Tuesday, 23 August 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the deaths of former Senator Ronald Edward McAuliffe and Mr Frank Olley, member of the House of Representatives for the division of Hume from 1972 to 1974. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 16 August 1988, of Ronald Edward McAuliffe, O.B.E., senator for the State of Queensland from 1971 to 1981, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Ron McAuliffe was born at Brisbane, Queensland on 25 July 1918 and educated at St Joseph's Christian Brothers College. He was an Australian Labor Party senator for the State of Queensland from 1971 until his retirement in 1981. During his time in the Senate, Ron McAuliffe undertook extensive work within the emerging committee system and showed particular interest in financial issues while a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, of which he was Chairman from 1973 to 1975. He was also a Temporary Chairman of Committees from March 1974 to April 1978. He will be remembered with gratitude by the party for his tireless service; he was Chairman of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party from May 1978 to June 1981. During the Second World War he was a member of the Australian Imperial Force, serving in the Middle East, New Guinea and at the siege of Tobruk. Prior to entering parliament, Ron McAuliffe was a hotel proprietor, but one of his greatest loves was rugby league. He served for many years with the Australian and Queensland rugby leagues, being President of the Queensland Rugby League from 1970 and a member of the Australian Rugby League from 1973 to 1987 and its Deputy Chairman from 1980 to 1987. In the Parliament he contributed energetically to debates on sporting issues. In 1982 he was awarded the Order of the British Empire. Ron McAuliffe will be remembered by a number of honourable senators. He was a warm, friendly and engaging personality. I will tell two stories, if I might, which I am sure he would not mind my telling. The first relates to my first week in this Parliament. In the Senate party room we all had mail boxes, which used to get cluttered with, how shall I put it, all classes of mail. I went in there very apprehensively to open my mail box, and Ron McAuliffe was outside his mail box, with an enormous dust bin. He was heaving everything out of the mail box into that dustbin. I was profoundly shocked by that, although I noticed that he was keeping the letters. I said that I was shocked and asked whether he read all those reports and things. He said that no, he did not. He said, `I will give you one other tip. Never answer letters. Send telegrams. It makes you look much more efficient'. I cannot say that I have entirely complied with his advice, but it was probably sound. The second story relates to the rugby league final in 1975, which has now become part of the lore of Australian politics. The story goes that Ron, as President of the Queensland Rugby League, accompanied Gough Whitlam onto the ground to present the cup at the conclusion of the final. It is a matter of record now that the Whitlam Government was not overwhelmingly popular in 1975 and the crowd responded to the appearance of Gough Whitlam on the ground with enormous boos and by throwing beer cans and things of that kind. Gough turned to Ron McAuliffe and said, `McAuliffe, you'll have to work harder. I didn't realise that you were so unpopular'. Of course that story received popular currency only because Ron McAuliffe told it himself. As I have said, it has become part of the lore of this country's political history. As I have said, Ron McAuliffe was a warm and friendly personality who endeared himself to many senators. I regard him, as I am sure all honourable senators do, as a respected member of this Senate; a loyal and tireless worker for his party. On behalf of the Government, I extend to members of his family our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition, I rise to support the motion of condolence which has been moved by Senator Button on behalf of the Government and to associate the Opposition with his words about the late Ron McAuliffe. I also join him in extending, on behalf of the Opposition, the sympathy that we all feel to his family. I think that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has given a very fair summary of how we remember Ron McAuliffe. He was certainly very warmly regarded in this chamber. When one looks at his life's history it is clearly seen that he had moved in so many different ways that he was able to deal with most of us on the basis of complete affability. He saw war service over a period of years during the Second World War; so he served Australia in that respect as well. He had been a publican. He entered parliament as a man who was well known for his Australian Labor Party interests but also for his sporting interests, as Senator Button has said. I think that his rugby interests clearly crossed significant party lines in Queensland. I have absolutely no doubt that that was, again, part of his being so popular in this place. The only additional recollection that I wish to add with respect to the late Ron McAuliffe is the extraordinarily high level of expertise that he had in financial matters. That was touched on to some extent by Senator Button. With respect to some of the more arcane areas of Senate responsibility and the responsibilities of government in terms of the way in which legislation is presented and so on, it was Senator Ron McAuliffe who was, I think, one of the best informed senators in this place. There were a few at that time. Senator Peter Rae was another who took a close interest in those matters. I was but one of many new senators whom Ron McAuliffe helped to at least partially educate in those areas. No matter which part of the chamber from which one came, one could go to him for advice on those matters. I have very warm and happy memories of Senator Ron McAuliffe. He was a very good humoured contributor to debate in this place. From time to time he was a fairly wicked interjector, but he certainly dealt with all of us on an extremely friendly and fair basis. He left this place to our very great regret. As I recall it, his was a surprise retirement. He retired to make way for a new senator-Senator Gerry Jones, who, I think, has maintained the same reputation for affability, in most circumstances, as his predecessor. I recall that we were surprised at Ron McAuliffe's leaving. He was making a considerable contribution to the Senate at the time he announced his retirement. With those thoughts, I simply support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I associate the Australian Democrats with the motion moved by Senator Button with regard to Ron McAuliffe. I never met him in this place, although I did meet him from time to time in Queensland. As Senator Button said, he was a very amiable, affable and genuine person. However, underneath all of that, he was also a very capable politician. Those people who know the highways and byways of Queensland politics will realise that they could go down most of them and meet Ron McAuliffe coming back up. His affability extended to some interesting relationships with Russ Hinze and a number of other people in the National Party in Queensland. They assisted one another from time to time on various committees outside this place. He was always willing to participate in various activities. He contributed greatly to sporting administration in Queensland. He was very well known and very well regarded in my State not only in regard to football but also in regard to other areas. He had a great deal of interest and a very large input in other areas. He made some interesting contributions in this place. I have read a number of the speeches that he made. He certainly seems to have made some fairly incisive speeches on some pretty important topics. His death came as a shock to those people in Queensland who knew him. One always thought of Ron McAuliffe as being a very active person. Although he had been ill from time to time, his death struck most people as unexpected. He made a great contribution in his own State to the party he supported and in other areas outside of politics in which he chose to participate. He was a person who did not believe in sitting down; he wanted to do something to help to make things better. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I wish to be associated with this motion of condolence following the passing of Ron McAuliffe. I first met Ron just over 30 years ago. At that time he was selling doubles at a rugby league match-an interstate match-at the Brisbane Exhibition grounds. At that time I had never played a game of rugby league, and I never was to play one. I once played a reasonable but by no means spectacular game of rugby union, a fact that I diplomatically never told Ron. On that occasion when we first met I spoke to Ron about some methods of coaching rugby league. As a young school teacher I was given the responsibility of coaching a school team. I cannot remember much more about that meeting. It was not until 1969 that I got to know Ron well. In that year he and I were selected for a ticket for the 1970 half-Senate election. In those days five senators were elected for each State in a half-Senate election. Having secured the No. 2 position for the Labor team, Ron was assured of election. On the other hand, I had Buckley's chance because I held the No. 3 position. From the time of our selection until the election late in 1970 I came to know Ron well. I found him to be a charming gentleman with a marvellous sense of humour. I can remember one occasion when Ron and I had been invited to a party meeting in our role as Senate candidates. At that time it was Labor policy to abolish the Senate and, although few who thought about it believed that abolition was possible, it was a great article of faith in the branches. Both Ron and I were asked whether, as senators, we would support legislation to abolish the upper House. I cannot remember my reply, but I suppose that what I said was acceptable. Ron, however, had a novel solution. He said yes, he would support the abolition of the Senate but it must be done gradually and the best way to go about the task would be not to replace any senator who left. He said it with so much conviction that those present at the meeting thought it was a good idea. I had a mental image of the Senate in its death throes operating with a quorum of one. To this day I do not know whether he meant what he said or whether it was a sign of his sense of humour. I tend to believe it was the latter. Following the 1970 election I kept in touch with Ron. In 1974 and 1975 we were both on the same team for the election following the double dissolution. It is a stark reminder of our mortality to realise that, of the four who were elected for the Australian Labor Party in the 1974 election, three have since passed on: Bert Milliner, Jim Keeffe and now Ron McAuliffe. I joined Ron in the old Parliament House after the 1975 election. In those days there were no orientation sessions for new senators and I relied heavily on advice given to me by other senators, especially by Ron. I could tell many humorous stories surrounding Ron's time here-his meetings of the LOGS, a term coined for Labor's old guard socialists; how he nodded to the President at Question Time after returning from an overseas trip and was almost immediately given the call but did not have a question to ask, so he made one up on the spot; how on another occasion one of his less kindly colleagues hid his question under a pile of papers so that he could not find it when he was given the call. Now, however, is not the time to relate those incidents and many more. They are for us to cherish as fond reminders of a true friend. When news of Ron's death became known last week, many felt a grievous loss. I spoke to many people in Queensland and interstate, all of whom were genuinely saddened by his passing. He was remembered as a real gentleman, a person who had friends in every walk of life. I can still remember Ron's last speech in the Senate and I still have a visual image of him as he hurriedly left the chamber after making that speech. I think he either had a horse to back or wanted to listen to a race broadcast. But in his final speech to the Senate, he said, among other things: I suppose I share the same inward ambitions or thoughts of all the retiring senators who hope that, as a result of their service in and their contributions to this Parliament, they have made a small scratch on the mirror of time. If Ron could hear me now I would say to him, `My friend, you made more than a scratch on the mirror of time. You were a soldier, a successful businessman, a highly regarded senator, a remarkable sports administrator and a dedicated family man'. Ron need not worry about that scratch; his deeds are really etched on the mirror of time. The passing of a person so fondly remembered by countless people throughout Australia must leave a gap in his own family. To Ron's family, I extend my deepest sympathy for their loss. It may be of some small consolation to his family members that their grief is shared by so many others. As one of those others, I am proud to have been one of his colleagues and one of his friends. I, too, will miss him. I would like again to quote from his farewell speech when he said: . . . there may be some merit in what the late Eddie Ward once said to a former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, when tributes were being made to a deceased comrade. After hearing six or seven speeches he leant across the table and said: `All I want you to say about me when I'm gone is that he was loved by all'. Human nature being what it is, that is probably an unrealistic aim. But if anyone achieved that aim, or went close to fulfilling it, it was Ron McAuliffe. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —I rise to associate myself and the National Party members in the Senate with this motion of condolence on the death of Ron McAuliffe and we wish to convey to his wife and family our very sincerest sympathy in their loss. When I arrived in the Senate in March 1981, Ron McAuliffe had three months of his time here as a senator still to go. I must say that he made me feel very welcome indeed and I have very pleasant memories of meeting with him. Joh and I in the past years have found him a very good friend indeed. When Joh was Premier of Queensland he used to go along to the football matches. From time to time I went with him. I have never been an avid follower of rugby league, I must say, but it was very interesting. Ron was tremendously enthusiastic and was very pleased to welcome us to the matches. Actually, I believe that on a number of occasions he took Joh down to the football field. I do not know whether he received the rip-roaring reception that Gough Whitlam did and about which Senator Button spoke earlier. We do class Ron as a friend. Of course he was a friend of football in Queensland. In fact, many times he has been referred to as `Mr Football'. I take this opportunity to convey the sympathy of all members of the National Party to Mrs McAuliffe and family. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I rise to support the motion of condolence for the late Ron McAuliffe whom I counted as a friend. I had the pleasure of serving with him for some 3 1/2 years on the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and it really was a pleasure to serve with him. I recall that, during luncheon breaks, he, Doug McClelland and I used to find time to have lunch together. It was always a most humorous lunch hour with the jokes flashing backwards and forwards and me sitting there enjoying the jokes with those two more able to crack jokes than I was. Ron was really marvellous. I remember on one occasion we were talking to him about his years as a publican. I said that I liked a particular brand of beer and he said, `We served that. As a matter of fact, we served 26 brands of beer in my hotel. Of course, all were served from the same tap!'. I think that was typical of Ron's approach to many things. As a publican, he would provide people with whatever they wanted. He was a marvellous fellow and it was a pleasure to know him. When he quit politics he made the comment, `I reckon that every year over 60 is a bonus in everybody's life and I want to enjoy them'. In truth, I was surprised to see that, when he left the Senate, he started, in his sixties, a very hectic and heavy new career. Obviously he performed that task very well because, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen has said, he was known in Queensland as `Mr Football'. From time to time I recall him comparing my Victorian game with his code: he referred to his code as wrestling on the run and to mine as aerial ping pong. I also recall his loyalty to his friends which was demonstrated when he defended his friend Sir John Egerton against some caustic and outspoken attacks. I understand that, on some three occasions, his life was threatened after he had attacked gambling syndicates for what he called mafia-like activities in attempting to take over Queensland's gambling business. I am sure that former senators Peter Rae and Doug McClelland, who were also on the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations with me, would wish to be associated with this motion as would the staff of those committees that he served on for so many years in this chamber. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I rise to associate myself with the condolence motion for Ron McAuliffe. I first came to the Parliament in 1975, after a rather hectic period in the Australian Labor Party. Ron McAuliffe was a true friend to me and to a number of other colleagues here. I shall not be adding much to the debate. I am sure that my colleagues would agree with me that the comments made by Senator Colston said it all. But it was interesting to note that, when Ron McAuliffe went out, he went out without grizzling and whilst he was in front, and that was typical of the man. He just did not put his nomination in; he presumably made certain arrangements beforehand. I see Senator Jones smiling. Ron McAuliffe went out without a grizzle, saying simply that he had had enough. He had had 10 years and he hoped that he had made some contribution in those years. Contribution he did make. He did so, as Senator Lewis has said, enhanced by his ability to joke about things. He came into the Senate one day when three or four amendments were around the place. He got up to speak and said, `I feel like the Irish policeman arresting a person and saying, ``You may be right or you may be wrong but I do not think so''.' He then launched into a magnificent speech. He was a man of great principle. I have looked up the record of his first speech in the Senate, in which he said he wanted to talk about four things, particularly: poverty, the trade union movement, tourism and sport. He spoke out in defence of the weakest members of our community. I well recall that in 1978, in the debate on the termination of pregnancy ordinance in the Australian Capital Territory, he spoke out for the unborn, and he and eight of his colleagues crossed the floor. I have looked to recall who those colleagues were. Most of them have gone to their reward, including you, Mr President, and Senator Tate. That vote was appreciated by many people and I am sure it was typical of the man who stood to defend the defenceless. When Ron McAuliffe became Caucus chairman-I think it was in 1977-nothing changed so far as his relationship with me and other people in this chamber was concerned. He was always approachable, and unfailingly courteous. He always had a joke. I was proud to regard him as a particular friend. I would like, together with Senator Colston and the others who have spoken, to pass on my condolences to his family. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I am sure that all of us are distressed that our first remarks in this chamber are in support of a condolence motion for Ron McAuliffe. I knew him over 25 or 30 years. He was running rugby league in Queensland at the same time as I was involved with tennis. We had a standing pair relationship with each other, which he always honoured, as I did too. It was outside anything that the Whips arranged. If he was stuck with a State of origin match or a test, I used automatically to pair him. If I was stuck with a Davis Cup tie or an Australian championship, or some other important event, he would always pair me. We enjoyed a grand relationship of camaraderie. As Senator Lewis said, Ron McAuliffe had a fine sense of humour. I shared it with him many times at dinners and at various sporting functions when we were on the platform together, icluding nights at the Kirrabell Hotel on the Gold Coast. They are wonderful to remember; rollicking occasions. His son, Mick, is a friend of my research officer. They kicked off rugby on the Gold Coast together, and they still play in the golden oldies competition there. One of the stories that I particularly remember about Ron was when he asked Gough Whitlam up to Queensland to kick off in one of the State of origin matches. Senator Boswell —We have heard that one already. Senator SHEIL —I am sorry; I was out of the chamber and I missed it, but it really is a remarkable story. I join in the motion of condolence and wish to pass my respects to his wife, Lillian, and to Mick. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I support the motion of condolence for Ron McAuliffe. I do so because of the friendship that I had with Ron over a number of years. A number of stories about Ron have been told today and there are many more that could be told, but one of the things that demonstrate the measure of the man is the fact that after he retired from the Senate he was still known throughout Queensland, particularly amongst the administration of the rugby league, as the Senator. Even though he was not a senator, as he had retired, they still called Ron McAuliffe the Senator. That showed the sort of respect and affection that people had for Ron. It is worth noting that at Ron's funeral the other day there were leading political figures: members of the Government, members of the Opposition, and members of the State Parliament. There were a large number of administrators from Australian Rugby League, Queensland Rugby League and New South Wales Rugby League. The captain of Australia, Wally Lewis, was there. Some of the old former champions, Barry Muir and Bill Tyquin, were also present. All the people at the funeral that day showed a very strong affection for and loyalty to the memory of Ron McAuliffe. At this stage I would like to endorse all the remarks made by everyone else in this place. One could go on and tell a few stories about Ron. Some I could tell and some I do not think I will tell, although they were referred to by a couple of previous speakers. To Ron's wife, Lillian, and their son, Michael, I express my personal sadness in their loss. I hope that in the future their memory of Ron and the memory that members of this Senate have of Ron will remain. I express sympathy to the family at this moment. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —by leave-I move: That the Senate- acknowledges that: (1) Australia was occupied by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who had settled for thousands of years before British settlement at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788; (2) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders suffered dispossession and dispersal upon acquisition of their traditional lands by the British Crown; and (3) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were denied full citizenship rights of the Commonwealth of Australia prior to the 1967 Referendum. and affirms: (4) the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage; and (5) the entitlement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia; and considers it desirable that the Commonwealth further promote reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr President, in our bicentennial year, and at the outset of our first working day in this chamber, a motion such as this could hardly be more appropriate. Our new beginnings in this building allow us to focus with fresh minds on the great question-the great challenge-posed by our celebration of 200 years of European settlement: the nation's relationship with its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens. At the start of our bicentennial year, the Australian Heads of Churches issued a statement titled `Towards Reconciliation in Australian Society'. The idea for this resolution originated with that statement and the precise words of the resolution have been suggested by the churches. For this reason, and to prevent the injection of party politics into this motion, I believe it should be voted on without amendment from either side of the Senate. The motion is in three parts. It begins by acknowledging as historical truths: firstly, the prior occupation and settlement of Australia by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; secondly, the dispossession and dispersal they suffered after 1788; and, thirdly, the denial of full citizenship rights to them until 1967. Whatever one's political views or social theories those are undeniable facts of the Australian story. It is not sufficient merely to acknowledge those truths without drawing out their implications-I believe, their inevitable implications. Accordingly, this motion goes on in its second part to affirm the importance of the Aboriginal culture and the entitlement of Aboriginal people to a substantial degree of self-management. The acknowledgment of these historical truths and the affirmation of these implications by this Parliament-and preferably a unanimous acknowledgment and affirmation-will go a long way towards their greater acceptance throughout the community. It would still be inadequate to leave the issue at that point. We must add one logical step and draw one conclusion of ultimate significance. We must, if we are truly to fulfil our responsibilities as the elected representatives of the Australian people, express our utmost determination to promote reconciliation within our community. And we must do it today. We must, in the words of the third part of this motion, state the desirability of the Commonwealth further promoting reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens, providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia. In the informal discussions which have taken place among members concerning this motion, the view has sometimes been put that such a motion is purely symbolic and therefore of no importance or relevance to the Aboriginal and Islander people. I reject that view firmly. So do appropriate Opposition spokesmen such as Mr Chris Miles, who in April this year said: I am open to symbolism and using the Parliament to bring about a resolution of past conflicts. For many years governments of both political affiliations have endeavoured to provide what could be termed physical or technical solutions to the needs of the Aboriginal and Islander people. They have provided special assistance to help them in education, housing, employment, health and other fields. But we recognise that we must do more, for the education, housing, employment, and health standards of Aboriginal and Islander people still lag far behind those of the rest of the community. The Government is proud of its record in continuing and improving this flow of assistance. We will continue to do so, as the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will indicate tonight. Yet we must also recognise that the true remedy does not lie purely in the allocation of resources, for if we provide budgetary assistance but not hope, not confidence, not effective consultation, not reconciliation, then that assistance will fail to lift Aboriginal and Islander people from their disadvantaged state. In the past, too many of those programs of assistance have been decided on by governments without the informed involvement of the people they were designed to assist. Even more fundamentally, those physical remedies for the physical needs of the Aboriginal people have not been accompanied by proper recognition of their cultural tradition or of their legitimate place in Australian society. The proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission will be one major step in the direction of self-determination and self-management for the Aboriginal and Islander citizens of this nation. At the same time, the Government is committed to a real and lasting reconciliation, achieved through full consultation and honest negotiation, between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal citizens of this nation. This will be recognised by the preamble to the Commission legislation. It will be recognised by the compact or treaty which we are committed to negotiating with Aboriginal and Islander people. And, Mr President, it will be recognised by our support for this motion. Without this overall approach, without a proper settlement and proper recognition, there can be no real and lasting improvement for the Aboriginal and Islander people. That is why this motion is no mere symbolism or empty tokenism. Mr President, this motion will not be the first formal recognition of the special position of the Aboriginal and Islander people. In 1967 the people of Australia voted overwhelmingly in a referendum initiated by the Liberal-Country Party Government to give the Commonwealth the right to make special laws for Aboriginal people. Significantly, this referendum had the support of all major political parties. In 1975 Senator Bonner's motion on `prior ownership' was debated by the Senate. That was Parliament's first formal step in setting the record straight and in pointing the way to reconciliation. Significantly again, it had bipartisan support. Today Parliament must make a further statement. We must tell the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that their feelings of dispossession generated by 200 years of non-Aboriginal settlement are recognised, that their culture and heritage are valued, and that through self-management their need for a more empowered place in the nation's life is affirmed. And more than that, this resolution will tell all Australians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, that we are prepared to enter our third century of life together on this continent in a spirit of national reconciliation-not collective national guilt, not shame, but with proof of our capacity to recognise past wrongs and to build on that recognition a shared future of understanding and goodwill. What is required by government is the political will to follow through with these goals. In a recent article about the proposed treaty, Dr H. C. Coombs said: It's a politician's job to recognise when the will is there to do something: but they also have a responsibility to create that will. And on the spurious claim that such a path to reconciliation would create division in the community, `Nugget' Coombs went on: It's never divisive to correct injustice. The fact of injustice is divisive and will continue to be until we correct it and learn to live with it. People who benefit from injustice will oppose this, but you don't stop working for justice simply because people around you don't like it. The Government is committed to correcting the injustices of the past. The political will is there, the support is there, as evidenced by this resolution from the churches. The aim is that we will all move forward together in a happier, more just and unified society. I commend the Australian Heads of Churches for their initiative in suggesting this important step on the road to reconciliation. In full recognition of the significance of this moment to Parliament and, not just to Parliament, but to all Australians, I now commend this motion to the Senate. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a delegation from the United States Congress led by Speaker Wright. On behalf of all senators I welcome them to Canberra and I wish them well on their visit to Australia. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.44) —The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has just commended this motion to us as a measure which might be used in this our bicentennial year to set us off on a better course than we have followed in the past with our Aboriginal Australians. The motion is one which sets out a series of statements of fact, contains a couple of affirmations and goes on to say that the Senate: considers it desirable that the Commonwealth further promote reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia. It is certainly the wish of the Opposition to see that better course, to see the reconciliation and to see Aboriginal Australians with a better place in our community. Senator Button, in his speech, touched very lightly on the notoriously disadvantaged situation of Aboriginal Australians. It has been said over and over again in the Senate-although never before in this our new chamber-that by whatever social indicator one chooses to measure by, Aboriginals will generally be found to be in the worst situation. That has caused enormous concern to successive Australian governments, and since the year 1967 that concern has led to massive expenditure of public moneys in an attempt to remedy that disadvantage. It is the view of the Opposition that the moving of this symbolic motion is not the most productive way to solve the problems that are undeniably suffered by our Aboriginal Australians. We would have thought that more constructive courses could be taken and, in particular, attention given, on the part of the Government and the Opposition, to the deficiencies in the approach to Aboriginal affairs which have been so evident over recent years. But most of what is in this motion is unexceptionable. It may not be true that all of the statements are precise statements of historical fact. It is undoubtedly true that Australia was occupied by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and that they have been here for thousands of years. It is not true, as the second paragraph of the motion implies, that all Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were dispossessed. There remain in central Australia, in Arnhem Land and in the Torres Strait Islands some Aboriginal people whose occupation of their lands has continued from the time of settlement. I do not make that point to cavil. The reality is that, whilst the great bulk of the area of Australia was settled and there was a dispossession of those Aboriginals who occupied the land, there are substantial areas of land in Australia where that is not so. It is true that there was, for most of that period to 1967, a denial to Aboriginals of fundamental rights that were afforded to other people. For example, when I was a student in the late 1950s Aboriginal people did not enjoy the right to vote. A parliamentary inquiry at that time examined the issue and determined that they should have the same right as other Australians. But I suppose, in a technical sense, it is true that it was not until the 1967 referendum, which provided that Aboriginal Australians should be counted in the census, that there was full recognition of their place in this country. There is no dispute from the Opposition about the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. There is no dispute from the Opposition that Aboriginal Australians should be as free as other Australians to manage their lives and to lead the sorts of lives they wish. Sometimes those lives will be quite different from the lives of the average, run of the mill Australian suburbanite. No-one has ever objected to the fact that some Australians choose to separate themselves entirely from the community and go and live in monasteries under a vow of silence. We have not seen that as an objectionable or unAustralian thing to do. They have remained part of the fabric of Australia, although they have chosen to distance themselves from it. But it is this second paragraph in this motion which gives rise to concern on the part of the Opposition. Later in my speech I will indicate why we will be seeking to move an amendment to that second affirmation with its reference to self-management and self-determination. The existing words can be used in a variety of ways. As I will be pointing out, they are used to describe concepts and approaches to the place of people in our society which would be utterly repugnant to most Australians. In particular, in so far as they give rise to the possibility of argument that there is, in the Australian nation, some separate nation of Aboriginal people who have some right to self-determination in a sense that I will explain-those words can be used in an international context-then we think the motion could be read in quite the wrong way. For that reason I will be moving an amendment to insert into the second paragraph words which subject the words `self-management' and `self-determination' to the qualifying words `in common with all other Australians'. There is no argument about the continuing unhappy conditions of many Aboriginal people; there is no argument about the continuing need for assistance, and indeed generous assistance. But there is room for argument about what sort of assistance is effective. I think that there are few close observers of the Aboriginal scene in Australia today who believe that current approaches are effective across the board. Indeed, many people believe that the situation is worsening. I have said before in the Senate that, in my experience, in many parts of Australia the relationships between Aboriginal Australians and the rest of us have deteriorated significantly over recent years. It is in that context that I raise the doubts which are felt by many on this side of the chamber about the use of symbols and the attachment of this Government in particular to symbolic approaches to this problem as against severely practical approaches to the problems of Aboriginal Australians. There are very great dangers in any approach which suggests to Aboriginal people that their problems can be externalised. There can be enormous difficulty in suggesting that there is some golden key solution, whether it be land rights, a treaty or a motion of this Parliament, when the reality is that the solution to most of the problems which face Aboriginal Australians requires not only government assistance but also an enormous amount of effort from Aboriginal people themselves. That might seem a conservative approach. That might seem an unfeeling and unsympathetic approach, but I would say in response-- Senator Aulich —It is conservative. Senator CHANEY —The senator from Tasmania interjects that it is a conservative approach. However, it struck me as ironic that when the present Premier of Western Australia, Mr Peter Dowding, who, like me, had a close association with the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia-indeed, his association was closer; he worked for the Aboriginal Legal Service in the northern part of Western Australia-and who was involved, as Senator Cook was, in Labor Party promotion of Labor solutions to the problems of Aboriginals in Western Australia found himself confronted with the deep problems of his Aboriginal constituents and found the problems which are endemic in country towns in Western Australia, he made statements which reflect the same conservative view that I have just expressed. The other day, when he was concerned about what had been happening in Western Australia and attributed the difficulties to stirrers and outsiders, he said: I hope people recognise that the vast bulk of Aboriginal people make an important contribution to the community. But it's time the vocal minority focused away from somebody else's solutions-money, handouts and asking what the Government is going to do. That, I think, is a perfectly sensible response to the reality that it is not some overriding external solution to be sought; that is, in fact, a devotion to the particular and practical problems that are faced by people and a provision to them of an opportunity for them to help themselves. Any solution that pretends that that is not what it is all about is, in fact, a lie. If one looks at the different symbols which have been used by the present Government over the years one sees a disturbing pattern that we do not wish to go on repeating. The reality is that when the Labor Party in opposition was looking for the answers to the then serious problems of Aboriginal people it came up with a solution of national land rights. In the Senate chamber down the hill, former Senator Susan Ryan spoke eloquently of the fact that the approach of the Government would be to operate through national land rights. She said that one of the first legislative acts of a Labor government would be to take the management of land out of the hands of the Queensland Government by passing her private member's Bill, which would be Labor legislation, to grant freehold title and not any other form of lease over the Aboriginal and Islander reserves in Queensland. She believed that that would resolve the situation. Those honourable senators opposite who campaigned on the Aboriginal issue in 1983 had these speakers notes; they were the notes of the Labor Party in 1983: Labor will ensure that Aboriginal people in all States and Territories are granted land rights in line with the following principles: Land will be granted as inalienable freehold . . . Labor will enact legislation to provide land rights to Queensland Aboriginal reserves immediately. Negotiations with the States to enact land rights legislation in line with the above principles will proceed. where any state refuses to enact appropriate land rights legislation the Labor Government will use Commonwealth constitutional powers to achieve its objectives. Why do I raise that now? I raise it now because, when I was dealing with the Aboriginal people in the late 1970s and early 1980s and we talked about their problems of alcohol abuse, of unemployment and of illness, they said to me, `The Labor Party has told us that we can solve these problems. They are going to give us our land'. What I am saying to you, Mr President, and to the Senate is that that was marvellously effective symbolism. Its greatest effect was to buy the votes of almost every Aboriginal in this country. This Government since 1983 has had untrammelled legislative power to enact that legislation, because the Australian Democrats are even greater supporters of that policy than are any Government senators opposite. That admission by Mr Holding, after another three or four years of misrepresentation to the Aboriginal people about that great symbol-the symbol of a promise of national land rights legislation-remained until 1986, when he dropped it and conceded that it was not a practical proposition. There was no difficulty about legislative competence; there was no difficulty about constitutional power or about having the numbers in the Senate. The fact is that the Labor Party in government had to face up to the legal, administrative and political realities of Australia and the realities that affect Aboriginal Australians. We have here a piece of symbolism which is, I suggest, the fourth major piece of symbolism that we have seen from the Labor Party since the late 1970s: national land rights, the great symbol buried in 1986; the treaty, resurrected by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the Northern Territory and going where I do not know; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission-and who knows what will happen to that-and now we have this proposed resolution. These matters are of vital importance to us. The reality of 1988 is that around Australia Aboriginal people are dying of despair in cells. That is a continuing process, week by week. I believe that this proposed resolution is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an adequate response to the reality that Aboriginal people face. Whilst it is, in most of its terms, unexceptionable in that it states, or almost states, the facts which are correct, it is in a number of respects a cop-out. Therefore, I believe that it is not something which should be paraded by the Minister at the table in quite the pleased way that he paraded it as he made his speech. Let me turn to the important question of why we think the words in the proposed resolution are words of concern when they talk about the right of self-determination. That is an expression which is used in different ways in different circumstances. At international law the term can take either of two meanings. It can mean the sovereign equality of existing states and the right of a state to choose its own form of government without intervention. It can also mean the right of a specific territory, or people, to choose its own form of government, irrespective of the wishes of the rest of the state of which that territory is a part. It is that meaning that I ask the Senate to focus upon: the right of a specific territory, or people, to choose its own form of government, irrespective of the wishes of the rest of the state of which that territory is a part. It is that second possibility-a possibility which is quite frequently adverted to by spokesmen for the Aboriginal people, including some Aboriginal people themselves-that makes it incumbent upon us to examine the use of those words in this proposed resolution. I am not raising some matter which has not been raised before. Before I sit down I will quote specifically from people who have argued that the Aboriginal people ought to have self-determination in that second determined sense. Let me say that while the Commonwealth Government is at present involved in discussions at the International Labour Organisation (ILO) about the rights of indigenous people, the fact is that this Government has raised concerns and objections about the idea that the expression `self-determination' might be used or interpreted: . . . as requiring that national political institutions and legal systems be redesigned to reflect the character of indigenous populations. That is a recent statement, a statement made within the last few months. The Australian Government made the point at the ILO session that I attended this year in Geneva that it does not want to hear that expression used in this way because of the dangers that do arise. Advice has been sought and I am told, according to an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that that Department and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet have agreed that Australian Government delegates in international fora will not use the term `self-determination' to prevent its misinterpretation or its extension beyond Australian Government policy. Mr Deputy President, that is the sole area that the Opposition raises as an objection of substance to this motion. This Government has cautioned against the use of the expression `self-determination' in an International Labour Organisation convention specifically relating to our indigenous people. We raise the same objection here. We raise the same concern and ask the Senate, therefore, to make a modest amendment to this motion simply to ensure that people of ill will cannot misuse it and that it cannot be used internationally to suggest that there is within Australia the seeds of a separate nation state. That is something which is alleged by some people, as I have said-I will go on to quote closer authority-in support of Aboriginal aspirations in this country. It is something which would not be in the interests of the Aboriginal people and certainly would be roundly dismissed by the great majority of Australians. The whole history of self-determination, of course, involves the proposition that people can self-determine themselves into a new nation state out of an existing political entity. I make that point because the motion already says that its right of self-determination is subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr Deputy President, all peoples seeking self-determination in that international sense are within some existing body politic and subject to its constitution and its laws. Therefore, the international law on this subject would be utterly irrelevant if it applied only to people who are at large because there is not in the world people who are at large in that sense. I turn to one other authority who has addressed people in Australia, a Professor Russel Barsh from the University of Washington in Seattle. He has made a number of statements within Australia about this issue and I quote from a paper of his called `Aboriginal rights, human rights and international law', Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1984, No. 2, page 4: The relevant legal issue is not whether Aboriginal people were, or are now `sovereign', but whether they have a right to become independent through the exercise of self-determination. It is plain that Aboriginal people never executed any treaty surrendering their political rights, nor voted to incorporate themselves with Euro-Australians. Australian citizenship was conferred on them unilaterally. They cannot exercise the electoral franchise to protect themselves from injustice because they are a numerical minority. There is no real question of the territorial integrity of Australia because Australia can show no deed or treaty of title to the continent, and occupied much of it within living memory. The principles of self-determination and decolonisation appear applicable. There is a visiting professor's view of our situation. What do we find said by spokesmen? I stress that these are minority spokesmen and I believe that most of the Aboriginal people have no interest in this argument. But the important thing is that it is used both within Australia and internationally. Paul Coe, who is well known to many honourable senators, is the Chairman of the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service Secretariat. He has argued that international law recognises the Aboriginal people's statehood and that the Commonwealth of Australia must recognise `the right to self-determination to the nation of Aboriginal people'. Shane Houston, the coordinator of the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisations, has insisted that, despite colonisation of the continent, the Aboriginal people are a distinct people. He said: We work to regain our independence, to remove the burden of oppression, to regain our right to self-determination, to carve out our rightful place from the monolithic block of repressive policies, personalities and practices which makes up the wider Australian society. Despite oppression and attempts at indoctrination of colonialists schools, our inherent belief that the members of our communities collectively have the right to rule, that an individual's responsibility and right is to protect himself by guarding this collective right, remains. One could go on. One could look at what was prepared by a body of Aboriginal people who got together to draw up a draft treaty-the National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations; a peak body for various movements. One of its spokesmen, Mr Robert Riley, who was for a time on the staff of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs-I do not know whether he still is-talked about this as being philosophically spot on. The draft included a request for a land base of not less than 40 per cent of Australia providing for an Aboriginal state that is autonomous in government, development, culture and law. All of that is part of the agenda which I and the Opposition believe is inherently destructive in terms of coming to grips with the very real issues which were raised by the Leader of the Government when moving this motion. Nobody could say that this Government has not been prepared to spend money; it has spent money as though it were going out of fashion. Over the last five years there have been vast increases in the rate of expenditure and, sadly, there is very little to show for it. The symbols have been produced and discarded. Today we have a motion which states some facts, with which we could not disagree, and expresses some aspirations which reflect statements of coalition policy going back over the years. We have worked hard to try to provide mechanisms which will provide a genuine basis for Aboriginal advancement and personal independence. We have had policies which have acknowledged the right of Aboriginal Australians to exercise that personal independence by forming outstations, by returning wholly or partly to a tribal life, or by fully incorporating themselves in the life of suburban Australia. As far as the policies of the Opposition are concerned, that is a matter of free choice and we have sought by a range of measures to promote the reality of choice. We, like the Government, have made mistakes but I think one mistake we are not prepared to make is to hand a weapon to people who might use that weapon as a stick to beat a path towards the concept of two nations in this country. The very clear view of the Opposition is that that is a totally counterproductive way to go and the great bulk of Aboriginal people that I have met agree with me. Whilst I do not claim to have met the great bulk of Aboriginal people, I am sure that I have met as wide a sample as almost any honourable senator in this place. This motion does not reflect the idea of self-determination in its broader sense. It does not reflect their aspirations, whatever might be said by Mr Coe and others. For that reason I move: Paragraph 5: After `self-determination' insert `in common with all other Australians'. The relevant paragraph would then read: the entitlement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination in common with all other Australians subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. I believe that, with the insertion of that amendment, we could all, in good faith, support this motion and have the unanimous vote of this chamber. I would certainly welcome that, but I do not believe that we should wink our eyes or ignore the reality of the problem to which I have adverted on behalf of the Opposition. I do not believe that any of us should regard the passage of this motion as any more than a tiny contribution to the solution of the very considerable problems that are faced by Aboriginal Australians. In closing I again reflect on the sort of comments made by Premier Peter Dowding who, after long personal experience of dealing with his own Aboriginal constituents and working with them, has been moved to refer to the need for them to participate in the solutions which are to be found. I believe we sell the Aboriginal people of Australia short if we speak of these matters without remembering that absolutely essential element. One of the reasons that self-management and self-determination are important is that they recognise the essential responsibility of Aboriginal people themselves, and I see that as being basic to any long term solution for many of the Aboriginal people of this country. I commend the amendment to the Senate and I commend the motion, provided it has that amendment, to the Senate. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.11) —The Australian Democrats strongly support this motion, recognising that it is long overdue but that, quite simply, it does not go far enough. We express the intention that legislation should follow to give legal recognition to prior Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander occupation and ownership of this country that we now call Australia. `Ownership' is not an appropriate word in the context of the indigenous culture. Land had and has a far deeper spiritual significance in that culture than something to be bought and sold and speculated against, as is the case in the European tradition. The legal concept of terra nullis had no basis in fact. Its adoption as a legal principle provided an official justification and sanction for the dispossession which has now proceeded for 200 years. As I said, today's motion is long overdue. I should like to read into the record a short extract from the 1837 report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons (British Settlements) on Aboriginal Tribes. It reads: The intercourse of Europeans . . . without any exception in favour of the subjects of Great Britain, has been . . . a source of many calamities to uncivilized nations. Too often, their territory has been usurped; their property seized; their numbers diminished; their character debased . . . European vices and diseases have been introduced . . . and they have been familiarised with the use of our most potent instruments for the subtle or the violent destruction of human life, viz, brandy and gunpowder. It might be presumed that the native inhabitants of any land have an incontrovertible right to their own soil; a plain and sacred right, however, which seems not to have been understood. Europeans have entered their borders uninvited, and, when there, have not only acted as if they were undoubted lords of the soil, but have punished the natives as aggressors if they have evinced a disposition to live in their own country. If they have been found upon their property, they have been treated as thieves and robbers. They are driven back into the interiors as if they were dogs or kangaroos . . . From very large tracts we have, it appears, succeeded in eradicating them; and though from some parts their ejection has not been so apparently violent as from others, it has been equally complete, through our taking possession of their hunting grounds, whereby we have despoiled them of the means of existence . . . A new colony is about to be established in South Australia, and it deserves to be placed upon record, that Parliament, as lately as August 1834, passed an Act disposing of the lands of this country without once adverting to the native population! That is an extract from a report written in 1837. We knew what we were doing in relation to the dispossession of the land of indigenous people, and yet we persist with that dispossession and cultural disenfranchisement of those indigenous people right up to the present day. In recent weeks an excellent and very moving account of the history of South Australia, as seen and told by the Aboriginal survivors of that holocaust, has appeared. The extract I have just quoted appears in the preface of that book, which is called Survival in Our Own Land. People with an interest in this matter or a concern for the holocaust which Europeans imposed on the indigenous people of this land should read this very moving account. Last night the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his speech of welcome at the inaugural dinner in the Great Hall, reflected upon the perception legislators in this Parliament 200 years from now may have of the debates and legislation we are engaged in today. He was suggesting a linear view of history. At one level, the technical level, history is linear. The First Fleet took months to reach these shores from England and sailors travelled in sailing ships. Today, the same journey is completed in less than 24 hours in a fast and comfortable aeroplane. But beside this history is another, which is of equal importance. It is the history of our humaneness, of the quality of our lives and relationships, one with another and with our environment. That history is by no means linear or progressive. As we have seen from the 1837 House of Commons report, there were men of greater humaneness and understanding than those who have succeeded them, who have populated this country, been elected to and served in its parliaments up to today. But let us not stop with 1837 or 1788; let us look at the humaneness of the indigenous people of this land, those who had populated this land for at least 40,000 years before white settlement. They were a gentle people who understood, far better than we do today, the close links between homo sapiens and the earth. That is the point I wish to stress in these remarks because I believe it lies at the core of this motion we are debating today. The Australian Democrats express the hope that this motion will be followed by legislation giving legal force to some of the statements and concepts contained in the motion. We are therefore disappointed with some aspects of the wording, which we would like to have seen strengthened. We are also disappointed that neither the Minister nor the Prime Minister has given any consider- ation to improving the wording or making the meaning more explicit, being prepared to accept without amendment the motion as proposed by the Christian churches. It is my understanding that the motion before us is already a compromise, representing the most that was acceptable across a wide cross-section of political opinion. The motion was deliberately compromised to achieve endorsement by the Opposition parties, in the hope that it would achieve the support of all parties. The Opposition now wishes to weaken that motion still further by inserting the words which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has already moved by way of amendment. Those words seek further to perpetuate the denial of that special relationship between Aboriginal and Islander people, and the land. The motion before us addresses several matters. Firstly, it states clearly and unequivocally that Australia was occupied for thousands of years before British settlement began on 26 January 1788-terra nullis confronted but not yet dispelled. The motion then states that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders suffered dispossession of their land and dispersal, and were denied full citizenship rights until 27 May 1967-a period of almost 180 years. Dispersal is a very strange word in this context. If all the land was occupied, to where were all these people dispersed? The record is fairly clear: within less than 100 years some 600,000 people had been killed by a variety of means. The motion then affirms the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. But its importance to whom, and for what purpose? This is where the Australian Democrats would have liked to see the motion strengthened. As the motion stands, this could be read as a motherhood statement. Of course the culture of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders was and is important to them. That has not prevented Europeans from destroying the basis of that culture: the spiritual relationship with the land. Some academic Europeans, sociologists, anthropologists and others, have thought indigenous cultures to be important as items of study, but rather like museum specimens of long extinct fish. Is that what we mean by `importance'? The Australian Democrats would have liked to add five words to part (4) of the motion so that it read: the value and importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island culture and heritage to all Australians . . . Related to this, and for the same reason, the final sentence, which affirms that `it is desirable that the Commonwealth further promote reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island citizens providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia', leaves unstated what their special place might be. Is it as a relict, peculiar and museum-like example of an irrelevant culture? We would like to have inserted the words `and contribution to' after `special place in' so that it would read: `their special place in and contribution to the Commonwealth of Australia'. This would clearly have indicated the unique and important contribution which the indigenous culture could make-indeed, should make-to a new and integrated Australian culture. This refers to a very different relationship which the Australian indigenous people have had with the land. Two terms have dominated much of the media in recent weeks: `multiculturalism' and `one Australia'. Neither term has been clearly defined, but associated with the term `one Australia' has been the notion of supporting and defending `Australian values'. When I heard this expression I wondered about those values which both the Government and the Opposition hold up for emulation: more competitiveness for material gain; greed; a vision of a clawing, elbowing pyramid of bodies, with those who fight to the top seen as virtuous. Is this what we mean by `Australian values'? Competitiveness for exploitation of the environment is seen as one of the interpersonal competitive tools. Europeans have for several generations looked on land and the resources it carries as something to be traded, exploited and speculated against. It is clear to many of us, although not all in this chamber, that this attitude has rapidly produced an economy which is not sustainable. One of the cornerstones for change must be a more reverent and respectful attitude to land. Where do we find this different attitude? We find it right here in our midst. It has always been with us in the culture of our indigenous people. On several previous occasions I have expressed in the Senate the hope that the bicentenary might be the beginning of a new Australian culture, a synthesis of those elements of Aboriginal and Islander culture with those innovative, creative and scientific traits which are unique to the European tradition. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a unique and special contribution to make to a new and essential culture for continuing human and humane existence on this earth. We would like part (5) of the motion to read: the value and importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage to all Australians . . . The last part of the motion would read: and considers it desirable that the Commonwealth further promote reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens providing recognition of their special place in and contribution to the Commonwealth of Australia. This would clearly recognise that the emerging culture must include those elements of European and Aboriginal culture so that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture is not a relict, discrete, separate culture to be hived off and put somewhere else but one to be fully integrated, respected, revered and held in high esteem by all Australians from here on. It is not putting it too highly to suggest that unless we do that our survival is in jeopardy. I turn to the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition. It relates to the last part of the motion. The Opposition seeks to add, after the word `self-determination', the words `in common with all other Australians'. We believe that the addition of those words would deny the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture in the context that I have just been speaking of, in that the attitude to land by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is quite different in kind from the attitude to land of all other Australians, both those who have come from England and those who have come more recently from other parts of Europe and Asia. In recognition of that different and unique relationship with land, the terms `self-management' and `self-determination' should not be compromised by the addition of the words `in common with all other Australians'. That would simply give Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders rights which are in every respect no different from those of all other Australians, even with respect to the trading, ownership and use of land. As I have indicated, their attitude to land being different, they are entitled, we believe, to recognition of that different attitude. Therefore, the terms `self-management' and `self-determination' should not be qualified in the way proposed. Senator Chaney has tried to argue that because all people are under a constitution and a law the words `subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia' are in a sense irrelevant. He claims that those who are under such a constitution and such laws have nonetheless argued for separate statehood within the several states in which they occur. Senator Chaney —That is precisely the argument. Thank you; you have stated it correctly. Senator COULTER —That is the basis of the argument. Of course, if they succeed in achieving that object, then they are no longer under that constitution and under that law. But the wording before us says that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are entitled to `self-management and self-determination subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia'. Clearly, while they remain under the Constitution and while they remain under those laws, those factors must apply to any claim which they make, and it seems to me that Senator Chaney's argument falls down on those grounds. Senator Chaney —Earlier on you stated the argument accurately. In any case where people seek self-determination they start from the point of being within some constitution and set of laws and at some point break out of that situation. That is the whole concept of self-determination. Senator COULTER —I am glad that Senator Chaney has explained that because again I do not think he really understands the wording which is before us. We who are not Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders are saying here that we are granting recognition and entitlement to self-determination and self-management subject to the Constitution and laws of Australia. What the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people might say in relation to their subjection to that law either before or after separate statehood seems to be quite irrelevant. They are at the moment under the Constitution and the laws, and we are granting them certain recognition subject to that Constitution and that law. I am afraid I cannot accept the argument that Senator Chaney puts. The contrary argument is this: if one makes the entitlement of Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination subject to the Constitution, et cetera, `in common with all other Australians', then one is doing no more than granting to those people those self-management and self-determination rights that are accepted by other Australians. Other Australians' attitude to land is quite different in kind from the attitude of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. It is that point which is being addressed in this particular part of the motion and it is that point which would be denied if the Opposition's amendment were accepted. Indeed, if one looks at the Liberal-National Party policy statement, which I believe was adopted on 14 April 1987, one reads: . . . in recognition of their special affinity with the land, Aboriginals must remain free to choose whether they wish to follow their traditional lifestyles or that of most other Australians. It seems to me that in that statement the Opposition parties have recognised that in following their traditional lifestyles Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have a different relationship with the land. I fail to see how those people can exercise that freedom to follow their traditional lifestyles if access to land is denied them or the model of land ownership which pervades the rest of Australia is imposed upon them. The Democrats support this motion. We would like to see the motion go a great deal further. We would like to have seen it strengthened. We are disappointed the Government did not respond to our overtures to strengthen it with the few words I have mentioned. This motion is the beginning of a process which is long overdue. We hope that that process will be given legislative form in the not too distant future and that the recognition of prior Aboriginal occupation and ownership-I use the word `ownership' in parenthesis, as I indicated earlier-will be given legal form. More particularly, we hope the Aboriginal culture is given a more central place in the mainstream life of this country. I believe most fervently that unless that happens then the models which we are presently following are ones which simply cannot persist into the future. It would be a great pity if we did not accept the enormous gift which is being offered to us by recognition of that culture and that relevance to the changed attitude which we should have to the use of land, indeed to the use of planet earth. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(3.32) —The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), in moving this motion today, referred to its importance symbolically and as a bicentennial event. It is a pity that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Government have chosen to pick up a notice of motion which they openly admitted was dictated to them by the churches. The members of this Parliament should be drafting the notices of motion that come before us. Whilst I am personally an active churchman and I have participated in this debate in church forums, I do not believe it is the place of Parliament to pick up and run with something according to the dictates of the churches of Australia. To a certain extent it is ironic that on this occasion the ALP is doing the churches' bidding. I draw to Senator Button's attention that even within the church structures there has not been an easy or unanimous decision on this particular matter. I am a member of the Uniting Church in Australia and I am aware that very fierce debate has been carried on since February of this year in that church's house magazine, Church and Nation. In fact, I quote from an article in the February edition by the Reverend Bob Cook. He says: When will leaders arise who will steer us in the direction of unity, integration, and justice for all citizens without discrimination? When will we recognise that if we are to survive as a nation, if we are to avoid the evils of apartheid, we must stop seeing each other as black or white, but one nation, one people? In the May edition of the same magazine, after a very fierce debate in letters to the editor, the issue was again taken up by the Reverend Bob Cook, who pointed out: The latest fad is for churches to produce resolutions, and governments legislation, declaring that the Aborigines of a bygone age were the original `owners' of Australia-as though this were somehow relevant or significant for us who are alive today, even if it were true. There is a degree of prophecy in the words of the Reverend Bob Cook which we ought to be mindful of today as we look at this issue in a political and community sense. It is interesting to see the emphasis that comes through in the platforms of the various political parties around Australia. The introductory remarks in the part of the Australian Labor Party's platform on Aborigines and Islanders read, in point 2: With the coming of white people, traditional land was stolen, spiritual links shattered, the tribal economy broken, ritual life was disrupted and, in places, ceased. In many cases Aborigines and Islanders were murdered and tribes separated. Leadership and kinship structures and culture were often devastated and many Aborigines and Islanders became dependent on white people. That is only a partial quotation, but it illustrates the degree of emotionalism that can often be injected into party platforms and discussions. The party of which I am a member and which endorses me for this place, the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party, has in its platform statement on the welfare of the individual a special section relating to Aboriginal people. This has significance because in the Northern Territory a high proportion of the community are Aboriginal. Let me quote from that platform document: The Party recognises the fundamental right of Aboriginal People to choose whether they wish to retain their racial identity and traditional way of life or to adopt, partially or wholly, a European lifestyle. The Party endorses: encouragement of the principle of the preservation of Aboriginal history and culture; encouragement of participation by all Aboriginal Peoples in the mainstream of Territory society; development of Government Policies such that Aboriginals, without necessarily abandoning their racial identity, no longer need special treatment as a disadvantaged group within society. In looking at the motion put before us today we need to be mindful of the recent initiatives of the Government. The two must be linked hand in hand, particularly if, as Senator Button says, they are to be seen as symbolic. What are the initiatives of the Government? We are all aware that the ALP is currently engaged in a massive reorganisation of the administration of Aboriginal affairs. It certainly has to be because over its seven years of government it has not been able, despite all of the massive government expenditure, to correct problems that have existed for a long time. In December last year the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, tabled in the Parliament a document called Foundations for the Future, a policy statement to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It was an important discussion paper. It has been out in the community. It has certainly been controversial. It has already been amended a number of times by the Government. But the Government has not yet brought before the Parliament legislation arising from it-some seven or eight months later. I would rather seen the Government, as an act of symbolism in the bicentennial year, today, on Budget day, seven months after its initial discussion paper, have the courage to present legislation to enable debate properly to take place on how we should be assisting Aboriginals, where we should be assisting them and in what form. The document Foundations for the Future referred to a number of issues which have not come about directly today in the motion before us. In the proposed preamble, which we are not able to see because the Government has not yet tabled it, there is very definite mention of the fact that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were the prior occupiers and original owners of this land, that as a consequence of these and subsequent deprivations the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have become as a group the most disadvantaged people in Australia, and that there would need to be a means to rectify these consequences of past injustice. In attachment B to Foundations for the Future, in relation to the proposed powers and functions to be in the legislation still to be tabled, powers and functions are alluded to with specific reference to compensation for dispossession and there is to be special recognition within the legal system of Aboriginal customary laws. So land, legislation and compensation are important issues that should be addressed by the Parliament, but the Government is not bringing them forward even after seven or eight months of discussion and debate out in the community. Instead, it is still inviting us to concentrate on looking at the past, at where we have been and what the sins of the past were. Nobody is denying those sins. This motion is part of the psychology of the Labor Party; it raises expectations and precedents which can subsequently be tabled. If the preamble and attachment B to Foundations for the Future were to find their way into legislation, there is no denying that we would end up in the High Court of Australia with major new challenges and changes that are, in effect, constitutional. We are being asked to look at symbolism. I take honourable senators back to June of this year when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) attended a major Aboriginal cultural function at Burunga. What came out of that? It was announced that the Labor Party Government was to go down the track of a special treaty with Aboriginal people. That has certainly been rejected by the coalition. It always has been. It is not timely to look at that area, and such a treaty would not meet the requirements of all concerned. Why has the Government not had the courage to bring in the legislation if that is the track down which it wants to go? Instead, we are looking at a pious statement. The Government has a hidden agenda. The Government is hiding behind the guise of the churches. A political organisation within the left wing of the Labor Party and a number of radical Aboriginal organisations and groups around Australia are pushing particular wheelbarrows, looking for major legislative changes and constitutional developments. Unfortunately, I have to raise again in this Parliament, as many people have done before me, the fact that we have never been able properly to define an Aboriginal. I quote from a major paper by a respected worker in Aboriginal communities, Pastor Paul Albrecht of Central Australia. A paper he recently gave stated: The current Government definition of who is an Aboriginal Australian is a person descended from the original inhabitants of this land who chooses to identify as an Aborigine, and who is recognised as such by his group. According to this definition, aboriginality is a matter of race, since anyone who is in any way descended from the original inhabitants of this land can rightly and legally call himself an Aborigine. It is on the basis of this definition that people are eligible or ineligible for Government assistance provided specifically for Aboriginal Australians. It is interesting to compare this definition with that used by the more traditional Aborigines. They define an Aborigine as one who knows his own Aboriginal traditions and lives by them. According to this definition, aboriginality is not a matter of race, but of culture. This matter of Aboriginal traditional law and culture is probably one of the issues we should be addressing much more significantly. I have already referred to the Prime Minister's proposal for a treaty which he supposedly started to negotiate at Burunga. But let me point the bone at the Prime Minister specifically, because there was a major breach of sacred ceremonial Aboriginal law at Burunga. In the presentation of the bark and the petition to the Prime Minister, an Aboriginal, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, seriously offended all of the traditional Aboriginal cultural leaders of northern Australia. He broke the law regarding ceremonial secrets, which are terribly important, in front of the Prime Minister, for political advantage. Mr Hawke and Mr Hand, therefore, have been innocent bystanders. They have complied with a very serious factor that is even reflected in the motion before us today which seeks to affirm the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. It is very hard for the old people to trust either the Government or, in particular, the Northern Land Council and Galarrwuy Yunupingu. The role of tribal elders for this cultural imperative has continually been depreciated. The Aboriginal law leaders are truthful and honourable men and women. For several months they have been calling on the Federal Government for funds to conduct a special meeting to investigate this religious infringement-this serious breach of sacred ceremony in front of the Prime Minister. Of course, the request has been put in some little backroom file. Mr Hand has had it for months but it has been sitting there. Culture is terribly important. Under the definition that Pastor Albrecht gives, I think it is even more important. Unfortunately, we often tend to confuse too easily the differences in the complex thing that we call Aboriginal life. Aboriginal society is very different. On the one hand it is very urbanised and, on the other, it is very traditional. What has been happening to the role of the Aboriginal Cultural Foundation over the last few years under the Labor Government? The foundation is an independent Aboriginal organisation that looks very carefully at preserving Aboriginal tradition and law. Its charter is very wide in that area. But the Aboriginal Arts Board, comprising mainly urban Aboriginals from southern cities, does not see the need for the same emphasis in the funding authority. And neither does the Government. It has walked away. It has reduced funding and has insulted the traditional men and women who are tribal elders in Aboriginal society. So who really has the interests of Aborigines at heart? In the last few years this Government has more than halved the budget of the Aboriginal Cultural Foundation and has sought to manipulate it, through the Aboriginal Arts Board, which is now a very discredited statutory authority in its own right, because it has got into serious financial problems and been badly administered. Senator Richardson —Nonsense! Senator TAMBLING —The Minister should do some homework. There are funding priorities for Aboriginal culture and the whole area of Aborigines in Australia. The areas we need to address are the major ones of disadvantage, in health, education and welfare, and we need to encourage Aboriginal people, urbanised or tribalised, to have financial independence. Where do we go in the area of self-management and how does this proceed with any degree of security for the future? What does self-management mean to so many Aboriginal organisations around Australia, those that are vitally trying to do things in health, education and welfare? How do they recognise the special cultural significance, instead of trying to get a degree of cultural unity and transposing what are secret and sacred ceremonies of a tribal group into some dance mob hanging out of a theatre in Sydney? That is not preserving and properly protecting Aboriginal culture in our society. It is not recognising what the roles are. The fundamental issues for Aborigines-whether they are to be dealt with through a new commission or by State governments-are in addressing the areas of disadvantage. My constituents who live in Aboriginal communities apply pressure to make sure that the administrative arrangements and the financial details are such that they can address those areas and can do so with a great deal of dignity, participating as normal members of our society. That is why Senator Chaney's amendment is so appropriate. It is vitally important that there be the definition `in common with all other Australians'. I am not afraid of using those words. I can still recognise the differences in many ethnic groups in our community. I can still recognise the very importance of traditional Aboriginal culture. It has been there for centuries and it will be there for those who choose voluntarily to preserve those parts of it that are so terribly important. However, I find the Government's motives very underhand. I am suspicious. I can see hidden agendas and I can see the debate that has been going on. I can see the way in which Aboriginal leaders, such as Galarrwuy Yunupingu, have been played around with and turned into alternative politicians. I think that that is most unfortunate. We need to recognise that it is a function of government to address the disadvantaged. The preservation of cultural issues is a matter for the Aboriginal people. I commend Senator Chaney's amendment. If his amendment were to be included in the principal motion, that motion would be acceptable. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.53) —Meeting in this new place, it is fitting that we acknowledge the fullness of human history in this land. This motion will stand as a statement of our commitment to national and individual reconciliation with the descendants of those who have suffered dispossession and dispersal in the wake of European and other settlement since 1788. Among those descendants I am proud to name one as my son-in-law. Honourable senators will recall that only one Aboriginal occupied a seat in either chamber of the old Parliament. As a senator and distinguished member of his race, former Senator Neville Bonner proposed the only other comparable motion in the Senate's history and that concerned Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. It was proposed in 1975 and was carried on the voices. Now, for the first time, a motion has been introduced in both Houses marking a new beginning in 1988 not only for the parliamentary representatives of the nation but also, hopefully, for those Australians who are the proud inheritors of a 40,000-year cultural heritage in this land. In moving up the hill to this new meeting place, we represent a nation that has come of age when we are able to affirm, as this motion does, the value and importance of this cultural heritage, which can enrich the lives of all Australians. In voting for this motion in its entirety, I can assure the Senate and particularly the Opposition that I am voting to affirm the entitlements of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination, subject to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. I am not voting to espouse any separate philosophy of a nation within a nation; rather, I am voting to affirm the entitlement of our indigenous peoples to freely choose between their traditional lifestyles and that of other Australians. Although this choice is not, in the same sense, open to or made by other Australians, it is a necessary choice for indigenous people retaining a special affinity, as they do, with their land and trying to adapt across cultures to a harmonious co-existence with the new settlers and their descendants. By participating in a new society, which has now been forged into a free and confident nation, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have attained their majority. They exercise full citizenship rights and now undertake duties that are common to all Australians. Twenty-one years after the 1967 referendum, I would like to recall the words of Mr Justice Brennan in the 1983 Commonwealth of Australia v. Tasmania case. I do not often cite this case as a precedent; nevertheless, I should like to quote the words of Mr Justice Brennan, because he went to the nub of this issue. At page 791, 46 Australian Law Reports 625, he stated: The approval of the proposed law for the amendment- to the Constitution- was an affirmation of the will of the Australian people that the odious policies of oppression and neglect of Aboriginal citizens were to be at an end, and that the primary object of power is beneficial. Again in that case, at page 816 Mr Justice Deane stated: . . . it became increasingly clear that Australia, as a nation, must be diminished until acceptable laws be enacted to mitigate the effect of past barbarism . . . This motion is an affirmation of the elected representatives of the Commonwealth that we are committed to a new start, to effecting reconciliation with those who have survived much trauma and who, having endured other trials, are reborn in the hope of full participation in the life of this nation. Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr-Baurman, an Aboriginal artist from Daly River in the Northern Territory, said: The period of grieving must give way to a future of joy and inspiration. The period of despair must give way to a future of vital action. The period of grim endurance must turn into a period of vigorous growth. Far from becoming a hollow utterance of political rhetoric, this motion can and should provide a point to a better future and a move from the old handout mentality to a mutual respect for the various perceptions of life in this land. There must be a recognition of the deep spirituality of the Aboriginal people. Policies which have materialism as their basis must be rejected. Policies which have an anti-family perspective as their basis must be rejected as being culturally inconsistent with the traditions of the Aboriginal people. I was able to visit the Northern Territory and speak to a number of Aboriginal people about the effect of X-rated videos being sold, hired and distributed in the Northern Territory. This trade was regarded by these people as a form of imperialism, an affront to their deep spirituality and to their commitment to family life. I will speak of that in another debate. It is pleasing to note that this motion has been moved in response to a reasoned call for national reconciliation by the 14 leaders of the major Christian denominations in 1988. The Aboriginal Anglican Bishop Arthur Malcolm has stated his belief: deep down, the majority of Aboriginal people long to hear at Government level an apology and admission that this was the Aboriginal people's land, that they are its forefathers and that white Australia is sorry that this was not recognised and acknowledged from the start. Until this happens, I don't see much headway coming-it has to be a two-way action. The forecourt of this new Parliament House centres on the Aboriginal mosaic symbolising our land as a meeting place-the land inhabited by the first Australians for millenia before the first European footprint was implanted on it; the land which is now home for peoples from all over the world. As a free and confident nation, we are committed to living together, equal under the law, acknowledging our past and embracing our future. This motion is a significant and symbolic step. It is a significant attempt to contribute to that two-way action that has been referred to. As the heads of the churches said on 7 January this year: We Australians . . . cannot be reconciled until we know each other, appreciate each other, our cultures, and our perspectives on life. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. RArcher, B. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Harradine, B.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P.Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Collins, R. L. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Morris, J. J.Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F.Cooney, B. C. Ray, RobertCoulter, J. R. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devereux, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devlin, A. R. Schacht, C. C.Dunn, I. P. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Walters, M. S. Gietzelt, A. T. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Button's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Harradine, B.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. 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. Sibraa, K. W.Dunn, I. P. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. G. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Walters, M. S.McKiernan, J. P. Reid, M. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth: That while having some reservation on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will refer the above mentioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary Committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Puplick (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. call upon the Senate to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Gareth Evans (from 14 citizens) and McKiernan (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls 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 99 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectively showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of three Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 221 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. We, the petitioners, request the Government to ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard or care now available in nursing homes in this State. by Senators Hamer (from 85 citizens) and Patterson (from 307 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the traditional rights and century old heritage of Tasmania's mountain cattlemen should be preserved and their custodianship of their land and their rights to maintain their grazing practices in the Mersey High Country be guaranteed. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House, in Parliament assembled, should ensure: (1) That future grazing of cattle in the Mersey High Country at places such as Lees Paddocks be guaranteed. (2) That a process of direct and personal consultation with private land owners and municipal councils should be compulsory before their lands can be nominated for listing on either the National Estate or World Heritage Registers. (3) That the traditional practices of the mountain cattlemen be acknowledged as responsible for maintaining places such as Lees Paddocks in the Mersey High Country as `cultural heritage' sites within the meaning of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cook (from 3,147 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, cesium 137, cesium 134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. We request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ban the importation of any radioactive substances, or machinery for the purposes of food irradiation; disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in this country; ban the irradiation of food in this country; and also ban the importation of food treated by irradiation. We ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, request the Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bolkus (from 1,402 citizens) and Coates (from 99 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 petitions 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 Gareth Evans (from 221 citizens) and Vanstone (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That the constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. (2) Our deep concern that the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees which propose radical changes to the constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. (3) Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke Government which gives more power to the Government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the states and weakens the role of the Senate. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should heed the above. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 1,211 citizens) and Panizza (from 74 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers Region. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone, by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park and; prevent proposed mining in Kakadu stages one and two by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas in the National Park and by proclaiming the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament The petition of the undersigned expresses concern at the possibility that future significant employment opportunities in Canberra may be lost if a Casino is not included in the Section 19 development proposed for Civic. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should strongly support the inclusion of a Casino in the Section 19 development. The Casino is a critical element in this project for maximising the economic development of Canberra. It will generate significant employment in the building industry in the short term and employment in tourism and other industries in the long term. The Section 19 development is not viable without a Casino. We therefore call on you to give the Casino, and through it the total Section 19 development, your full and immediate support. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McMullan (from 1,538 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That given the confusion which has arisen as a result of the introduction of the $2 coin, your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that a review be made of Australian coinage with a view to its simplification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Patterson (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That a large number of people living in the Adelaide foothills from Tea Tree Gully to Seacombe Heights cannot receive acceptable ABC-FM stereo reception. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should install a low power VHF transmitter in the city similar to the service provided for these areas by commercial station SA-FM. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 251 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the days of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this period of sittings be as follows: Wednesday, 24 August and Thursday, 25 August; Monday, 29 August to Thursday, 1 September; Tuesday, 27 September to Friday, 30 September; Tuesday, 11 October to Friday, 14 October; Monday, 17 October to Thursday, 20 October; Tuesday, 1 November to Friday, 4 November; Monday, 7 November to Thursday, 10 November; Tuesday, 22 November to Friday, 25 November; Monday, 28 November to Thursday, 1 December; Monday, 5 December to Thursday, 8 December. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) for the Wednesday and Thursday of this week and for the weeks commencing Tuesday, 27 September, 11 October, and 1 and 22 November, the Sessional Orders relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for Week 1 apply; and (b) for the weeks commencing Monday, 29 August, 17 October, 7 and 28 November and 5 December, the Sessional Orders relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for Week 2 apply. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) strongly supports a non-discriminatory immigration policy; (b) notes the significant cultural, economic and social contributions made by immigrants from all countries of origin to Australia; (c) considers there would be enormous economic and moral costs to Australia if our immigration policy became discriminatory, anti-Asian or selective on the basis of race; (d) deplores any statements supporting a return to a discriminatory policy or encouraging bigotry in public debate on the immigration issue; and (e) calls on all political parties to take a non-partisan approach to immigration policy in Australia. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan (Amendment), as contained in Plan of Management No. 15, and made on 12 April 1988 under the Fisheries Act 1952, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a brief explanation. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —The time for giving of this notice expires tomorrow. Only this past weekend, some concern was expressed to me and to a number of Opposition senators and members as to the effect of this plan on small fishermen in a number of States. The reason why the coalition gives the notice is not necessarily to move ultimately to the disallowance, but for holding reasons, so that our parties may have a look at what this plan is all about and also possibly to enable the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to have a look at it. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 in relation to informal ballot papers. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to ensure that fair questions are put to voters at referendums. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration, as contained in Declaration No. PB3 of 1988 and made under sub-section 85 (2) of the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recalls that 23 August 1988 is Black Ribbon Day, the forty-ninth anniversary of the Hitler-Stalin Pact which resulted in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania being occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union; (b) expresses its grave concern that, despite the promotion of Glasnost by the Soviet leadership, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania remain occupied against the wishes of their peoples; and (c) urges the Soviet Union to allow self-determination and freedom for the Baltic peoples. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Immigration: A Commitment to Australia-Report of the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies-together with the text of a Statement by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. 2. Government response to the report of the Defence Sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on the Management of Australia's Defence. 3. Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. 4. Operational Experience of the VEA and High Compensation for Retired Veterans-The Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee Reports. 5. Attorney-General's Guidelines in Relation to the Performance by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization of its Functions Relating to Politically Motivated Violence-together with a brief explanatory statement. 6. The Auditor-General Efficiency Audit Report-Australian Taxation Office: Taxpayers in Unincorporated Business-Errata. 7. Aboriginal Town Campers Assistance Program (TCAP)-Annual Report 1986-87. 8. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation-Annual Report 1987-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973. 9. Seamen's Compensation Review-Report. 10. Operations of the Registered Health Insurance Organizations-Annual Report 1986-87-section 76a of the National Health Act 1953. 11. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board-Annual Report 1986-87-Corrigenda-section 19 of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970. 12. Northern Approaches-A Report on the Administration and Management of Civil Coastal Surveillance in Northern Australia. 13. Aerial Littoral Surveillance and Northern Australian Quarantine Strategy-Interim Report by the Quarantine Review Committee-December 1987. 14. Australian Quarantine Requirements for the Future-Report of the Quarantine Review Committee May 1988. 15. The Efficiency of Interstate Transport Arrangements-Second Report-Harmonisation of Road Vehicle Regulation in Australia-Volumes 1 and 2-Inter-State Commission Report-section 10 of the Interstate Commission Act 1975. 16. Government Response to Parliamentary Committee Reports-response to the list tabled in the Senate by the President on 2 June 1988. Senator GARETH EVANS —I also seek leave to have the government response to parliamentary committee reports, tabled in the Senate by the President on 2 June 1988, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- A. LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs 1. Freedom of Information Act 1982: Report on the Operation and Administration of the Freedom of Information Legislation. The Committee's report was tabled on 15 December 1987 following two years of hearings and consideration by the Committee. The Government will have no difficulty in accepting the bulk of the Committee's recommendations. However all the recommendations must be carefully considered by relevant Ministers and agencies having regard to their likely cost and their impact on the public's rights of access to Government information. The Government expects to give a full response to the Committee's report during the Budget Sittings. Science, Technology and the Environment 1. Examination of Annual Reports-Australian Libraries and Information Council. The report contains a valuable review of the many inquiries which have been held since 1973 into the provision of information by libraries and other sources. The report recommends the establishment of a representative Commonwealth body, which would advise Government on information policy issues, to complement the former Australian Libraries and Information Council (ALIC). Since the Senate Standing Committee's report was tabled in 1985 there have been significant developments in the provision and co-ordination of information systems and services in Australia. ALIC has been replaced by a new, higher profile and more ``pro-active'' body, the Australian Council of Library and Information Services (ACLIS). The objectives of ACLIS are, among other things, to foster the development and effective utilisation of Australian libraries, information resources and services and to provide advice to governments and public authorities about the development, improvement and co-ordination of these resources and services. Although there are no formalised responsibilities within government for information policy, there is a growing awareness of the importance of information issues. Ministers are urged to bear in mind the report when considering matters relating to information systems and services. I endorse the findings of the Committee's report, but in respect of the principal recommendation, I do not favour the establishment of a new Commonwealth body to advise Government on information policy issues. I am satisfied that Ministers are aware of the importance of information in the economy and the Committee's report has been instrumental in raising this awareness. I would also suggest that existing bodies are capable of adequately addressing information issues. B. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE Regulations and Ordinances 1. The Repeal and Re-enactment Device-82nd Report The Committee's report arose from a referral to it by the Senate of a proposed amendment to section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 relating to commencement of regulations, which the Senate had omitted from the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987. The Committee in its report recommended that the proposed amendment be accepted by the Senate subject to an amendment to overcome the Committee's concern about the possibility that the amendment could be used to impose retrospective liability. The Government agreed to the amendment recommended by the Committee. The revised amendment to section 48 of the Act was subsequently re-inserted in the Statute Law Bill and is now in force. There were two other matters the subject of recommendation by the Committee in its report. The Committee recommended that legislation on these two matters should be on the statute book no later than the end of the 1988 Autumn Sittings. The first was that the Acts Interpretation Act should be amended to prevent circumvention of the Senate's powers of disallowance by a delegated lawmaker using a sequence of repealing and re-enacting instruments. The Statutory Instruments (Tabling and Disallowance) Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, which is currently before the Parliament, addresses this issue. In relation to the second matter the Committee recommended the provision of power of partial disallowance of regulations. This issue was the subject of correspondence between the Chairman of the Committee and the Attorney-General earlier this year. The Committee was advised by the Attorney-General that the Government does not support this recommendation. The Committee was informed that the Government believes that the present situation, in which objections by the Committee to the content of particular regulations are discussed with relevant Ministers and undertakings for amendment given in appropriate cases, works satisfactorily. C. JOINT COMMITTEE Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade 1. The Management of Australia's Defence The Government's final response to the report will be presented to the Senate during the Budget Sittings. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that, following the resignation on 17 August of the Hon. Bill Hayden, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) asked the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, to be responsible for the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio until the new Minister is sworn in. This will take place on 2 September. Honourable senators will be aware that yesterday the Prime Minister announced the recommendations which he will be making to the Governor-General concerning changes within the Ministry. For the information of honourable senators, I now table a copy of that Press statement. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister designate for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Minister currently representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is the Minister aware of reports of the racially inspired massacre of an estimated 24,000 people in the small African nation of Burundi? Is the Minister aware of other such massacres occurring in the same country being carried out by the dominant minority tribe of the indigenous majority? What steps is the Government taking to register its concern and to bring about some concerted international response to this horrifying and tragic situation? I would remind the Minister that the original massacres of the early 1970s involved, as I understand it, the slaughter of virtually the whole educated class of the majority tribe. I ask the Minister: Does the Government support the imposition of sanctions, economic or otherwise, and does it propose any action or does it regard this as purely an internal matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —There have been reports, horrifying in character, of a massacre of Hutus by the Burundian Army. The Army is formed almost exclusively of the Tutsi tribe, who dominate the Government of Burundi despite the fact that the Tutsis are a minority in the country, constituting only some 15 per cent of the population. The Hutus, by contrast, form some 84 per cent of the population. The recent reported events are not without precedent, as Senator Chaney said. Following an abortive Hutu-led coup in 1972, the Tutsis did engage in an appalling revenge massacre in which some 100,000 Hutus were killed. The Government is obviously very concerned about the recent reports. We condemn in the strongest possible terms such outrageous acts of violence. Obviously we will be giving consideration to an appropriate further policy response to that. I have to say that recent history shows that it is difficult for outside organisations, such as the Organisation of African Unity, to prevent such violations. Whether it is possible by some other form of bilateral or concerted international action to do something in response to the situation will obviously be the subject of further consideration. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer and join with him in his strong expression of condemnation. My supplementary question concerns whether the Government will explore the international interest in some international action. I agree with him that the Organisation of African Unity has not in the past intervened in this case, but in light of the endless attention given to South Africa I ask the Minister to examine and I ask the Government to find out what international interest there is in taking strong action against what appears to be the most diabolical racist slaughter. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will take Senator Chaney's further question on notice. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to the meltdown of the reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine, in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in 1987. What up to date information does the Government have on the overall impact of that serious nuclear accident? Does the Government now have current figures on numbers of human casualties, including numbers of evacuations from the area and any estimates of lost production as a result of that serious accident? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do have some detailed information on this. I am not sure how much of it is new but, for the record, let me state as follows: the Chernobyl accident was the first power reactor accident in which fatalities were caused by radiation. According to the advice of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of April this year, 31 members of the plant operating personnel and response teams were killed and more than 200 were hospitalised. Around 135,000 people living within a radius of 30 kilometres from the plant had to be evacuated. By the northern summer of 1987, 60,000 houses and other structures in 600 population centres had been decontaminated and residents of 16 villages in the outer part of the 30-kilometre zone were able to return to their homes. The IAEA has reported that much of the radioactive material released was carried away in the form of gases and dust particles by normal air currents. Radioactive materials were widely dispersed in this manner, with most remaining in the Soviet Union. The economic costs of Chernobyl are difficult to measure. The Soviet leadership authorised reports, which appeared in January this year, suggesting that the total cost of the accident to the Soviet economy was some 8 billion roubles-that is, about $16 billion. It has been suggested that it may not be possible to measure the full economic effect of Chernobyl for another 30 years. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation-UNSCEAR, as it is called-has advised that no airborne activity from Chernobyl has been reported in the Southern Hemisphere. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the lame-duck and discarded Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, who is about to be replaced by Senator Ray, who in turn will become the fifth Labor Minister in this important policy area in as many years. Will the Minister confirm that the former Minister, Mr Young, issued an instruction to his consultant to increase the flow of business migrants from Europe and North America and to reduce the numbers being obtained from Asia? Is that instruction still in force? Senator REYNOLDS —I can understand that members of the Opposition are wanting to try to divert attention from their own problems in regard to their immigration policies. I was expecting this question to come from Senator Teague, who has adopted such a high profile and has taken such a strong stance in regard to the Opposition's immigration policies. Obviously, the Opposition has abandoned its bipartisan stance on immigration. Not only is this of great significance to all Australians; it is of great significance in terms of Australia's reputation overseas. I am sure that members of the Opposition would have seen the article this morning in the Sydney Morning Herald, under the heading `Anti-Australian Backlash Sweeps South East Asia'. I am not sure what implications that has in terms of our business migration program. I am aware also that the Ethnic Communities Council is very concerned about the Opposition policy and will be passing a resolution on Sunday endorsing the Federal Government's maintenance of a policy that is non-discriminatory. To come to the text of the question, which I am in a position to answer, I am advised that the purpose of our business migration program is to attract to Australia people with capital and entrepreneurial skills who can contribute to the economic development of this country. We want the best people we can get and the widest possible range of skills and expertise. We cast the business migration net as widely as possible to attract the best candidates from all parts of the world and from all types of industry. Since there has been no upper limit on the number of business migrants, there can be no discrimination on the basis of race or country of birth; nor should there be. Any people who meet the criteria are accepted, regardless of where they come from. An applicant from Asia and an applicant from Europe will each receive the same consideration. We do not intend to compromise the economic integrity of the business migration program in any way. Senator SHORT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In doing so, I ask the Minister to answer the question that she was asked. I must repeat it because she has not dealt with it at all. My question to her was: Will the Minister confirm that the former Minister, Mr Young, issued an instruction to his consultant to increase the flow of business migrants from Europe and North America and to reduce the numbers from Asia? I ask: Was that instruction issued? Is that instruction still in force? I also ask, as a supplementary question, whether it is true, as was claimed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM today by the consultant concerned, Mr Peter Cullen, that one reason for seeking more business migrants from non-Asian countries was that the existing program was quite `lopsided' because 75 per cent of business migrants were coming from Asia. I ask the Minister to answer that question specifically. Senator REYNOLDS —I do not have anything else in my brief to add to my previous answer but I will take that section of Senator Short's question on notice-if he is still interested. Senator COLLINS —My question, which is a repeat of the first question I asked in the Senate, is to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Can the Minister advise the Senate of what is being done to alleviate the impossibly congested conditions at both Darwin and Alice Springs airports? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to advise the Senate that the assiduous representations, over a substantial period, of Senator Collins and his Northern Territory colleague, Mr Snowdon, have borne fruit and a solution to the long-standing problem of terminal facilities not only at Darwin but also at Alice Springs is imminent. The Government has considered proposals put forward by both the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) and the Northern Territory Government to assume responsibility for the civil aviation facilities at those two airports. The Alice Springs Town Council has also applied to assume responsibility for the Alice airport. The Government has now taken a decision in principle that the facilities should transfer to the FAC. Detailed arrangements for the transfer are currently being negotiated. It is expected that the transfer will take place by the end of October this year. The FAC has indicated that, upon the finalisation of mutually satisfactory financial arrangements for that transfer, it will immediately commence the planning of the redevelopment of civil aviation facilities at Darwin, including a new terminal. The terminal and associated works, which have a presently projected cost of $65m, will be targeted for completion within three years. The recently commenced $1.3m upgrading project at Alice Springs will be completed as planned. In addition, the Federal Airports Corporation has indicated that it will, as a matter of urgency, develop plans for further major development works at Alice Springs. Its submission to the Government in this respect has envisaged a projected cost of up to $20m for this development. I say to Senator Collins that his has been a fine contribution on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory. He has done them proud and we will certainly have airport terminal facilities there that will do the country proud. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of the findings of the Hon. Justice Marcus Einfeld, President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in the case of sexual harassment brought by three complainants against Dr Atallah Sheiban under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984? Does the Minister agree with Justice Einfeld's failure to award damages and with the comments in his judgment that `Women with the normal experiences . . . know very well the various ways in which some men occasionally behave' and that `the public exposure of these complaints' and his findings were sufficient compensation? Given Justice Einfeld's own finding that each of the complainants was sexually harassed by the respondent, does the Minister consider that Justice Einfeld's comments and his failure to award damages represent a throwback to the days of `blame the victim' and shift the responsibility for sexual harassment from men onto women; are out of step with current law and thinking on sexual harassment; and are likely to deter women from seeking protection under the Sexual Discrimination Act? I ask the Minister to bear in mind the purpose of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the aims of the Sex Discrimination Act, when responding to my question. Senator TATE —It is true that in a recent sexual harassment case the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission determined that the female complainants who came before him were sexually harassed by a male employer. But his additional finding was that they had suffered only temporary distress-I am merely relaying the determination he came to. The President, Mr Justice Einfeld, went on to comment that the public exposure of the complaints and his determination were sufficient relief to the complainants. He therefore refused to make a declaration in relation to damages. As I said, there was a determination that sexual harassment had occurred. It should be noted, in case there is any attempt at generalisation, that the President has also sat on two other determinations, under the Sex Discrimination Act, involving allegations of sexual harassment. In determining these matters the President made declarations of amounts of $5,500 and $4,000 as damages for the complainants. That puts the activity of the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in determining complaints alleging sexual harassment, in a fuller context. That helps to answer the general misgivings and fears expressed by Senator Haines. Senator LEWIS —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of the devastating impact of the current Australian Customs Service dispute on customs agents, freight forwarders, importers and manufacturers? Is it a fact, for example, that at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport at Mascot last Thursday afternoon only one Customs officer was on duty and only one cashier was processing entries, and that only 10 per cent of entries at that airport were being processed in the normal manner and 90 per cent were being backlogged? Is it also a fact that last week senior Customs inspectors raided Mascot airport and removed documentation, and that the union has blackbanned the entries contained in those documents so that importers have little hope of obtaining those goods for weeks? Is it a fact that shipments have been backlogged for such long periods that local manufacturers requiring imported components have been forced to stand down employees? Would the Minister be prepared to instruct the Customs Service to accept blanket section 40aa letters for entry of goods or at least accept section 40aa letters on each individual shipment of goods during the dispute, because of the emergency situation? Senator BUTTON —Of course I am quite aware of the dispute in the Customs Service, which has largely been generated by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association in pursuit of particular staffing levels in the Public Service-not just in Customs. A number of measures have been taken by the Customs Service, in consultation with the Government, about the approach which should be adopted to this dispute. I am unable to agree with Senator Lewis's description of devastating impacts in their particularity. Of course, there has been an impact on agents, importers, manufacturers and so on. I would have grave difficulty in agreeing with the suggestion that there was only one Customs officer on duty at Mascot airport on a particular day last week. Finally, in relation to the last part of the question about whether the Government will instruct Customs to allow particular forms to be processed without Customs officers handling them in the normal way, I am not prepared to give an answer at this stage. There are a number of difficult problems in this dispute which have to be resolved with appropriate measures at particular times. I am certainly not prepared to give any undertaking about that because it may be that those sorts of actions are best undertaken in particular circumstances and in particular places, if it seems appropriate. There should be no blanket direction by me at this time in relation to that matter. Senator SCHACHT —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the Eighth Canberra Dental Seminar held last week at Fiji's Shangri-La International and followed this week with a post-seminar tour involving a three-day and four-night Blue Lagoon cruise and a two-day and three-night stay at Matamanoa Island? Are expenses incurred in travelling to such conferences tax deductible? Will the Government consider pro rata deductibility for the number of days spent in conference and the number of days spent in more pleasurable pursuits? Senator WALSH —Some public-spirited citizen posted to me a few days ago-unfortunately, the person did not put a name on the envelope-a brochure soliciting enrolments for the Canberra Dental Seminar which, as Senator Schacht said, started in Fiji a few days ago. It is an event of six full days, in which a whole 8 1/2 hours is spent in discussing dental topics, 5 1/2 hours on how to dodge taxation, two full days `at leisure', three afternoons `at leisure', two evenings `at leisure', and four dinners or parties. In other words, on the face of that evidence, it is clearly not a business seminar or anything like that; it is a junket. It is asserted in this pamphlet that seminar expenses are tax deductible, and it gives the Australian Taxation Office reference number 4773709, Head Office, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. As I recall the law on this question, the Commissioner of Taxation makes an assessment according to how much of one of these junkets is business and how much is pleasure. I am afraid that I will probably not be able to tell Senator Schacht what the Commissioner has ruled. In my view, on the face of it, the Commissioner should not allow more than about 20 per cent of the expenses as a tax deduction. Senator Stone —Why don't you leave it to the Commissioner to make up his mind? Senator WALSH —I have already said that the Commissioner makes the determination. I said that on the face of it not more than 20 per cent would be tax deductible. The dentists who participated have obviously picked up some of Mr Elliott's bad habits, but they have not done it in the grand style that Mr Elliott has. It was reported in the Sun of 11 August, under the heading `Big fish take to the high seas', that Mr Elliott, along with a couple of his mates, had taken a cruise in a 104-passenger yacht. I understand that that has probably been booked at some company's expense. I think the Taxation Commissioner perhaps ought to have a look at that as well. I will be proposing to the Treasurer that he might suggest that. Senator CHAPMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. What action is the Government taking to ensure that the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA) complies with the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's order to lift the bans it is imposing on the Australian Customs Service? Is it true that the Government is meeting with public sector unions to discuss the implementation of the 3 per cent wage increase this Thursday? Will the ACOA be present at that meeting? If so, is it appropriate that the Government should be discussing a pay rise with a union which is currently conducting an extremely damaging campaign of industrial action? Does the Government agree that this dispute is yet another demonstration of the need for effective compliance provisions in industrial legislation? Will the Government support the Opposition's amendment to the Industrial Relations Bill to insert effective compliance provisions, provisions that would undoubtedly have led to the speedy termination of this damaging campaign of industrial action? Senator BUTTON —I have already been asked a question about the ACOA stoppage as it affects the Customs organisation. In answering that question I indicated that the Government had a very firm view about the nature of this dispute and would implement that firm view in a variety of situations. Consideration will certainly be given to the meeting relating to the implementation of the national wage decision later this week. The Government's attitude to the ACOA participation will be indicated prior to that meeting. Having said that, I do not want to pursue the particular details of the way in which the Government will deal with these matters. Senator Chapman went on to ask me a number of other questions about what he called effective compliance provisions. He asked whether the Government would support an amendment, to be moved by the Opposition, to the industrial relations legislation in relation to effective compliance provisions. The answer to that question is no. I do not need to remind the honourable senator that those opposite experimented in government with what they called effective compliance provisions. The record of this Government in respect of industrial disputation varies between some 55 per cent less industrial disputation averaged over the work force and a 12 months period and something like 80 per cent. Indeed, the April figure for 1988 was some 83.5 per cent lower than the April average for any period in the last 20 years. One can go to various periods and make those comparisons. So the answer is that the Industrial Relations Bill will be debated at the appropriate time and the Government will indicate its attitude but will not be supporting the amendment. In relation to the Customs dispute, the Government will take such steps as are necessary when they arise. Senator BLACK —Following Senator Collins's question to the Minister for Transport and Communications, I have another slow full toss for him: can the Minister advise the Senate of the outcome of the recently completed air services negotiations with the United States of America? In particular, can he advise whether there are any benefits flowing to Queensland as a result of these negotiations? Senator GARETH EVANS —This does have a foreign policy dimension in it too, because the particular negotiations which were successfully concluded on the weekend bring to a close some two or more years of really quite tense and difficult relationships with the United States on aviation issues. The just concluded package represents a quite major step forward in our aviation relations. There have been some seven rounds of negotiations since May 1986 and another three this year since my exchanges in January with the United States Secretary of Transportation, James Burnley, which set the ground rules for the present discussions, which have been led with outstanding competence as usual, I might add, by my departmental Secretary, Peter Wilenski. The package means expanded opportunities for the airlines of both countries and enhanced air services for the travelling public. The tourist industry in particular, not least that in Queensland for reasons which will become apparent in a moment, should benefit from the expanded network of services that will be possible under the newly granted rights. The situation is that the United States airlines will now be able for the first time to fly directly to Brisbane and Cairns and to one other Australian city of their choice and, in addition to that, to eight other Australian cities beyond these primary gateways. This will give the United States carriers access to virtually every international port in Australia and will mean both a rise in the overall number of overseas visitors and a greater spread of the benefits of inbound tourism across Australia. There are, of course, reciprocal benefits for Qantas Airways Ltd-the agreement would not have been concluded without that-and they are extensive. Qantas, which before this agreement was concluded had rights to serve only Honolulu, Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York, now gains rights to an additional 11 United States cities of its choice, three of which can be served directly and eight via so-called primary gateways. Qantas also gains what are described as beyond rights to fly via the United States to a number of Canadian cities, which is an aspiration Qantas has long had, and has also restrictions removed over time on beyond rights to the United Kingdom and Europe. Moreover, Qantas's right to fly via New Zealand to all points to which it has rights in the United States has been confirmed, thus concluding the necessary corollary to the earlier successful negotiation with New Zealand. Understandings reached on arrangements to allow for automatic capacity increases in line with traffic growth and airline performance will ensure that there are adequate flights to meet current and future demand while avoiding uneconomic excess capacity. The problem of finding an appropriate capacity formula which would be market driven, but at the same time not constituting complete capitulation to United States interests, has been one of the most difficult matters to resolve throughout this whole period of negotiations. The agreed package of additional traffic rights and capacity arrangements is, I think it fair to say, a major breakthrough which will greatly benefit the travelling public and the tourist industry. It does, as I said, bring to a close a period during which aviation has been a significant, though small, irritant in Australia-United States relationships. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs. As a senator concerned for the country areas of New South Wales I ask whether the Minister is aware that in some parts of Australia-for example, the Riverina area of New South Wales-the Yes-No pamphlet prepared by the Australian Electoral Commission for the forthcoming referenda has not yet been delivered to some householders, notwithstanding the statutory requirement that the pamphlet be posted `not later than 14 days before the voting day of the referendum'. Does he not agree that, having regard to the importance and complexity of the proposed changes to our Constitution, this situation is a travesty of the rights of the individuals concerned to be informed in a timely manner about the changes so that they will be able to make an informed decision on 3 September? Senator ROBERT RAY —Section 11 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 requires the Electoral Commissioner to have printed and posted to each person on the roll the Yes and No pamphlet. This should occur, as near as practicable, not later than 14 days before the voting day for the referendum. I stress `as near as practicable' because it was envisaged by the authors of the Act that maybe the 14-day limit was not absolutely practical, and the Act is couched in those terms. Every effort has been made to have those 10 million pamphlets sent to electors. The honourable senator points to problems in the Riverina. There is also an area in the eastern region of Melbourne where the 14-day provision has not been met. Every effort has been made. We are quite confident that by the end of this week all those pamphlets will go out. As the honourable senator says, it is the one way of getting the Yes and No cases across. I am sure all the people in the Riverina are walking out to their post boxes every day awaiting the arrival of this pamphlet, especially to read the rather pathetic No case. Senator FOREMAN —Can the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce tell the Senate what the current status of the anti-dumping investigations into the alleged dumping of cement and cement clinkers is? Further, is the Minister of the opinion that the recent Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE) report on the Australian cement industry undermines the industry's case in these inquiries? Senator Chaney —Say `yes' and sit down. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I must say that Senator Chaney gave me some gratuitous advice. I was asked whether I could inform the Senate of something, and he suggested that I stand up and say `yes' and sit down. The fact of the matter is that other honourable senators, including Senator Foreman, have a more intelligent interest than Senator Chaney in this topic. Therefore, I am not accepting that advice. First of all, with respect to alleged dumping of cement clinker from Korea into Western Australia, a preliminary finding is due to be made and published by the Australian Customs Service before the end of this month. In the case of alleged dumping of cement from Japan into Victoria, the Customs Service has essentially completed its investigations with the Australian industry and has conducted normal value inquiries with the Japanese exporter and is continuing its inquiries with the importer. A preliminary finding will be made and published as soon as possible and not later than 11 November 1988. Customs Service investigations will not be affected by the recent press reports of the Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE) study of the Australian industry as these investigations are conducted separately and independently. The BIE study was commissioned to assist the deliberations of the tripartite cement industry committee which was established earlier this year to examine the difficulties currently facing the industry in Australia and to report to the Government on what approach is necessary to restore the industry's competitiveness. Key findings of the BIE report were as follows: That the Australian industry has significant competitive strengths in good quality raw materials, skilled work force, low energy costs, good technical support and backward integration from cement users. But by overseas standards, significant sections of the industry have poor productivity levels due mainly to the use of outdated equipment, poor manning practices and limited competition. The consequence has been that the Australian cement price is amongst the highest in the world. While Press comment has tended to focus on the negative aspects of the industry, I was pleased to note that the BIE also found areas of the industry that are operating efficiently and competitively. These sectors should be able to compete effectively against any import competition. The committee is currently conducting meetings with interested parties and expects to report its findings to the Government at the end of September. Senator HILL —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that income tax as a percentage of income paid by a taxpayer on average weekly earnings has increased by 3.4 per cent since the Hawke Government came to office whereas income tax as a percentage of income paid by a taxpayer on five times average weekly earnings has fallen by 4.8 per cent? How does the Government justify taxing lower income earners more to give tax advantages to higher income earners? Senator WALSH —I was not able to note quickly enough the figures that Senator Hill quoted and cannot give even a preliminary assessment of whether they are correct or not. I will be able to tell Senator Hill a lot more about taxation tomorrow than I am able to tell him today. One thing which is already very well known is that this Government has raised more than enough revenue in recent years to pay for its expenditure, in marked contrast, I hasten to add, to the example set by the previous Government when, year after year, John Howard financed his expenditure by running a deficit. Then, of course, he went for a spectacular supernova in the 1982 Budget when he abandoned all economic discipline, all fiscal discipline, and left this Government facing an enormous deficit of nearly $10 billion or 5 per cent of gross domestic product. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I must say that I am pleased this position is still filled by Senator Richardson, who I have stated publicly is the best Minister for the environment we have ever had. But I would like to ask him some questions. The tall forests and wilderness areas of western Tasmania have been identified by both Commissioner Hitchcock of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and the Australian Heritage Commission as being of World Heritage value. Will this Government fulfil its obligations under the World Heritage Convention by nominating the area for World Heritage listing prior to 31 December this year? In view of the recent media reports quoting the Minister as approving mineral exploration, mining and hydro operations in the western Tasmanian wilderness, has the Government abandoned the Prime Minister's public guarantee that the forest areas and associated wild areas will be securely protected? Senator RICHARDSON —The overriding obligation is to protect those very special parts of Australia, those parts that remain in almost pristine condition and those that are indeed in complete pristine condition. The Government, in taking the decision that it took a couple of weeks ago, has lived up to those obligations. The method of protection, of course, is up for negotiation. At the moment my colleague Senator Cook and I are conducting some negotiations with the Premier of Tasmania and one of his Ministers-- Senator MacGibbon —He has turned out to be a decent guy. Senator RICHARDSON —I am on his side as well, and he is on mine. We are seeking in those negotiations to secure protection for those areas. The way we will protect them, I hope, will be through an agreement with Tasmania which will involve joint Commonwealth and State legislation. That means that we can build upon the package Senator Cook negotiated with Mr Groom, which contained some very attractive features. As Senator Sanders would be well aware, anything which reduces waste in the industry and so places less pressure on the natural resource is in everyone's interest. If that can be achieved, obviously it is in everyone's interest. The more important question Senator Sanders raised was about my approving mining, hydro projects, et cetera. In the discussions that we had with the Tasmanians the other day the Premier raised, in the first instance, the prospect of five hydro-electric schemes, all of which he said were located within an area commonly known in Tasmania as the hole in the doughnut. What I said was that even had we proceeded at this stage to nominate the whole of the area for World Heritage listing, hydro-electric schemes would not necessarily be banned. That is one thing the environment movement has yet to come to grips with. The World Heritage Convention does allow for what it terms acts of economic necessity. Therefore, if a necessity were demonstrated for a hydro dam, even if it were in a World Heritage area, it would be very difficult for the Commonwealth to reject any such application. I did say to the Premier, and I hope that this is being put into effect this week, that officials from the Hydro-Electric Commission (HEC) ought to be in a position to demonstrate a necessity. I can recall the HEC saying that there was a necessity for the Franklin dam. After the Commonwealth rightly took the decision that it did in 1983, the HEC and the Tasmanian Government both acknowledged that that need never existed. In the case of the five proposals that were outlined to us last week-I think the word `outlined' is a fair indication; we were given no detail at all-we have not been shown any information which indicates that there is a real need for any of these proposals. It should also be stated that the Premier of Tasmania was at pains to stress that these proposals were not going to come on line until around the year 2010 anyway, so we were not looking at some project beginning tomorrow. As soon as we have received proper notification of the proposals I shall let Senator Sanders know. I turn to the question of mining. Again, we were looking at mining in this hole in the doughnut area. At no stage during the discussions I had with the Tasmanian Premier and Minister was any mining or hydro work in the forest areas suggested. We were talking about the hole in the doughnut area. We were told about it being highly prospective. I am not sure, and I do not think there is enough information possessed by anyone anywhere in the country to indicate, how prospective the hole in the doughnut is. Part of the negotiations involve whether or not the Commonwealth might fund a geological survey of the area so that we can all find out what is there and what is not. Again, even in so far as World Heritage listing is concerned, if something is regarded as an economic necessity works can be allowed. As I am sure Senator Sanders is aware, I have given an indication to two mining operations in north Queensland that they can go ahead within a particular area because they will not take away the value that gave it its World Heritage status in the first place. If that sort of operation can be guaranteed in the hole in the doughnut or anywhere else, I am inclined to agree. But the honourable senator ought not fear that any of the forest areas that we are now obliged to protect will be mined or dammed or anything else, because they will not be. Senator SANDERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I would like to know whether the Government has agreed with the Gray Government to forgo any further World Heritage listing, as has been reported in the Press. Senator RICHARDSON —I indicated to the Tasmanian Government that the Commonwealth would not proceed with any more World Heritage forest nominations in Tasmania without the concurrence of the Tasmanian Government. I think that is a pretty safe statement to make. A fair swag of Tasmania would be a World Heritage area if we listed this lot. There is a misunderstanding about the criteria that are necessary for World Heritage nomination. As far as forest areas go, I am quite convinced that, once one goes outside the areas of which we are now speaking, no area in Tasmania would justify World Heritage nomination anyway. The important thing to note is that the areas that we are nominating on this occasion are the important areas, the very best stands of the very tall trees. Once one goes outside those areas, I do not believe that there is a forest area in Tasmania that would justify World Heritage nomination. So I am not really giving up anything. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I ask: Is the welfare of women in rural communities in Australia a high priority of the Federal Government? If this is the case, what funding measures are in place for the current financial year and how do they compare with the previous financial year? To what purposes will Australian Government funding be used to the benefit of the hardworking women in rural and provincial centres throughout Australia? Senator COOK —The first question was whether the Hawke Labor Government assigns a high priority to the needs of rural women. The answer to that is of course yes, it does. We are sensitive to the needs of rural women who, as opposed to urban women, are often locked away from access to education and the range of urban services and facilities that are available. We recognise, therefore, a special need and believe that there is an onus on the Government to meet that need and compensate for that remoteness. We have a program to improve the access of rural women to education, training, services and employment. The program was introduced in 1986 and has so far supported 36 separate projects. It is now commencing its third year. The Government recently doubled the budget of the program, from $100,000 to $200,000, addressing a need for greater emphasis on women's education and training, in particular, in rural areas. Applications for the 1988-89 grants were invited on 8 July this year. The closing date for the applications is 2 September, and inquiries received indicate already an outstanding response to the program. So not only have we recognised those special needs, but also we have a program which has been in place for some time that answers those needs. That program is being availed of by rural women, so they are conscious of the facilities we provide. Perhaps if Senator Jones had asked me this question tomorrow I would have been able to provide him with more information. Senator PANIZZA —Is the Minister for Transport and Communications aware that Telecom Australia, in publishing sectionalised telephone directories in Western Australia-against public opinion-has left out so many entries, some of which were 40 years old, that it will have to look at publishing errata? What is Telecom doing about rectifying the situation, without having five sectionalised books and five lots of errata? Furthermore, will Telecom be prepared to reimburse the affected businesses for loss of trade? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will have to take that question on notice. I will try to give Senator Panizza an answer tomorrow. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review on 8 August entitled `Tough Affirmative Action Stand'? Can the Minister say how many companies employing more than 1,000 workers have actually made their affirmative action reports? What percentage of non-compliance is there? Can the Minister say whether the legislation is on line and effective? Senator REYNOLDS —The Government is very pleased with the response by companies. To date the Affirmative Action Agency has received reports from over 90 per cent of the companies which were required to report. A preliminary assessment of these reports has indicated that most companies have made a reasonable effort to begin development and implementation of affirmative action. Regarding those companies with reports outstanding, the Affirmative Action Agency, in accordance with the Act, sent letters on 8 August 1988 giving 28 days' notice of the intention to name in Parliament. In response, several companies have either reported or reported in part. The Agency recognises that this is the first year that employers have had to lodge reports and is continuing to give every possible assistance so that all companies can comply. The Government remains committed to affirmative action and its aims of removing discrimination from the workplace and of allowing people to be judged on their skills, talents and qualifications. The Government looks forward to a full complement of reporting from all companies. I think honourable senators will agree that that over 90 per cent compliance in the first year of operation is something of which we can be justly proud. Senator MESSNER —Has the Minister for Transport and Communications noted the recent deal by Telecom Australia to acquire a 50 per cent stake in Hewlett Packard Australia Ltd (HP) for $12 1/2m? Apart from the weak and ineffective directives that the Minister issued to Telecom in June, which apparently do not affect those kinds of partnership deals, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that Telecom is not given a free ride to gain an undue competitive advantage to undermine competition and strengthen Telecom's monopoly stranglehold on the telecommunications industry? Is this not a direct result of the Government's decision to delay the establishment of the proposed new independent watchdog; namely, Austel, which is to watch over Telecom, until July 1989? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will respond directly to the concern about the possible monopolisation practices being engaged in by Telecom by virtue of its association with Hewlett Packard. Any concern of that kind is met by the existing provisions of the Trade Practices Act which have full application to this situation. There is no substantial lessening of competition in terms of the Trade Practices Act. If any claim is made of the joint venture being actually or potentially anti-competitive so far as the position of other office automation equipment suppliers is concerned, the answer is that there is a clear obligation on Telecom, under section 46, I think, of the Trade Practices Act, to provide its monopoly services to its joint venture on exactly the same basis as it provides those services to the joint venture's competitors, with the sanction of the Act, of course, applying if it fails to do so. Quite apart from the operation of the guidelines which I announced recently, there is no question but that the very explicit sanction of the Trade Practices Act applies to this situation. More generally, the Hewlett Packard deal is an example of exactly the sort of aggressive, effective, commercial behaviour that we want Telecom, surely to be engaging in. Back in 1985 Telecom publicly sought expressions of interest from office communication suppliers to join Telecom in a cooperative supply and merchandising venture. After a lengthy selection process, Telecom selected Hewlett Packard Australia as being best able to assist it to meet its customer needs. As a result, we have had the joint venture agreement to which Senator Messner referred. The joint venture company will acquire from HP Australia the business of distributing and servicing HP computer products that have commercial application. Hewlett Packard Australia will continue to distribute all other HP products and those other products are not intended to be marketed through the joint venture company. It should be said, more generally, that in other countries links between computer suppliers and telecommunications carriers are becoming quite common due to the convergence of technologies that is at work in this area. Telecom's objective in entering the joint venture is essentially to meet a demand by major corporate customers for total information management solutions comprising telecommunications and computer integrated facilities. Telecom considers that it was simply not in a position to provide customers with such solutions. Telecom informs me that it is intended that the joint venture will be involved in research and development that may result in new products to both the Australian and export markets. It is of the view that HP's experience in development, manufacturing and international marketing will be very valuable to this activity. Telecom's commercial judgment was that, considering the benefits that would arise, a joint venture with Hewlett Packard was the best option available both to serve its customers and to enable Telecom to compete in the wider marketplace. There is certainly a recognition by Telecom that, under the reform process being implemented by the Government, the Australian Telecommunications Commission is completely accountable for decisions taken in terms of the joint venture company. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources. In view of the serious problem of salinity and soil degradation in the Murray Valley, what steps is the Government taking to gain the cooperation of the States and community organisations in working towards its solution? Senator COOK —My first comment is to congratulate Senator Zakharov on pursuing the issue. Salinity is a major issue in this country. Over $600m a year is lost in rural production because of land degradation. Senator Zakharov has pursued this issue assiduously and that needs to be acknowledged. Senator Zakharov asked what action we were taking in the Murray-Darling Basin. If I am to pay tribute to Senator Zakharov I should also pay tribute to Senator Gareth Evans because, during his tenure in the resources and energy portfolio, he was instrumental in setting up the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, which is a body on which the governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, along with the Commonwealth, sit. It is a ministerial council which recognises the fundamental truth that, when God designed the Murray-Darling Basin, he had no regard for the lines which cartographers later came along and drew on maps to delineate where the States were. In order to address the issue of salinity and land degradation in the Murray-Darling, there needed to be a cooperative arrangement between those three States and the Commonwealth. That was achieved in 1985. The Murray-Darling Basin has 50 per cent of Australian crop land within its catchment. It has 30 to 40 per cent of total production from natural resource based industries that come out of the Murray-Darling Basin and it is an important and key agricultural area-if not the most important agricultural area in Australia. As I have said, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, which oversees the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, was set up during the tenure of Senator Gareth Evans in the portfolio in 1985. It harmonises the interests of those three States and the Commonwealth. The last meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council was held in Adelaide earlier this month. The respective Ministers for land management, water and the environment from those three States and the Commonwealth were represented. The Council adopted what I thought was a vital strategy-an anti-salinity and land degradation strategy. It decided to conduct, through that strategy, a series of programs aimed at reducing salinity in the Murray River by an amount of 20 per cent, measured at Morgan in South Australia. That is an achievable outcome. It is predicted that, as a strategy, it will save $110m a year in lost production from the Murray-Darling Basin itself. It will also provide the opportunity for over half a million hectares of high-value land in the basin to be protected. Those are the steps that the Commonwealth, together with those three States, is taking on what I regard as probably the most significant conservation issue in Australia-the issue of land degradation, in this case specified to the Murray-Darling Basin area. Senator WATSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that the Department of Social Security is giving advice to some large financial institutions that moneys received from certain instruments issued by the operators of those institutions will not affect social security payments either by way of pension or pensioner ancillary benefits? Does the Department keep a register of such advices? Does the Department always liaise with the Australian Taxation Office to ensure that there is no conflict of advice between the Department and the Tax Office that could embarrass pensioners and taxpayers? Will the Minister release to the Senate the full details of such arrangements so that all people in receipt of Commonwealth benefits can rearrange their investments rather than provide such tax free income to the privileged few? Senator BOLKUS —I am not aware of the basic premise on which the question is based. In view of that and in view of the fact that I cannot fully answer the rest of the question because of that, I will take the question on notice and get a full answer for Senator Watson from the Minister for Social Security. The PRESIDENT —Order! Honourable senators will be aware of an unfortunate incident earlier this afternoon when an elderly woman fell on the steps of the main public gallery. Because of a number of similar incidents since the building was opened, the Parliament House Construction Authority has been asked to provide handrails in the galleries of both Houses. These handrails should be installed as soon as possible. Senator REYNOLDS —I refer to an earlier question by Senator Short concerning the Government's business migration program. I have been advised that certain papers have been tabled in the other place which completely refute the thrust of Senator Short's question. Today's Sydney Morning Herald contains an article alleging that a consultant to successive Ministers for immigration, Mr Peter Cullen, has disclosed that we were seeking to alter the balance of business migration by increasing the proportion of Europeans and North Americans at the expense of Asians. I understand that Mr Cullen has written to Mr Holding today, setting out the facts of the matter. I quote from his letter: At no time did I mention that increased proportion . . . from Europe and US were to be at the expense of Asians (or anyone else for that matter). I note that no quotation marks support this. In any event BM from all sources including Asia is increasing steadily. I was not asked, and did not think to point out at that time, that the Minister's overriding requirement was that I was not to make any recommendation that discriminated on the basis of race, nationality, religion etc. An additional document from Mr Cullen to Mr Young, a former immigration Minister, dated 24 February 1988 confirms this position. One of the points made in that letter, which minutes a conversation between Mr Cullen and Mr Young, is as follows: Subject to overall Government policy that all migration policies be non-discriminatory as to country, race, religion etc. I was free to recommend any measures which I thought would improve the Program. For the information of honourable senators I table both documents. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of Senator Reynolds's response. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COOK —On 31 May Senator Tambling asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. His question concerned the Government's uranium policy. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has given me an answer and I can now answer Senator Tambling's question. A document purporting to be a Denison Australia contract to supply uranium to a Japanese utility was fleetingly shown to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy at a meeting with Mr J. D. Fowler on 19 April 1988. The Minister has stated on a number of occasions that he was unsure of the status of that document and is not, therefore, able to confirm the details to which Senator Tambling referred in his question. Senator COOK —On 29 April Senator Sanders asked me, again in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, a question without notice arising from correspondence relating to the relabelling of South African uranium to get around Finnish and Soviet embargoes. The correspondence that Senator Sanders's question related to was provided to him by Mr Jup Weber, a Greens member of the Luxembourg Parliament. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has forwarded me an answer to that question. It is in four parts and it is quite extensive, so I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- 1. In my statement to the Parliament on 20 April I outlined the conditions under which the Australia/Euratom Agreement permits safeguards obligations to be exchanged within the jurisdiction of the European Communities. I would further note that an exchange of safeguards obligations within Europe can only be achieved with the approval of the EURATOM Safeguards Directorate (ESD) after application by the relevant organisation concerned; 2. It is certainly not a fact that exchanges of safeguards obligations in the European Communities are privatised and unregulated. The approval of the ESD is necessary before any obligation exchange can take place. The ESD is of course an official agency of the European Commission. It is the authority which regulates movements of, and exchanges of obligations on, nuclear material. The prior consent of Australia for exchanges of safeguards obligations within EURATOM is not required provided certain conditions, set out in my statement of 20 April, are adhered to; 3. Internal exchanges of safeguards obligations involving Australian obligated nuclear material do not alter the amount of nuclear material subject to Australian bilateral safeguards agreements. Neither do they affect the total amount of nuclear material which remains within the control of a bilateral partner country or group of countries. International flag swaps (IFS) however have the same effect as a physical transfer of nuclear material from one safeguards jurisdiction to another. Under Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements no Australian obligated nuclear material can be re-transferred from a bilateral partner's safeguards jurisdiction without Australia's prior consent. Therefore any IFS involving Australian obligated nuclear material would also require Australia's prior consent. For these reasons IFS are different from internal exchanges of safeguards obligations and require a different set of conditions. 4. Australian safeguards agreements do not ban exchanges of safeguards obligations on equivalent quantities of nuclear material within a jurisdiction. Their design and implementation have been successful in ensuring that obligated nuclear material subject to these agreements remains in exclusively peaceful non-explosive use. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the hours of meeting of the Senate this day be as follows: 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and 7.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. I inform honourable senators that, although the motion provides for the usual Tuesday adjournment at 10.30 p.m., it is the Government's intention to move the adjournment at the conclusion of the Budget proceedings. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray)-by leave-agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.32) —I table the explanatory memorandum, and move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act provides that scrutineers may be appointed only by the Governor-General, by a State Governor, by the Administrator of the Northern Territory, or persons authorised by them. No provision is made for appointment of scrutineers by political parties, as applies at elections. This Bill provides that registered political parties will be able to appoint scrutineers for the referendums on 3 September. However, I do not necessarily regard this as a permanent solution. I propose to refer the question of scrutineers at referendums to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for consideration. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received a letter from Senator Lewis proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The threat posed by the Hawke Government's referendum proposals to the role and independence of the Senate which protected the Australian people from the imposition of the I.D. Card, the Bill of Rights and the repeal of Section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. 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 LEWIS(Victoria)(5.33) —I propose the following matter for discussion by the Senate: The threat posed by the Hawke Government's referendum proposals to the role and independence of the Senate which protected the Australian people from the imposition of the I.D. Card, the Bill of Rights and the repeal of Section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. This is a most significant debate on the first full day of sittings of this House. The taxpayers of this country have just spent $1.1 billion or thereabouts on the construction of this magnificent edifice, so one could say that it has cost over half a billion dollars to bring us senators into this chamber. If the first referendum proposal to be put to the people on 3 September is carried by the Australian people, that money will have been totally wasted, because that proposal will gut this Senate. It will achieve all of those aims that the Australian Labor Party has been endeavouring to achieve for many years. It will make the Senate a mere shadow of the House of Representatives and an unnecessary expense for and burden on Australian taxpayers. Ultimately, in my view, it could, and probably will, result in some form of dictatorship of this country by a government which will not be bound to listen to a legislature such as the Senate is today, before this referendum proposal is put to the people. If this referendum proposal were carried we would have all the falderal of a legislative chamber, as used to exist under the Westminster system, but we would have none of the power. The first question being put to the people in the referendum proposals on 3 September is an absolute crucial question for this Senate. It goes right to the heart of this Senate. The question appears to be simple but it is not simple; it is deceptive. The simple question being put to the people is: Do you approve of a law to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament? That seems a simple question. In truth it is not a simple question; it is a most devious question because it contains within it the most serious threat this Senate has ever faced, and I am not referring to our terms of office. I am referring to the fact that the question contains within it, although it does not express it, these questions or these proposals: It abolishes the fixed term for senators-- Senator Schacht —Hear, hear! Senator LEWIS —It abolishes the rotation of senators-- Senator Schacht —Hear, hear! Senator LEWIS —And it includes the simultaneous election provision previously rejected by the Australian people in 1974, in 1977 and again in 1984. One will have gathered from the interjections of Senator Schacht when he has been saying `Hear, hear!' that he acknowledges what I am saying, that the first question contains within it those three proposals. It does not contain the deceptively simple question which the people of Australia will appear to be asked, but these questions about the abolition of fixed terms, the abolition of rotation of senators and the simultaneous election provision. I alert supporters of the Australian Labor Party to the fact that that would enable a Liberal or National Party Prime Minister to call an election at any time the Prime Minister would wish and would enable that Prime Minister to take the Senate to an election. That will not just apply while honourable senators opposite have Mr Hawke as their Prime Minister or Mr Keating when they bring him in; it will apply for all time as a constitutional change and will enable people on our side to take advantage of having an election when it suits them. Honourable senators complained for many, many years that Mr Menzies used to call elections to his advantage and here they are putting it in the Constitution that a Prime Minister can have an election any time he likes and take out the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. Until now the fixed term of the Senate has been the factor which has stopped Prime Ministers having elections whenever they wished to do so. It has been the fixed term of the Senate that has resulted in only four occasions when Prime Ministers have had the courage to take out the House of Representatives by itself and end up having a half Senate election by itself; only four times in 88 years. So clearly the fixed term of six years of the Senate has been a great detriment to Prime Ministers calling elections when it suits them, notwithstanding the Labor Party's criticisms of former Prime Minister Menzies and, I might say, of Mr Fraser in 1977. Let me say to honourable senators opposite that it is they who are endeavouring to put this provision into the Constitution. The abolition of the Senate was in the Labor Party's platform for a long time and as late as 1980 Mr Hayden acknowledged that the Labor Party objective was eventually the abolition of the Senate. This would be the first peg in the abolition of the Senate. It has now been dropped from the platform but we do not forget what Senator Gareth Evans said before he came into the Senate. He said that the way to abolish the Senate or at least to muzzle it is to white-ant it from within. That is what this proposal is all about, muzzling the Senate. This would seriously weaken the ability of the Senate to resist objectionable measures like the ID card, the Bill of Rights and the repeal of section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. Let me refer to section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. There was a very long, difficult and interesting debate in this chamber about the repeal of section 45d and after the Senate rejected the proposal of this Labor Government I can tell honourable senators that a senior Labor Minister gave thanks to our Lord, in my presence, for the Senate-- Senator Schacht —Name him. Senator LEWIS —I do not intend to name him. I treat what people say to me outside the chamber and in the corridors of this building as a matter of confidence. Let us look at the legislation in relation to the ID card. Senator Patterson —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I draw your attention to standing order 422. I ask you to draw the attention of the honourable senator opposite to it and request him to cease interjecting in this way. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —I do not consider the level of interjection to be unreasonable but if Senator Lewis considers it so I ask the honourable senator to stop interjecting. Senator LEWIS —I want to refer to the legislation when the ID card was first introduced in 1986. Throughout 1986 the polls showed that the ID card was most favoured by the people of Australia. The support for an ID card during 1986 ranged between 65 per cent and 68 per cent whilst its disapproval ranged between 26 per cent and 29 per cent. So the Government thought it was on a winner with the ID card. The Liberal and National parties took a principled objection to the ID card and I might say that we were accused of being politically opportunistic. How we can be politically opportunistic when nearly 70 per cent of the people supported the proposal and we were saying that we opposed the proposal is absolutely beyond me. However, 70 per cent of the people in 1986 supported the ID card proposal. The Government introduced the legislation in November 1986 and the Senate rejected it. If the first referendum proposal now being put to the Senate had been carried then and the Constitution had been changed as is proposed under this proposal, does anyone doubt that in December 1986 we would have had an election of both Houses of the Parliament on the ID card and that by 1987 the people of Australia would have had the burden of an ID card imposed upon them. The Government would have been returned as a resounding success because 70 per cent of the people in those days supported the ID card. Twelve months later, after an amazing debate in this Senate, we courageously rejected the ID card again to enable the Labor Government to have a double dissolution on the matter. Twelve months later the people of Australia finally realised, thanks to this chamber, all of the traps that were in the ID card and turned against it. Ultimately there were 43 hours of debate spread over nearly one year before a majority of the people came to understand the defects of the ID card proposal. I ask the Government whether that could ever happen if this proposal were carried. Could that ever happen again? Do honourable senators really think a government would allow a chamber to keep debating such a matter-such a difficult, crucial matter-for 12 months, until the people began to understand what the real issues were if this referendum proposal were carried? I know that there must be back bench senators in the Labor Party and the Government ranks who understand the points I am making and ultimately I will bet that in the secrecy of the ballot box they will vote no. Of course they will vote against this proposal. Let me talk about the so-called Bill of Rights that was forced through the House of Representatives by a late night sitting ending at 3 o'clock in the morning. It was absolutely disgraceful. We had 36 hours of debate in the Senate and, 10 months after its introduction into the House of Representatives, the Government finally woke up to what it was on about with the Bill of Rights and withdrew it because the Government realised that the people were opposed to the proposal. That long debate in the Senate led to a groundswell of opposition to the handing over to non-elected judges of the power to rule on rights which have never been under threat in Australia and which, if they ever were, could be protected by laws passed by elected parliaments. Of course, that Bill was the idea of that zealot Senator Gareth Evans. He was the author of that Bill and only his enthusiasm kept it alive until intense scrutiny by this chamber ultimately persuaded the Government to cave in. That same Senator Gareth Evans wants to white-ant this chamber from within. Let me talk about other matters where we have had great success. I just mention the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. We carried some 40 amendments to it and we debated it for some 13 1/2 hours. It went back to the House of Representatives and the House of Representatives accepted the amendments because they were good, worthwhile amendments which had resulted from sensible debate in this chamber. The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), which was brought into the Senate last November, was a terrible Bill. After we had applied ourselves to this Bill the Government took it away. It was deferred until the next session and it still has not come back into the chamber. Senator Button still has not brought back into the chamber the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). We do not know what the Government will do with that Bill but we know that at least we forced the Government to confer with industry on this question. The Senate has repeatedly demonstrated why it is the legislative chamber that protects the people. That will always be the case because, under our system, the Government always has the majority in the lower House. That is how it gets to be the government. It wins enough seats in the lower House to become the government. Of course, it has the numbers in the lower House to carry its legislative program. Occasionally members of the Government backbench might have the guts or the courage to stand up to the Government and say, `That is wrong, Minister', or, `We do not like that'. Senator Boswell —Very rarely. Senator LEWIS —Only very rarely, as Senator Boswell says. Thanks to a fortuitous set of circumstances, when the legislation comes to this chamber it gets a thorough going over. Senator Puplick —Except when the Democrats gag it. Senator LEWIS —I agree with Senator Puplick-except when the Australian Democrats gag it, as they decided to do towards the end of last session when they helped the Government gag through some 31 Bills in a week. Normally there is an opportunity for the Senate to analyse the legislation and give it the thorough going over that it needs. What does the Government's first proposal mean? It does not mean that elections will be held only every four years. It is a maximum period of four years, not a fixed term of four years. It would enable the Prime Minister to call an election for both Houses-all of the Senate and all of the House of Representatives-at any time he wished to gain political advantage. Let me just give honourable senators an example. Journalists are too stupid to understand when we make this point. They say, `That would not happen; he would not do that'. Like hell he would not do that! Come October this year I can just imagine the Prime Minister saying, `The people have just passed this resolution. They have changed the Constitution. I take that as a mandate to enable me to have an election when I wish. I now wish to have an election in October 1988 and the issue I want to have the election on is tax file numbers'. We would then find ourselves, in October or November this year, in a three-week campaign over tax file numbers and, as things are at present, we would probably lose that election. The next thing that will happen is that the people of Australia will have a tax file number system. Senator Chaney —No, we would not. Senator LEWIS —Senator Chaney corrects me and says, `No, we would not'. Nevertheless, there is a chance that we would lose that election after three weeks debate. The Government would then be able to introduce tax file numbers because it would have the mandate, it would have the numbers and the Democrats would allow it to do so because they would say, `The Government has just fought an election on the matter'. This proposal will not mean fewer elections. It will give the Prime Minister of the day much greater power over the legislative chamber-the Senate-than any past Prime Minister has ever had. It does not require the Government to serve out its term. It will not mean better government. It would radically change our parliamentary system. It would be different from anything we have known for the past 88 years. Our system would be different from that system which has served us so well until now. The change would cripple the Senate's independence. It would make it possible for the Government to control the Senate. We know that governments need courage from time to time but, believe me, parliaments also need courage from time to time. Governments certainly need courage to introduce their legislative programs but parliaments need courage to stand up to governments and say, `We will not pass this legislation in the form it is'. Parliamentary democracy is all about legislative chambers having the courage to stand up to the Government and say, `You are wrong. This legislation needs to be amended'. But if this proposal is carried there will be no Senate power to do that. As soon as the Senate tries to do that the Government will threaten it with an election and, if the Senate does not cave in, the Government will have an election on that issue. Of course, the Senate will not be able to win; the people will lose out; and the Prime Minister of the day will get an opportunity to serve a longer term. This proposal will silence the independent voice of the smaller States. It will turn the Senate merely into a rubber stamp and, as I said in my opening remarks, it will make the spending of $500m on putting us in this chamber an absolute waste of taxpayers' money and result in needless future expense in keeping the Senate running. If the people of Australia support this proposal at the referendum we might as well do away with the Senate altogether. I say to the people of Australia, `Whatever you do about any issue, vote no to the first proposal being put by the Government'. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.54) —The matter of public importance proposed to the chamber by Senator Lewis does not merit support. (Quorum formed) I was saying that the matter of public importance brought to the chamber by Senator Lewis does not deserve the support of the chamber. It paints a very artificial picture of the effect of referendum proposal No. 1, to be put to the people on 3 September. One great hurdle that Senator Lewis is unable to surmount is the fact that not one power, not one ability, not one legislative, deliberative or other function of this chamber is stripped away by this referendum proposal. If one goes through the referendum proposal in detail one finds not one clause which does away with the powers of the Senate chamber. As I have moved around Tasmania I have found that as soon as I tell people there will still be 12 senators elected from Tasmania and they will have the same capacity to exercise the same deliberative and legislative role as they have in the past, they realise that the story being put around that somehow the Senate is to be white-anted from within is without foundation. The proposal simply says that in relation to the House of Representatives there shall be a four-year maximum term, and that on the same day that an election is held for the House of Representatives the Senate should go to the people also. What that does is to make this chamber, as I believe it ought to be, accountable to the people, at a maximum of every four years, and responsible for its actions. Former Senator Reg Withers has argued, as indeed my local Australian Labor Party branch in Sandy Bay has argued, that this will give to the Senate enhanced political clout, a greater role, because it will be able to claim that it has a mandate from the people concurrent with that of the Government in the Lower House. In that way the Senate will have the political weight which I believe former Senator Withers correctly pointed to. The fact is that holding an election on the same day for the Senate and the House of Representatives provides for a fair situation. If one recalls what was developing in late 1975, what was fair about a Senate chamber creating a situation where a government with the support and confidence of the majority in the House of Representatives did not have money to conduct its ordinary services, so requiring a dissolution of the House of Representatives? Is it not fair that the Senate should go to the people at the same time? I should have thought it was. That is what this particular proposal would permit. The proposal to be put to the people on 3 September does not jeopardise the role and independence of the Senate, unless one takes the view of the integrity and capacity of honourable senators to make hard decisions that Senator Newman has taken in the debate in Tasmania. She has suggested that perhaps honourable senators would not be as vigorous and as robust as they ought to be in opposing Government measures for fear of having to go to an election. I do not believe that honourable senators lack the integrity to take a stand if they feel it is required. In view of the nearness of the hour I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Before the sitting is suspended I draw your attention, Madam Acting Deputy President, to the fact that for the first time in the history of the Senate we have you in the chair, being a female, and two female Clerks. This is the first occasion on which we have had two female Clerks at the table. It is a sign of the great changes that have occurred in this place and elsewhere. I congratulate the Senate and I congratulate the Clerks, particularly our new Clerk, Michele Cornwell, whom I welcome to the Senate. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I table the following papers: Budget Documents 1. Budget Statements 1988-89 2. The Commonwealth Public Account 1988-89 3. Portfolio Program Estimates 1988-89 4. Commonwealth Financial Relations with other levels of Government 1988-89 Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1989 Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1989 Particulars of Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1989 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments Budget Related Documents Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1988 National Income and Expenditure 1987-88 Income Tax Statistics Australia's Overseas Aid Program 1988-89 Commonwealth Capital Works Program 1988-89 Women's Budget Statement 1988-89 Australian Capital Territory Budget Statement 1988-89 Labour Market Reform: Industrial Relations Agenda Towards a Fairer Australia: Social Justice Budget Statement 1988-89 A New Commitment to Higher Education in Australia I seek leave to make a statement outlining the Government's budgetary proposals for the financial year 1988-89. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —Tonight the Treasurer is delivering in another place his Budget Speech for 1988-89. It is my privilege to outline to the Senate the Budget proposals of the Government. Mr President, tonight I can report to the people of Australia that the nation is successfully emerging from its most severe economic crisis in a generation. Just a short time ago we faced grave economic difficulties. Adverse world developments hacked into our export earnings; our national income shrank; our foreign debt surged. The conventional response would have seen economic growth slashed and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Australians destroyed. This is what happened in the past. But it did not happen this time. Instead Australia has continued to grow and we are now well on the way back to prosperity. This is because the Government moved quickly to institute a unique set of policy arrangements which have created the right conditions for recovery. Australians have responded with effort and enterprise and, just as importantly, with good sense and understanding. As a result we are now systematically restructuring the economy, making Australia a much more dynamic place, more able to compete in the world. The evidence is there for all to see. This year our balance of payments deficit will be halved from its peak of just three years ago. Our foreign debt burden has already stabilised and begun to fall. Inflation is down. Real wage increases are in prospect. Our rate of job growth is unmatched in the Western world. Business investment is rising rapidly. On the export front, new manufacturing activities and tourism have blossomed. On the import side, Australian factories are now supplying a wide range of goods that we used to buy from overseas. Unquestionably, a dramatically better state of affairs now exists than when the Treasurer warned in 1986 of the threat of Australia degenerating to the status of a banana republic. The Australian people can be proud that they have responded to economic adversity in a manner which the critics claimed was impossible. But a challenge remains. And that is to prove that we can turn the opportunities of better times into solid foundations for long lasting prosperity. International developments have been much kinder to us recently. Commodity prices have picked up. And the world's economy has moved ahead strongly since the October stock market slide. But if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past we must abandon forever the myopic view that the world owes us a living and will go on bankrolling us whatever we do. Hard experience should have taught us that such illusions will not sustain us; that we need a better way to secure the future. Right now, that better way is to pay off the debt forced upon us by the bad times. The national debt is not some kind of accounting abstraction. It is something which touches every Australian and, above all, our children. Our policies are not only lifting the yoke of debt from our necks, they will also lower the burden on the next generation. Mr President, last year the Government paid back $3,700m of Commonwealth debt. This year we will pay back even more. We will be able to do so because tonight I am announcing a Budget surplus of historic proportions-a surplus made possible because this Government has been the first in the post-war years with the courage to make real inroads into public spending. In 10 budgetary statements stretching back to 1983 we have painstakingly sifted through Commonwealth outlays, attacking the waste, setting priorities and making quality changes with long term beneficial effects. The rewards of all this painstaking work are evident tonight. THE BUDGET OUTCOME Less than 12 months ago, in delivering the 1987 Budget, I forecast a balanced Budget outcome. In the event, our sound fiscal management delivered a much better result-a surplus of $2 billion, the very first in the 35 years for which comparable records have been kept. However spectacular that achievement, tonight I announce a Budget surplus approaching three times that size. Mr President, we have budgeted in 1988-89 for a surplus of $5.5 billion. This is a massive turnaround from the prospective deficit of $9.6 billion we inherited from Mr Howard back in 1983. The surplus will be delivered with the total government revenue share actually falling. But the real measure of the worth of this surplus is that it exceeds the combined borrowings of all State and local government authorities and all public sector enterprises. It means that in 1988-89 the net public sector borrowing requirement will be zero. The whole government sector of Australia will borrow no new money whatsoever. This achievement is without precedent in our history. In just five years government borrowing has been reduced from almost 7 per cent of GDP to nothing-equivalent to more than $20 billion per year in today's dollars. This huge transformation in Australia's budgetary position is helping our balance of payments in three crucial ways. First, it frees up Australian savings to finance the business investment we need to maintain the momentum of our export effort. Second, it cuts public sector demand across the board, thereby moderating overall demand and reducing import pressures. And third, by enabling repayments, it reduces our overseas debt and our interest bill. These influences will help bring Australia's balance of payments deficit in 1988-89 to its lowest level as a proportion of GDP for nine years. They will also contribute to the further falls necessary in future years to ensure that we overcome our debt burden. ANTI-INFLATION STRATEGY Mr President, while the balance of payments deficit is Australia's number one economic problem, inflation remains Australia's number one economic disease. It has infected our economic system for two decades. Its eradication is one of the Government's fundamental objectives. We have conquered the big inflationary surge stemming from the dollar's depreciation and for the first time in 20 years we have inflation locked well into single digits. We now have the opportunity to drive it lower. We will push home this opportunity through this Budget and the Government's unique wage setting arrangements. Our anti-inflation strategy will be accelerated by two key elements. First, a reduction in indirect taxes costing over $400m in 1988-89, to maintain the downward impetus on the Consumer Price Index. And second, a wage/tax trade-off negotiated with the ACTU early next year. Tax cuts will then be paid from 1 July 1989. These arrangements will underpin the wage decision recently handed down from the Arbitration Commission and open the way for both higher real incomes and lower real labour costs. As the Government has stated previously, the size of the tax cuts to be provided will be dependent on wages growth during 1988-89 and the quality of the wage/tax trade-off to be negotiated. Success in these areas will secure for Australia an inflation rate of 3 to 4 per cent in 1990. This will put us back with the rest of the world, an achievement which has eluded us for a generation. OUTLAYS Mr President, I now turn to the outlays side of the Budget. In doing so I emphasise that the unprecedented rigour we have brought to government spending will allow the tax cuts I have just foreshadowed to be paid without jeopardising the integrity of the Commonwealth's budgetary position. This means that our tax cut arithmetic will add up. It will not rely on fudged numbers, like the Opposition's blatant 1987 election bribe. Nor will it leave a black hole in the next Budget. That Budget will fund substantial tax cuts, and still provide a further surplus. I can give this commitment with confidence because we have made room for genuine tax cuts by making genuine spending cuts. Budget outlays this year will represent, to be precise, 25.6 per cent of GDP, compared with more than 30 per cent four years ago, a lower figure than was recorded in any of the Fraser-Howard years-a vast change. Decisions already announced will further slice that ratio to around 24 1/2 per cent next year, a rate not seen for 15 years. As a result, in dollar terms outlays will be over $20,000m lower each year than they would have been if the 1984-85 spending share had remained unchanged. No major OECD country has reduced the size of its government sector on such a vast scale. This massive structural wind down renders irrelevant calls for further savage cuts in public spending. Such parroted calls in future should be seen for what they are; mindless shrieks by ideologues against the legitimate spending functions of governments. But notwithstanding its dramatic reduction in outlays, this Government has kept faith with the traditional social justice commitments of the Australian Labor Party. We have turned a smaller public sector into a better public sector. By better setting priorities, the grounds deserving of greatest financial support are receiving it. At the same time the integrity of Government assistance has been restored by excluding the well-off and eliminating abuse. This action is central to the maintenance of public support for the social security system, which assists the weak, the poor, the elderly and the unemployed. Making the system perform properly and restoring public support for it is a very Labor thing to do. Tonight, Mr President, I announce further instalments in Labor's social agenda. Again, they are about fairness and support for the genuinely disadvantaged in our community. They include a lift in payments under Labor's landmark family income support scheme, the family allowance supplement, which already benefits more than one million children from low income families. From December maximum payments under the package will be raised by about 10 per cent-by $2 to $24 per week for children aged 12 or under, and by $3 to $31 per week for children aged between 13 and 15. These increases will cost $69m in 1988-89 and $133m in the year after. There will also be a progressive restructuring of rent assistance payments, rising to a maximum of $30 a week for larger families by June 1990. This means that by the end of this financial year families with an income of up to $16,900 in the previous year, renting privately and with three children, one aged under 13 and two under 16, will receive an addition to their income of $106 per week free of tax-an amount vastly in excess, incidentally, of anything that could conceivably have been obtained from wage increases. Two completely new programs will be introduced to help specially disadvantaged people re-enter the work force. The `NEW START Program' will provide the adult long term unemployed with 25,000 places for re-skilling and training. A special feature will be a $100 employment re-entry payment to help these people meet the one-off costs associated with beginning a job. A counterpart program to assist sole parents will be known as `JET'-the jobs, education and training package. It will provide enhanced counselling services and additional child care places for participants and when fully operational will involve 12,000 employment and training places. Also, the study allowance paid to sole parent beneficiaries will be doubled to $30 a week. Mr President, the same philosophy of self-help guides our Aboriginal Assistance programs. In our bicentennial year, we have particular cause to reflect on the position of the original inhabitants of this continent, and to strengthen our resolve to assist this most disadvantaged group. Initiatives in this Budget will increase expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander assistance programs by $57m in 1988-89 and by $96m in 1989-90. A major target of this increased funding will be the Aboriginal Employment Development Policy, which helps Aboriginals into economic independence. There will also be an accelerated program to provide essential basic facilities to poor Aboriginal communities and improvement to health programs. Mr President, from the outset this Government has placed the highest priority on education and training. If our nation is to compete effectively in the international market place we must have an even more skilled work force. Sadly, in the past, we let ourselves down on that score. However, since 1983 there has been a dramatic turnaround in the number of our young people staying on at school and in the number going on to higher education. It is essential that we maintain this momentum. At the same time the present system of funding university education is unfair. All taxpayers fund the education of a minority who, by virtue of their qualifications, enjoy a higher income throughout their working life. It is doubly unfair that most university students already come from relatively better-off backgrounds. We need to change the system in two ways. First, the nation needs more graduates. But at the same time we need to open up the system to talented students who are not so well-off. We have therefore decided to introduce from next year a higher education contribution scheme which will require students to pay back about one-fifth of the cost of their courses. This will be payable only when the income of each individual student has risen to a level comparable to average earnings in the community. All the proceeds of this measure will be devoted to expanding the number of student places and providing increased study assistance for the not so well-off. Within three years, there will be 40,000 new student places, equal to the combined size of the existing Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide universities. The introduction of the new scheme will enable us to abolish the $263 administration charge. In addition, study allowances for students from disadvantaged backgrounds will be increased and a liberalised income test applied to all study allowances. From the 1989 academic year the amount of money students can earn without losing any of their study allowance will be increased from $40 a week to $60 a week. My colleague, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, will be providing details of these new arrangements in a statement tonight. Mr President, the vastly improved budgetary position has enabled the Government to embark on three major programs to enhance health and community services. The first will expand by 30,000 the number of child care places over the next four years. Two-thirds of these places will be for care which extends outside school hours, particularly helping working parents. The second major initiative is an expanded program of hospital funding involving expenditure of $3,000m in 1988-89, and an additional $1,100m in the next five years over and above previous arrangements. This will be devoted to providing more public hospital beds, shortening hospital queues. The third is the new `National Program For Better Health', directed at illness prevention. Mr President, the Government has also decided to introduce a new scheme of income supplementation for our most accomplished performing and visual artists to encourage them to devote their talent exclusively to their chosen work. The new scheme, known as Australian Creative Fellowships, will be administered by the Australia Council. It will provide fellowships to a small and important group of artists whose work is of world standard and who have chosen to progress their career in Australia for the enrichment of Australia. Mr President, the multicultural diversity of this country is bound by the common overriding commitment to Australia which is expressed by citizenship. A Year of Citizenship campaign will be funded from the Budget in 1988-89 to encourage more than one million permanent residents to take up citizenship. Further details will be announced shortly. REVENUE Mr President, I announced earlier that the Government would implement indirect tax changes directed at maintaining the downward momentum in the Consumer Price Index. The most significant of these is a major reform of the taxation of beer, designed to favour the consumption of lower alcohol beverages. These changes will involve a cost to revenue of $400m in 1988-89, with the greatest impact on lower alcohol beer. The price of a carton of lower alcohol beer should fall by about $5.50, and the price of a carton of full strength beer by about $2.20. Sales tax on women's cosmetics and perfumes is to be cut from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, standardising the rate with men's toiletries. Photographs will now be sales taxed at 20 per cent, down from 30 per cent, and significant changes will be made to the sales tax treatment of computer software, costing $30m. These changes should reduce the consumer price index by about half a percentage point. The Prices Surveillance Authority will be directed to undertake close surveillance of these price falls. STRUCTURAL REFORM Mr President, I return now to the subject of structural reform. As I stressed in the May Economic Statement, it is imperative that economic reform be extended to the very heart of the economy. Already we have made outstanding progress. Far reaching tax reforms have restored fairness and incentive to the system. Our financial markets are among the most dynamic and competitive in the world. The tariff walls which used to shield our industries from overseas competition are being broken down. The Australian economy has become truly international. Nowhere is this more evident than in the rapid growth of Australian business abroad following the float of the dollar and the removal of exchange controls in 1983. In the short space of those five years we have built a constellation of dynamic companies which are rapidly building assets abroad. Australian investment overseas is now worth $34 billion-more than five times the value of 1983. This dramatic increase is acting as a growing counterweight to our debt burden, and in time will be matched by an equally dramatic rise in a return of dividends flowing to Australia. Our far reaching company tax reforms will even further underpin this historic trend. Over time it will give Australia a higher living standard and a greater capacity to offset our debt. It is a development unique to this new age of Australian internationalism. But the changes do not end there. Not all the bottlenecks holding back economic progress have been cleared. The Industries Assistance Commission has embarked on wide ranging inquiries into the impact of government charges on business and the efficiency of our service and tourist sectors. We have started to tackle the deeply entrenched inefficiencies in transport and communications, ports and coastal shipping, all so important in our country of vast distances. In the industrial relations area the recent national wage decision has extended the wage system to foster productivity and efficiency, including through award restructuring. Mr President, tonight the Government is to further advance this deregulatory reform agenda with two major changes to the banking system, sweeping away the last significant elements of unnecessary regulation in the financial arena. The first is to remove the outdated distinction between trading and savings banks. The second is to wind down the present requirement for banks to place a percentage of their funds with the Reserve Bank in an outdated monetary instrument called statutory reserve deposits. In future, savings and trading banks will be covered by a uniform 1 per cent ratio on the broadest base of their liabilities. These two changes will serve to enhance the efficiency of our banks and remove distortions in the allocation of financial resources to particular sectors of the economy. They will also exert downward pressure on interest rates. ECONOMIC PROSPECTS Mr President, I now turn to Australia's economic prospects in the financial year ahead. As I indicated at the outset, the fundamentals are promising. Overall, we expect economic growth in 1988-89 to be about the same as last financial year, 3 1/2 per cent. What is especially welcome is that much of the momentum of growth will be provided by a huge 12 per cent real increase in business investment. Job growth will be strong, and average unemployment will fall again. Barring adverse external developments, the CPI should be running at 4 1/2 per cent by the end of the financial year. But we must be on guard against excessive import pressures threatening the recovery in our balance of payments. Last year the strong boost to incomes from the lift in commodity prices led to imports rising more rapidly than we had expected. As a consequence monetary policy was tightened and fiscal policy was taken in another notch at the Premiers Conference and in the May Economic Statement. For the future, while other instruments have taken a greater share of the weight, monetary policy must continue to play its vital balancing role in the overall strategy of restraint. However, the further large fall in Commonwealth Budget spending will exert a powerful influence to restrain overall demand. All in all, we will make further significant progress in cutting the balance of payments deficit. CONCLUSION Mr President, may I conclude by saying that it is an honour to present this particular Budget on this occasion. A Budget with a record surplus, presented in the year which opens Australia's third century, in the building which will permanently house the nation's Parliament. It is a Budget which will do much to secure our future. It is a Budget which consolidates the progress since 1983, and locks onto our targets, the balance of payments deficit and inflation. We will pursue these targets with vigour and determination. We will not let Australia slip back into mediocrity, either through lack of purpose or through weakness. We will keep to the task; but we will also keep faith with our perpetual objective of providing for the disadvantaged and for those in need. Mr President, this Budget is the right Budget at this time, and provides Australia with a unique set of outcomes and priorities which could only be delivered by the heart, creativity and intellectual strength of the Australian Labor movement. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement relating to a change to the timing of the tabling of explanatory notes and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- MINISTERIAL STATEMENT BY LEAVE SENATOR THE HONOURABLE JOHN BUTTON I wish to advise the Senate that I have written to the various party leaders in the Senate concerning a change to the timing of the tabling of Explanatory Notes. Let me briefly outline the background to this change. One of the aims of the process of budgetary reform which this Government instituted in 1984 has been to improve the quality of the information provided to the Parliament to assist it to carry out more effectively its role of scrutinising public expenditure. The Government has been particularly concerned to enable the Parliament, and the public, to be able to look beyond the proposed expenditure inputs as detailed in the annual Appropriation Bills to consider the underlying objectives of programs, the totality of their public funding-including funds provided through standing appropriations-and the results which are being achieved as a result of these expenditures. The adoption across the Service of program management and budgeting has been the vehicle for this fundamental change in focus. As part of the progressive introduction of program management and budgeting there has been regular consultation with Senators and staff servicing the Estimates Committees. Seminars have been held at which Senators have had the opportunity to discuss with officials implications for Explanatory Notes and the conduct of Committee hearings of the adoption by departments of a program management approach. I might mention that a further opportunity for such discussion is being provided for interested Senators on Thursday week. As a result of this process of consultation, substantial changes have been made to the format and content of portfolio Explanatory Notes. These documents are now structured on a program basis; they set out program and sub-program objectives and relate resource levels to program performance. While I think it is fair to say that the new style of Explanatory Notes improves the ability of the Parliament to analyse public expenditure, the changes are not without their problems. They do, for example, represent another basis for presentation of the budget figuring, and so increase the difficulty of maintaining consistency in the figures across all budget documentation. This problem has been highlighted as a result of the decision last year to link the Explanatory Notes more closely to the main body of budget documentation by classifying them as budget-related documents. Despite a considerable effort on the part of all concerned in the last Budget, it was not possible to eliminate inconsistencies between the information in Explanatory Notes and the other budget documents. To minimise this problem the deadline for lodg- ment of Explanatory Notes has been put back. The previous deadline meant that departments did not have access to the finalised budget documentation before they went to print with their Explanatory Notes. The later deadline will allow them to check their Explanatory Notes against the actual budget documentation. Such a move should lead to greater consistency of information, thereby facilitating the Senate's scrutiny of the Budget estimates. The revised deadline for Explanatory Notes is next Monday. I believe that this should provide Senators with adequate time to study Explanatory Notes prior to the commencement of Estimates Hearings. Senate adjourned at 7.57 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 157) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 16 December 1987: (1) To what extent does Telecom's ``Cabling on Private Properties-Interim Policy and Guidelines, September 1987'' (Reference 295/1/42) introduce new charges. (2) Is this policy to be implemented Australia wide. (3) Are the supplementary guidelines referred to in this policy, that set out the criteria for assessing charges to be levied on commercial developments for residential end use, available; if not (a) when will these guidelines be released, and (b) will they be made available to interested groups such as U.D.I.A. (4) In relation to paragraph 23.2.5 of this policy, (a) is Telecom's ``normal program'' for capital works pre-released, and (b) to what extent is the program constructed in liaison with both private and public planning authorities. (5) Where commercial developers undertaking subdivision for residential end use face a long wait for Telecom service, or could obtain more prompt service by payment of an additional charge, will the developers be entitled to undertake or sub contract this work themselves. (6) What steps are being taken to decrease the size of this waiting list. (7) In the case of capital contributions made by developers to enable their projects to ``jump the queue'', will part or all of this amount be refundable at a later date when the area involved would have been serviced under Telecom's ``normal program''. (8) Will such capital contribution from developers be required ``up-front'', or will it be possible for such payments to be deferred or paid on an interim basis. (9) Are these charges a result of the Government's decision to impose sales tax and customs duty on Telecom. (10) Given that this is an interim scheme: (a) when will this scheme be reviewed: and (b) what procedures will be implemented to regulate further increases of charges. (11) When was this scheme gazetted, or when will it be gazetted, in accordance with the Act. (12) Did Telecom in Western Australia indicate to developers that, if payment for cabling was not received, Telecom would advertise to potential home buyers that delays of up to 2 years would be inevitable in providing a first-home service and that buyers should check, before purchasing, to ensure that developers had provided for phone cabling. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from Telecom Australia, is as follows: (1) No new charges were introduced by Telecom's Interim Policy on Cabling of Private Property (September 1987). The policy ensures that charges are applied on a uniform basis. (2) Yes. (3) No. (a) Telecom is unable to advise a precise date. (b) Yes (4) (a) No. (b) Telecom advises that its works programs are based on continual surveys and resulting forecasts that consider customer needs and demands, and are obtained from a variety of internal and external sources. (5) No. (6) Telecom advises that it is continually endeavouring to meet the need of customers on new housing estates and it is facilitating this process through seeking a contribution from developers towards the costs involved. (7) No. The carrying out of work for developers who make capital contributions does not involve significant changes to Telecom's overall capital works program. (8) The capital contribution from developers is required by Telecom to be paid ``up-front''. (9) No. (10) (a) Telecom advises that, in line with normal practices it keeps it policies under constant review. (b) The revised regulatory arrangements which I announced on 25 May included procedures for regulating further increases of charges. (11) Telecom advises that it considers that the Interim Policy for Cabling of Private Property does not require gazettal. (12) Telecom advises that it did not make such a statement. It did indicate that there may be lengthy delays in providing services, and that buyers should always check with Telecom to establish when telephone services would be available to a new development. (Question No. 227) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Button —The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Nil. (2) Nil. (3) and (4) Not Applicable. (Question No. 316) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Service, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: (1) Since 11 July 1987, how many Senior Executive Service (SES) officers have become unattached within the Minister's area of portfolio responsibility, including statutory authorities, and of these: (a) how many were placed in substantive positions at their own level; (b) how many were placed in substantive positions below their substantive level; (c) how many were offered early retirement packages; (d) what was the mean value of the packages; (e) what was the age structure of these officers. (2) Since July 1987 how many administrative support other scientific and technical officers became unattached, and of these: (a) how many were placed in substantive positions at their own level; (b) how many were placed in substantive positions below their substantive level; (c) how many were offered early retirement packages; (d) what was the mean value of the packages; (e) what was the age structure of these officers. (3) What programs of retraining and redeployment are in place to usefully employ those permament officers still on the unattached, supernumerary and redundancy list. (4) What has been the net saving in SES and other positions in each portfolio/statutory authority since 11 July 1987. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) At the time of the formation of the Department of Administrative Services no SES officer automatically became unattached (some were already unattached for other reasons, e.g. extended leave of absence). The Department was subsequently reorganised. Those officers who occupied positions which had not changed in substance continued to occupy those positions. All other positions which were the subject of major restructuring were advertised which resulted in the unattachment of all those officers: there were 21 officers so affected therefore, in this context, the answers to the parts of Question 1 are: (a) 5. (b) None. (c) 4. (d) The mean value of the special entitlement given to officers is $48,869.25, based on 48 weeks salary in lieu. (e) ages of those who accepted early retirement packages were: 57, 58, 58, 61. (2) No. Administrative support, technical and scientific officers automatically became unattached as a result of the Machinery of Government changes of 11 July 1987. There has been a continuing process of significant restructuring and reorganisation throughout the Department since the Machinery of Government changes. However there is no identifiable pool of officers unattached as a result of these reorganisations. It is not practical to provide an accurate figure for the total number of staff who have become unattached for all reasons since July 1987. Positions, as such, are no longer a primary resource control point. Therefore, staff can be attached to a position and still be excess to requirements and vice-versa. As well, industrial and base-grade staff do not require positional cover. For this reason, centralised position details are not held for the portfolio. In the circumstances I am reluctant to authorise the time and expense involved in obtaining and collating the information. (a) Not available. (b) Nil. (c) Nil. (d) Not applicable. (e) Not applicable. (3) Where it has been necessary officers have been offered retraining in specific skills to enhance their redeployment; this included some placements in other areas on a temporary basis, including with private industry. The Department has set up a Redeployment Unit to assist in the placement of staff within the Department and to other agencies. (4) The net savings of SES positions in the Department since 11 July 1987 has been 15. In respect of positions below the SES it is not possible to give a definitive answer for a number of reasons including that a large number of staff are industrial with no positional cover. The Department's overall target for reduction in staff numbers in 1987-88 was set at 750. As at 30 June, 1988 the net saving so far achieved is 606 (comprising a reduction of 741, offset by an approved increase of 135 for new functions, or functions transferred from other portfolios). (Question No. 330) Senator Hill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 May 1988: (1) Have efficiency improvements amounting to over $100 million per annum been identified in the area of defence logistics; if so, which proportion of the $100 million saved will come from: (a) each Division or equivalent organisation within the Minister's Department; (b) each Service Office; and (c) other areas of his responsibility, giving details in each case. (2) What efficiency improvements are already in place. (3) What efficiency improvements are planned to be in place by the end of the 1987-88 financial year. (4) What (a) administrative, (b) organisational, or (c) procedural, changes are involved in present or planned efficiency improvements forming part of the $100 million figure. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: (1) Efficiency improvements designed to allow reallocation of more than $100m per annum to higher priority Defence areas are under study or in place-in some cases on a trial basis. Some of the suggested changes have been taken into account in offsets required as a result of ADF Second Tier pay increases. The approach adopted has involved identification of areas of potential savings; exploration of those areas; and then a decision to proceed, or not proceed, on the basis of that exploration. The list of logistic review projects varies as items are added to, or deleted from, the list. In many cases, efficiency improvements extend to more than one Service and impact to varying extents on Divisions within the Department. The emphasis so far has not been on allocating proportional savings to particular Services or Divisions. (2) Efficiency improvements introduced and in place include: savings in 1987-88 facilities expenditure to allow other new initiatives to proceed introduction of ADF Long Haulage Transport Service efficiency measures changes to food preparation and issue have been and are being introduced the department's civilianisation program is underway (this includes replacing about 300 Service warehousing positions with civilian positions) a trial of initial changes in fuel issue and control has commenced management of vehicle fleets is under review-initial savings by changing specifications and rationalising entitlements have already occurred phasing out of uneconomic Repair and Loan Stores has commenced arrangements have also been set in place for crediting Defence with 50% of the net proceeds of sales of facilities (up to a ceiling of $40m in sales p.a.) (3) See response to Question 2. (4) There is an expectation that substantial changes will be made in administrative and procedural arrangements, and some organisational changes are also envisaged. For example, a trial commenced on 1 July 1988 of changes in stores procurement arrangements involving, among other things, significant increases in delegations for Service officers and a shortening of the approval process. Other areas of administrative change are likely to involve the way Defence purchases and manages its vehicle holdings, the way fuel is purchased and managed, and the way in which, generally, Defence inventory management is conducted. The direction the Department is pursuing is towards reducing administrative and procedural impediments to more efficient and effective logistics management. It is expected that as other measures for improving efficiency in the Logistics area are identified, other opportunities for improving administrative, procedural and organisational arrangements will arise. (Question No. 359) Senator Newman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May 1988: (1) Are the Centurion tanks placed in storage on the introduction of the Leopard tanks still in storage; if so, (a) what is their present condition; and (b) what is their intended future. (2) Have any of the Centurion tanks been offered for sale; if so, (a) how many were sold; (b) to whom were they sold; and (c) on what basis was the decision to sell them made. (3) Is consideration being given, or has a decision been made, to sell the Centurions for scrap, if so, why. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The Centurion tanks have been in long term storage since 1978. (a) When placed in storage approximately 50% of the Main Battle tanks were serviceable with the remainder repairable. Tanks other than Main Battle tanks were classified repairable. (b) It is proposed that the tanks be offered for sale. (2) No formal tender documentation has yet been issued, although inquiries have been made to the Governments of overseas countries thought likely to be interested in their purchase. (a) No tanks have been sold to date (b) Not applicable (c) The decision to sell the tanks was made by the Government in the context of its 1987-88 budget considerations. (3) No decision has been taken to sell the tanks as scrap. However this is an option for consideration if other options, such as a sale to an acceptable Government, do not eventuate. (Question No. 382) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) Did the Minister say in an answer to Question on Notice No. 19 (see Weekly Senate Hansard, page 77), that the ``US Department of Defense has advised us that `the US Navy's Sea Systems Command does not run a project named GOLDFINGER, and nor have the US Navy or Australian defence authorities knowledge of such a project' ''. (2) Is the Minister aware that according to Jane's Information Group in the United States, `GOLDFINGER' is a highly classified US Navy Project . . . ' and that it is included in the DMS Code Name handbook: `GOLDFINGER-A NAVSEA study involving ocean surveillance information management'. (3) Has the Minister: (a) been misled by the US Government, or (b) misled the Parliament; if not, why not. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. I would note that the DMS Code name directory is not an official publication of the US Government. (3) The US Department of Defense has reaffirmed that the United States Navy is not involved in any project code named GOLDFINGER and I can confirm that Australia does not participate in any project of that name. (Question No. 397) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 31 May 1988: (1) Did the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hear a dispute between the Australian Capital Territory (A.C.T.) Firefighters' Association and the Department of the Capital Territory in 1975. (2) Was there at that time doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with the dispute, as the Firefighters' Association was unregistered. (3) Have certain employees of the A.C.T. Fire Brigade (Service Maintenance Section) been disadvantaged, either financially or in terms of seniority and promotion, as a result of decisions handed down in 1975; if so, to what degree have these persons been disadvantaged. (4) Will the Minister re-open the award hearings so as to ensure justice for some twelve persons incorrectly employed in the Service Maintenance Section. (5) What other steps will the Minister take to rectify this situation. Senator Button —The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) On 6 March 1975 the then Minister for the Capital Territory notified the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (the Commission) of the existence of an industrial dispute between himself (not the Department of Capital Territory) and the A.C.T. Firefighters' Association (the Association) over terms and conditions of employment of officers and firefighters employed in the A.C.T. firefighting industry and in relation to a ban based on minimum manning of firefighting appliances. The matter came before Commissioner Brack on 26 March 1975. (2) It became evident early in proceedings that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute between the Minister and the Association. This was for two reasons: firstly, the Association was not an organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, and as an unregistered association, could not be a party to a dispute or a respondent to an award of the Commission; secondly, at that time, the members of the Association were not employed by the Minister but by the N.S.W. Board of Fire Commissioners, therefore, there was no employer/employee relationship between the Minister and the firefighters on which to found the jurisdiction of the Commission. The following arrangements were made to overcome the jurisdictional obstacle: a District Officer in the A.C.T. Fire Brigade (the Brigade) joined the Federal Firefighters' Union (F.F.U.); on 14 May 1975 the Minister and the F.F.U. served logs of claims on each other; those claims dealt with the same matters as were in dispute between the Minister and the Association. The Commission subsequently found a dispute between the Minister and the F.F.U. A decision on that dispute was handed down by Commissioner Brack on 1 September 1975 and the events leading up to that point are set out in some detail in the decision (Print C7191). (3) The only relevant decision which has been identified and which was handed down by the Commission in 1975 was that of Commissioner Brack on 1 September 1975, referred to in (2). The Award made (the Fire Brigade Employees (A.C.T.) Award 1975) was not intended to apply to staff of the Service Maintenance Section of the Brigade. Commissioner Brack took the view that the two positions then in the Section were not part of the fire service and the men then employed there were not in the Brigade. Although the F.F.U. appealed against certain aspects of the Award made by Commissioner Brack, the appeal did not include the issue of non-application of the Award to the staff of the Service Maintenance Section or the validity of the Award. In January 1976, the then A.C.T. Fire Commissioner appointed the staff of the Service Maintenance Section to the Brigade. On 18 June 1976, the Fire Brigade Service Maintenance Section (A.C.T.) Agreement was made between the Fire Commissioner and the F.F.U. It formally established the terms and conditions of employment of the staff of the Service Maintenance Section. In the period between the establishment of the A.C.T. Fire Brigade and their appointment to the Brigade, the terms and conditions of employment of staff of the Service Maintenance Section were covered by the NSW Fire Service Maintenance and Hose Repair Award, an award of the NSW Industrial Commission. In July 1986, pay adjustments were made retrospectively to January 1976, for two former Service Maintenance Section employees in recognition of a technical deficiency in their appointments to the Brigade. These adjustments brought to parity with Brigade day workers (firefighters) all relevant Award terms and conditions of employment. From December 1983, all Service Maintenance Section employees have enjoyed the same terms and conditions. The Fire Brigade (Administration) Ordinance 1974, and the Regulations thereto, sets out the requirements for promotion in the Brigade. Since the Ordinance and the Regulations do not apply to Service Maintenance Section employees (they are not members of the Brigade as specified in the Ordinance), they are therefore not eligible for promotion as firefighters. The matter of seniority is only a Brigade consideration in respect of promotion and higher duties. Seniority derives from the Regulations and is a direct consequence of passing examinations for promotion. It cannot be considered therefore that the Service Maintenance Section employees were disadvantaged in these respects. (4) The Minister has no power to re-open the Award hearings, even if that were thought necessary or desirable. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 makes no provision for such a procedure. Section 36a of the Act empowers the Minister to apply to the Commission for a review of an award made by the Commission or of a decision to certify a memorandum under section 28 of the Act, but such an application must be made within 21 days of the date of the award or decision to which it relates. (5) None are appropriate.