-whom we stand here and defend. These are ordinary everyday workers. These are individuals, the ordinary Australians. These are the people Senator Richardson calls the `common man'. I indicate that that is an expression I would not use because I would say `the individual, ordinary Australian'. I would not say the `common man'. These are the people Senator Richardson says the Australian Labor Party has neglected and who deserted the Labor Party in droves at the last election. I would like also to raise one other point to which I would like Senator Richardson to respond. The other aspect of World Heritage listing is the ability to manage the area. It must be capable of being managed. In the nomination for World Heritage listing to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation-signed by Senator Richardson himself-there was a clear imputation to people overseas in three parts of that nomination that somehow there was agreement between the State and Federal governments. The application for nomination asks who will be responsible for management of the nominated area. Senator Sanders —Who manages the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? Senator PARER —I am glad that Senator Sanders has mentioned the Great Barrier Reef because that nomination was done in the proper way. It was done cooperatively by the Queensland and Federal governments. I recognise that there were negotiations between a Federal Liberal government and the State Government of Queensland. If my memory is correct, there was a letter signed by someone from the Federal Government and the Premier of Queensland at that time. That was a proper management situation. The answer to the question of who is going to manage the area is that it is envisaged that the management will be carried out in cooperation between the State and Federal governments. Everyone knows that that is false. I believe that Senator Richardson has misled an international organisation. Members of the World Heritage Commission have expressed to me their embarrassment at this nomination. I am told that the chances are about 70:30 that they will come back to the Minister in November and, at that stage, not accept the nomination. Senator Boswell —What will happen to the logging while that occurs? Senator PARER —The Government does not care about that. There is a 70:30 chance that they will come back to the Minister in November and say that they will not accept the nomination at that stage. Therefore, the imputation is that this nomination will not happen until the Minister gets together with the Queensland Government and makes some decent arrangement. Senator Sanders —They couldn't give a darn. Senator PARER —The World Heritage Commission knows that without the agreement of the State and Federal governments the area cannot be managed. The Federal Government does not own it. That is one of the major points. I believe that Senator Richardson, by signing that nomination and misleading an international organisation-it is bad enough misleading this Parliament-has embarrassed everyone in this country and that is good reason why he should step down. I will refer to further parts of the Bill as we proceed in the Committee debate. However, in conclusion, I would just like to repeat that the genesis of the legislation for the World Heritage listing is to prevent the State Government from taking legal action through the courts, to prevent the normal sorts of legal processes to which we in this country have become used and which we expect. I ask also: if the Minister is so sure of his scientific knowledge-I understand the challenge through the courts was to be based on scientific knowledge-why is he bringing in a piece of legislation that prevents the Queensland Government from pursuing a legal action-an action which should be available to every Queenslander and every Australian? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —I call Senator Boswell. I am sure that the honourable senator will be able to tie in his remarks to clause 1. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.20) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I certainly will confine my remarks to the title of this Bill-the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. Of course, generally speaking, it is a sorry piece of legislation. If there is any indication of that, we saw it in the vote before lunch today when the legislation nearly went down and survived by only one miserable vote. The life and death of a $33m industry and 2,500 workers was dependent on one miserable vote. I tried to ask a question during Question Time in the Senate today. Senator Evans pulled Standing Orders on me, but that does not prevent me from asking that question now. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Boswell, it does and you must not reflect on a vote of the Senate. Senator BOSWELL —Mr Temporary Chairman, I take note of your ruling and I will not do so. But the fact remains that many Labor senators obviously did not vote. I suggest that they had heeded the call of the luminaries of the Australian Labor Party to distance themselves from the greenie and conservation vote. They were told to avoid it like the plague. That is why many of them did not come in to support the Government. If they had, an extra four or five Labor senators would have voted with the Government. I note that all the Democrats voted but some members of the Labor Party did not come into the chamber to vote in response to the ringing of the bells because they did not want to be associated with this miserable piece of legislation that will take jobs from between 2,000 and 3,000 of their unionist mates. That is why they did not want to have their names recorded in the Hansard of this Parliament. They did not want to have their mates say, `Why did you try to take my job? There it is in black and white-that is your name'. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Boswell, I asked you to tie your comments in with clause 1. The question before the Chair is that clause 1 stand as printed. I think at the moment you are canvassing matters which were raised in the second reading debate. Senator BOSWELL —Mr Temporary Chairman, I will not argue with you but I think your ruling is a little strong. What does this Bill do? I would like to detail the rough results of what will happen when this Bill, which was given a second reading by one vote, becomes law. The Bill retrospectively makes lawful an unlawful action of seeking a World Heritage listing without supplying environmental protection impact studies. For the last six months I have been asking, more in hope than expectation, for those $300,000 worth of studies. I have been forced to apply for access under the freedom of information legislation in order to know what the scientists and economists say about this World Heritage listing. I have not been able to obtain any scientific or environmental impact evidence because the Government is not prepared to lay it on the table. Senator Walsh admitted that he did not have a clue what compensation would be paid. That is an admission from one of the senior Ministers of this Government. So there is no idea of what compensation will be paid. There is no idea of what scientific evidence the World Heritage listing legislation is based on. There is no environmental impact study. There is no provision for the 2,000 to 3,000 people who are going to be thrown out of their jobs. We are flying in the dark. The Senate has had before it one misrepresentation after another. I am very concerned about the standing of Australia in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) says-and I presume that this is in regard to the nomination of the wet tropics rainforest, north-east Australia-- Senator Sanders —Why are you concerned about our standing with UNESCO? You do not even agree with the whole organisation. Senator BOSWELL —Mr Temporary Chairman, Senator Sanders has screamed into my microphone for the six months that this debate has been continuing. I ask you to ask him to desist. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Sanders, I would appreciate it if you could do that because I am trying to determine whether what the honourable senator is saying has relevance to clause 1. Senator BOSWELL —I want to refer to what the Minister said in a submission by the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, on behalf of the Government of Australia, to UNESCO. Senator Richardson -I take it that this is his signature and it is no forgery-says: A joint authority of the Australian and Queensland Governments is envisaged to assume responsibility for the administration of this property. That is signed by Senator Richardson. He misleads not only the Senate but also UNESCO on three occasions in this nomination. On page 16 of the nomination he says: The envisaged joint authority of the Australian and Queensland Government will also be responsible regarding the preservation and conservation of the World Heritage area. On page 17, Senator Richardson says: There are Statements of Purpose and Management Guidelines for the National Parks managed by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. Senator Richardson has told the Senate on a number of occasions that he cannot, has not and never has had any talks with the Queensland Government. Therefore, how can he get an agreement? How can he put that before UNESCO and say that these arrangements will be jointly managed? I say that is a blatant piece of misrepresentation. I would call it something else if I did not have respect, not for Senator Richardson but for you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I will not use the word that I should use and which people would understand. Senator Richardson has made three blatant misrepresentations under his signature-Graham Frederick Richardson, Minister of State for the Environment and the Arts. Senator Richardson has not only misrepresented this Parliament but he has also embarrassed Australia by misrepresenting us to an overseas organisation. I suggest that that is definitely not good enough. It is not good enough for the Senate and it is not good enough for our international standing when a senior Minister of this Government places the Australian people in such a position. This Bill also takes away the right of the High Court of Australia by investing its powers in the World Heritage Committee. I suggest that that is a sellout not only of the Queensland State Government and the Senate but also of the courts of Australia. It is an admission that our law courts do not have the expertise to deal with these matters. Senator Richardson sits in this chamber and will not defend this action. I can see that all of the backbenchers behind him, who should be giving him support, are diving for cover. They are not going to be involved in this stupid piece of legislation that is going to rob their mates of their jobs and destroy towns. They would not touch it with a barge pole. Senator Richardson has been left to carry the can for this piece of legislation. If he takes my advice-and I have been around the political game a while too-I would back out of this so fast that he would not see which way I went. It is like the charge of the Light Brigade-death behind us, death beside us and death in front of us. The Minister is going to get shot right out of the saddle as he did last Saturday in the biggest political rout since the charge of the Light Brigade. Senator Sanders —Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. I would ask you to examine the relevance of what the honourable senator is saying to clause 1 of the Bill. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I was waiting for a break to indicate to Senator Boswell that whilst what he is saying is quite entertaining, I do not think it has much to do with the question before the Chair at the moment, which is that clause 1 stand as printed. The honourable senator might try to tie his remarks into the question before the Chair. Senator BOSWELL —Clause 1 is the short title and says that the Act may be cited as the Conservation Legislation Amendment Act 1988 and I thought that that gave me a fairly wide scope to debate the intent of the Bill. Obviously when we come to debate the following clauses, I will take cognisance of your remarks, Mr Temporary Chairman, and restrict my comments to each individual clause. However, I suggest, with due deference to you, that on clause 1 I have scope to canvass the Bill in a wide-ranging way. This piece of legislation circumvents the proper trial of live issues before the High Court of Australia and it removes the right of the Queensland Government to defend its position in the High Court. This is tantamount to changing the goal posts after the game has started. That is dirty pool in any way that one cares to look at it. The Queensland Government wanted to present a case to the High Court and, while it was preparing that, the Government went and changed the rules. I suppose that that is the way in which the Australian Labor Party fights. You have always been recognised as a gutter and goanna tactician, but you will meet your Waterloo. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Boswell, you are addressing the Chair. I hope that those remarks were not directed to the Chair. Senator BOSWELL —I certainly would not direct those remarks to you, Mr Temporary Chairman. They were directed through you to Senator Richardson. I used those words because they are terms used quite widely in country areas of Australia. I certainly do not mean any offence to the Chair. Senator Stone —Senator Richardson has probably never been there. Senator BOSWELL —He probably has never been there. He went up into the country area of Queensland once but he got such a fright that I do not think he will be prepared to go there again. He displayed some wimpish tendencies there-he cried and so forth. I want to talk about some of Senator Richardson's misrepresentations in the second reading debate. He said that the Queensland Government had said that it would not consult with him. I have already tabled a telex from the Premier of Queensland, Mr Ahern, which was sent some time in December asking Senator Richardson to consult with him. Yet Senator Richardson says that he has never had an invitation to consult with the Queensland Government. Senator Stone —Did he say that? Senator BOSWELL —He has said that on numerous occasions to the Senate, yet here is the telex in black and white. Senator Richardson never cares to admit such things. Again today Senator Richardson said that the timber industry was on its knees and that it was only a matter of time before the whole industry closed down. I have made this point to the Senate on numerous occasions but I will make it again for Senator Richardson's benefit because there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. Senator Richardson should know that the Queensland Government reduced the timber harvest from 195,000 cubic metres a year to 60,000 cubic metres of its own volition in order to sustain an industry that would be able to keep 3,000 people employed and produce $33m a year. That is called sustainable logging. Obviously Senator Richardson does not understand it, or he does not want to understand it. I have mentioned this time and time again in this Parliament and Senator Richardson will not acknowledge that the Queensland Government, through its Forestry Department, has cut down the intake of logs-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. I call Senator Durack. The question before the Chair is that clause 1 stand as printed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.35) —Yes, I am well aware of that, Mr Temporary Chairman. I was just going to observe that point at the beginning of my speech. We are debating the short title of the Bill, which is that this Act may be cited as the Conservation Legislation Amendment Act 1988. In my speech at the second reading stage I observed that the title is a complete misnomer; the legislation ought to be called the Preservation Legislation Amendment Act 1988. I am very disturbed by the fact that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) and the Government do not seem to understand that there is a vital difference between conservation and preservation. Conservation is the pursuance of a policy which involves the intelligent and sensitive use of resources in such a way that they are conserved over a period, but it does not exclude economic activities in relation to an area; whereas preservation is the maintenance of an area of land in its pristine and natural state. Of course, that would involve the prohibition of most, if not all, economic activities and, indeed, social activities and tourism. This is exactly what the Government intends this Bill should do-preserve this vast area, 850,000 hectares, of north Queensland in its present state. The sharp point of this legislation is that it will ban logging. The legislation itself does not actually do that. One of the reasons that I speak of the short title-as you, Mr Temporary Chairman, are so concerned about relevance-is that this Bill does not in itself prevent logging, but it is clear that its intention is to give the Government powers to prevent logging. The Minister has already issued regulations under the existing Act to do just that. The intention is-he made this perfectly clear in his second reading speech and on numerous other occasions-that he will use the additional powers that he believes this Bill will give to him to issue new regulations to prevent logging. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is the Government's policy to shut down completely the sawmilling industry in this area of north Queensland; to destroy the jobs of nearly 1,100 timber workers and people involved in the logging industry in north Queensland; and to destroy at least another 1,000 jobs or more as an indirect consequence of this legislation. This piece of legislation is quite improperly termed `conservation legislation'; it should be termed `preservation legislation'. That is one of the matters we should be concerned about because the Government's whole policy in relation not only to this area but also to environmental policy is not one of sensible conservation of resources, but of the prevention of economic activity. Indeed, that has been shown by its attitude to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, which was passed to prevent any economic activities, specifically the construction of a dam in the south-west of Tasmania. The Government's policy in relation to the whole Kakadu area in the Northern Territory-20,000 square kilometres; an area greater than Wales-has been to shut it down, apart from a small proportion, not only to any economic activity but also to any attempt to find out what the economic wealth of that area is. The same policy is now being pursued by this Government in relation to something like 9,000 square kilometres of north Queensland. It is clearly a policy which this Government intends-or it did until last Saturday-to continue to pursue. There is apparently no end to the voracious demands of the extreme environmentalists. So far there has been no sign that this Government will say to them, `Enough is enough'. Maybe as a result of the reaction of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, to the electoral disaster for the New South Wales right wing-Senator Richardson's colleagues in the former New South Wales Government-this policy will be arrested. I hope that it will be, in the interests of Australia. This policy, in the way the Government has been pursuing it so far, is in no sense a conservation policy but a policy of locking up vast areas of Australia to any economic activity whatever, without knowing the economic wealth of those areas. I have already instanced Kakadu. The areas in stages 2 and 3 of Kakadu that have been locked away by this Government have not been fully explored in any shape or form. The areas of south-west Tasmania which have been locked away by the World Heritage listing have never been explored for their economic wealth, nor has any estimate been made of it, and a large part of this area of north Queensland is now being locked away from the traditional industry, which has been logging and sawmilling. The ridiculous aspect of that decision of this Government is the fact that logging has gone on in this area for 100 years. The values of the very areas that the Government wants to list as being in conformity with World Heritage values have been the subject of this economic activity for 100 years. Why should that now be stopped by this Government if this is a genuine piece of conservation legislation? This legislation is clearly not designed simply to preserve this area because it has been conserved by sensible economic activity. This Government's real aim here is to pander to the greenie vote and to stop any logging whatsoever. That is what this is all about. The World Heritage listing is simply the means by which this Government wants to shut down an activity of great significance to Australia and enormous significance to the constituents of Senator Boswell and Senator Parer, 2,000 of whom will lose their jobs as a result. It is of great significance to all the small business people throughout this area-70,000 people who will have their businesses in many cases destroyed and at least seriously affected by the Government's decision. Senator Stone —Western Australia will be next. Senator DURACK —The south-western forests of Western Australia will definitely be on the hit list, as will other vast areas of Australia. This simply cannot happen. The Government should be pursuing the proper conservation policies, not these preservation policies, this total capitulation to the greenie vote and the likes of Senator Sanders who has been shouting throughout this debate. Of course, the Australia Democrats are in league with the extreme environmentalists, as are Senator Richardson and the Government. This simply cannot go on. The situation is that vast areas of Australia will simply be ruled out from any economic activity. Already 23 per cent of Australia is being ruled out from economic activity and on the greenie agenda another 20 per cent will be ruled out. Senator Richardson —That's just nonsense. Senator DURACK —Not only will this legislation rule out any economic activity; Senator Richardson is making these decisions-he cannot deny this-without knowing the economic value of the area concerned. He has made these decisions on doctrinaire grounds. He did not know what the economic cost of these decisions would be when he made them. He made them on the eve of the last election. He had not seen any socio-economic reports in relation to this area. Maybe he now has these reports. Senator Boswell —He has got them but he won't tell anybody. Senator DURACK —I am told that he has them, but he will not tell anybody what they contain because he does not want the world to know what the cost of this legislation will be. It is disgraceful and totally irresponsible for any government, to present legislation to this Parliament without letting us know what the economic costs will be. We know what the social costs will be, but there will be economic costs as well. Senator Richardson has those documents but he will not make them available to this Parliament for the purposes of this debate. Fortunately, we have a report from Professor Percy Harris of the James Cook University, who has revealed the economic costs. But that was not Senator Richardson's doing. He wanted to stop this Parliament knowing what the economic consequences of this legislation will be. I come back to my point that this legislation is quite wrongly named conservation legislation. It is preservation legislation. It is designed for the prevention of economic activity in a vast region and the prevention of the maintenance of social and community life in a major area of Australia-an area of great and growing importance to this country. The Government is stifling economic and social activities in this area. As I have said, it has revealed its policies in Tasmania and the Northern Territory and presumably it will continue to pursue a policy which it calls a conservation policy but which is no such thing. As I said, it excludes large tracts of Australia from any possible economic development or even an inquiry into the economic value of the areas concerned. The High Court of Australia in the Lemonthyme case last week, as I pointed out in the second reading debate, made it quite clear that World Heritage listing is consistent with the balancing of economic activity and conservation of the environment. But these decisions are decisions of the Government and the Parliament of Australia. The Government is using the World Heritage listing quite wrongly to try to justify its determination to stop important economic activities in Australia because it simply wants to pander to the extreme environmental lobby. World Heritage listing, as the High Court has shown in its judgments in the Lemonthyme case, is not inconsistent with reasonable economic activity. The Government, by what it is doing in this legislation, is denying very reasonable and necessary requirements for the future good health of this nation. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(6.50) —I am going to speak quite briefly but I want to correct several of the assertions that have been made in the course of this debate on clause 1 of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. Firstly, I think Senator Boswell tried to imply that in some way the Labor Government was leaving the Bill alone and not voting today. Apparently he did not notice that two Democrats were absent from the chamber-one was interstate-and that partly explains the closeness of those numbers. The next point I would like to take up is that Senator Parer asserted also that the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) was very likely to come down against accepting World Heritage listing. Senator Parer —I did not say `reject'; I said `postpone'. Senator COULTER —Well, 70/30 was Senator Parer's figure. I have in front of me the Sydney Morning Herald of this morning. I would like to read a short piece from that. It is headed, `Wilderness set to make list' and it reads: A spokesman for the Geneva-based International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an independent network of government and non-government organisations, said the North Queensland and Tasmanian wilderness areas were `clearly of world heritage calibre'. Dr Jim Thorsell, the person responsible for the assessment of all wilderness nominations to the list, told the Herald from Geneva: `Any political issue that is going on in the country (Australia) makes no difference to us. `There's very strong agreement by scientists and conservationists around the world that North Queensland and Tasmania are definitely of world heritage calibre.' So, it seems to me that we have, in the case of the opposition to this Bill, an attempt to raise every possible objection and place any one of those objections on a higher priority than the protection of the north Queensland wet tropics. I noted that Senator Boswell repeated the likening of this Bill to removing the goalposts after the game has started. Apparently he has not noticed that that is a rather unfortunate simile when the activity in question is likely to remove not only the goalposts but also the whole of the forest in north Queensland. Quite clearly the intention of the Opposition is to place the destruction of nature in the name of economic development above any idea of protection. Moreover, the Opposition seems to have a very narrow idea of economic use. Because some parts of this area have been used for logging hitherto, it seems to think that that is the only economic activity that can continue. I point out that leading up to the nomination of the Great Barrier Reef there was considerable opposition from the Queensland Government. There was strong pressure for oil exploration on the Great Barrier Reef and for mining for limestone on the Great Barrier Reef because these were seen as economic activities. In that case, the conservationists won the day and convinced the Queensland Government that it should cooperate. Now we see a healthy World Heritage area that is also of great economic benefit. Senator Boswell —There is fishing on it and other activities. Senator COULTER —Many tourist activities will continue in the wet tropical rainforests that will return an economic gain in that area. It has been asserted also that the cycle of cutting of this forest is a once every 40 years cycle and that because some areas have been logged-on that cycle presumably-and because they are now included in the World Heritage area, therefore logging is consistent with World Heritage. That simply does not follow. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Coulter, I wonder whether you could make your remarks pertinent to the question before the Chair, which is that clause 1 stand as printed. If you were listening to the previous speaker, he did it very well. I do not think that you are tying your remarks in with the clause! Senator COULTER —With respect, Mr Temporary Chairman, every point I have made has been in answer to points other speakers have made in this debate, which have been allowed. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —That is a point, but if you could try to tie your remarks in. I think I am fighting a losing battle, but can you try to tie them in with clause 1. Senator COULTER —By way of conclusion then, I would like to pick up a point made by several speakers for the Opposition and particularly Senator Walters who said that we need a strong economy. It was said by the previous speaker that there was some conflict between preservation, conservation and economic development. The Bill is about conservation. It is called the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. I ask Senator Walters whether she has a bank account. I suppose she does have a bank account. Does she consider she can develop that bank account by taking money out of it? That is precisely what she is asserting she is doing by chopping down trees in the rainforest. Senator Walters also said that 40 per cent of our earnings come from mining. Let us stick with mining. Mining is a non-renewable activity. One can only take something out of the ground once. When one takes material out of the ground, one is shifting wealth from one place to another. One is depleting the wealth in one part of an account and adding it to the other side of the ledger. If we had a sensible system of national accounting which looked at the resources-which it does at the moment-but which, in addition, kept account of the stock, I would not find too much objection to the sorts of economic arguments that were developed, perhaps best by Senator Puplick. But, at the moment the economic balance sheets we keep do not reflect the diminution in the stock of our non-renewable resources or in the diminution of those resources that are potentially renewable but which have been overexploited in the past. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.58) —I briefly want to refer to the misrepresentation that has gone on that is relevant to clause 1. In my speech in the second reading debate I drew the attention of the Senate to the misrepresentation the Minister made in his nomination to the World Heritage listing body, and I will not go over that ground again. I just want to put on the record the further misrepresentations that have gone on. The whole concept of conservation of the northern tropical rain forests has been predicated on the idea coming from the Government that only by total isolation of the area can forests be preserved and, furthermore, that is the only policy of which the body that administers the World Heritage legislation-namely the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)-approves. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said in my speech, the IUCN is a mature, scientific body that has been perverted a bit by some extremists from Australia joining it to politicise it for their own ends. To come up to date, the IUCN General Assembly had a meeting in Costa Rica from 1 to 10 February 1988. I wish to refer to only two of a number of resolutions produced at that meeting. They give the lie to the assertion of the Minister that the only policy that IUCN approves is total isolation of the rainforests. Recommendation 17/69 on the tropical forestry action plan reads: Welcoming the initiative of FAO, UNDF the World Bank and World Resources Institute in developing the Tropical Forestry Action Plan and noting the support of the international development assistance community for its implementation; Welcoming especially the importance that the TFAP attributes to the broad environmental role of forests as a basis for sustainable economic and social development . . . I ask the Minister to note the words `sustainable economic and social development'. In other words, it recognised that forests can be managed and harvested. The next paragraph reads: Recognising that the implementation of TFAP would result in investments in establishing and managing protected areas and in the better sustained yield management of natural forests and would thus favour the maintenance of very extensive areas of tropical forests. That meeting was saying that one will preserve the forests and also improve large tracts if there is an intelligent management plan. The next paragraph of the resolution reads: Recognising further that several of the TFAP components can contribute effectively to the reduction of human pressure on forest lands, to the halting of deforestation and to the restoration of degraded forests: Noting however that TFAP targets for investments in forest ecosystem conservation have not yet been met . . . It then goes through its recommendations. The resolution from the General Assembly of the IUCN this year in Costa Rica clearly supports the management of forests on a sustainable yield basis. In simple language, it recognises that forests not only are maintained but improved by intelligent harvesting plans-plans that are demonstrated to be well within the capability of the Australian forestry industry. The next recommendation, 17/70, of that General Assembly meeting in Costa Rica of the IUCN, a body which will vet the application for Australia, follows a similar line. It begins: Considering that a sustainable international trade in forest products may provide a sound basis for investment in maintaining tropical forest resources; Recognising that, after adequate provision has been made for the establishment of protected areas, other areas of tropical forest, specially selected for the purpose, may justifiably be allocated for the sustainable production of timber and other high value products, provided that such management has been shown to be possible in these areas; Recognising also that this sustainable production may well serve the interests of conservation . . . Again I ask the Minister to note those words, if he can understand what they mean. I shall explain them to him: Recognising also that this sustainable production may well serve the interests of conservation. In other words, here we have the ultimate scientific body saying that one can log forests if one knows what one is doing-and if one logs them to an intelligent management plan, one will improve them and preserve them for humanity. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(7.04) —I wish to speak in support of my colleagues Senator MacGibbon and Senator Durack. In doing so I wish to address the short title of the Bill and refer to the fact that the Bill is inappropriately named and titled. I remind the Minister of the appropriate definition of `conservation', and that is appropriate use of a natural resource or the sustainable use of natural resources. Both definitions imply the use of a natural resource, apart from the preservation angle. I ask the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) whether the World Heritage Commission or an associated instrumentality has issued a request or reminder that the Australian Government should not expect the World Heritage Commission or its agencies to solve environmental conservation problems that are more appropriate for resolution by the Australian Government here in Australia. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(7.05) —I wish to speak on clause 1 and to refer to statements made earlier by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). He referred to the way in which the trees in the area concerned had been cut away and that there was not very much of the forest being left. I believe that the forest up there has been very well managed by the Forestry Department in Queensland. I speak as one of Queensland's senators and I am very interested in this topic, having been to this area to see it for myself. Statements made by some of the folk up there tell us how Ravenshoe and some of the other towns in the area will become ghost towns. I believe that the forests in north Queensland have been very well managed. They have been cut regularly on a systematic basis for 100 years. In my opinion, there would not be anything to list in World Heritage if the forests had not been properly managed. I also draw the Committee's attention to the fact that only 10 trees per hectare are taken every 40 years. That seems to me to be management of the forests in a well organised way. The Minister said that tourists want to go to the area to see the forests. I would point out that tourists have been going to the area for many years. I recall visits there a long time ago when I saw for myself the beautiful rainforests. Nobody in their right mind would want to destroy that beauty. Another angle is the fact that there is talk about raping our forests. It seems to be all right to put bulldozers through forests in the Third World but not very satisfactory to put bulldozers through ours. These are some of the points that we want to think about. We must realise that the families of the people who live in the area are very concerned indeed. The Australian Labor Party claims to be interested in people, but Labor Members should think about the people who are losing their jobs. These are important points that must be borne in mind in this Committee consideration. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(7.08) —Having listened to an extraordinary number of speakers on clause 1, which seeks only to name the Bill, I shall attempt to answer some of the points that have been made. The first point to make is the obvious one that there has been no attempt to stretch Commonwealth constitutional powers in this Bill. All the Bill does is to state clearly what the High Court has already endorsed in terms of Commonwealth constitutional powers in the Tasmanian dams case and, more recently, in the Lemonthyme case. The fact that we would take action to do just that should surprise no one. Where people are missing the point in this debate comes back to what Senator Puplick said about the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) agreement. Senator Puplick attempted to give the impression that in some way the Commonwealth allowed for his solution, that spineless solution I spoke of today, which would give States a veto. All the CONCOM agreement ever did was to call for full consultation. Full consultation can mean many things. I would have considered that three years of consultation with the Queensland Government adds up to a reasonable definition of the word `full'. Surely three years of trying with the Queensland Government to have a realistic discussion about what can happen with tropical rainforest management is just about long enough. After that three years the Commonwealth chose to act. So it is true that in November 1987 CONCOM reaffirmed the agreement. I was there and I was more than happy to reaffirm it. However, we would not agree to Queensland's wish to allow for State veto which Senator Puplick and the Opposition are again agreeing to tonight. We would not agree with it then and we will not agree with it in the future because, naturally enough, the Commonwealth has been given important constitutional responsibilities over external powers. That power over external affairs is one that this Government intends to live up to. What is in this Bill does not one skerrick more than live up to the responsibilities that the Commonwealth already has. We will not walk away from our responsibilities. We will never walk away from them and, in this case, we are choosing to go on. Senator Puplick quoted from many things today and this was made much of by Senator Walters who talked of a dirty tricks campaign. She has been in a dirty tricks campaign of her own. If she looks at what I said on the AM program she will see that I said, `The way it is being portrayed suggests that we have lost touch with the common people'. I wonder why neither Senator Walters nor Senator Puplick could remember those words. I suspect that they did remember them but they chose not to say so. Let me deal with a couple of other points that were made. Firstly, we had Senator Watson speaking about interdepartmental committees (IDCs). Senator Watson is, to say the least, a little confused about IDCs. What Mr Kerin is reported as saying in the newspapers and at yesterday's Press conference I think was a reference to an idea that he has, something that he would like to see done. I am more than happy with that. I have no objections to Mr Kerin or any other Minister having ideas about what should be done. However, I cannot point to a government decision that has yet given vent to it. The IDC on land use, which has been spoken of, is not specifically about World Heritage listing and it never was. It is a review of the process of Commonwealth actions that could affect land use. It looks at principles and criteria and that is a reasonable way of going about it. I referred to it when I was answering a question asked by Senator Watson the other day because as far as I could gather from what he was on about that came closest to the matter about which he was worried. The IDC on forestry has nothing to do with World Heritage listing. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his policy speech last June before the election, stated very clearly that we would be much better off trying to get some sort of national strategy to deal with these forestry problems rather than deal with them on a one-off basis, issue by issue, forest by forest right around Australia. The IDC certainly will look at that. I am happy for that to be done; I have no argument with it at all. Senator Watson asked me whether our procedures are deficient because we are having IDCs. I think there is a great deficiency when it comes to land use in Australia. The great deficiency is that the Commonwealth has so little power over it. It is because of that that we have seen such extraordinary land and soil degradation around Australia. I cannot say that the remarks that Senator Boswell has made about me have been all that complimentary. I will just have to learn to live with them. I will say something nice about Senator Boswell. It will take all the decency that I can muster within me to say that Senator Boswell is perhaps the only senator in the Opposition who has ever shown a real concern for soil loss, soil degradation and salinity. The fact that he has is to his credit. I only hope that, as a result not only of this IDC but also of inquiries being made by CONCOM, we can get some sort of rational national plan to deal with what I believe is by far the nation's biggest environmental problem. Senator Stone —You have suddenly discovered it. When did you discover it? When did you talk about it before? Senator RICHARDSON —I have been talking about it for a long time. If we are talking about sudden discoveries the honourable senator's interest in the environment is pretty sudden-so sudden in fact that he still has not discovered it. We wonder when and if he ever will. Let me go through some of the other comments that have been made by so many speakers in this debate. I have talked about the problem raised by Senator Watson concerning deficient procedures. If we are to have any procedure for settling our arguments on forestry-that is only one of the environmental problems in Australia-we have to look at a way in which we can integrate Commonwealth decisions with State decisions. We have to make sure that the attitudes of all departments on this are sought. That is what is being done by the IDCs. The IDCs are a result of a government decision taken some time back. The honourable senator asked me for a date. I do not remember but I think a pretty fair guess would be that it was last November or December-certainly a long time prior to the Caucus debate to which the honourable senator referred in the question he asked me the other day. I have tried in the past to make some things clear to Senator Boswell but I have had difficulties because I am not sure whether anything can be made clear to him. Senator Boswell stood up in this chamber and told us how wonderful it was that the Queensland Government had reduced its cutting quotas from 195,000 cubic metres to 60,000. In fact, it was in stages. As I recall it, it went from 195,000 to 130,000 and then to 60,000. I am pleased that those quotas were cut. Nonetheless, is that not an acknowledgment that those yields were never sustainable? Is it not the case that for years and years the Queensland Forestry Department held itself up as a model of sustainable yield forestry. What happened? The model kept going wrong so the model had to be changed each year. Senator Parer —Rubbish! Senator RICHARDSON —That is exactly what happened. The cutting quota went from 195,000 to 130,000 and then to 60,000. Why? Because the 195,000 gave the industry only a few years life. It was all going to be dead after a couple of years. As it is, the reductions that the Queensland Government made caused enormous unemployment-much more than this decision can cause. I keep noticing that when we get to the numbers of people who will lose their jobs as a result of this decision of the Federal Government, the numbers creep up and up. Tonight, and in the last couple of days, I noticed that we seem to have settled on a figure of 3,000. The difficulty that I have with the figure of 3,000 is that it is not the number that even the industry or the unions claim will be made unemployed as a result of this decision. When I met with the industry and with the unions I was told that the numbers were somewhere around 600 to 700. I have not seen a scrap of evidence to suggest that those figures are wrong. The industry has not changed its figures so I have not either. I have stuck with the same figures. Senator Boswell —Why don't you put the environmental and social impact statements on the table and then we will all know. Senator RICHARDSON —I ask Senator Boswell to remain calm. I worry about his health when he gets so excited. I am sure that the Temporary Chairman, who is a doctor, is noticing that as well. I look at those north Queensland figures knowing that, in a very short time, I will be going to Cabinet and I will be getting a package of compensation of jobs and money for north Queensland. It is at that point that the question of Queensland's cooperation will become rather important because a lot of money and a lot of jobs will be able to be provided. It will then be up to the Queensland Government to decide just how much of the interests of north Queensland it really has at heart. If it has the interests of north Queensland at heart it will cooperate with the Federal Government not just to manage the area but also to make sure that jobs and money can be provided to north Queensland. That is what the Commonwealth Government is about but it is not what the Opposition is about. It is prepared, in concert with some of its State colleagues, to stand in the road of any package of compensation. They can attempt to do it, but when the crunch comes the pressure from the people will be so great that they will all have to back off. I do not know what Premier Ahern's attitude will be on this question. However, I know that I will be talking to him in the next few weeks and I hope that once the package is announced I will have his full cooperation in delivering services, jobs and money to the people of north Queensland. Let me turn now to the remarks made by other honourable senators. Senator Parer seems to be convinced that the nomination will not be accepted in December. Of course, we heard that about the nomination for Kakadu. We will hear it about this nomination for the rest of the year and we will be sending teams of people overseas. No doubt the Queensland Government, the Tasmanian Government and the Northern Territory Government, as usual, will have junkets everywhere. Of course, the hearings will not be held in Paris this year. As is my lot in life, when it comes to my turn to attend they are switched to Brasilia. Nonetheless, there will be hordes of officials from different governments turning up in Brasilia and arguing against the nomination. However, just as with all the speeches about what would happen in, say, our High Court cases, the realities are that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) has made very clear the values that it puts on those forests. Indeed, senator MacGibbon is strong on quoting the IUCN. In 1984 it passed a resolution calling on Australia to nominate the wet tropics rainforests- Senator Parer —Is that why you did it? Senator RICHARDSON —Australia is now complying with that resolution. Senator Parer asked why we do it. We do it because we have a commitment to heritage values. We do it because we are signatories to the World Heritage Convention. One wonders where were these voices then. Where was Senator Walters? Where was Senator MacGibbon? Where was Senator Watson? Most honourable senators opposite were somewhere other than in the Senate, but why did not most of those who were here complain to the Prime Minister-I think his name was Malcolm Fraser-when he pursued the Kakadu nomination? Senator Durack made a speech about Kakadu. Senator Stone interjected about Kakadu. Where were they when Malcolm Fraser proceeded with that nomination? I suggest they were all sitting here agreeing with him. Even Senator MacGibbon might have had some regard for the magnificent values of that area. Even Senator Walters might have had some regard for the values of that area. Senator Sanders —She wouldn't. Senator RICHARDSON —I am sorry. I withdraw that. Senator Sanders is right: Senator Walters would have had no regard whatsoever for the magnificent values of Kakadu. Fortunately there seems to be a majority of senators who do have some regard for the value of the wet tropics. Senator Walters —Tell us what stage we are talking about? Senator RICHARDSON —I shall not take up what stage Senator Walters is at. Senator McKiernan —Forget about her. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator McKiernan is correct; this is a time for restraint. Senator Walters —Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: Senator Richardson deliberately misunderstood my interjection. Stage 1 of Kakadu National Park was nominated. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —No point of order is involved. Senator RICHARDSON —I am disappointed that the debate has gone this long on clause 1. Obviously the Opposition will attempt to deny the legislation passing through the Parliament this week. I hope that is something we can overcome because, come 1 April, the Opposition wants to see the loggers go back into the wet tropics rainforest, but the Government intends to make sure that they do not. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(7.23) —Tonight the debate seems to have revolved around logging in Queensland and Tasmania. I share the concerns of those States about their logging. However, my fears are more for Western Australia and what might happen in that State in due course. Having listened to references to logging all day, I hope I will be excused for making a few of my own observations. Senator Coulter from South Australia and Senator Sanders from Tasmania suggested that timber is a non-renewable product. My family has been involved with a forest in the alpine area of Europe. We have traced back the history of that forest for 1,000 years, and some of the timber was logged as recently as six months ago. It has been logged for 1,000 years. No doubt that forest goes back to before the Roman times. Senator Richardson —Is it a rainforest? Senator PANIZZA —It is a forest. So much for that sort of argument. Senator Bjelke- Petersen said that Queensland had been logged for 100 years. That is a short period. I turn to more of the Democrats' hypocritical suggestions that I heard in this chamber today and on other occasions. If they eat meat, drink milk, drive cars, wear clothes or build houses, they are hypocrites. Every house has some timber in its roof. If any of the Democrats will say they do none of those things, I shall be the first to say that they are not hypocrites. I return to Western Australia and the Kimberley region and Shark Bay. This Bill will encompass those areas in time. Senator Sanders need not worry about that, because that will happen. In fact, tomorrow at Shark Bay-- Senator Richardson —How much rain falls there? Senator PANIZZA —This has nothing to do with rainforest, so do not worry about how much rain falls on Shark Bay. This Bill encompasses all conservation and world heritage. Shark Bay and the Kimberleys are on the Australian Conservation Foundation hit list. If honourable senators have not seen the hit list I shall show it to them. That hit list was incorporated in Hansard the other day. It includes the Kimberleys and Shark Bay, so I need excuse myself no further for talking about those areas. Tomorrow evening a meeting will be held at Shark Bay. That area is a sensitive region, having been recognised by pastoralists and the State Government alike as such for quite a number of years. An arrangement has been made as to how it can be farmed or worked as a pastoral station. A pastoral board controls how much stock can be run on a pastoral lease. I do not think there would be any argument from the Australian Democrats on that. In a sensitive region the stringent conditions of how much stock can be run have been made even more stringent. Under present conditions one sheep could probably be run on 200 acres. What do the conservationists want? They want to turn that area over to World Heritage listing or whatever and then, as everyone says, let the tourists in. Senator Sanders —On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I draw your attention to standing orders 269, 438, 440 and 441 which have to do with disorder in the chamber. When Senator Panizza was speaking he had his foot on the furniture. That is a disorderly act and I ask that he refrain from despoiling the furniture. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Panizza is addressing clause 1 of the Bill. Senator PANIZZA —I shall remove my foot from the chair. However, if I see honourable senators, especially in that direction, with their feet on the furniture in future, I shall take them up on that. I return to Shark Bay. The conservationists want to drive out the fourth generation pastoralists who have had leases for the past 113 years. They will be given reasonable compensation, but only if the whole of their stations are taken, not just parts of them. The conservationists want to let tourists in wholesale. If the conservationists wanted to take over that sensitive area and lock it up for all time, I might have found some excuse for them. However, they want to let in the tourists. I shall come to Senator Richardson's comment about tourists and wool. The tourists will do far more damage to that sensitive area than would one sheep grazing on 200 acres. The other day Senator Richardson told the Senate that tourism is now worth more to Australia than is the wool clip. I should like to see the figures researched before they are ever repeated in this place, because I totally disagree with that statement. The point I make to Senator Richardson is that when the sheep are shorn and fleeced this year, they will be there to be fleeced next year. But the tourists will not be there to be fleeced a second time. They can be fleeced only once. Returning to the Kimberleys, that is a vast pastoral region. As I said, it is on the hit list. When it is taken, what will happen to the cattle that are left there? The pastoralists will be driven out, but they will not be able to get rid of the rest of the cattle. What will the Government do? Will it use helicopters like it did in Kakadu National Park, as we saw in a photo in the Australian shooting willy-nilly-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1). Postal Services Act-By-laws 1988-Postal Amendment No. 2.