Wednesday, 24 August 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I advise honourable senators that I have received a request from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to film Question Time this afternoon. Question Time in the House of Representatives was filmed yesterday and it is proposed to broadcast an edited version of the two films on the national network tomorrow at 10.50 p.m. Having received the views of the party leaders on this matter, I have approved the filming of Question Time today. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that . . . 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The ``joint U.S.-Australian'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the ``Joint Australian-U.S.'' Electronic Communication Facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 64 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: the gold mining industry is a vibrant expanding industry which provides employment for many Australians; the gold mining industry provides valuable export income which contributes to a stronger balance of trade and Australian dollar, and thus a higher standard of living for all Australians; the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining represents a threat to an industry which is vital to Australia's future; and we call on the Federal Government to withdraw its proposal for a tax on gold. As in duty bound you petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 18 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 radio and television service That the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia That the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senators Childs (from 3,240 citizens) and Maguire (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 respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 520 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, Caesium-137, Caesium-134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government ban the importation of any radio-active substances or machinery for the purpose of food irradiation, disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia, and ban the irradiation of food in this country. We also call upon the Federal Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 89 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: 1. They are concerned that in the Tuggeranong Valley area of the A.C.T., no non-government schools have Year 11 and 12 places. 2. They want the new Catholic secondary school to be built at Isabella Plains to go to Year 12. The petitioners request that the Senate in parliament assembled ensure that adequate resources are provided by the Government to allow Year 11 and 12 places to be provided at the Catholic Secondary School at Isabella Plains in accordance with the Government's commitment to a dual system of education and greater school retention to Year 12. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 157 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 111 citizens) and Reid (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The people of the North Canberra Community would like to have a community skateboard ramp built in the old North Canberra area. There are keen skateboarders in the area and at present they have to catch four buses to use the Woden facility, which is expensive, time consuming, and too dangerous a trip for the younger children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 106 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That in the suburbs of Higgins and Holt there are a number of skateboard riders. Being teenagers they are not fully appreciative of the consequences of riding upon footpaths, roadways and shopping centre open areas. To avoid a fatality or a serious injury occurring, we the petitioners seek the construction of a skateboard area in the parkland boarded by Mockeridge, Eaves, Cazaly, Griffin and Beaurepaire roadways in the suburb of Holt. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 94 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 Watson (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 pharmaceutical drugs, including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat, and place them for cost saving reasons only on a special list requiring authority from a Canberra bureaucrat, and that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to waste valuable time referring a case to a person in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Calvert (from 165 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 out rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. 3. our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke Government which give more power to the Government and less to the people which concentrate that power in Canberra at the expense of the States and weaken the role of the Senate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 235 citizens.) To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that Australia is one nation which comprises people from many different racial and cultural backgrounds; that a Treaty with one of these peoples-the Aborigines-would be divisive and would be equivalent to the setting up of a separate nation; that a Treaty could lead to the introduction of a national system of land rights; that we are totally opposed to the signing of a Treaty with the Aboriginal people. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 254 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Federal Government decision to ban future development in 80% of the Helsham inquiry area and rob Tasmanians of hundreds of jobs in the forest and associated industries is wholly unacceptable. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the Federal Government abide by the majority decision of the Helsham inquiry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 127 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows a request for Medicare benefits for in vitro fertilisation for the medical treatment of infertile couples. Your petitioners pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled grant Medicare benefits for in vitro fertilisation, IVF, for the medical treatment of infertile couples. 1 in 10 Australian couples are infertile and unable to conceive and carry a baby to birth. Having a family is one of the most fundamental and rewarding aspects of life and benefits the community as a whole. IVF is an established and proven treatment for infertility. There are existing mechanisms to regulate and control IVF, including the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. Currently IVF patients pay up to $1500 per treatment cycle for IVF out of their own pockets. This means that some couples who need IVF to help them establish their own family do not have access. We request that Medicare funding be granted for IVF for the treatment of infertility, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 22 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. We your petitioners do humbly request that the Government. redirects overseas aid programs to the poorest communities, countries and regions increases overseas aid, as a percentage of G.N.P., to achieve the United Nations target of 0.7%, and restores funding to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Australia stands disgraced internationally. Despite global recessionary trends no other Western country has cut foreign aid to the same degree. The Development Assistance Committee of OECD has expressed regret at Australia's drastic cuts and urged it to resume real increases in aid. Of 141 member countries Australia is the only one to withdraw support from IFAD. by Senator Watson (from 95 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That it be recognised the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill is a public, legal acknowledgement that Australians who are non-aboriginal do not have sovereignty in their own country. 2. That the Australian people are opposed to the idea of a treaty, compact or makarrata between the Australian people who are non-aboriginal and those who are aboriginal, and the Government has no mandate or authority to pursue it. 3. That the proposed legislation and treaty- will damage Australia's position under international law and in any conflict, will cause distrust and conflict between our aboriginal population (1%) and the non- aboriginal population (99%), will extend aboriginal land rights, contrary to the wishes of the Australian people, will not be acceptable to the aboriginal people themselves, will solve none of the problems of aboriginal people who need housing, health services, education and employment. That, therefore, the Senate reject absolutely the announced proposals for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill, and the negotiation of a treaty, compact or makarrata between the Commonwealth and aboriginal people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 28 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) acknowledging the historic action of the Holt Government, with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor Party, in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia policy, and (b) recognising further that since 1973, successive Labor and Liberal/National Party Governments have, with bipartisan support, pursued a racially non-discriminatory immigration policy to the overwhelming national, and international, benefit of Australia, gives its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian Governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, six sitting days after today, I shall move: No. 1-That the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan (Amendment), Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan (Repeal), as contained in Plan of Management No. 16 of 11 April 1988 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952, be disallowed. No. 2-That the South East Trawl Fishery Preliminary Management Plan as Amended, as contained in Plan of Management No. 17 of 11 April 1988 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952, be disallowed. No. 3-That the Southern Shark Fishery Management Plan, as contained in Plan of Management No. 18 of 19 April 1988 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —During the winter recess the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances wrote to various Ministers concerning certain delegated legislation which we have been considering. A number of ministerial replies have been received and, in order to allow the Committee proper opportunity to examine the replies, I have given these protective notices of motion on this, the last day on which I could do so. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the list of instruments with a short description of the Committee's concerns. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan (Amendment), Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan (Repeal) as contained in Plan of Management No. 16 of 11 April 1988 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952. (Made 11.4.88, tabled 10.5.88, last day to give notice 24.8.88) The Committee has raised with the Minister a number of points concerning (i) the presentation of the Plan of Management in a photocopied style; (ii) a number of typographical errors in the Plan; and (iii) the apparent conferral of discretionary powers on officials when such discretions may not have been intended. South East Trawl Fishery Preliminary Management Plan as amended as contained in Plan of Management No. 17 of 11 April 1988 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952. (Made 11.4.88, tabled 10.5.88, last day to give notice 24.8.88) This Plan of Management appears to have created, by the wording in a number of paragraphs, a discretionary flexibility for certain officials. These discretionary provisions do not appear to be subject to review and the Committee sought direction from the Minister as to whether review rights existed. A number of presentational and drafting inconsistencies were brought to the Minister's notice in relation to the Plan of Management being produced in a ``loose leaf'' format. The Committee further sought information from the Minister as to which section of the Fisheries Act applied in safeguarding the right of review of a decision by an official concerning the endorsement of a licence. Southern Shark Fishery Management Plan as contained in Plan of Management No. 18 of 19 April 1988 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952. (Made 19.4.88, tabled 10.5.88, last day to give notice 24.8.88) In connection with this Plan of Management, the Committee sought a response from the Minister in relation to the use of a document by Department Officials indicating criteria upon which decisions were to be based. The Committee's concern related to the fact that the document was not subject to disallowance by the Parliament. The Committee also sought clarification concerning a number of paragraphs which were drafted as if to confer discretions on the Minister or officials without the necessary review rights to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being provided for within the Plan of Management. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, nine sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Fisheries Notice entitled `Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery-Quota Requirements' as contained in Fisheries Notice No. 170A and made on 12 April 1988 under the Fisheries Act 1952, be disallowed. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the similarity of the proposed constitutional change regarding freedom of religion with its United States (US) Bill of Rights counterpart; (b) calls on the Government to deny that court challenges in the US have ruled against prayer, religious education and other forms of religious expression or practice in public schools; and (c) condemns without reservation the Government's attempt to amend our Constitution so as to facilitate such challenges in Australian courts. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Legislation Procedures, be appointed to inquire into and report upon: (a) the referral of Bills introduced into the Senate to committees for examination of the provisions of the bills; (b) the allocation of one day each sitting week for meetings of committees to consider Bills; and (c) any changes to: (i) procedures of the Senate; (ii) the structure of committees of the Senate; and (iii) procedures of committees, to facilitate the referral of Bills to committees, the consideration of Bills by committees and the consequent expediting of Senate consideration of Bills. I ask that the provisions governing that Committee be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- (2) That the Committee consist of six Senators, as follows: (a) three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (3) That the Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government. (5) That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (6) That, in the event of the votes on any question before the Committee being equally divided, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (7) That the quorum of the Committee be three members. (8) That the Committee meet in private session and may meet during the sittings of the Senate. (9) That the Committee report to the Senate by 1 December 1988. (10) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the erosion of States' rights under proposed changes to the Australian Constitution to be put to the Australian voter on 3 September 1988; (b) calls on the Government to `come clean' on its motives for reducing the ability of the Senate to act as a State's house and an independent House of Review and also its motives for denying the voters within a State to have a say in how their State Government is to be elected; and (c) condemns the Government for its historic and ever-increasing trend of usurping the rights and abilities of our State Parliaments to serve their constituents. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the Government's failure to provide any allocation in the 1988-89 Australian Capital Territory Budget for the reconstruction of Royal Canberra Hospital, particularly when the Government has announced the need for the reconstruction and had plans for a $130 million reconstruction drawn up; and (b) recalls, in particular, the suffering and discomfort of those patients of Royal Canberra Hospital who, last summer, endured extreme temperatures, with no air-conditioning, and condemns the Government for its failure to respond to this need of the Canberra community. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the Government's embarrassment at a recent Business Council of Australia's statement that the Council no longer supports 4 year terms as proposed in the 3 September 1988 referendum to change our Constitution; (b) notes also that this statement, together with opposition to 4 year terms from the Australian Small Business Association and State Chambers of Commerce around the country, give little credence to the Government's claim of strong support from the business community; and (c) condemns the Government for misrepresenting the `yes' case to all households by stressing the support of the business community, which it patently does not have. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Government's Budget will increase sales tax collections by 14.4 per cent this year or almost 3 times its forecast inflation rate, double the rise forecast for private consumption spending and even faster than the huge rise of $5.7 billion in personal income tax; (b) further notes that this year's sales tax rise of more than $1,000 million will lift what is the Hawke Government's main consumption tax to $8,600 million, two and a half times higher than under the Fraser Government, despite repeated Hawke promises that he would not introduce a consumption tax; (c) further notes that in 6 years of Hawke Government its 147 per cent rise in sales tax is 3 times the rate of inflation and hits hardest on lower income earners, particularly families with young children who are consumers of orange juice, ice cream, flavoured milk and snack foods on which this Government has, for the first time ever, imposed a consumption tax; and (d) finally notes that sales tax in 1988-89 will make up 10 per cent of total Government revenue, compared with only about 6 per cent under Fraser, and provides yet another major hidden attack on the pockets of all Australians, particularly those women who suffer from the impact of huge rises in sales tax on their weekly shopping bills. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that this Government has already implemented the referendum question on freedom of religion by using discriminatory measures against churches and religious groups that will prevent them from using the new Parliament House, the criteria used to assess suitability of organisations states that a particular church holding a religious or ecclesiastical function in the building may offend other religious groups or secularists; (b) condemns the Government for putting Australia on the path to the American style `freedom from religion' rather than `freedom of religion'; (c) thanks the Government for giving Australians a clear warning of what will happen in the future should the referendum question dealing with freedom of religion be passed; and (d) gives notice to churches and church leaders that their exclusion from Parliament House is only the thin edge of the wedge if referendum question No. 4, relating to freedom of religion, is carried on 3 September 1988. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that today's press reports the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, the Most Reverend Dr David Penman, as publicly joining the `no' lobby for the 3 September 1988 referendum question on freedom of religion, adding to recent statements made by Catholic bishops who also oppose this change to our Constitution; (b) condemns the Government for proposing a `freedom of religion' question to which there is so much outspoken opposition from major church leaders; and (c) queries whether, in light of such opposition, the Government has chosen not to consider or consult with the Australian people in forging a hidden agenda for secular republicanism. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the proposed changes to the Constitution in the 3 September 1988 referendum will require a frightening 2,341 word changes to the most fundamental document of our nation; (b) notes further that these proposed constitutional changes exceed the total of all previous word changes from 8 proposals by 140 per cent; (c) questions whether the Government will use all these word and clause changes to the same political advantage as they have used only 2 words of the present Constitution-`external affairs'-to restrict State rights, impose international treaties to enforce world heritage listing, and to overall massively increase Canberra's centralist powers; and (d) condemns the Government for placing excessive additional amounts of power in the hands of the High Court, an unelected body. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the four referendum questions to be put to the Australian people on 3 September 1988 will result in 33 changes to the Australian Constitution, with the addition of 20 new clauses, the repeal of 9 existing clauses and alteration of another 4 clauses-effectively the equivalent of over 25 per cent of the Constitution as it stands at present; (b) condemns the Government for attempting to hoodwink the Australian people into massive constitutional changes without detailing the far reaching consequences of these changes; and (c) calls on the Government to justify squashing so many Constitutional changes into four simple questions, since by the Government's own admission, this is our most precious document. 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. Government Response to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration's further Report on Non-statutory Bodies. 2. Australian National University-Annual Report 1987-together with the Auditor-General's Report-sub-section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946. 3. Toomelah Report-Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report on the Problems and Needs of Aborigines Living on the NSW-Queensland Border-section 46 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. 4. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Annual Report 1987-section 43a of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977. 5. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Report detailing Determinations Made Under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 in respect of the 1985-87 Triennium-pursuant to section 55 of the Act. 6. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Annual Report 1986-87-Corrigenda to the Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987-section 28 of the Broadcasting Act 1942. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I seek leave to have the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration's further report on non-statutory bodies incorporated in Hansard. Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order. I did not hear a word of what was said. I think that we should be provided with hearing aids and binoculars. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Evans to repeat what he said. Adjustments are being made to the audio system. I will ignore the request for binoculars. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to have the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration's further report on non-statutory bodies incorporated in Hansard. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I understand, from discussions with my back bench, that there are quite serious auditory problems in this chamber. As I understand it, honourable senators at the other end were still unable to hear the request for leave. Clearly, that is quite significant. I know that we are now dealing with very technical matters at this stage of the day's proceedings, but I gather that I cannot be heard down the other end of the chamber either. Senator Haines —That is not a disadvantage. Senator Chaney —It is nice to know that the Leader of the Australian Democrats is sharper than her colleagues and can hear enough to be insulting as I speak. Mr President, this is not merely a technical matter. Honourable senators are entitled to hear what a request for leave is about. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will bellow it. I seek leave to have the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration's further report on non-statutory bodies incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION'S FURTHER REPORT ON NON-STATUTORY BODIES On 18 May 1988, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration tabled a report on Non-statutory Bodies (NSBs), further to a report of August 1986 by its predecessor, the Finance and Government Operations Committee. The Government responded to the earlier report in December 1987, agreeing that information regarding NSBs should be made available but announcing that the information would be provided in annual reports rather than in a central register as well as in annual reports as the Committee had recommended. The Government's response also excluded some classes of bodies from those which were to be subject to the new requirements. In its further report, the Committee has again argued for a central register and objected to some of the exclusions. It needs to be emphasised, first of all, that information regarding NSBs is to be made available. This Government had already increased the accountability of other kinds of public agencies; when it turned its attention to NSBs its decisions were consistent with the record it had established for open administration and effective reform. In questioning the effectiveness of having information provided only in annual reports, the Committee says it found that roughly one third of departments had not explicitly included lists of NSBs in 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 reports, although such lists were even then required. The Government is concerned that all agencies should meet annual reporting requirements. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet wrote to all departments on 29 February 1988 asking them to ensure compliance with the new requirements regarding NSBs and to draw those requirements to the attention of other agencies in the respective portfolios. There is also a reference to requirements for information about NSBs in the guidelines which departments are statutorily obliged to follow in preparing their annual reports. Any difficulty there might be in tracking down reports of NSBs will be significantly reduced by the requirement that parent bodies, in their annual reports, list any NSBs of theirs which produce their own annual reports, showing to whom they are presented and whether they are tabled in the Parliament or made public in any other way. This requirement was written into the Government's response to Recommendation 16 of the 1986 report. As well as reiterating its advocacy of a central register, the Committee has considered the question of whether it would prefer such a register to be current (that is, continuously updated) or annual. It decided in favour of a current register, even though Professor Hood, the outside expert whom it consulted and whose opinions it cites as authority for its own, is reported only to have `inclined to the idea of a register updated and published annually'. A current central register would be a trap, creating expectations of reliability but never truly current; liable, rather, to dangerous inaccuracies, as the central compiling agency would be dependent on other agencies for information and those agencies would be removed from direct responsibility for the accuracy and currency of information appearing in the register. In these circumstances, it would take constant intensive effort on the part of the central agency to achieve anything approaching accuracy and currency. This is not to say that the central agencies simply cannot be bothered to make the necessary effort, preferring instead to abdicate their responsibilities. In the first place, when we talk about effort we are talking about resources; in the second, no agency should undertake a task that could be handled better by others; and in the third, detailed information about NSBs is to be made available. The Government has clearly and consistently shown that its responses on the subject of NSBs have been based on considerations of economy and efficiency and accountability. To sacrifice any one of these criteria would be irresponsible. In relation to an annual register, supplementary to annual reports, there is nothing to be added to the Prime Minister's comments in paragraph 5 of his letter of 11 February 1988 (reproduced entirely in the Committee's report): Given that . . . some information at least will need to be provided in annual reports, the Government decided to avoid the duplication and waste of resources that the creation of a central register would entail. In reaching this decision, the fact was borne in mind that your Committee and other people wishing to examine NSBs would need to consult a collection of annual reports anyway, whether or not a register also existed. The sensible decision in the circumstances was to make annual reports the comprehensive source of information. The Government believes that the requirement to provide information in annual reports will be effective. In fact, annual reports will be more reliable than a central register would be, as responsibility for the accuracy of information they contain will rest directly with the source of the information. The new arrangements will significantly increase the usefulness of annual reports, including their usefulness to agencies such as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which, as Senator Coates has observed, need to be able to draw on information about NSBs in preparing advice for the Government. Finally, in relation to the classes of bodies excluded from coverage by the new requirements, it should be observed that separate reporting requirements apply to government companies. Information regarding Royal Commissions is already available in the annual reports of the Department which services them (formerly the Department of the Special Minister of State, now the Department of Administrative Services). The activities of other excluded classes are most appropriately reported in the context of reports of the activities of their parent bodies. The PRESIDENT —I point out to all honourable senators that in the recess there were two trial operations in this chamber. In one of those trial operations the sound system failed completely. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been asked to rectify the problems. I can assure honourable senators that some of the ones we found in the trial sittings have been rectified. All I can say is that we are working on the problem. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs: The employment of disabled persons, with particular reference to: (a) current employment prospects of disabled persons and how this situation has changed over recent years; and (b) the effectiveness of Government and private programs to offer improved employment prospects to disabled persons and their impact on the provision of services to disabled persons. Motion (by Senator Puplick)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 2 standing in my name for this day, for the disallowance of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration (as contained in Declaration No. PB3 of 1988), be postponed till 10 sitting days after today. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the days of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this period of sittings be as follows: 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. Motion (by Senator Short) agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Short) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In so moving, I indicate that I will be making my second reading speech on the resumption of the debate. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Short) agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Short) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In so moving, I indicate that I will be making my second reading speech on the resumption of the debate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Michael Baume) agreed to: That the Senate- (a) directs that the cappuccino machine be relocated from the existing staff cafeteria to the new staff cafeteria in the new and permanent Parliament House; and (b) notes that the Australian Democrats refused to allow a petition along these lines to be presented to the Senate. The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1988 Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1988 Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills: Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Civil Aviation Bill 1988 Social Security Amendment Bill 1988 Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988 Audit Amendment Bill 1988 Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988 Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988 Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988 Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988 Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) 1988 The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Dunn nominating herself to be a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Dunn, having been duly nominated in accordance with the provisions of standing orders 36aa, be appointed as a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Motion (by Senator Short, at the request of Senator Chaney)-by leave-proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.28) —Until this point I have listened attentively, so far as that is possible in this chamber, to what has been said. I have listened to leave being sought and I have not intervened. I was not consulted about the fact that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 was going to be considered today cognately with Senator Short's Bill. Although I agree with that procedure, I believe I am entitled to put persons on notice that I will in future refuse leave unless I am consulted and unless I feel others also have been consulted about the process. I do not believe it is appropriate for only the Government and the Opposition to determine the procedures that are to be followed in this chamber. It is important that other honourable senators recognise that there are here senators other than those from the major parties and that they represent persons, electors in the electorate. As a matter of courtesy to those electors, not to me or to the representatives here, it is important that consultation take place beforehand. I acknowledge the very good consultations that took place in the old chamber. I have noticed that those consultations have not taken place in this chamber. I raised this matter yesterday with a Government source and the indication was that there were great distances to be travelled in this Parliament. I know that, as I have a sore knee, like many people, from trying to walk various distances in this Parliament. Nevertheless, one is on the telephone and one would have thought that it would have been desirable for everyone to have been consulted on this matter. I do not reflect at all on Senator Short, because he of all people is one of the first to consult others when moving in this regard. I simply use this occasion to indicate to anybody that may be listening to what I am saying in this chamber that I intend to refuse leave in future unless consultations have taken place. Senator Patterson —Mr President, I take a point of order. Could you ask honourable senators to lean forward into their microphones when speaking? I am very conscious of Hansard now doing contortions to hear honourable senators speaking at the other end of the chamber. If we all make an effort to lean forward, it may assist until the sound system is corrected. The PRESIDENT —The sound system should work without honourable senators having to lean into the microphones. There seems to be a time delay. I hope that we are in a position to make a statement on it before Question Time today, which is to be televised. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.31) —Before I move my motion, I say in response to Senator Harradine that I was not aware that there had not been consultations. To the extent that I was guilty in that respect, I apologise. At the request of Senator Chaney, I move: That, when next the Order of the Day for the resumption of debate on the motion for the second reading of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 is called on, the General Business Order of the Day relating to the consideration of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-papers) Amendment Bill 1988 shall be called on at the same time, that Bill shall be considered together with the Government Bill at every stage, and the questions for the remaining stages for the passage of the Bills shall be put separately in respect of each Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.32) —Mr President, I do not have a copy of the Bill. I have not seen a copy of the Bill. I am not sure how I am supposed to speak on the Bill straight after Senator Short has spoken when I have not even seen a copy of it. It is an extraordinary situation. We have the Standing Orders. We have the propositions before us. I have a copy of a Bill called the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Fair Questions) Amendment Bill 1988, but I do not have a copy of any other Bill, the Bill to which I presume Senator Short was alluding. As a result, I indicate that I will certainly be moving that this debate be adjourned at the appropriate time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Bill be now read a second time. Debate resumed. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.33) —We are now debating two Bills, one Bill introduced by the Government through Senator Ray, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988, the purpose of which Bill is to allow for the appointment of scrutineers by registered political parties at the forthcoming referendums on 3 September. The second Bill we are debating is a Bill introduced by me, namely, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-Papers) Amendment Bill, which is designed to put beyond doubt the question of what method of voting is formal and what is informal at the forthcoming referendum. I will deal firstly with the Government's Bill. In doing so, I welcome Senator Ray's proposal to amend the scrutineer provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. This Bill will give each registered political party as defined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act the right to appoint one scrutineer during the voting and one during the count at each polling booth. Only because the Opposition raised with the Australian Electoral Commission our desire to have scrutineers at the referendums on 3 September has this provision of the existing Act come to serious attention. Several weeks ago we raised with the Electoral Commission the question of how scrutineers would be appointed for the referendums. It was only then that it was discovered that the existing provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act were archaic and had been in the Act for 70 years or more. To our knowledge and, as I understand it, to the knowledge of the Government, the provisions have never been called upon when referendums have been held independently of general elections. Section 27 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act provides for the appointment of scrutineers for the hours of the poll to be made only by the Governor-General and the Governors of the States-and in the case of the Northern Territory, of course, by the Administrator. Similarly, section 89 of the Act relates to scrutineers being appointed for the period of counting of the referendum votes. Again, only the Governor-General and the Governors of the States are enabled by the Act to appoint scrutineers. When we approached the Australian Electoral Commission about this matter, those provisions and the major practical difficulty in implementing them-to enable the political parties to appoint scrutineers for either the poll or the counting of votes at the referendums-came to light. We believe that scrutineers are absolutely essential for referendums such as the forthcoming ones on 3 September. There are several reasons for that. There are four questions on the ballot paper for the 3 September referendums, all of which will require a careful validity check. There are numerous combinations of answers to the four questions that could be given. So far as the parties involved are concerned, for the count to be conducted without scrutineers would be extraordinarily difficult. The present provisions, as I have said, are archaic and not workable in the present situation, when we believe scrutineers are essential. It is important that the provisions relating to scrutineers be attended to so that they can come into effect in time for the September referendums. The Opposition supports several aspects of the Bill but would seek to amend it essentially with procedural changes. It does appear that the Bill, as presently drafted, would enable only one scrutineer to be appointed for the period of the poll and only for each polling centre for the period of counting. It would be very difficult for a political party to have only one scrutineer, if there were several counting tables. One of my amendments, which I have circulated and with which I will deal briefly in the committee stage, is designed to cover that. Also, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill as presently drafted enables only the registered officer or his deputy from a registered political party to do the appointing of the scrutineers. We suggest that that is a little restrictive and that they ought to be able to appoint nominees to in turn appoint the scrutineers. There was also one other technical aspect, which would enable the rotation of scrutineers during the 10 hours that the poll is open for voting. These amendments essentially are procedural and I hope the Government will not have difficulties with them. I have circulated those amendments and I will address them, as I have said, in the committee stage. More importantly, I would like to deal with the issue of informal ballot papers. That provision is dealt with in the Bill that I have introduced, namely, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot Papers) Bill. The purpose of that Bill is to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to make it unequivocal that the only valid vote at a referendum is one which has either the word `Yes' or the word `No' standing alone in the space provided on the ballot paper. The Australian Electoral Commission, acting on the advice of the Attorney-General's Department, has ruled that certain combinations of ticks and crosses will be allowed as valid or formal votes at the forthcoming referendums. Certain other combinations will not be allowed as formal votes. This will be the first time that ticks and crosses have ever been accepted as formal votes at referendums. We believe that the instructions and advice that the Australian Electoral Commission has received in relation to which ticks and crosses and combinations of those will be granted as formal or informal is, whether intentionally or not, very heavily biased in favour of the Yes vote at the forthcoming referendum. The advice that the Attorney-General's Department has provided is in response to a sample package of nine possible combinations of yeses and noes and ticks and crosses that the Electoral Commission submitted to the Attorney-General's Department for an advising. Of the combination of the nine sample proposals that were submitted for an advising, there were 11 ticks and 13 crosses. The Electoral Commission has received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that, in that case, all of the 11 ticks would be regarded as valid or formal votes of a yes nature. In other words, 11 ticks equal 11 yes votes. Of the 13 crosses that were submitted for advising, only five would have been accepted as a formal no vote and the remaining eight-well over 50 per cent-would have been regarded as an informal vote. Instructions to give effect to the advising of the Attorney-General's Department have now been included in the guidelines that the Australian Electoral Commission has sent to polling booth officials for the referendum. We believe that that is totally incorrect and that the Act ought to be amended so that it is unequivocal that formal votes can only be those votes which have a yes vote clearly recorded in the square provided. Section 24 of the existing Act states: The voting at a referendum shall be by ballot and each elector shall indicate his vote- (a) If he approves the proposed law-by writing the word `Yes' in the space provided on the ballot-paper; or (b) If he does not approve the proposed law-by writing the word `No' in the space so provided. That sounds clear and unequivocal, but there is another section of the Act, namely, section 93 which, amongst other things, states: Effect shall be given to a ballot-paper of a voter according to the voter's intention, so far as his intention is clear. Various court cases have suggested that the wording of the Act as it is presently framed permits certain methods of voting on the ballot paper other than an unequivocal yes or no to be regarded as formal votes. There is a great deal of confusion in the community as to what constitutes a formal vote, particularly in light of the instructions that have now been issued to polling booth officials by the Australian Electoral Commission. An enormous number of queries have been received by my office about this matter. I know that all other senators and members have also received queries. However, there is not only confusion but also a great deal of concern because of the apparently biased nature of the outcome. As I say, whether that is intentional or otherwise is a matter that I will not debate here. The whole purpose of referendums is to allow Australians to have the chance to have their say on questions on which Parliament believes it cannot make a decision without a specific Australian voters' mandate. The whole purpose of referendums is to effect constitutional change. In that sense the voter's intention must be indisputably clear. This is not the case when ticks or crosses are accepted as formal votes. The issue was first raised in the 1984 referendums when the Australian Electoral Commission was anticipating the prospect of a heavy write-in on the ballot papers. There were two questions and the dams case in Tasmania was running very strongly. The Commission was anticipating a very heavy no-dams write-in on the ballot papers. As a result of that, it sought advice from the Attorney-General's Department on that issue. It also sought advice on various other possible combinations of answers that might be provided. It submitted a number of samples on this to the Attorney-General's Department. One of the six samples at that time concerned ticks and crosses. In 1984 the Attorney-General's Department advice that ticks or crosses constituted formal votes when taken together arrived only two days before the referendum and it was too late to be taken into account. As a result of that and other related matters, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform had the matter referred to it by the Australian Electoral Commission and in 1986 that Joint Select Committee recommended that the Act should be amended to `clearly provide that only unequivocal yes and no answers should be regarded as formal'. That was a unanimous recommendation and subsequently all parties in this Parliament agreed to that. An attempt was made to resolve the matter earlier this year when the Government introduced various amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, one of which was intended to reflect the unanimous recommendation, which I have just mentioned, of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The proposition that came to us was, in the view of the Opposition and in the view of the Australian Democrats, technically flawed because in our view it did not fully reflect the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. As a result of that we, with the support of the Democrats, rejected that proposition when it was voted on, as it was rushed through in the dying hours of the last session. What we have proposed in the Bill now before the Senate is a form of words which, in our view, once and for all settles the issues of contention not only in relation to ticks and crosses but also in relation to any other markings that may be on the ballot paper. The intention-and I think the drafting achieves this-is to make it unequivocal that, in future, only a yes or a no written in the space provided on the ballot paper will constitute a formal vote. I reject completely the claims that have been made by the Government and the Electoral Commissioner-and by others-that this problem has arisen simply because, for some reason, the Opposition and the Democrats were bloody minded in terms of their rejection of the Government's proposal back in May and June. I reject that completely because, as I said at that time, the Government's proposal was technically flawed and indeed the debate surrounding that issue at the time did not revolve around the question of ticks and crosses at all. The debate was concerned with other issues even though ticks and crosses were caught up in that matter. We are proposing an addition to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to add a further subclause to section 93 of the Act to say that, so far as ascertaining the voter's intention is concerned, regard shall not be had to any ticks, crosses or other symbols but regard shall be had only to the word `Yes' or `No' standing alone in the space provided on the ballot paper. The advising that the Attorney-General's Department gave to the Australian Electoral Commission is, in our view, very questionable. It said, as I have already said, that there were various combinations of ticks or crosses that would be regarded as formal votes and others that would be regarded as informal. In particular, it said that all ticks, and that example was given, would be regarded as formal votes, particularly if there were four ticks to the four questions-they would be regarded as four Yeses-but that if there were four crosses to the four questions they would be regarded as informal votes. We have sought legal advice to comment in response to the Attorney-General's Department advice to the Australian Electoral Commission. Regrettably, the Commission itself has not, as I understand it, received independent advice other than that it received from the Attorney-General's Department. Weeks ago I called on the Electoral Commission to seek independent advice. My understanding is that it has not done that. We on this side of the chamber have sought legal advice from Mr Goldberg, QC, an eminent Melbourne QC-- Senator Robert Ray —Who represented you-- Senator SHORT —Who represented us very successfully in refuting the Government's dirty tricks campaign in relation to the Government advertising on the referendums. He is an eminent and well known QC. His advice to us is confirming of the Attorney-General's Department advice in relation to the crosses. His advice is that four crosses would be regarded as informal, but he says that it is a very different question in relation to ticks. I would like to take some time to read his opinion because I believe that it is very important indeed. He says: . . . in my opinion, it is arguable that the same conclusion- in relation to four crosses- should be reached in relation to a ballot-paper which comprises TICKS only or which comprises TICKS and YES responses. The Attorney-General's Department says that in such circumstances the TICKS denote approval in each case and that the voter's intention is not made any less clear by the appearance of the words YES and/or NO on the same paper as TICKS. However, can it be said that in such circumstances there is a clear indication of intention? The High Court made it clear in Kane v. McClelland (supra) that the intention must be so indicated that it is ``not left to inference, still less conjecture, that it is expressed or indicated in a way that leaves it indisputable.'' In my opinion the same observations apply to answers indicated wholly by TICKS or by a mixture of TICKS and YES responses. The Attorney-General's Department may in any given case be correct when it concludes that the voter's intention can be determined from TICKS or a mixture of TICKS and YES responses but this conclusion can only be reached by ``an inference and not a clear expression or indication of the voter's intention''. For example, the indication by a TICK may simply mean an acknowledgment of the question without recognising the fact that there are alternative answers. In this respect it must be remembered that on the ballot-paper the elector is directed to write YES or NO in the space provided opposite each of the 4 questions and that under each box in which an answer or response is to be written there appear the words ``WRITE `YES' or `NO' ''. I ask rhetorically-why does an elector place a TICK or CROSS in the box immediately alongside the exhortation ``WRITE `YES' OR `NO' ''? The answer in any given case must be inference or conjecture. Why would an elector who wants to vote `YES' or `NO' place either a TICK or a CROSS immediately next to that exhortation? Is it because he or she does not understand English or does not understand the question? Or is it because he or she either has no view or does not want to express a view? Or is it because the elector recognises that in order for the vote to be formal and valid the elector has to write `YES' or `NO' and because the elector does not wish to record a `YES' or `NO' vote the elector makes a deliberate decision to vote informally or invalidly. Any one, or perhaps more, of the hypotheses to which I have referred might apply in any given case, so that one is left to inference or conjecture as to the elector's intention. In such circumstances the High Court tells us in Kane v. McClelland . . . that the vote is informal and invalid. That is because the voter's intention is not indisputable. That is the legal advice that we have received from Mr Goldberg. That is why we wanted the Electoral Commissioner to get independent advice. As I have said, our advice conflicts with that of the Attorney-General. Therefore, I believe that the legality of the situation and the legality of what the Electoral Commission is now putting out to polling booth officials are at least arguable. The other thing I mention briefly is that, as I understand it from the Minister, Senator Ray, the Government has also received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that, even if this Bill of mine goes through the Parliament, it cannot have effect before 3 September because, somehow or other, the Attorney-General's Department believes that it would establish two classes of voter in relation to the referendum. I ask the Minister to table that very important advice. I believe that it is questionable but, until we see it, we are not in a position to comment on it definitively. But I make the comment, in the absence of having seen that advice, that in our view what is being proposed in this Bill is procedural, not substantive. It is not creating two classes of voter. It is not seeking to change the method of voting, simply the interpretation of a proportion of the votes that may be voted in ways other than as is indicated in the very clear instructions on the ballot paper. We are not seeking to change those instructions in any way. Those instructions are clear. As I said earlier, those instructions state that people should write either a `yes' or a `no' on the ballot paper. None of that is being sought to be changed in this Bill. On the contrary: this Bill reaffirms and reinforces the obvious clear intention of the Electoral Commission in the instructions that it conveyed. On this issue I again urge the Government to seek some independent legal advice. In any event, I urge the Government to look again at the thought that it may allow this Bill either to go through the Senate but not through the House of Representatives or, if it goes through both Houses, to deem that it would not be applicable to the 3 September referendum. I urge the Government very strongly indeed to look at that again. The powers in relation to voting at referendums are such, because it is such a vital matter, that the intention of voters must be absolutely clear and they must be treated with respect. In conclusion, I call on the Government to respect this issue and the integrity of our voting system by allowing the speedy passage of this Bill through both Houses of Parliament so that it can have effect on 3 September. The integrity of the voting system, the integrity of the Government and the integrity of the Electoral Commission, all of which are very important in any parliamentary democratic system, are vitally important and should be maintained. That integrity is at risk if this Bill is not passed and given effect in time for the 3 September referendum. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.00) —We are debating the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-Papers) Amendment Bill 1988. I wish to address, firstly, the Government's Bill which is to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 with regard to the item relating to scrutineers. This Bill seeks to amend section 27 of the principal Act. When one reads it, one is rather struck by the fact that it states that the Governor-General, or a person authorised by him to act under this subsection, may appoint one person to act as a scrutineer during voting at a referendum at each place in Australia where voting is being conducted. On any reading that is a pretty extraordinary provision. In fact, one wonders how it got there and how it managed to stay there. Presumably these things have either been lost in the mists of time or somewhere else. But one wonders how the poor Governor-General got roped into this exercise or why he has to delegate responsibility. In addition, there can be only one person acting as a scrutineer when, quite clearly, the rest of the Act proposes that there can be a yes or a no vote and, hence, at least two people could have some interest in the outcome. So I think it is quite reasonable to seek a change to the method by which scrutineers are appointed. However, I am not at all sure that either the Government's proposal or the Oppositions' proposal is really the way to go. I have spent the last couple of months campaigning in my State of Queensland, almost every evening and sometimes two or three times a day, with regard to the four questions which are currently before the people. One of the points I have made at every one of those meetings is that we are debating in the community an item regarding our Constitution and we should not allow that item to become a matter of partisan politics. Undoubtedly, the political parties of the day will have a view. Those views will be expressed both in the Senate and in the electorate. I have expressed the view that there is, and ought to be, a distinction between a debate about a constitution and a debate about the ongoing partisan matters of politics that we deal with on a day to day basis. I think it is quite clear why there is that distinction. In fact, the speech that the Governor-General made at the inaugural meeting raised a point that is pertinent to this. The Governor-General said that we are dealing with matters of partisan politics in the Parliament and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) echoed those sentiments. In fact, the Prime Minister added another item that I wish to refer to-that is, that in 200 years' time people might look back and think that not only our dress was rather quaint but also the items we were arguing about were rather quaint. I am not sure that I agree with that, having read some of the debates of the first meeting of this Senate. They seem remarkably fresh to me. Senators were still arguing then about protectionism and free trade. In 200 years' time most of the partisan political exercises will have passed on and will no longer be of concern. However, the Constitution will still be there and it will be of concern to those people. So we are dealing with two quite different matters. I think it would be destructive of genuine constitutional debate in this country if we allowed it to be overwhelmed by what we might see as our immediate partisan advantage. That is why I think that neither the Government's proposition nor the Opposition's proposition really address the matter of scrutineers. I do not wish to steal Senator Harradine's thunder, but I understand that later in the debate he will be suggesting alternative methods of dealing with this matter. Might I say that the alternative method that would suit the Democrats would be not to have the political parties appointed to appoint scrutineers. To do that seems to me to be inappropriate and it would run counter to the proposition of having a referendum debate about the Constitution. Currently clause 27 more closely reflects the type of thing that we would want. It does not specify political parties as the people who will appoint scrutineers; it proposes that others may do so. One group who may have an interest in this matter and could be the people selected to appoint scrutineers are members of the Federal Parliament. They are already in the act with regard to the proposing of the Yes and the No cases. I think it would be appropriate for those people, proponents of the Yes vote and of the No vote, to have the opportunity to appoint scrutineers. I remind the Senate that in the last major round of constitutional proposals under the conservative Government in 1977 a considerable number of members of the Liberal Party of Australia, which was then in power, opposed some of the referenda proposals and campaigned against them. In my view, those people had a legitimate right to appoint scrutineers to go into the polling booths to scrutineer with regard to the No vote, whereas the Liberal Party-the party in government, the party proposing these changes to the public-would obviously have wanted to support the Yes case and to appoint scrutineers to look at the Yes votes. I think there is an argument for suggesting that having the political parties appoint scrutineers is not the right track to go down. If Senator Harradine brings forward proposals to take the appointment of scrutineers out of the hands of the political parties and to place it in the hands of members of the Federal Parliament, the Australian Democrats will lend their support to such a proposal. I ask Senator Tate, on behalf of the Government, to consider whether what the Government is attempting to do could also be met by such a proposition. It would not be disadvantageous to the Government, the Opposition or anyone else and would be the way to go if we were to have a constitutional debate separated as much as possible from the partisan political consideration of the day. I ask Senator Tate whether he might be able to respond in a positive way in the committee stage, if Senator Harradine moves amendments of that type. If he is unable to respond in a positive way, could he say why, rather than simply saying no? I know Senator Tate does not like simply saying yes or no, though I am sure he will do so on 3 September. I ask him to give the House some genuine reasons for the Government's opting to enable political parties to appoint scrutineers rather than, for example, members of parliament, constituted, possibly across party lines, to write the Yes No booklet and thus probably the more appropriate people to appoint scrutineers to look at the ballot papers for the Yes and No votes. I come to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-Papers) Amendment Bill. I say again that there is a good reason why this chamber has Standing Orders. Honourable senators are now expected to debate a Bill that was introduced a little over an hour ago. To me this is absurd. Senator Short spent a great deal of his half hour quoting various legal advices with regard to the nuances contained in the current Bill. He then asked senators to support the amendment. With regard to his amendment, the Australian Democrats have not had the opportunity to seek independent legal advice. Senator Short simply asked us to support it on face value. The last time a proposition came to this chamber with regard to changing an item of the Yes and No cases, as Senator Short correctly said, the amendment was rejected. It was rejected by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats because we believed that it did not clarify the situation but made it more murky. I would like some time to consider this proposal and to seek legal advice to see that it actually does what Senator Short says it will do. He has said, `Take my word for it; it does'. With due respect to Senator Short, I am not going to do that. I am not going to indicate on behalf of my party that we support the proposal until we have had time to consider the Bill. The Standing Orders provide for the introduction of a Bill on one day and at least a day to pass before we are required to debate it. This gives us time in a calm and collected way to get the type of advice we may want to get and to do the type of research we may want to do. I have not had a chance to go over again the debates that we had earlier this year, to refresh my memory with regard to them or to re-read the report to which I was a signatory with regard to why we wanted clarification of this particular section. I clearly remember the discussions in the committee on that matter, but I always prefer to refresh my memory of details before agreeing to changes of this type. Any citizen reading the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill, which I am sure some citizens do-though I cannot imagine who they would be-would read clause 24 as stating clearly that, if one wishes to vote in favour of the proposition, one writes `yes' in the space provided on the ballot paper or, if one does not approve of the proposed change, one writes `no'. That seems relatively clear. However, the lawyers have once again wandered into the area and one now finds that somehow or other ticks and crosses are acceptable. I do not wish to put myself forward as a bush lawyer in these exercises. Clause 24 seems to me to state clearly that one should write `yes' or `no' and the ballot papers state clearly that one should write `yes' or `no', yet somehow ticks and crosses are to become acceptable. But that is the way of the law. I heard Senator Short say also that the Government had mentioned to him, and I heard it a few minutes before I had to stand up in this chamber and speak in the debate, that there was a legal opinion that the passage of this law was not acceptable because, while clarification is needed-why the Government sought clarification and the Opposition now seeks clarification and the Australian Democrats have sought clarification-we are not necessarily agreed on what is clarification of the particular exercise. Over and above that, the Government seems to have had advice which says that if this proposal is enacted it will create two groups of voters, one group consisting of those who have already voted and the other those who have not yet voted. In the first group I include some members of my own family who have voted already because they will not be in Australia on the polling day. They sought advice from me as to what they should do and, naturally enough, I urged them to vote in a particular way and to go off immediately and vote that way by means of a postal vote. I do not know whether they took my advice. They do not on many things, so I imagine they did not on this occasion. Some people have already voted. If the Parliament changes the law in the middle of the poll, some people will be able to use ticks or crosses. I seek some clarification from Senator Short as to whether that is the case. Perhaps he will answer that later in the debate. I have not seen the Government's advice to which the honourable senator referred, which is a reason why I do not think that the debate should be on now. However, as I understand it, two types of voters will be constituted-those who have already voted and those who are going to vote. There do not seem to be any transition provisions in Senator Short's Bill which would deal with that matter. I wonder what he would propose, on the day itself, to those seeking to count the ballot papers. Would there be any confusion in view of the fact that some people would be acting under one law and, presumably, others would be acting under another? I do not know whether that is the advice of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or whether it is pertinent, but it seems to me that, if that is the case, there should be some transition provisions in the Bill to accommodate that. Or does Senator Short propose that those who may have had acceptable intentions on the advice which was provided previously and which was publicly available-that is, if they were attentive viewers of things political they would know that a tick was said by the Attorney-General's Department to be counted as a yes-would put a tick? However, if this Bill is passed, that ballot paper will be declared invalid. I understood Senator Short to say that he did not agree with the Attorney's previous position, but the people out there may have taken that advice. This Bill will disenfranchise those who have already voted. I do not know whether that is the substance of the advice. I would have liked to have read it before I had to stand on my feet and speak about it, which is why I reiterate that we have Standing Orders to enable us to deal with such matters. Senator Short —I have not seen it either. Senator MACKLIN —That is why I cannot indicate support from the Australian Democrats for the proposition. We will not vote against it, but we will not support it. I believe that the issue should be considered at a time when we have all been able to read the advices and have got other legal advice to make sure that what we are doing is not further muddying the waters but is doing something which the Opposition, the Government and the Australian Democrats want to do; that is, make sure that it is perfectly clear what a person has to do when he or she votes in a referendum. I understand that very few people listen to the debates now because they cannot find the broadcast on the new channel. Some senators have the luxury of hearing the chamber's proceedings in their rooms, but for some reason I cannot do so in my room, so I have to sit in here. I urge people who are listening to this debate on the radio to follow clause 24; that is, if they are voting yes, to put a `yes' in the box and if they are voting no to put a `no' in the box, and ignore the lawyers. I am satisfied that the overwhelming majority of the Australian population know the difference between yes and no and are able to make up their own mind: they do not have to resort to crosses and ticks. But I do foresee a difficulty in that respect with Senator Short's Bill. It is a difficulty which I would have liked to have had a chance to discuss with him and to seek further clarification on. I am unable to do that. It is on those grounds that I am unable to express support for the Bill. I want the matter to be clarified, but I want to make sure that what Senator Short proposes actually gives that clarification. On my reading of it, it does do so. Putting aside the other problem of the two classes of voters, on my reading of it, it does do so. However, my reading of clause 24 suggests that one should put in a `yes' and a `no', but the lawyers seem to think something different. The lawyers probably think that there is something different in the proposal; I do not know. They seem to get extraordinary things out of plain English. I would like clarification that it is a watertight provision and that it is the type of thing which one would want to insert in the Act so that we would fix it up once and for all. If an amendment were moved to the Government's Bill which would take the scrutineers out of the hands of political parties and put them into the hands of people such as members of Federal parliament or whoever, we would support such an amendment. That follows through with the items that I have been arguing; that is, the theme through this machinery legislation is that members of parliament vote yes and members of parliament vote no. An issue may cross party lines, as was the case with the Liberal Party in 1977. It seemed quite legitimate that members of the Liberal Party were able to appoint scrutineers in 1977 to look at the No case or the Yes case, which- ever they supported, whereas officially the Liberal Party supported one line or another. In Queensland the Liberal Party supports a Yes vote for No. 2. However, federally the Liberal Party supports a No vote for No. 2. I think that the Liberal Party in Queensland may want to appoint scrutineers on both sides. This exercise suggests that they will appoint one person at each polling booth, whereas it may be that on 3 September members of the Liberal Party in Queensland may wish to have two people from the party in the polling booth as scrutineers-one following the State Liberal Party line of voting yes and the other following the Federal Liberal Party line of voting no. That is legitimate in terms of the appointment of scrutineers. It is not allowable under the Government's provision or the Opposition's provision. I think that it should be because it reflects the reality of the voting on 3 September. If Senator Harradine were to move such an amendment-I understand that in the labyrinth of this place he is trying to get one together-the Australian Democrats would support such an amendment. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(11.23) —I suppose I should start my speech on the Bill to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 and Senator Short's Bill regarding the method of voting and informal ballot papers by raising some of the issues that Senator Macklin has mentioned. In his pontificating on this issue, as the Australian Democrats are always inclined to do, he talked about the appointment of scrutineers and of it being a political matter-that the Liberal Party of Australia, the Australian Labor Party and any other political party that might pop its head up should not be singled out to be appointing scrutineers. I suppose that in some respects that would be quite all right in the referendum if all things were fair and equal in the debate, but that, as we know, is not so. The Government has been caught with its hand firmly wedged in the dirty tricks cookie jar over this whole referendum issue. We need to cite only a few, among many, instances. One was the biased advertising that the Government tried to sneak through on television. Senator Tate —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I entered the chamber only during Senator Macklin's address, but I understand that Senator Short kept strictly to notions of relevance in this debate, which is not to deal with the general issues but to deal with the specific matters of scrutiny-ticks and crosses and so on. It would be very helpful if the Chair were able to ensure, as I am sure you would be inclined to do anyway, Madam Acting Deputy President, that the canons of relevance were adhered to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Powell) —I, like the Minister, only recently entered the chamber. In general terms, I always urge speakers to be relevant. I will listen to the debate and make a ruling should I believe that there is irrelevance. Senator KNOWLES —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. It highlights the Government's sensitivity about what I am saying in relation to this matter and if the Minister would care to wait and hold his horses he will find that there is relevance in what I am saying. I am concerned with what Senator Macklin said about the appointment of scrutineers. We have seen this become a political project in the whole debate on the Constitution and I am sorry that it has had to become somewhat political as well. We have the instance, as I mentioned, of the advertising. We also have the instance of biased questions and we also now have the Bill about ticks and crosses and the marking of ballot papers. The Democrats have supported this referendum because of their short-term political gain that is likely to stem from abolishing the rotational system of electing senators. We must remember that if we are to have a fair system on the day of the counting of these referendum questions we must be in a position where political parties can appoint scrutineers. To have the Governor-General and Governors and persons delegated by them appoint scrutineers is outrageously restrictive. I support Senator Short's amendment to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988, which allows for the registered officer of a registered political party or his nominees to appoint persons to act as scrutineers during voting at a referendum at each place in Australia where voting is being conducted, but not more than one scrutineer for each party being allowed at each polling booth at any one time. That is a very fair and reasonable request and a very fair and reasonable amendment. Therefore, I cannot understand for one moment why anyone would want to block that in any way. It concerns me that the Government has indicated that Senator Short's Bill cannot have effect by 3 September according to its advice which Senator Short, being shadow Minister responsible for these matters, has not even seen. It is a very difficult situation and the advice on that issue relates to the ticks and crosses or the Yes and No. I will move onto that area because we have seen another case of bias where the instructions to the polling booth workers only have been such that they should accept votes with a tick and not accept votes with a cross, when in fact the sample ballot paper-and I have one here-clearly states `Directions to Voter: Write YES or NO in the space provided opposite each of the 4 questions set out below'. Senator Macklin has already said, `We are now going to create two classes of voters: those who have already cast their votes and those who haven't, if we accept Senator Short's Bill which only permits as a formal vote a ``Yes'' or a ``No'' '. That statement is simply untrue because people have not been, as he said, instructed or told that they can place a tick or a cross in the box. Those instructions have been given only to the polling booth workers and not to the people who have gone in to vote. If the people who have gone in to vote followed the directions on their ballot papers which, as I say, clearly indicates `Write YES or NO', the passage of this Bill, coming into effect prior to 3 September, makes sure that any vote with a `yes' or a `no', as per the instructions, is a formal vote. What is the problem with that? There is no problem. For the Australian Electoral Commission to be allowing a tick as a formal vote and a cross as an informal vote is duplistic in the extreme and quite unfair. In the first instance I do not know how people could be told to do this, but evidently people believe they have been told to do this. That is not so because the ballot papers are crystal clear in every way, right to the end where it says, `Answer every question'. I am sorry that those instructions are the only ones that are clear on the ballot paper because the four questions involved in the referendum are less than clear and can be considered very biased. So Senator Short's Bill is particularly pertinent as is his amendment to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. We in this Parliament must ensure that every fair opportunity is given to every elector, whether it be at a general election or whether it be at a referendum, that their vote is a valid vote and that we do not get the question all fuzzy around the edges, and that we do not start entertaining thoughts of ticks and crosses because this will only confuse the issue further. The specifics of it have been quite clear until recently when publicity was given to the fact that the polling booth workers were going to be allowed to grant the ticks and not the crosses. If that instruction had not been given to the polling booth workers we would not be in this position in the first instance. I urge the Senate to agree to Senator Short's amendment to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and also to his Bill regarding the method of voting, which is particularly important. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.32) —I support the Government's Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 which amends the referendum legislation to provide for the appointment of scrutineers, an outcome which many members of the public and indeed many members of parliament had assumed was there anyway-of course it has not been. Therefore the urgency of achieving this in time for the important referendum in 10 days' time is one which the Opposition fully supports. It is essential that this legislation not only be passed here today but also be passed in the other place so that it can be given royal assent. I am glad that we now have Senator Robert Ray and Senator Tate in the chamber, the two Ministers in this chamber most responsible for this matter, because I appeal to them to ensure not only that the full process of getting this Bill enacted is completed this week, but also that the Opposition Bill, which has a similar urgency and to which my colleagues Senator Short and Senator Knowles have spoken, concerning the clarification of what is a valid vote, what is a valid action in an elector marking a ballot paper, will be clarified before the referendum. I sound this warning-I do not make it as a threat: given the Government's commitment to both of these measures, if it says that the House of Representatives just did not get around to doing it by the 3 September referendum, in these 10 remaining days, and especially in the last remaining week, it will be a matter of maximum publicity and maximum attack upon the Government. Senator Robert Ray —Why did you vote in a division against it in June? Senator TEAGUE —There was no explicit reference to this matter before the Senate. It was rammed through in a matter of minutes. Senator Robert Ray —Have a look. Read Hansard. Senator TEAGUE —I am just saying sincerely that there was no conscious decision made by this chamber to make valid controversial interpretations of ticks and crosses in a referendum ballot. We now have the chance; we are now sitting and we have the legislation in front of us: we need to vote upon these matters here in the Senate this morning. There is an acceptance by the Opposition and by the Government that there is justice in the outcome of these two measures being the continuing law in these matters. There is to be an important referendum on 3 September. I just warn the Government-I do not make threats. I am a member of the Opposition's task force on the referendum. I am also part of the advertising, the public meetings and the planning for the No case. I make it very clear what our position will be if there is any slippage on these two measures, if the Government says, `Well, we believe in these reforms, we agree they are important, we believe clarity must be given; but it is unfortunate that we will not be able to consider them to conclusion in the House of Representatives because of the pressure of other business'. I do not want to prejudge the outcome. I just make it clear that if there is any slippage we will make a clear political judgment about that slippage and the electorate will hear about it loud and clear. For the reasons which both the Government and the Opposition have put forward there needs to be full endorsement here in the Senate chamber today of both the Government's Bill with regard to scrutineers and the Opposition's Bill with regard to a valid vote and ticks and crosses not being acceptable as an indication of a voter's intention in the ballot. I will not stray from the matter before us, but for a minute or so I want to explain why there will be public concern if these vital matters are not put into place. If they are not put into place the public can rightly say that one aspect of the referendum is rigged in favour of a Yes vote. The contention is that ticks would mean yes, crosses standing alone would mean yes, and ticks and crosses together would be invalid. I find that kind of standing interpretation, were we not to have this legislation, absolutely incredible. It so favours the Yes outcome-the Government is wanting that Yes outcome-that it is beyond belief that the public would not say that the Government's failure to act was so clearly in its naked self-interest that it was prepared to allow the rigging of this referendum to its own advantage. I do not want that to be said of anyone in this chamber but it will be said if these measures are not in place in time for the ballot. The pattern of representations on this referendum issue has been described as deceit. The simple statements the Government uses on the ballot papers to describe the choices in these four referendum matters are correctly described as being so simple as to be misleading and deceitful. Senator Robert Ray —Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. These comments relate to another one of Senator Short's Bills that really cannot be canvassed here. They really go beyond relevancy. Even in trying to reinforce the ticks and crosses issue I think the honourable senator is straying. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Powell) —I am listening to the debate closely and I urge all speakers to attempt to be relevant to the Bills before the chamber. Senator TEAGUE —The point I make is that very many people are alarmed when they read the four questions that will be on the ballot papers for this referendum. Of course, they need to be simple and brief. But when the people who have read the Yes case and the No case in the material distributed by the Australian Electoral Commission, which runs to some 15 or 16 pages, read the actual measures that will change the No. 1 law of Australia, the Constitution, and see the actual changes that are involved they will say, `This is not just a simple matter of four brief questions; this is a very complex matter with enormous implications for the No. 1 law of Australia'. The situation will be compounded if the Senate agrees that it is in the interests of justice to clarify scrutineering and to clarify what makes for a valid vote but the Government does not achieve that justice by getting the Bills through both Houses in the seven sitting days to go. It will be a major issue that will reverberate throughout the last week of the campaign. Advertising of the No case in the last week will be 10 times what it has been up to this point. I come to the argument put forward by Senator Macklin of the Australian Democrats that by writing `yes' or `no' in the boxes provided opposite the four questions a valid vote will be recorded. He said that, despite that, there is an instruction to those who will be eventually counting the referendum votes that four ticks on the ballot paper may be interpreted as a Yes vote and that four crosses may also be interpreted as a Yes vote. Senator Macklin said that because of that instruction a tiny minority who have already registered an absentee vote, as is their proper right if they are to be absent on the day of the referendum, will have their ticks or crosses counted as a Yes vote if the law stands as it is now. But if between now and the referendum we bring in a just law to correct that situation, dear oh dear, ticks and crosses will not be counted as valid votes. Despite the fact that they were told on the ballot paper that a valid vote was only Yes or No, we have to stop this just measure so that a mere handful of ticks or crosses will not be declared invalid. I put it to Senator Macklin very clearly that that is a tortuous argument. It is picking at a speck in one's brother's eye and missing the beam in one's own eye. He finds a speck in a counting procedure that perhaps makes ticks and crosses valid, but by supporting a law which will advantage a Yes outcome, an outcome which he favours, he creates greater offence. I conclude by fully supporting the Government's Bill with regard to scrutineers. I also foreshadow that I support, as does the Opposition, the amendments to be moved by Senator Short. I put it to Senator Ray that they are practical amendments. We all know polling booths very well in our experience as politicians. The amendments are practical measures to clarify procedure the Government wants to allow for the appointment of scrutineers. I also strongly urge this chamber not only to see, as it does already, the justice of Senator Short's Bill, the Opposition's Bill, with regard to what constitutes a valid indication of a voter's intentions in a referendum ballot, but to ensure that it is adopted here by this chamber this morning. I also urge the Government to ensure that it is adopted in the House of Representatives and enacted so that it becomes the basis on which the referendum is conducted on 3 September. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(11.45) —I rise to speak in favour of the Government's Bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988, in relation to scrutineers. Certainly it is highly desirable that there be plenty of opportunities for scrutineers to be present not only during the count, which is the place where I would be more familiar with the notion of scrutineers, but also in the course of the day and at the balloting. I must say that at the places I have tended to be on election day we have been flat out getting enough people at the polling booths, let alone-- Senator Robert Ray —I thought you would be at the MCG or Waverley. Senator ALSTON —It all depends, doesn't it? I hope that I will be able to combine both. But certainly the opportunity to have scrutineers during the day is a luxury that does not apply in many areas. Nonetheless, there is certainly a need to have scrutineers at the end of the day for the count. That will be well after the final siren has sounded and we can all be in proper attendance. It is necessary that there be the opportunity for nominees of the representatives of the political parties to appoint scrutineers. Indeed, I would have thought that one needed perhaps to go further and allow for copies of authorisation forms to be acceptable so that those in remote country areas may be serviced by faxed authorisations. These matters should have been considered and dealt with some time ago. Certainly, given the Government's haste to get these referendum questions to the people, without waiting for advice from the Constitutional Commission or the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, this is perhaps just another example of the pitfalls that lie in the path of those who are determined to rush to judgment on these matters. The ticks and crosses are a matter of much greater substance and a matter of concern to the Australian electorate. As I understand it from my colleague, Senator Short, who has had the carriage of this matter, in the last referendum the votes of some 17,000 people involved the application of ticks or crosses. That was in relation to two questions. This time around we are facing four. One simply does not know why people choose to tick or cross, but I for one cannot comprehend how the Government can suggest that there is a clear inference that they intend to vote yes or no when they deliberately ignore what appears on the ballot paper in two separate places. The ballot box has on it the words `write yes or no' and, in very clear and bold print, the ballot paper says `write yes or no'. So one has to be, I suppose, drunk, illiterate, blind, or-- Senator Short —Contrary. Senator ALSTON —Contrary. I was going to put it perhaps more strongly than that. If one were being perverse one might want to indulge in the luxury of disregarding the clear and explicit instructions. But for my money one should pay the penalty. If people are not prepared to write `yes' or `no', that is too bad. For those people who do not understand the system, again, that is one of the penalties they pay. I think they are a relatively small proportion of the population. I hope that everyone in this country is able to speak English to the extent of knowing the difference between yes and no and knowing that writing `yes' or `no' is a requirement when attending a polling booth. I find it curious that the Government is now back-pedalling on this issue. My understanding is that all the political parties are in heated agreement that `write yes or no' means `write yes or no' and that it does not mean anything else. Therefore, it is desirable that there should, if necessary, be amending legislation to ensure that that is the only option available to electors. If we accept the Government's current position that somehow it is a bit late in the day for that, the consequence is that this confusion will continue. In the event of a close outcome, there may well need to be a challenge to the Court of Disputed Returns-- Senator Robert Ray —Under the Act there is no Court of Disputed Returns. Senator ALSTON —So it cannot be challenged? Senator Robert Ray —Yes, it can-by the States. Senator ALSTON —Where? In the Supreme Court? Senator Robert Ray —In the High Court. Senator ALSTON —In the High Court. Senator Robert Ray —I think you can bet that Queensland will have a go. Senator ALSTON —It is all very well to say that one has one's legal options. Senator Ray, having given evidence in one notable Court of Disputed Returns case a few years back, would know what the costs are in those matters. It is highly undesirable to provoke litigation in that fashion. The Commonwealth ends up paying the tab in almost all instances. I regard it as a waste of taxpayers' money when the matter can be clarified in advance. The only argument which seems to be put forward at present is what I regard as the spurious notion that two classes of voters would be created because some people have already cast postal ballots. It confuses the notion of the casting of the vote and the status of the voter with the determination made on the vote. Whether or not one counts ticks or crosses does not affect the manner of the casting of the vote and, presumably, the intention of the voter. It cannot possibly be suggested that if this legislation went through it would somehow encourage more people to put a tick or a cross, or not to put a tick or a cross, because they became more acutely aware of the legislative pitfalls. So we are really talking about a means of ensuring that the count is accurate, that it is fair and that it properly reflects the views of the voters. To say that because some votes have already been cast it is therefore not desirable to intervene halfway through will encourage perhaps more people than would otherwise be the case to ignore the explicit requirements on the ballot paper. I cannot for a moment imagine that one could demonstrate that those people who might already to date have chosen to ignore the `write yes or no' demand did so on the basis that somehow they thought that their vote would be regarded as valid. For their own purposes, their own reasons, they have chosen to ignore the direction. I think it is inconceivable that they did so deliberately, imagining that they had a legislative luxury and that their vote would be valid. Many strange things happen in polling booths and probably there are a great many fascinating explanations for them, but I cannot imagine that that is one of them-- Senator McKiernan —Tell us about them. Senator ALSTON —We do our best to ensure that not too many extraordinary things take place. That is perhaps one of the reasons why scrutineers are desirable during the day. But, as I say, it simply defies logic to suggest that the votes already cast might have been cast by persons who believed that their ticks or crosses would be counted as valid. They almost certainly have chosen for their own purposes to disregard the clear instructions. They either did not know what they were doing, misunderstood the system or were unclear in their intentions. As the High Court has made very clear, and I think as Senator Short indicated from a reading of Mr Goldberg's advice, which I had the opportunity to peruse some days ago, one cannot leave the matter to inference, still less to conjecture. The intention must be clearly expressed or indicated in a way that leaves it indisputable. Mr Goldberg is able to demonstrate that there are quite a number of options that would explain why a voter does what he explicitly is told not to do. It may be because he or she does not understand English, or does not understand the question. It may be that somehow the voter thinks that because voting is compulsory his vote is not valid or his attendance is not regarded as complete unless he somehow puts an acknowledgment on the ballot paper. There are many hypothetical explanations, but ultimately they amount only to inference or conjecture. If that is the case, I do not understand why Senator Ray continues to refuse to make available the legal opinion which he says he has on the matter. If the Australian public is to be left in this position of uncertainty, if persons are to go to the polling booths not knowing what interpretation will be placed on the count, not only by scrutineers but also by polling officers, it is incumbent upon Senator Ray to explain to the public why this should be. I do not regard this notion of two classes of voters as valid. I do not think it is regarded as valid by others who have considered the matter-and certainly Mr Goldberg does not regard it as valid. I find it regrettable that this is yet another instance of the Government choosing to rely on its own in-house advice, in the face of what I think is the logic of the argument and the views expressed by others of repute. That is not the way in which to conduct a vote, certainly not in the circumstances where the Government is already on the ropes for a whole series of dishonest actions, such as the presentation of the booklet that has gone out to all households and the inexplicable abdication of responsibility on the part of the Australian Electoral Commission in not ensuring that there was a fair, equal and balanced presentation of the Yes and No votes. This is against the background of the High Court of Australia telling the Government that its advertising campaign is out of order; the background of the Government very dishonestly suggesting that somehow the Constitutional Commission is the basis for these questions; and the background of these Bills being guillotined through the Parliament, with the timing being such that people go to the ballot box after two weeks of sittings when, as Senator Ray would say, some very important events are taking place on that Saturday afternoon and when a whole range of other factors militate against full and frank discussion of these issues. The statute allows for a period of some six months to debate the issues, but they were rammed through the Parliament, with amendments, in about half that time. Against that background, it is very unfair to the Australian community if Senator Ray does not release that opinion so that the public can understand whether it has any validity. It is not good enough to say, `We have a piece of paper that someone in the Department has produced'. We have had high level advice from Mr Goldberg, who has impeccable credentials and a great success rate in this area. I just do not think it is a fair contest in that circumstance for the Government to somehow hold to itself an opinion which in every likelihood would not stand up to scrutiny in the light of day. If that is the way the Government wants to play it, so be it. But I think that is a totally inadequate outcome and a very unfair position to put the returning officers in. If we are all in heated agreement that there is a need to eliminate anything other than a Yes or a No, let us get on with it; let us not be held up by any supposed legal technicalities, unless they are valid. And we can determine whether they are valid only if they are made available and can be thoroughly scrutinised and analysed. For my money, I have made it clear that I do not comprehend how one could say that there would be two classes of voters. There would simply be a clear, consistent and uniform decision being applied to all votes cast, whether they be cast prior to today or after today. It could not possibly affect the intention of voters-nor should it. I cannot for a moment imagine why any voter would be dissatisfied with an outcome that made it clear, as was intended in 1984 and thereafter, that the instruction `Write Yes or No' meant just that. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.59) —The Senate is considering two Bills to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. The first Bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2), proposed by the Government, seeks to determine who should be able to nominate scrutineers for the purpose of a referendum. The second Bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-Papers) Bill, comes from the Opposition and was introduced by Senator Jim Short. It attempts to clarify, beyond any doubt whatsoever, the intention of the voter in any referendum. The first proposal seeks to overcome a problem that has existed for some considerable time in the legislation. That problem relates to the narrowness of the provisions concerning the appointment of scrutineers by the Governor-General. To that extent, the Bill is worth supporting. However, the Bill says that those eligible to nominate scrutineers are the political parties. That is where I diverge from the Government on this matter. I do so because referenda, of their very nature, are not specifically to do with political parties-the government or the opposition. I have been in this place for some time and I can well recall an occasion when I was one of only four persons to vote against a referendum proposal; I was not a member of a political party. That proposal went to the people and was rejected. Although I was one of only four in the whole of the Parliament, the House of Representatives and the Senate, the people agreed with what we had to say. From recollection, it was the nexus referendum proposal. I go back one step further. Proposals that go to the people to change the Constitution, which is a fundamental document for our system of government, emerge from the Parliament in the debate in the House of Representatives and Senate chambers. They are voted upon by members of parliament. It may be that there is crossing of the floor, as there was in the case I mentioned before. It may be that members of parliament from different parties or from no parties make up the numbers for a Yes or No vote in the chamber. The legislation then provides that those parliamentarians who voted yes shall prepare the Yes case and the parliamentarians who voted no shall prepare the No case. It does not say that the parties to which those members of parliament who voted yes belong should prepare the Yes case or that those parties to which parliamentarians who voted no belong should prepare the No case. I repeat what the legislation says: it is for those members of parliament who voted yes or no, as the case may be, to prepare the respective cases to be put to the people; it is not for the government or the opposition. It so happens that on this occasion the Government is trying to push these referendum proposals forward, and has done so in a manifestly deceptive way. We must then be careful, when dealing with this question of referendum machinery, to act with total fairness. I ask: Is it fair for a provision to be inserted in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act which will exclude at least one member of the current Federal Parliament from appointing a scrutineer? Other Independents, elected as Independents, may be excluded in future years from appointing a scrutineer, because they happen not to be members of a registered political party or may be members of a registered political party but have been elected to this chamber, or the other chamber, as Independents. During the committee stage I will move an amendment to the legislation which will delete reference to `registered political party' or `registered officer' and enable each member of the Parliament to appoint one person to act as a scrutineer during voting at a referendum at each counting centre in Australia where voting is being conducted. In my view, that is a fair way of proceeding in this regard. As to the other Bill that we are considering-the Bill introduced by Senator Short-I think that Senator Short has a very valid point. It is absolutely vital when dealing with a question of importance such as this that the counters, the electoral officers, clearly know the intention of the voter. I will give the Senate an example. What does the returning officer do in regard to a square which has an `x' marked in it? How is that to be interpreted? We all know that in the majority of cases it would indicate overwhelmingly that the voter did not want that particular referendum proposal. I would like to inform you, Mr Deputy President-although I do not think you need to be so informed, because you are quite well aware of these things-that until very recently in some union elections an `x' meant support for a particular candidate. When a member of the union received the ballot paper he saw the words `mark with an ``x'' against the names of those candidates that you wish to see elected'. It is quite extraordinary. If, for example, one of those persons is able to mark the ballot paper with an `x', will his vote be counted as a vote in support of the referendum proposal or a vote against it? It is unclear. Senator Short, quite justifiably, has attempted to overcome that sort of uncertainty by making it quite clear that a valid Yes vote will be one which has `yes' written in the box. A valid No vote will be a vote which has `no' written in the box. That overcomes any doubt whatsoever. I think that proposal deserves support, and it deserves support now. If Senator Short's Bill is not agreed to now, there will undoubtedly be confusion and dissension on the evening when the count is taken. If it is a close vote, it will very substantially affect the operation of government in this nation. If, for example, votes in one State are counted in a particular way and that State marginally supports the first referendum proposal, that will mean that the fixed term of the Senate will be abolished and that the Prime Minister of the day will have greater power to call early elections. That is a very important point. I believe that Senator Short's proposal is very timely. I acknowledge that the Government has enabled Senator Short to raise this matter so that it can be debated cognately. I think that was a fine gesture on the part of the Government. It remains only for the eminently reasonable proposal put forward by Senator Short to be supported. Mr Deputy President, I am sorry that at this stage my proposed amendment relating to the Government's Bill has not been circulated, but it is quite simple. It proposes to delete reference to registered political parties and registered officers of political parties to nominate scrutineers and to insert, in lieu thereof, members of parliament. I think that is entirely just. By way of explanation, under the Government's legislation I would be able to nominate a scrutineer, but I understand that there is one person in this current Parliament who would not be able to do so. I am dealing not only with what happens now, but with what might happen in the future. I acknowledge, however, that what Senator Robert Ray said in his second reading speech is quite important; that is, that this amendment by the Government is not the be-all and end-all of the situation, that it is a temporary measure and that at some future time he will seek to have the matter referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I acknowledge that that is a sensible approach. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(12.12) —In reply-The issue of ticks and crosses was resurrected in a Press release by Senator Short. I will quote one line from it: `Now we have another episode in the Government's book of dirty tricks'. I think that is a gross distortion. I think that our record on ticks and crosses stands up to close examination. It is one example of the Opposition looking for side issues in the referendum rather than confronting the central issue. It raises advertising, ticks and crosses and scrutineers, or it says that we are interfering with the No case by correcting two or three typographical errors. Those are the sorts of issues and distortions which are perverting this debate. I point to the fact that in June this Government attempted to introduce virtually the same amendment that Senator Short has introduced. It was passed in the House of Representatives. We considered it in the Senate, and we were rolled. It is not much use Senator Short starting to lecture us on ticks and crosses. Quite clearly, the Senate had an opportunity last June to settle the issue once and for all. Instead, reference is made to the fact that ticks and crosses never really came into focus in this chamber. Because of time constraints, when I addressed the matter I was relatively brief. I said: The amendment arose out of contact between the Australian Electoral Commission and the Attorney-General's Department. Sample ballot papers were sent to the Attorney-General's Department and it found that one section of the legislation was probably in conflict with another. The section that we are proposing intends to clear that up. I did not go further. I had already had private discussions with Senator Short as to what he intended to move and I had ascertained Senator Macklin's attitude. I knew that nothing I could say in the chamber would change those views. However, I am sure that a diligent shadow Minister, and diligent members, such as Senator Alston and the others who have spoken today, would have at least read the House of Representatives debate which preceded the Senate debate. This is what my senior portfolio colleague, Mr West, said: I refer now to advice I have sought which I can relay to the chamber. The nature of that advice is that prior to the 1984 referendums the Australian Electoral Commission sought advice from the Attorney-General's Department in respect of the formality of certain hypothetical referendum ballot papers, including votes marked with ticks and crosses and with slogans comprising the words `yes' or `no' inside the voting square and a word or other words inside or outside the square. The advice supplied, first orally, on 29 November 1984 from the Attorney-General's Department and confirmed in writing on 21 December 1984 confirmed that section 24, prescribing the method of voting, should be read subject to section 93 (8), which deals with the saving of ballot papers where the voter's intention was clear. This issue has been around since 21 December 1984. It was widely canvassed and discussed in the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and, as a result of that, recommendations were made to the Parliament. Those recommendations were picked up in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988. They were put to this chamber, and we were rolled on them. So, when it comes to taking high ground I am a little sensitive to the sort of publicity given to the ticks and crosses issue. Senator Michael Baume —You have a bit of a nervous tic there. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Baume was another one who supported knocking over the solution to this problem three months ago. He has changed his mind again; that is not surprising. He is getting excited about the whole subject. The real problem was that the shadow Minister here and Mr Reith in the other place never understood what the word `qualification' meant in regard to ticks and crosses and our amendment to the Act. If they had taken the time to read a decent dictionary definition, they would have understood our Bill, which came here in June 1988, would have covered it and would not have gone down the by-roads that they refer to as technical difficulties. The problem is that Senator Baume has sat in this chamber and heard that word used, but it has never been explained to him by his shadow Minister, by Mr Reith or by anyone else. Senator Michael Baume —Well, you explain it, Minister. Senator ROBERT RAY —How can I? I did not have the technical difficulties. You were the ones who got up and said, `This has to be defeated because it is unclear and it has technical difficulties'. You never went on in your debates to properly expose, to our satisfaction, what those technical difficulties were, but I assume-- Senator Michael Baume —You have admitted that you did not explain them. Senator ROBERT RAY —I did not have to explain them. I did not have any difficulties with the Bill. Senator Short —It was your Bill. If you were trying to get it through, you should have given an explanation. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Short asks me to delve into his mind, to give a rationale for his views not properly expressed. Not even Einstein could do that. In conclusion on this point, the reality is that in June this year the Liberals bungled it. I think they bungled it in the House of Representatives on the basis of Mr Reith's original amendments which had to be pressed in the Senate. I think the Australian Democrats were quite happy to go along with the Liberals because they probably wanted ticks and crosses. We do not. We have made it clear, and I make it clear to this Senate chamber too, that when the issue came up again-there was no blame attached to the Australian Electoral Commission; it acts on the advice it is given-having raised this question as an issue I instructed the Parliamentary Counsel to draw up a Bill along similar but not identical lines to Senator Short's. The only reason I have not proceeded with that is a refusal to continue with that legislation on the legal views-I do not say written opinion-and advice from the Attorney-General's Department that there would be problems in this particular area. Basically, the problem is its view that one could have two classes of voters. The attitude is that such an amendment would create two classes of voters-those voting on 3 September 1988 and those voting otherwise; that is, postal voters or pre-poll voters. There is some doubt as to the constitutional validity of such an amendment. Section 128 of the Constitution provides: When a proposed law is submitted to the electors, the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. This requirement could be taken to mean that the manner shall be that prescribed by law at the time when the proposed constitutional alteration is first submitted to the electors, thus ruling out any substantial amendment to the law during the voting period. The problem with that is that people are saying that, if that is the view, then we really have to take a risk and amend this law. That could throw the whole referendum into doubt and I am not willing to do that. Referendums are an expensive business. As I say, if we had not attempted to amend these areas in June, we may not have gone in with a clear conscience. But we did. I would be very interested to hear any other legal views on that particular matter. I just want to put one other point on the record. I want to make this clear so that every parliamentarian understands it. It is an offence under the Electoral Act for anyone to advocate a tick or a cross. That should be understood by everyone here. It is an offence-I think the fine is $1,000-for anyone to advocate a tick or a cross and the instructions on the ballot paper in regard to this, in terms of yes and no, are very clear. Let me go to one other point: what is the remedy if people are not satisfied with the current interpretation of the Act? That would be an appeal to the High Court on the basis of, I think, a State or the Northern Territory taking an appeal. I suppose a reality that we all accept in this chamber is that none of this will be relevant unless the voting is in the order-and I will be very generous-of between 53 and 47 per cent. If the result is outside that, I think we can assume that whether ticks and crosses are included or excluded is going to be an irrelevant factor. Now we come to Senator Short's Bill itself. Talking about technical difficulties, on a close perusal of it we have another problem. At the moment the word `yes' or `no' does not have to be written in the square. Under Senator Short's proposal, on the face of it, it will have to be. If someone has actually written a `yes' in the square and crossed it out, having changed his or her mind as a result of a road to Damascus conversion, and then written `no' outside the square, under the way Senator Short's Bill is drafted, that would be excluded. I am sure that that is not the intention. Senator Short —They could go and get another ballot paper. Senator ROBERT RAY —Of course they could go and get another ballot paper. If all those people down at the Foresters Arms who are following the debate right now understand the technicalities of Senator Short's Bill, they will go up and say, `Under Senator Short's Bill carried in the Senate chamber, I demand another ballot paper'. But not even I have that much faith in his persuasion or in human nature. Senator Short —You really are stretching it. Senator ROBERT RAY —No; the reality is that very few people know that they can get another ballot paper in those circumstances. They would have thought that they could just put a correction outside the square, as one can with the ordinary ballot paper. Senator Short would know from scrutineering that a lot of people vote one way and, realising it is a mistake, black out the squares and then write their preferences outside the squares. I just argue that this would cause the greatest inconvenience in polling booths. Again it highlights the fact that these matters must be drafted with absolute precision. The Government's position is that we, in principle, do not support ticks and crosses. Our credentials are on the board from the amendments we moved last June. Our only reluctance to process this matter, either by Senator Short's Bill or by one of our own, is based on a view that it may be outside the legality of the interpretation of the Constitution at this stage. That is a problem, and one we have to take seriously, because we have no doubt at all that, if one or all of the referendums are successful on the basis simply of a surplus of ticks, the Queensland Government is going to challenge them. I agree with a comment made by Senator Alston that it is preferable always not to encourage litigation, to block all those avenues by having a perfect Act. I acknowledge that. In these circumstances where there is legal doubt as to whether one can create two classes of voters, whether one can amend the voting laws at a mid-way point-- Senator Alston —Have you had any independent legal advice? Senator ROBERT RAY —No, I have not, and it is not my job at this stage to seek such advice. Senator Alston —Will you make your advice available? Senator ROBERT RAY —What I have said is that I am always open to new views and new considerations. Senator Alston —What is wrong with putting it in the public arena? Senator ROBERT RAY —If I have a final definitive legal opinion I do. But, basically, these matters came to a head over the last three or four days. I have been given advice and I am accepting that advice at this point. Let me move to the second of the Bills, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-papers) Amendment Bill 1988, which deals with scrutineering. It might seem strange for a government to want to amend scrutineering clauses eight or 10 days before a referendum. It is, but if we are guilty of not having amended any of these clauses, I point out that no-one has amended any of them since 1910. I will run through the history of this: in 1906 a provision was put into the Electoral Act that allowed governors of each State to appoint a scrutineer to a booth. When a similar referendum Bill not relating to that matter came before the House of Representatives, Mr Deakin-I think he is still high in the lexicon of the Liberal Party of Australia in terms of revered figures of the past-raised this question and said it was very unfair for the State governments to be able to appoint scrutineers when the Commonwealth could not do so. His views were overruled by the then Labor Government but it did not have a majority in the Senate. How history repeats itself; the first time is a farce, the second time is a tragedy. These things occur. In fact, the Bill was amended and we then had the Governor-General with the ability to appoint scrutineers. I wonder why this has never come up before. I know why I have never wanted to scrutineer before. My first referendum was in 1967. Having spent eight hours at a booth there was no way that I was going to go in. In 1973 the Labor Party was supporting both the yes and the no cases. There was a blue and so it was not required. I recall that on the night of the referendum in 1977 I went to a wedding. On the other occasions there were referendums they were held in conjunction with general elections and I dare say that people scrutineered the referendum illegally on those nights. So this has never occurred to anyone. I wrote to both Mr Bowen and Mr Reith-this refers to the ticks and crosses and other areas-as I realised that there would be some controversy and that people may want these areas scrutinised so that they know what the facts are. I wrote to Mr Reith and Mr Bowen, I think on 21 July. I got a very prompt response from Mr Bowen saying that we may or may not want scrutineers. Mr Reith was a little slower in replying and I found his first reply confusing. As it turned out, we really ran out of time in terms of using the provisions of the current Act. It was virtually impossible to organise the State governors or the Governor-General to do it fairly. What do we do in Queensland? Do we say that we will have a National Party scrutineer for the No vote, a Labor Party scrutineer for the Yes vote and an each way bet for the Liberal Party because we are allowed only two scrutineers per booth? Who do we exclude in those circumstances-the Labor scrutineer, the National scrutineer or the Liberal scrutineer? Senator Alston —What happens with regard to the normal vote? Senator ROBERT RAY —The provisions for normal voting are absolutely contrasted. We are allowed one scrutineer per candidate per counting centre within the booth. These provisions state that we are allowed one scrutineer per booth by the Governor-General or one by a governor. So we could have a maximum of two. In the end we brought forward this legislation. Senator Harradine has raised some objections that I acknowledge. He referred to his previous position on a referendum. I do not think we had registered political parties at the time but it still does not deflect from some of his comments. I would have said that the ideal Act would be a mesh of both, political parties and any member of parliament being able to appoint scrutineers to cover those contingencies in some States where parties are not represented. For example, the Nationals are not represented in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. I acknowledge the points Senator Harradine made that they should be referred back to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. But I think in the instance of this election there are no practical problems in the way I have proposed it in contrast to Senator Harradine's principled stand. Will Senator Harradine appoint scrutineers? At the moment I do not think Senator Dunn has enough friends in politics to find many scrutineers because of the internal situation of the Nuclear Disarmament Party. From a practical sense I do not think we will hurt anyone by this Bill but, as Senator Harradine has pointed out, in the future there may be other circumstances when it does. Certainly, we invite the Joint Standing Committee to look at this question again. I suspect that it will be the first time it has been looked at since 1910 and we may be able to get a position from it. I think the position of the Government is best summed up by saying that the Bill on scrutineers will leave no doubt as to the integrity of the ballot and that is the result we want. In terms of Senator Short's position concerning the ticks and crosses, the Labor Party will be supporting the Bill in this chamber. If there were a revision of legal advice that allowed us to consider it in the House of Representatives we would probably be amending it to clarify the inside and the outside of the square aspect. I give notice of that now. By the way, I know how hard it is to draw up a technical Bill of this nature when under the pressure of doing everything else at this time. Senator Short —I thought we had done rather well, actually. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Short thinks he did rather well. I give him a C plus. I wish the Bills a speedy passage. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-Papers) Amendment Bill 1988 be read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. REFERENDUM (MACHINERY PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1988 Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.33) —I had circulated an amendment which reads: Page 2, clause 3 proposed subsection 27 (4), lines 1 to 3, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: `(4) The registered officer of a registered political party or his nominees may appoint persons to act as scrutineers during voting at a referendum at each place in Australia where voting is being conducted, but not more than one scrutineer for each party shall be allowed at each polling booth at any one time.'. I have discussed this matter with the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) and his advisers. On the basis of that discussion, from which I understand my amendment is broadly acceptable, I would like to suggest a couple of changes. Briefly, the purpose of the amendment is to enable essentially more than one scrutineer to be appointed by political parties during the hours of polling at each polling both. At the moment the way in which the Government's Bill is drafted allows only one scrutineer per party to be appointed for each polling booth during voting. There is a technical problem in that the vote goes on for 10 hours and I believe that it would be desirable to allow for the rotation of scrutineers whilst at the same time preventing more than one scrutineer from each political party being present at any one time. That would bring it in line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the amendment has been drafted along those lines. The wording at the start of my amendment reads: The registered officer of a registered political party or his nominees may appoint persons to act as scrutineers during voting . . . It has been drawn to my attention by the Minister and his advisers that the words `or his nominees' may cause some difficulties and that their inclusion is not necessary anyway to meet the point that I had in mind, which was essentially that members and senators ought also to be able to appoint scrutineers because of the practical difficulties if the appointment of scrutineers were restricted solely to the registered officer or his deputy. Having now had it drawn to my attention that the cross-reference in the Government's Bill to the Commonwealth Electoral Bill enables senators and members to be appointed as nominees and that therefore my wording is unnecessary and could cause some problems, I would like to move an amendment to my amendment to delete the words `or his nominees' in the second line of the amendment circulated by me, leaving the rest of my amendment stand. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —For technical purposes, the Committee will accept that you are moving the amendment circulated, with the deletion of the words `or his nominees'. Senator SHORT —Yes I move: Page 2, clause 3, proposed subsections 27 (4), lines 1 to 3, leave out the proposed subsections, insert the following subsection: ``(4) The registered officer of a registered political party may appoint persons to act as scrutineers during voting at a referendum at each place in Australia where voting is being conducted, but not more than one scrutineer for each party shall be allowed at each polling booth at any one time.''. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(12.36) —The Government has no objection to the amendment moved by Senator Short. It is eminently sensible and will facilitate a better operation on the day. Amendment agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.37) —I think the tidiest way would be for me to seek leave to move these amendments as a whole, either after the committee stage or now. I understand and accept what Senator Ray has said about the fact that this matter will now be referred back to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and under the circumstances that would be desirable. What I wish to do is to place the amendments on record here so that they are part of the vote. I simply seek leave to move the amendments that I circulated in my name. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I suggest that it would be better if you moved your first amendment in relation to clause 3. If we can get that out of the way, we can look at the remainder of the Bill, because all the following amendments are in relation to that. Senator HARRADINE —I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, proposed subsections 27 (4) and (5), lines 1 to 10, leave out the proposed subsections, insert the following subsection: ``(4) Each member of Parliament may appoint one person to act as a scrutineer during voting at a referendum at each place in Australia where voting is being conducted.''. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(12.38) —As I indicated in my summing up at the second reading stage, I do not believe the Government can support the amendment at this stage. I am sure the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will consider it and try to mesh the two ideas together at some stage. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.38) —I think Senator Harradine has a real point in the amendment but, given the circumstances, particularly the necessity to have something proper in place in time for the 3 September referendum, and given that the practical implications of this aspect would be very limited at this time, I would like, along with Senator Harradine, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to give his thoughts careful consideration at that time. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.39) —I have also circulated an amendment to clause 4 (4a) on a similar point to the amendment to clause 3 (4) that the Committee has just discussed. The purpose of the amendment I circulated was twofold: first, to make it clear that it would be possible for members and senators to appoint persons to act as scrutineers during the counting of the referendum vote. The first amendment we were talking about referred to the polling period. This amendment relates to the period of the counting of votes. For reasons similar to those that the Committee discussed in relation to clause 3 (4), I wish to delete-because they are redundant and could cause some problems-the words `or his nominees' in the second line of my amendment; it is covered adequately. The second purpose of my amendment was to bring into line with the provisions of the Electoral Act the number of scrutineers from each party that could take part in the scrutiny. Under the Government's Bill the number of scrutineers to be appointed by each party would have been restricted to one for each counting centre, whereas under the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the counting of general elections the provision is that each party can have a number of scrutineers not exceeding the number of officials or officers who are engaged in the scrutiny. The purpose of my amendment is to bring that aspect into line as between referendums and general elections. I understand the Government has no difficulties with the amendment. On a minor drafting point, I am advised of an omission; namely, in the last line, where I say `who are engaged in the scrutiny at each centre', the word `counting' should be inserted before the word `centre'. Those are purely technical changes. I therefore move: Page 2, clause 4, proposed subsection 89 (4a), lines 14 to 16, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: ``(4a) The registered officer of a registered political party may appoint persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre, but the number of scrutineers for each party shall not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre.''. Amendment agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.43) —by leave-In the interests of completeness and so that the work of the people who were responsible for drafting this amendment on my instructions will be available to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and so that it will be recorded in Hansard, I move: (2) Page 2, clause 4, proposed subsection 89 (4a), lines 14 to 16, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: ``(4a) Each member of the Parliament may appoint one person to act as a scrutineer during the scrutiny at each counting centre.''. (3) Page 2, clause 4, proposed subsection 89 (5), lines 20 to 25, definitions of `registered officer' and `registered political party', lines 20 and 25, leave out the definitions. Amendments negatived. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. REFERENDUM (MACHINERY PROVISIONS) (INFORMAL BALLOT-PAPERS) AMENDMENT BILL 1988 The Bill. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.44) —I wish to make a couple of brief comments in response to a question that Senator Macklin asked me during the second reading debate and in relation to some comments of Senator Ray during his summing up on the second reading debate. The amendment moved in June, which the Australian Democrats and the Opposition opposed, was quite different in wording from the wording of the present Bill. As I made clear in the debate on 2 June, the Opposition was opposing the Government's amendment because: It does not do what the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters intended, and with which we agreed-namely, to have a vote in the referendum regarded as valid if there was a clear `Yes' or `No' in the appropriate box and also if there are words outside the box that have no relevance to the question. In relation to that aspect we believed the clause we were voting on at the time was technically flawed. I in no way accept responsibility for the problem that we have now found ourselves in. The other point that Senator Macklin asked me about was whether I had any transitional arrangements in the Opposition's Bill to meet the claim-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, I shall report progress. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to last night's Budget and, in particular, to the fact that total taxation revenue is expected to increase by $7.4 billion, or 10 per cent, and, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, will equal last year's record of 25.7 per cent; that net pay as you earn (PAYE) tax revenue-that is, the taxes which are paid by wage and salary earners, or those who are supposedly Simon Crean's constituents-will rise by 13.8 per cent or $4.2 billion; and that the household saving ratio is expected to rise marginally from an extremely low 8 per cent to a mere 8.25 per cent over the year. Does the Minister agree that that Government's strategy to boost government saving is being achieved chiefly through higher taxation at the expense of private sector saving and living standards? If not, how does he explain those figures? Senator WALSH —I did notice one of the more erratic and hysterical statements, even by his recent standards, made by the Leader of the Opposition last night. He claimed that fiscal drag or bracket creep, as he calls it, which is a somewhat less accurate term than fiscal drag, was responsible for increased revenue of $10 billion. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has problems with arithmetic and has had all his life, apparently. That was demonstrated most spectacularly about 14 months ago when he had a $1 1/2 billion error, which he was ultimately forced to acknowledge, in his alternative spending proposals. Senator Chaney asked: What is the source of the additional revenue? It is true-probably even the Leader of the Opposition understands this-that when money incomes rise, whether real incomes have risen or not, and the income tax rate scale is at all progressive, the proportion of income paid in tax increases. That is an arithmetic truism. However-and I have been making this point in public speeches on many occasions in recent months-the major cause of the increase in revenue is from the existence of economic growth itself. More and more people are employed. For example, since this Government has been in office, employment has increased by a massive one million. More than a million extra people are employed now compared with the number employed when we came into office. Another one million people are paying taxes. The forecast growth for employment in this financial year is 2 3/4 per cent. That translates into about 200,000. About 200,000 extra people will be in jobs this year compared with last year. An extra 200,000 people will be paying tax. To put it another way: in the last financial year the taxation base from personal income tax, corporate taxes, sales taxes, customs duty and excises, excluding the Bass Strait crude oil levy, which is a tax on producers rather than consumers, was around $71 billion. With economic growth at 3 per cent and without any real increase in the intensity of taxation, revenue grows by more than $2 billion. This year growth is expected to be above 3 per cent. So revenue will grow from that source alone, without any changes in the intensity of taxation, by close to $2 1/2 billion. When a government engineers growth rates in excess of 3 per cent over a sustained period, which this Government has done, and also for a sustained period not only prevents increases in outlays but actually achieves, over three successive years-the fourth one is coming up-declines in outlays in real terms, there is an enormous change in the Budget bottom line. That enormous change has been in turning a deficit of $5.6m, I think it was, in 1985-86 into a surplus expected to be $5 1/2 billion in this financial year; that is, an $11 billion turnaround in the Budget outcome in three or four years. The principal reason for that is economic growth. However, there are some other reasons. For instance, the Government has broadened the income tax base. When John Howard presided over the disintegration of the Australian economy back in the early 1980s and the economic chaos that he had helped to engineer, paying income tax was, to a large extent, a discretionary activity. People could choose whether to pay income tax or not. Of course, since then the income tax system has been massively cleaned up. We now have fringe benefits taxes-the days of the free boozy lunch have gone-and a capital gains tax. Hence revenue flows from that-not from discrete increases in taxation; but by ensuring that people actually pay the tax that they should have paid all along. I will make a couple of relatively minor points. When economic growth is running at strong levels-the forecast level of 3 1/2 per cent is a strong rate of growth by Australian historic standards-not only will there be the extra 200,000 people employed but also, presumably, people will be working more overtime then they were before. Individuals will be shifting from lower paid jobs to higher paid jobs. Of course, outside the PAYE area, more self-employed persons will have increased real incomes and, therefore, increased taxation payments. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer, which seemed to come down to saying that we will have a growth rate of 3 1/2 per cent to match a 13.8 per cent rise in pay as you earn tax. I ask the Minister, to ensure that he does not have trouble with arithmetic: Does he agree that the tax rate paid-that is, the overall, average tax rate paid by middle income earners-has risen substantially under his Government? Will he confirm that an average income earner with a dependent spouse would have been paying a little over 17c in the dollar on his or her income in 1983 and would now be paying over 22c in the dollar? Does the Minister agree that, under his Government, there has been a substantial increase in the percentage tax paid on the income of a middle income earner? Senator WALSH —By picking up a particular period and making a comparison between that and some other period, one can demonstrate all sorts of numerical quirks. As to the particular example quoted, I have not done that calculation. I certainly would not accept, without independent verification, any calculation that comes from the Opposition because we know that it cannot even do simple addition. Some quite complicated arithmetic is required to do the sort of calculation which Senator Chaney purports to have done or has quoted. We know that the Opposition cannot even do simple arithmetic-simple addition. Senator Vanstone —What about your simple additions? Senator WALSH —I understand that Senator Vanstone is an accountant or something like that. Perhaps the Opposition should have got her to cast her eye over the calculation. The Opposition demonstrated 14 months ago that it cannot do simple addition. I do not think that there is anything more elementary in arithmetic than simple addition, and the Opposition cannot do that. So I certainly would not take any notice of its more sophisticated calculations or alleged calculations. The other point I want to make relevant to the particular years which Senator Chaney quoted is that in 1983, whatever taxes people were paying at that time, unless they were pensioners or were in that type of classification, they had to take out-unless they were going to expose themselves to unacceptable risks-private health insurance. That is something which they no longer have to do. Senator COATES —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories aware of a report yesterday that an application to operate an alluvial gold mine near the Jane River in the South West of Tasmania has been made to the Tasmanian Government? Given that the area concerned is a World Heritage area, would not the operation of such a mine run counter to the obligation to protect such an area? Further, is the Minister aware that the Tasmanian Government is seriously contemplating allowing the mine to operate on the grounds that the present lease for the mine was granted in 1974, thus pre-dating the World Heritage proclamation? Would the fact that the lease pre-dates the proclamation allow the mine to operate in the World Heritage area? Senator RICHARDSON —My understanding is that this gold mine is in the old World Heritage area, not in any new proposal-- Opposition senators-Speak up! Senator RICHARDSON —Sorry. My understanding is that this gold mine is in the old World Heritage area, not in any new proposal, and that the lease to which the honourable senator has referred-- Senator Hill —The camera is over here. Senator RICHARDSON —I have never been a camera hog, Senator Hill. I am here, treating my ministerial role seriously, or attempting to. My understanding is that that lease was issued some time ago. Obviously, once the area was nominated for World Heritage, the ball game changed. The Commonwealth, in living up to its responsibilities to protect that area, does not necessarily ban all the prospects of mining. So I cannot say to Senator Coates that the mine cannot go ahead; but to go ahead it needs to get approval first from the Tasmanian environment ministry. It would need to go through some form of process there. It would also need approval from the Ministerial Council which administers the World Heritage area. The Premier of Tasmania has not raised this issue with the Ministerial Council which last met a few weeks ago and is not scheduled to meet again until the end of October. I will raise with the Premier at that meeting the prospects for this gold mine. One thing is for sure: If this mine, or any other, were in any way to damage the values for which the area was nominated for World Heritage in the first place, the Commonwealth would not permit the mine to go ahead. Senator STONE —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he is aware that, in responding last Sunday to a question from Mr Laurie Oakes on the Channel 9 Sunday program as to why, given the large surplus in the Budget, people cannot have tax cuts now, the Prime Minister said: Now I think it's quite clear that when we've still got a significant external problem, large external debt, current account deficits, the ordinary Australians know that we've got to be careful about running up high import bills. Demand is running strongly in the economy at the moment and if we were to significantly increase the level of demand in the Australian economy- by giving tax cuts now- our import bill would go up to unacceptably high levels and it would be dangerous. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's analysis? If so, will the Minister tell the Senate why, if those arguments preclude any tax cut now, they will not equally preclude any tax cut in 10 months' time? Senator WALSH —In 10 months' time a number of things could have changed. Given Senator Stone's highly fallible record as a forecaster both when he was Treasury Secretary and in his more recent incarnation, I should not be taking too much notice of Senator Stone's forecast. I am sure that all those who can remember as far back as the end of October and November last year-I suppose it is a bit difficult for the National Party to remember that far back-will recall that Senator Stone was demanding day after day that the Government bring in some draconian changes to economic policy because disaster was about to overtake us because of the share market decline. According to Senator Stone that would inevitably induce an international recession and probably a flight of capital from Australia and certainly a decline in export prices. What has happened since then, as the Budget Papers show, is that export prices, or more precisely the terms of trade, improved very markedly over the last financial year, indeed by more than 9 per cent which was an outcome completely at odds with the forecast Senator Stone was making a little bit before we were half way through the year. It would overstate the situation to say that we are presently in the middle of a commodity price boom. In fact, the terms of trade right now are at about the long term trend for Australia's terms of trade. One can influence that long term trend to some extent by whatever point at which one chooses to start. So there is an element of judgment or subjectivity in that, but they are around the long term trend. We have had two previous occasions in the last 20 years when there was an export price boom and an export boom. They occurred in the early 1980s and in 1973. On both of those occasions the potential gains that could have accrued to that fortuitous and very large increase in export receipts was frittered away in a wages explosion or an import surge. Senator Stone will remember very well, I am sure, the last time that happened. I understand that he was giving advice to the then Government-some of it good; some of it bad. We had a wages explosion of 13 per cent in the 1981 calendar year and 14 per cent in 1982. What we must do, and what this Government will do, is ensure that the fortuitous gains from the recent, quite large, and somewhat unexpected increase in Australia's export prices or improvement in our terms of trade, are not so frittered away with a wages explosion or an import surge. Looking ahead to next year, Senator Stone has asked the question, which is a fair enough question I suppose: If there are macro-economic policy dangers in cutting personal income tax this year why is it all right to do it next year? I want to make two points: firstly, for the reasons I have already given in answering the question from Senator Chaney, there will be a very much larger receipts pool next year from which tax cuts can be funded. Secondly, there will be a further decline in real terms in Commonwealth outlays. I am not going to make any predictions about it now, but if there is no policy change, the surplus next financial year will be very much larger than it is this financial year. There is a bigger revenue pool from which to fund the tax cuts and a shrinking expenditure pipeline to bleed the revenue pool, if you like. In regard to the second part of the question, as the Treasurer has made clear on many occasions, the Government will be expecting-and the sorts of expectations that the Government has had have normally been fulfilled-a tax and wages trade-off to be agreed between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions which will ensure a lower wages outcome in the next financial year than would otherwise have occurred. I am sure that when that happens-even Senator Stone will recognise that that is a good thing-the economy will be healthier with a lower wages outcome than it would be with a higher wages outcome, other things being equal. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for the latter part of his answer when he began to get to the question but I put it to him: Is he saying that by this time next year we will not have a significant external problem, we will not have large external debt, we will not have a current account deficit and we will not have a need to be careful about running up high import bills? I am just quoting the Prime Minister's reasons for not doing so at the present time. Is the Minister saying that demand will not be running strongly in the economy in 10 months' time or, if he is not saying any of those things, is he saying that an injection of additional demand at that time from a major tax cut will not result in, to use the Prime Minister's words, `our import bill going up to unacceptably high levels and it would be dangerous'? Secondly, and pursuant to the Minister's answer, is he also saying that the Government's policy this year, in order to have had a tax cut now, should have been to have had a wages tax trade-off now? If so, why did we not have one? Senator WALSH —I can understand the mirth of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that Senator Stone should be giving the Government a lecture on desirable wage outcomes, given that Senator Stone, as Secretary to the Treasury, presided over the second biggest wages explosion this country has ever seen-in 1981 and 1982. So if we are looking for advice on how to deliver a good wages outcome, Senator Stone is about the last person we will be going to for that advice. I did not say we would not have significant external problems 12 months hence, although it should be noted that in the last financial year Australia's foreign debt as a proportion of gross domestic product fell by just over one percentage point. That certainly does not mean that we are out of trouble but at least the movement is in the right direction. Present indications are that there will be a further movement in the right direction this year. Although for a considerable time we will still have a substantial foreign debt, higher than anybody would ideally like, and yet, we are making progress. In regard to the comment about a tax and wage trade-off in this financial year, I believe a respectable argument could certainly be put that the outcome might well be better if the Budget surplus were somewhat smaller and wages outcomes were somewhat lower. Certainly, at some point one would more than offset the other. But a judgment was made that that could not be satisfactorily achieved in this financial year, but it can be in the next financial year. Senator CROWLEY —I congratulate the Government on its continuing commitment to child-care in this Budget. Can the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health elaborate on what evidence there is to show that publicly funded child-care produces social and economic benefits for Australian families? What action is being taken to ensure that a greater number of needy families have access to the children's services program (CSP)? Senator COOK —What has to be acknowledged about Senator Crowley is that she has pursued the issue. Senator Brownhill —Speak into the microphone and we might be able to hear you. Senator COOK —I am glad that Senator Brownhill wants to hear the answer to this question. I am sure Senator Crowley has asked it because it is an important one which should once again emphasise the Government's commitment to social justice. Before I was interrupted because I was not able to be heard-which is not often a complaint that is made of me by others-I was saying that Senator Crowley is to be acknowledged in this chamber as a senator who has consistently followed questions of social justice and asked questions and made speeches about the Government's commitment to the social and economic well-being of families, women and children. This question is related to child-care. I notice from cuttings that this morning's Press fairly fully reports the Budget measures that were announced last night by the Treasurer. As I read those cuttings, they contain not a shred of criticism of those measures. The Government's record in the social justice area is of course unparalleled. Nowhere is this more evident than in the provision of child-care services. Since coming to office we have increased spending on child services programs from $62m to over $222m. The number of government funded child-care places has been boosted accordingly from 46,000 to 110,000. In 1984 we introduced a fee relief subsidy to ensure that services are affordable to low and middle income families. Our over- riding priorities for the children's services program are that it be work related and targeted to those most in need. Thus we now see that 80 per cent of sole parents working or seeking work have children in government funded child-care. The participation of women in the labour force has increased from 45 per cent in 1983 to 50 per cent this year. The economic benefits of government funded child-care were demonstrated recently by a study conducted by the Centre for Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University. That study found that the CSP produces substantial taxation and welfare savings which could outweigh the total cost of the program. Indeed, according to that study, net Budget gains could be as high as $106m. Senator Walsh —Provided female wages grow. Senator COOK —That may be so. I am citing the study. This Budget initiative, providing 30,000 additional child-care places over four years, builds upon the enormous pro- gress that we as a government have already made. The national child-care strategy will provide care for 20,000 outside of school hours, 4,000 centre based places and 4,000 family day care places and 2,000 occasional care places. The strategy will overcome imbalance in the CSP caused by a relatively low coverage of the needs of working parents with school age children. It will extend the existing very successful partnership arrangements with the States, Territories and local government authorities. It will introduce innovative partnership agreements with industry. Employers are being invited to apply for Commonwealth assistance in establishing and operating child-care facilities for their staff. Under these unique arrangements employers will fund the building of child-care facilities and the Commonwealth will share operational costs with parents and industry. Senator Vanstone —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. If this chamber is to retain its reputation and indeed improve it, having moved to a new place-- Government senators-Oh! Senator Vanstone —I am glad Government senators find that funny. If the Parliament is to improve its reputation there has to be an improvement in Question Time. It is an absolute abuse for the Minister to come in here with dorothy dix questions and prattle on like a pork chop. The Minister can make a press statement if he wants to. It is an abuse of Question Time and I suggest that a stop be put to it. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I have no powers as to how the Minister shall answer a question. I have been listening to his answer and it has been completely within order. Senator COOK —One of the most outrageous examples I have seen in this chamber is Senator Vanstone's performance as spokesman for the Opposition on women's issues. Here we are talking about something directly of concern to thousands of Australian working women and the honourable senator is not even interested. The honourable senator is interested in trying to take a smart, cute point of order to prevent that message from getting across. Let me continue, because I was interrupted when I was talking about what arrangements we are making with employers to fund the building of child-care facilities and saying that the Commonwealth will share the operational costs of our child-care program with parents and industry. The involvement of industry of course recognises the value of child-care services to employers and maximises the potential for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the child services program. Dr Blewett tells me that talks are already taking place with business leaders about this initiative, which is expected to prove particularly attractive to industries-Senator Vanstone may not be interested in this but I am sure that all other honourable senators are-with a high proportion of women employees, particularly industries such as the clothing, textiles and footwear industries, and indeed a number of manufacturing companies. It needs to be remembered that the national child-care strategy will increase the number of Government funded child-care places to 140,000, which is over 100,000 more than applied during the time the Fraser Government graced the treasury bench in this country. That is a stunning example of a social strategy at work. Each one of those places is an investment in the social and economic well-being of Australian families and continuing prosperity for Australian industry. New initiatives make the child services program one of the world's most extensive and innovative child-care programs as well as one of the world's most humane. I am absolutely disappointed by the interjections and opposition to these announcements coming from the Opposition. It is a disgrace to the Opposition and to this chamber. Senator Michael Baume —Mr President, I take a point of order. I ask that the Minister table the book from which he was reading. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator Cook —I was not reading from a book, so the request is out of order. Senator Michael Baume —Mr President, I take a point of order. I ask that the Minister table the lengthy, boring document from which he was reading. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator Cook —Mr President, I was not reading from a boring document, so the request is still out of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will not table the document. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister is, in a smart alec way, responding to a request to table a document. Various descriptions have been ascribed to the document. The Minister would appear to be making some sort of technical response that that is not a correct description of the document. The Minister has been asked to table the document or, if he has not been asked, I now ask that he table the document from which he quoted very extensively during what was an unconscionably long answer in Question Time. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document from which he was quoting? Senator Cook —I am happy to do so, Mr President. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training aware of a study by Dr Johnathon Kelly of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University which shows that graduates return more to the public purse in taxes during their working lives than the cost of their education to the Government? Indeed, according to a report in the Age on Monday, the Government actually makes an average net profit of $13,000 from each graduate. In the light of this analysis, how can the Government argue for an extra tuition tax, as it did in the Budget Speech, on the grounds that it is unfair that-I quote the Treasurer's comments-`all taxpayers fund the (higher) education of a minority who, by virtue of their qualifications, enjoy a higher income throughout their working life'? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. My point of order does not relate to the question in any way. The Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, was asked to table a document and, as I understand it, he agreed to table it. He then, apparently, tore out part of the document from which he was quoting and handed it to the attendant. Quite clearly, the standing order relates to the document from which the quotation was made. It has frequently been the practice in this place for Ministers to bring into the chamber only those elements of more extensive documents from which they wish to quote, precisely because they do not wish to table the whole document. But in this case the Minister has a substantial document from which he quoted. He apparently dismembered that document in complying with the request. Mr President, I ask you to rule that, once the Minister has agreed to table the document, he must table the document in the form in which it was when he quoted from it. Senator Gareth Evans —I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr President. Any Minister is entitled to claim confidentiality in respect of a document in whole or in part. By virtue of the action that Senator Cook is alleged to have taken he has obviously been claiming confidentiality with respect to part of the document. Senator Cook —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. It is essential that it be said in terms of this point of order that Senator Chaney has proceeded on a presumption that I have an extensive document. I do not know what evidence Senator Chaney has for that presumption, but it is not justified. What I do have-it is not a document from which I was quoting at all-is a separate document which lists press releases in terms of the Government's announcements on child-care. It is a set of cuttings. If Senator Chaney wants me to read them out I will do so. If he has not read the newspapers and wants to improve his daily reading, I will be happy to give him a copy of those press releases. Maybe he will learn a bit more about the Government's child-care program as a consequence. The PRESIDENT —Order! In respect of the point of order, I point out that there is no way I can determine what part of a document a Minister is quoting from. If the Minister is prepared to table that information, I believe that the matter is resolved. Senator Cook —Mr President, I am happy to table the press releases. I was not quoting from them and that was not, seemingly, what was asked, but I am happy to table them. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Haines asked a question of Senator Walsh as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Senator WALSH —The report in question, or study as it has been pretentiously called, I have not read, but I have read the press reports of it. Assuming that those reports are reasonably accurate, the identified chain of cause and effect goes like this: because certain people have a tertiary qualification their incomes are very much higher over their lifetimes than they would otherwise have been and therefore they pay more income tax. I do not believe it follows from that that therefore they should not pay anything at all for the tertiary qualification which is the source of their higher income. All the government policy requires is that people, once their incomes reach a certain level, repay 20 per cent of the cost of the provision of that expensive education service which enables its recipients to earn higher income throughout their lifetimes and therefore to pay more tax. The logical extension of the argument that seems to be implicit in Senator Haines's question is that the Government should subsidise, to the extent of 100 per cent-not 80 per cent, but 100 per cent-the activity which causes people to earn higher incomes and therefore to pay more taxation. If one wants to push that argument to its logical conclusion, we should be subsidising savings by 100 per cent so that people would earn more income from the interest received on their savings. That shows that the proposition is, to say the least, somewhat untenable. I know that my view is considered to be rather an eccentric view in some quarters, but I have always regarded people who pay a lot of taxation as being among the lucky ones. Even my father, who was a beneficiary of the major boom in wheat and sheep farmers' incomes which occurred in the early 1950s, paid a great deal of taxation and regarded himself as being extremely fortunate to do so. That is one of the better ideas I have picked up from him. People who pay a lot of taxation are lucky. They are not to be pitied. If the reason they pay a lot of taxation is that they picked up a particular employment qualification, 80 per cent of the cost of which has been met by the taxpayer, and they have to pay only 20 per cent of it, I would say that they are doubly lucky. Senator BEAHAN —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade comment on the impact on Australia's economic and political interests in Asia of the Opposition's position on immigration? Senator GARETH EVANS —The current debate in Australia, stimulated by Opposition spokesmen, over the direction of Australian immigration policy has attracted damaging international attention and comment particularly, as might have been expected, in the Asia-Pacific region. There can be no question that Australia's image has already suffered as a consequence of what is perceived as a breakdown in the bipartisan approach to immigration policy of recent decades. As should be self-evident, and as our posts are telling us in no uncertain terms, such a perception, if sustained, is very likely to have serious adverse consequences for Australian trading access and commercial opportunities with the region as well as more specifically for our business migration and education services objectives with consequences which have already been reliably assessed in terms of the loss of billions of dollars to the Australian economy. On 18 August the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, said that Australia was probably being damaged in the region by the debate. Certainly, analysis of media reporting around Asia of the issues bears that out. The statements of Mr Howard, Senator Stone, Mr Sinclair and others in the Opposition have all been widely reported and referred to. Some of the headlines in the regional press convey the flavour. The Kuala Lumpur Star says, `Racist thinking will only make it hard for Aussies'. The Far Eastern Economic Review says, `A wolf in white clothing', referring to the Opposition Leader. The Straits Times of Singapore says, `Asian migrant row rages on Aussie TV'. The Asahi Shimbun of Tokyo says, `Policy of restraining migration from Asia adopted by the Australian Opposition'. There is similar reportage-- Senator Michael Baume —Tell us about Japanese immigration policy. Senator GARETH EVANS —Japan does not have an immigration program. Japan is not in the business of attracting migrants or investment to its shores in the same way as we are. Japan is not in the business of seeking to attract business migrants or fee paying students to its shores. Senator Baume knows not what he is talking about, here or anywhere else. There has been similar reportage in papers such as the Statesman of Calcutta, the Times of India, the Bombay Daily and the China Daily. Posts have reported a widespread questioning among well-informed contacts on the ground of the resurgence, as they see it, of anti-Asian attitudes in Australia, with consequent damage to our standing in the region. A similar concern has also been actively displayed, as I know from personal experience over the past fortnight, by recent delegations at ministerial and other levels from the region visiting Australia. The only thing in all this reporting and reaction on the ground that has kept Australia's reputation even halfway intact has been the reporting of the Prime Minister's repeated statements that, whatever else happens, whatever the electoral consequences, there will be no compromise whatever on the part of the Australian labour movement and this Government to the principle of racially non-discriminatory migration. Mr President, perhaps you will allow me to say, because I might not have another opportunity to do so, that I am appalled by what has happened in the last few weeks and so many other people of my generation are appalled, a generation for whom race and the white Australia policy was probably the big social, political and moral issue of our formative years, not just because of what I have been talking about-the adverse impact on Australia's reputation and standing in Asia and the larger world of foreign affairs and the economic damage that will be done with our present and potential future trading partners-but, above all else, because of the damage it does to human feelings, dignity and relationships and the quality of life of people already in this country. For it to be even said that Asian immigration damages social cohesion can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When political leaders say these things, it gives respectability to feelings which simply are not respectable: it legitimises prejudice. My concern, in other words, is quite apart from all the implications for foreign affairs and trade. I am deeply concerned-and everyone in this Parliament ought to be deeply concerned-that what has happened in the last few weeks has undermined and undercut the whole laborious process of building a tolerant, open, civilised and multicultural society in this country, a process we have been embarked upon very consciously and deliberately on a bipartisan basis, and with very considerable success, over the last two decades. It is time for a very urgent repair job to be done. I simply hope that the Opposition leadership can swallow enough of its pride for that to be done. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I note that total Budget outlays on education in 1988-89 are estimated to rise by 10.4 per cent to $6.3 billion and include an increase in assistance under Abstudy of 21.3 per cent or $16.6m to provide generous secondary and tertiary student assistance for all Australians claiming to be of Aboriginal descent. I ask: Why, therefore, is assistance under the isolated children's program to be cut by 17 per cent in 1988-89, from $32.4m to $27m, with an estimated reduction of 4,500 in the number of children being assisted under this scheme? Senator WALSH —I will seek confirmation of this from John Dawkins, but I think that the reason for the latter statement, that is, a reduction in expenditure on the isolated children's program, is due to the fact that an assets test has been applied in addition to the income test. In regard to assistance to Aboriginal students, I guess that the rednecks up there in the Queensland National Party would like to have all Aboriginals illiterate for all time and probably begrudge any money at all being spent on providing education to Aboriginals. But that certainly is not the view of the Government. As from next year, there will be an income test on Aboriginal student entitlements-education allowances. I expect that the growth is due not entirely, but almost entirely, to the anticipated increase in the number of students, which is something that I would have thought most people-again leaving the Queensland National Party out of it-would welcome. Senator McKIERNAN —My question, on the very important matter of the institution of marriage, marriage counselling and marriage education, is directed to the Minister for Justice. I digress slightly from my question to recognise the presence in the public gallery of some students from Western Australia who won a Budget competition. Their prize was to be in attendance last night when the Federal Budget was brought down. One of their propositions, which relates to my question, was that the Government ought to institute a divorce tax-but the submission did not come in in time for Mr Keating to mention it. But John, Nicole and Nelson are with us this afternoon. My question is: To what extent did the Commonwealth Budget impact on marriage counselling and marriage education funding? Senator TATE —I add my congratulations to those Western Australian students who have shown a keen interest in national political affairs. I will certainly convey to the Attorney-General and the Treasurer their interesting ideas concerning the way in which the community's costs should be recouped-as I take the proposed taxation to be a form of recoupment for the expenditure involved in the judicial determination of a breakdown of a marriage, resulting in great expenditure to the community in the courts, counselling services and so on. I recall that during the debates in the Senate chamber on the amendments to the Family Law Act, debates which were very extensive and lengthy, there was much made by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber of the need for increased expenditures on counselling of those whose marriages were in some jeopardy or peril and also for the provision of premarriage education services to ensure that those who make that formal commitment are well placed to see through the various traumas that may occur along the way. I say that as a bachelor and obviously without much personal experience of the difficulties that can occur. In so far as those difficulties can occur, it has been the constant attempt of the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, to secure more funds out of the Budget for marriage counselling and marriage education organisations. It is pleasing that in the Budget announced last night total funding of $7,386,000 has been provided. Funding for marriage counselling organisations increased by 11 per cent to $6,969,000. Marriage education funding increased by 76 per cent to $205,000. I will be very pleased when I close the national conference of marriage education personnel in Hobart on Friday to gather their response to that very generous increase in funding for their bodies. The allocation marks a very significant milestone which is a very tangible expression of the Federal Attorney-General's personal commitment and the Government's social commitment to the institution of marriage. I believe that the stability of the family unit, in so far as it is helped by this program, will be good not only for individual Australians and families but also for society as a whole, for which the family unit provides so many services at an expenditure rate far lower than if the people within the family unit were forced to rely on society in general for the provision of those services. Senator LEWIS —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, concerns reports of a raid by Australian Taxation Office, Customs and Australian Federal Police officers on the premises of Coopers and Lybrand to seize records relating to activities of a large computer company and an acknowledgment by Digital Equipment Corporation (Aus.) Pty Ltd (DEC) that it was the subject of an Australian Taxation Office raid last week. The purpose of the raid was alleged to relate to an export-import scheme to avoid sales tax and customs duty. Given that such a scheme could also be used to satisfy offsets obligations and commitments under the partnerships for development arrangements, I ask the Minister: Is he aware or has he inquired whether the same scheme has been used by the Digital Equipment Corporation or any other, and which, computer companies to satisfy obligations arising under the offsets program or the partnerships for development arrangements? Given the potential for abuse of the offsets program, which abuse was identified in the 270th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts last year, and possible Australian links with the United States purchasing scandal, will the Minister now commission an independent audit of government purchasing arrangements and, in particular, the administration of the offsets program, for which I called last month? Finally, what proportion of computer equipment exports, claimed by the Minister as evidence of the success of his policies, has been artificial exports of the type featured in the current scheme? Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis is adept at picking up a newspaper article and expanding it into the realm of fantasy and in all sorts of ways which were not possibly even hinted at in the various newspaper reports in question. I have read the reports of a raid by Customs, Tax Office and Federal Police officers on the premises of Coopers and Lybrand. I am aware that DEC has acknowledged that the inquiry, in part, related to it. Strangely enough, this morning I met with the Managing Director of DEC and with the Vice-President of DEC from the United States. They had a number of concerns about matters of industry policy and so on in this country which we discussed, but this was not one of the issues which they raised with me; nor I with them. I did not feel that it was appropriate for me to do so in the circumstances of what has taken place in the last few weeks. For Senator Lewis to talk about the offsets program and the partnerships for development program and ask whether the same scheme is being used in respect of those two programs-a scheme which has not even been proven to exist-is to draw a long bow. Senator Stone —Did the arrow find its mark? Senator BUTTON —Not with me, Senator. One must target these things very well. The honourable senator's interjections must be targeted better. Senator Lewis then asked for a review of Government purchasing arrangements-which is, incidentally, taking place; it has been a matter of public announcement-and an independent audit of the offsets program and asked whether I would agree to that. The answer to that part of the question is no, because I do not believe that it is necessary. Senator Lewis has a tendency on many of these issues-as was the case with a number of his press releases during the recess-to speculate considerably rather than make any allegation of substance. For example, only a week or two ago he issued an outrageously naughty press release about the Australian Industry Development Corporation. This may be part of the raising of the Opposition's profile in this place. I read an article in the Melbourne Age only a month ago in which Mr Andrew Peacock was quoted as saying that he would raise his profile from now on. Senator Boswell —Better than having your photo taken with a bunch of models for Mode magazine. Senator BUTTON —Terrible, Senator! Not only did he say that he would raise his profile-- Senator Gareth Evans —He was talking about his facelift. Senator BUTTON —At the time I said to my wife, `I see that Andrew Peacock is going to raise his profile', and she said, `He is going to have another facelift'. He then volunteered that Senator Chaney was going to raise his profile, which he did during the following week, until nasty people such as Neil Brown told him to pull his head in. He then lowered his profile again. The third person to raise his profile was to be Senator Lewis. Perhaps this question is evidence of that; I do not know. But if this is it, all I can say is that it has to be better. This whole profile raising question has to become very important. In relation to that article, if they have to raise their profiles now, what have they been doing for the last five years? Have they been bludging on the Leader of the Opposition? They now need to indulge in this sort of exercise. With regard to Senator Lewis's question-- Senator Bishop —Answer the question. Senator BUTTON —I have already answered the question; I am getting a lot of help. In so far as the question expresses concern about this issue, as distinct from what I regard as speculation, I regard it as a very genuine question and I will seek to obtain an answer to that part of it. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Once again I draw the Senate's attention to Senator Button's personal attack. Whenever he is beaten in any sort of issue, he directs his attention to kicking people. I think it is a pity that he is unable to understand simple propositions. I put to the Minister this simple proposition: if a company imports, say, $1m worth of computer equipment from the United States, exports that same $1m worth of equipment from Australia to New Zealand, then reimports the same $1m worth of equipment from New Zealand, is not the situation that it has imported $2m worth of equipment and exported $1m worth of equipment and, therefore, fulfilled its offsets obligation under the Minister's proposal? Would that not be a scheme to avoid exporting product from Australia? Will the Minister examine his scheme to see whether that is happening? Senator BUTTON —Mathematically, what Senator Lewis put to me is correct. The scheme to which he has referred and on which he hung his question relates to-- Senator Lewis —Doing just that. Senator BUTTON —No, it does not relate to doing just that. Senator Lewis does not even know what it relates to, and nor do I until it has been investigated. I do not rely on newspaper reports in order to mount an argument of the kind that Senator Lewis is putting. I do not do that, and that is Senator Lewis's problem. Each of the agreements with the 11 companies which have now signed agreements relates to particular courses of conduct and particular types of exports which those companies will engage in. It is very unlikely-almost impossible-without a serious breach of faith by those companies and of the agreements, that anything of the kind referred to could occur. Each of those agreements is from time to time up for review. The review of some of those agreements is now taking place. Senator Bishop —Where is the scrutiny? Senator BUTTON —There is no scrutiny by partners in commercial agreements. There is no scrutiny by outside bodies, but there is certainly scrutiny by the parties. Senator Bishop —It is open to abuse. Senator BUTTON —Of course, Senator; any agreement is open to abuse. If people abuse them, they suffer the consequences in commercial terms; that is true. There is a whole series of interjections which reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what this issue is about. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr President, I ask whether you could prepare some statistics on the number of questions that have been asked today and the number of answers that have been given, so that in future, when consideration is being given by honourable senators to requests for the television cameras to come into this place, that matter can be taken into account. The PRESIDENT —I will do that. I believe that today there have been only 11 questions, including the two supplementaries, whereas yesterday there were 23. I was also hoping to give a first question to a senator, but unfortunately time ran out. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 23 August 1988 Senator Panizza asked me a question about the omission of entries from the Western Australian country telephone directories. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a detailed answer to that question. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Senator Panizza asked me on 23 August 1988 a number of questions about omission of entries from the Western Australian Country telephone directories. I undertook to obtain further information and to provide the honourable senator with a response. I am informed by Telecom that there were 2,562 omissions from the three directories issued covering country areas of Western Australia which contained approximately 201,000 entries in total. These three directories replaced the former single volume Western Australian Country directory and the omissions occurred during transfer of information between the computer systems of the Western Australian Government Printing Organisation (the former printer and compilation contractor for the directory) and Telecom. When the omissions were disclosed, Telecom was faced with two options-either reprint the directories or produce supplements. Due to the time required to recompile, print and bind all three country books, it was decided that the best option was to produce a directory supplement covering the three areas. Telecom has advised me that every effort was made to ensure that all omitted entries were included in the supplement. In this regard media releases were issued and advertisements placed in regional newspapers asking all affected customers to contact a special `hotline' telephone number to ensure their inclusion in the supplement. The supplement was subsequently produced and delivered to every Western Australian country business and household. The supplement is divided into three sections, each containing the omitted entries appropriate to the specific country directory. In addition, the supplement contains alterations to existing entries that have been notified since the delivery of the directories commenced in May 1988, and is designed to fit inside the front cover of the directory. Telecom has advised that payment of compensation in these circumstances would not be appropriate and is not required under their legislation. Senator BOLKUS —Yesterday Senator Watson asked me a question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I have the answer to the question and I would like to read it out; but, given the fact that Senator Watson is not here, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The question and answer read as follows- Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security on 23 August 1988: (1) 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? (2) Does the Department keep a register of such advices? (3) Does the Department always liaise with the Australian Taxation Office to ensure that there is not conflict of advice between the Department and the Tax Office that could embarrass pensioners and taxpayers? (4) 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: (1) Under current arrangements some institutionally managed investments are assessable under the pensions income test on a year to year basis. Others which fluctuate in value according to the market are assessable for 12 months when a profit is obtained on sale, maturity or withdrawal. Decisions as to which category an investment falls into are made under a process of consultation with the funds management industry and in accordance with a set of criteria including publicity given to the particular product by the manager, the investment policy of the manager and movement in unit price over a particular period. In no situation is an institution advised that its products do not affect pension or pensioner fringe benefit entitlements. (2) The Department keeps an on line register of investment products for easy access by regional office staff which shows how investment products are to be treated for pension income test purposes and if appropriate, the earnings rate that is to be used to calculate the amount of income that is assessable on a year to year basis. (3) The Department does not liaise with the Australian Taxation Office when deciding how a particular investment is to be treated under the pensions income test because there is no need given the different definitions of income in their respective legislation. (4) Pensioners should not hesitate to contact their local regional office for advice on how their particular investments are treated. However it is not the function of these offices to recommend particular investment products or to act as investment advisers. As announced in the Budget steps will be taken from 1 December 1988 to remove any pension advantage that exists where a pensioner purchases an investment that is assessable only at the point of sale, maturity or withdrawal. Pensioners with money invested in these market linked investments, which yield capital growth, will now have a rate of return calculated and counted as income on a year by year basis. This will apply to new claimants and where existing payments are reviewed. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —by leave-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. It has been brought to my notice that a poster which is presently being distributed widely around the country and which forms part of a lobbying campaign urging the Government to establish an export industry for four species of native birds-namely, the sulphur crested cockatoo, the galah, the little corella and the long billed corella-amounts to a misrepresentation of my position and, consequently, the position of the Australian Democrats on the export of Australian native fauna. I am directly quoted in that poster on the issue of supporting the culling of abundant species where it is proven that they are causing undue hardship to landholders because of their excess numbers. That is where the quote stops. The producers of this document have failed to go further in a speech from which they have quoted to a point where, when I was outlining the Australian Democrats' policy on animal welfare at a meeting in May of 1987, I went on to point out that included in that policy was a ban on the export of live Australian native fauna and products of any native species. I have had this drawn to my attention because, as a result of the distribution of this poster, there have been subsequent newspaper articles which have taken at face value the misrepresentation that is in that poster which is being distributed. I therefore wish to dissociate myself from that campaign and its organisers who, without my knowledge, used my name to support their calls for the establishment of an export industry in native birds-a position which I and my party totally reject. I do think that the least that I could expect from the organisers of this lobby is a public acknowledgment of their misrepresentation and that by now, since I wrote to them last week, they could have withdrawn from public circulation the document in which that misrepresentation appears. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Short proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The deliberate attempt by the Government to deceive the Australian people in its referendum campaign. 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 SHORT(Victoria)(3.05) —Mr President, the Hawke Government's campaign for the referendums on 3 September has been one of the most deceitful campaigns ever to be waged in Australia's political history. A web of deceit has been spun around virtually every aspect of this campaign. It is tainted with distortions, deceptions, dirty tricks, misrepresentations and downright cheating. From go to whoa, this campaign is a con. So far as referendums go, it is indeed the con of the century. The deceit goes far and wide to the creating of an environment for the proposals, to their wording, to the promotion and advertising of the proposals, to the procedures for counting the votes. The deceit goes back to at least 1985, to the establishment by the Hawke Government of the Constitutional Commission. When the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced his referendum proposals in May of this year, he took the opportunity to sing the praises of the Government's hand picked, multi-million dollar Constitutional Commission. This was not because he had decided to put its recommendations to the people. No, it was because in his eyes it had done its job. It had created an environment for constitutional change. It had generated for the Attorney-General a `sense of immediacy in the task of constitutional reform', to quote his words. So this is the first con by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government. The Government is not interested in preserving the cornerstone of Australian democracy-the Constitution. On the contrary, it wants to radically alter it. Rather than come clean on this fundamental objective, it has pretended that a hand picked group of Labor appointees could do its dirty work for it. The Attorney-General said as much when he introduced his proposals. They are, he said, `the best way to ensure that wider questions of constitutional reform raised by the Commission are placed firmly in the forefront of the agenda of this nation'. It came as no surprise to anyone that this Commission basically endorsed the ALP's agenda for constitutional reform-more power to Canberra, more socialism, bigger government. That is what happens when Labor stacks its committees. The first question Australians should be asking themselves when they go to the ballot box on 3 September is: Why do we need constitutional changes now? Our Constitution has served us well for 87 years. Why change it now? What is it about the Labor Party that makes it so keen to change our Constitution? Why has it tried to deceive the Australian people about its fundamental objectives? The Government, of course, denies all this. After all, it says, not all the recommendations of its stacked Constitutional Commission have been accepted. That is true. But, when the Attorney-General introduced his proposals, he made it very clear that the reason for not accepting all the recommendations was not that he and the ALP did not accept them but rather that now was not the time. For instance, on the issue of abolishing the Senate, or emasculating it, he said, `Now is not the time to address questions of powers of the Senate'. For the Attorney-General, the measure of success of this taxpayer-funded, multi-million dollar campaign is that it is `advancing the ongoing never-ending cause of constitutional reform'. The third deceit by the Hawke Government in its referendum campaign is the repeated claim that these proposals are modest. The Attorney-General is, to use his word, `relaxed' about them. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) did not even bother to debate them in the Parliament. `What's the problem?', they say; `These proposals don't amount to much'. There can be no doubt at all that it is a lie to say that these proposals are modest. In just four questions Australian voters are being asked to consider a total of 33 changes to the Constitution. This represents more changes in one fell swoop than all the other changes to the Constitution in our 87 years of federation to date. Labor's proposals involve the removal from the Constitution of 609 words and the inclusion of 1,732 new words. The eight successful referendums in the past 87 years of federation added only 1,411 words and removed only 263. There can be no doubt that the wording of the four referendum questions is biased. That is why I introduced into the Parliament this morning the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-Papers) Bill 1988 to ensure that no government in future could be so downright deceitful in putting such biased questions to the Australian people. One of Australia's top pollsters, Gary Morgan, who has had years of experience in framing questions for polls, put it this way: any public opinion polling company who asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility. In other words, Mr Morgan was saying that he would be out of a job. This Government will be before too long. Take the first question, which asks: Do you support the proposal to alter the Constitution `to provide for 4 year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament'? Does that convey the proposals of the Australian Labor Party? Does this proposal involve a fair rendering of the precise changes to the Constitution? It is nothing of the sort. The fine point of that proposal contains at least four hidden elements. Firstly, parliamentary terms will not necessarily be four years in future if it is successful. The reality is that it is a proposal to increase the maximum term for the House of Representatives from three years to four. Secondly, the proposal seeks to reduce the maximum term for senators from six years to four years. Thirdly, it seeks to abolish the rotation system for senators whereby half the Senate is up for re-election at a normal election. Finally, it seeks to abolish the concept of fixed terms for senators and to replace it with the concept that all senators should face the electors each time the House of Representatives is put to an election at the whim of the Prime Minister of the day. Not one of those hidden agenda questions has been put to the people in the proposal on which they will be voting on 3 September. During the debate in the Parliament, the Opposition implored the Government to alter the wording of the referendum questions to remove their inherent bias. We introduced amendments, we debated and we pointed out the deception contained in the questions. The ALP has always paraded its attachment to principles, fair play and decency. It has always purported to be the party of social concern and for giving Australians a fair go. There is nothing decent or fair about these referendum questions. It is grossly unfair to ask people such biased questions. We may as well ask Australians whether they have stopped beating their children. The question Australians should ask themselves on 3 September is this: if the ALP is truly committed to being open, honest and fair, why has it decided to put such biased questions to Australian voters? Why has it decided to limit their choice by cramming so many questions into only four? Why has it put quite disparate issues-for example, the question of compensation, the question of freedom of religion and the question of trial by jury-into one question? Why has it limited an individual's ability to choose? The Government says that its proposals will mean fewer elections. That is nonsense. How can that be so when the proposal is for maximum terms only? How can we possibly trust the Government when it has successfully called elections way ahead of time throughout its history? If Labor were really concerned about wasting taxpayers' money on elections-each election costs almost $50m-why is it not combining its referendums with a general election? This would have saved taxpayers' money. If the questions are really modest, as the Government claims, why the indecent haste to get them through now at a cost exceeding $40m? Why does that cost keep going up? A few months ago we were told that it would cost $35m but last night's Budget Papers reveal that it is to cost $40m. The sixth element of deception in this Government's referendum campaign has been its attempt to gag debate. It cut short the consideration of the proposals from six months to a paltry three. This is the first time that Australian voters will have only three months to make up their minds about whether they should support a government's proposed changes to the Constitution. The Government has also deliberately refused to engage in public debate on the issue. The Attorney-General has refused publicly to debate the proposals with the shadow Attorney-General on any occasion. He has also refused to release the legal opinions that he has received on the referendum proposals. The Government convened a special parliamentary session on 10 May to exploit the goodwill generated by the opening of the new Parliament House as a stimulus for encouraging a Yes vote. The decision to hold the referendum on 3 September can only be seen for what it is-a cynical attempt to push the Government's proposals through. When the Attorney-General made his speech in the Parliament on these proposals he gave the impression that it would be unpatriotic not to support them. He suggested, `After all, 1988 is the bicentennial year. It is time for change. We are leaving the old Parliament House and we are moving up the hill. Is it not time, therefore, to move away from old Constitution?'. Again this was a presentation of total deceit. The next element of deceit in the Labor Party's campaign is the central place it has reserved for propaganda. This is the method it has chosen to adopt to get its referendums up rather than reasoned debate and careful consideration. The cornerstone of this attempt is its so-called information campaign. This is to cost taxpayers $3m and, naturally, the job has gone to the same advertising agency that the Government used during its last Federal election campaign. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act specifically states that the Government shall not expend taxpayers' money on the Yes case over and above the cost of the official pamphlets. So concerned was the Electoral Commissioner about these advertisements-here I give Dr Hughes great credit-that he sought the advice of a Queen's Counsel. Further doubt was cast on the legality, not to mention the propriety, of the advertisements-we all know that they break the spirit of the law, if not the law itself-when the Opposition mounted a legal challenge in the High Court of Australia. Our views were vindicated. The High Court accepted our arguments and ruled in our favour. Our claims were absolutely vindicated in that High Court judgment. Indeed, a careful reading of that decision reveals that our case was extremely conservative. Had we challenged the legality of all four advertisements it is likely that we would have been successful. This is because we agreed to restrict the definition of `argument', crucial to the interpretation of the relevant section of the Act, to the argument contained in the official Yes and No pamphlet. Let me quote from the judgment of the High Court: I should have thought that there was something to be said for a broader construction of the phrase `the argument', whereby it is taken as a reference to the argument for or the argument in general and not as a particular reference to the particular arguments included in the pamphlet. Such a construction, would, I think, give effect to an intention that Commonwealth government expenditure in relation to the presentation of the cases for and against a proposed law should . . . be restricted to the preparation, printing and distribution of the pamphlets referred to or the preparation and distribution of translations of them. These advertisements constitute a blatant attempt to manipulate the Australian public into voting yes on 3 September. The message of the advertisements is that it would be unAustralian, somehow or other, not to do so. The scripts of the advertisements bear a remarkable resemblance to the Attorney-General's speech in the Parliament when introducing these Bills and the High Court was unequivocal on this point. The scripts consist of virtually the same arguments, language and images used by the Attorney-General when he introduced the referendum legislation. Senator Stone —He is not authorising them, is he? Senator SHORT —Yes, probably. This is not the first time that the Australian Labor Party has tried to manipulate the Australian people. In 1984 the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, did exactly the same thing but he was forced ultimately to withdraw. And, contrary to the image that the Australian Labor Party Government has tried so desperately to get across, these proposals are not new. For instance, question No. 1 includes the proposal for simultaneous elections. That proposal has been rejected three times by the Australian people in referendums-in 1974, 1977 and again in 1984, only four years ago. Variations of questions 2 and 3 were overwhelmingly rejected in 1974. The Government is all about propaganda. This campaign is only the latest in a long line. First, the Government spent millions of dollars promoting the prices and incomes accord. Subsequently it embarked on multimillion dollar campaigns of self-promotion, such as the fringe benefits tax campaign, and there was much ado about nothing on really constructive campaigns-the drug offensive, Priority One and Medicare, to name but a few. The question that Australian voters should ask themselves on 3 September is why the Hawke Government, if it is so convinced of the genuine merit of its proposed changes to the Constitution, has not only sought to circumvent the laws of this country by stooping to waste taxpayers' money on illegal advertisements but has also decided not to rely on reasoned argument and careful debate. What is so wrong with the Government's proposals that it is reluctant to state them clearly, openly and without all this razzamatazz and deceit? The Government has also been deceptive in its handling of the official Yes and No pamphlets. Under the law, the Government must send to all Australian voters a booklet outlining the Yes and No arguments. Electors should receive their booklets 14 days before the date of the referendum. It is only 10 days before polling day and still not all Australian voters have received their official booklets. In my own State of Victoria alone, 10 to 15 per cent of voters are still to receive their booklets. Senator Macklin —Is that the fault of the Government? Senator SHORT —It is done through the Australian Electoral Commission but, of course, it is the Government's responsibility. Maybe there is a good explanation for this, but one does not have to be too uncharitable to conclude that this all forms part of the pattern of keeping Australians in the dark about the true nature of proposed changes to the Constitution. In addition to the Government's failure to distribute the pamphlet to Australian voters on time is the issue of the design and layout of the booklet. If honourable senators take a quick flip through the pamphlet, they will see what I am talking about. The print for the Yes case throughout the pamphlet is many times larger than the print for the No case. In fact, so blatantly biased is the design and layout of the pamphlet that I have received many telephone calls from distressed voters saying, `I have received the Yes case. When will I receive the No case?'. The responsibility of presenting and authorising that pamphlet rests with the Electoral Commissioner, and it is reasonable to put that, when the Yes and the No case were submitted to the Commissioner and he found such a difference in the presentation, he should have consulted both parties. The next sleight of hand by the Government is the issue of which votes it will count and which it will not. I will not go into that in great detail; it has been the subject of debate earlier today. But the whole question of the counting of votes and the eligibility or otherwise of ticks and/or crosses in the election voting count has been a matter of very great concern and very great confusion in the electorate. It is extremely interesting that the interpretation given to date on which votes will be eligible and which will not heavily favours the ticks and therefore is a bias towards the Yes campaign. From go to whoa the Government's referendum campaign has been surrounded by deception and dirty pool. It started with abolishing the Constitutional Convention and replacing it with the Constitutional Commission. The Government stacked this multi- million dollar Commission and told it to go around the country promoting constitutional reform. When the Government realised that the body had had only limited success, it decided to put what it told the Australian people were modest proposals in the name of advancing constitutional reform. It is obvious, as I said before, that those proposals are not modest. How can they be when they consist of 33 changes to the Constitution and deal with fundamental elements of the Constitution, including the Senate, state aid to church schools, electoral boundaries and how elections in this country are to be conducted? Nor are the proposals all new. Many have been defeated in past referendums. The polling day on 3 September has been designed deliberately to coincide with the Budget propaganda hype so that there will be as little public debate as possible. The Constitution has served the people well. It will go on serving them well without Labor's proposed changes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.25) —During the last election campaign the Australian Labor Party was accused of using whingeing Wendy. Today we have heard from whingeing Jim. Senator Short raised a number of objections. I shall go to the details of two or three of them. He said that the Government, including by implication, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), was active in deceit, deception and downright cheating. I reject that statement. The Attorney-General has been a member of this Parliament for 19 years and a member of a State parliament before that. I do not accept that characterisation given by Senator Short. Senator Short —I was attacking the Government, not the person. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Short says that he was attacking the Government, but clearly Mr Bowen has been responsible for the referendum campaign; and I reject those allegations. Senator Short, in part of his speech, said that the Government was really reprehensible in gagging the constitutional debate in the Senate. Many of us sat here and listened to the long filibuster which went for days. The debate continued day after day. Senator Chaney —You kept on correcting your Bills. Senator ROBERT RAY —Do not get on the high horse. The Opposition's tactics were to delay and delay and delay, in the hope that the Government would not proceed. That was the tactic, and it was fair enough. I agree with it as an opposition tactic. But stop whingeing about the debate being gagged. Senator Short said also that Mr Bowen was wrong not to debate with Mr Reith. One of the oldest things about politics or fighting is that one never fights out of one's class. It is like asking Mike Tyson to go in against some featherweight, like Mr Reith. One does not bother doing it. Senator Short raised one question that I think he wanted answered: why are the referendum advertisements authorised? It is required by the television companies. It was not a legal requirement in this case. Advice was taken and authorisation was not required. It was provided for the television stations before they ran the advertisement. A variety of issues has been raised. The first was the wording of the referendum questions. Every constitutional referendum since 1901 has summarised its proposals in simple terms. The exact wording and arguments are available to every enrolled voter in the country. It has always been through debate, through the media and so on that those arguments are understood. So there goes the Opposition's first dirty trick: it is ridiculous. But we shall, of course, be debating this again when Senator Short's private member's motion comes up in the near future. The second issue to go to was the advertising campaign. I read a press release-I think by Mr Reith-bemoaning the low profile for the referendum, saying that people did not know it was on. Naturally, the Government will advertise the fact that there is a referendum on and that it is important. And so we have. If, when the Government advertises, an allegation is made that there is bias in the advertisements, there is a remedy. The Liberal Party of Australia remedied what it saw to be faults in two of the advertisements. Having seen the advertisements, I did not interpret them in that way, but I am no expert in this field and the Government leaves it to the court to decide. Clearly there is a desire-especially as there is no general election on-to advertise the fact that there is a referendum. The third area was that the presentation of the Yes and No cases is biased-the large type issue. Let me say that some have not been as moderate as Senator Short. Mr Pratt, the member for Adelaide in the House of Representatives, claimed on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on 15 August that the shadow Attorney-General `will bring forward some excellent information that in between the proofs that were ready and the bromides that were made, things had been changed'. The Government is still waiting for this great revelation. Section 11 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 requires the Electoral Commissioner to distribute to every voter a pamphlet setting out arguments for and against the referendum proposals. In previous referendums the Electoral Commission typeset and designed both cases. Following a request to include graphs, charts and pictures in one case, the Electoral Commission agreed to permit both cases to provide their own arguments in a camera-ready copy format. The qualification was that cases consist of words only and be in accordance with the wording of the legislation. As an additional guarantee, both groups were requested to provide the Electoral Commission with a typescript of their arguments, a computer disc containing the text and camera-ready copy. It is true that the Commission did allow the Yes case to provide a new bromide to correct a mistake. That was the only change permitted to the Yes case and it did not alter the authorised transcript which had been submitted previously. The effect was to make artwork conform with the typescript. In contrast, the Electoral Commission permitted the No case to, firstly, deliver its artwork late and, secondly, have typographical errors corrected-it had to suggest to the No case, which apparently could not read the mistakes, that there were mistakes in it-and, finally, to amend its summary by the addition of a headline and rearrangement of the page. In discussions with the Electoral Commission, neither Mr Reith nor the No case person handling technical details raised any objection to those procedures. That just shows how quickly furphies can get off the ground. The Electoral Commission went out of its way to help the No case, to help change it to make it readable in terms of typographical errors, and it was accused of altering the text. The second aspect to this matter of public importance is a complaint that the Yes case is in larger type. The No case could have picked whatever type it liked. The Opposition is admitting what everyone knows-that its members are amateurs. Maybe we are more professional in some of these areas. It reminds me of the old story when Rod Laver, a world champion amateur tennis player, turned professional. Pancho Gonzales said that there was a big difference between the amateurs and the pros and he proved it in the first few matches. We are seeing again today that there is a big difference between amateurs and pros. The Opposition could have laid out the No case in any manner that it saw fit. It is most unfair to have the Electoral Commission as the meat in the sandwich. If the Opposition has complaints it should look to the organisation of the No case. The next point was that the delivery of pamphlets had been selective. I acknowledge that the first point which Senator Short made had some merit. As honourable senators would realise, getting out 10 million Yes-No cases is difficult. There are two areas of holdups. The first is in certain areas of New South Wales and that is simply because they happen to be last on the list. In the eastern suburbs of Melbourne a wrapping machine broke down and there was a late delivery to the Clayton mail exchange. I think Senator Short would realise that that is the very body delivering my Yes-No pamphlet today, tomorrow or on Friday. The Act provides for `as near as practicable, 14 days'. I think that it was envisaged by the law-makers that it could have been possible for a machine breakdown or something to delay that. We are fairly confident, in terms of the Electoral Commission's performance, that the pamphlets will be out at least by Friday-a good eight days to read the Yes-No case. Senator Short —It is almost a week less than it is supposed to be anyway. Senator ROBERT RAY —Certainly that is undesirable but if, by implication, that fits into the Opposition's dirty tricks deception campaign by us, it is not a valid criticism. I hope that the Opposition is not suggesting that someone from the Government went down and fiddled with the wrapping machine because we did not want the Yes-No case out. From what it has said already, its No case is so badly designed and the Yes case is so excellently designed that it would not want anyone to read the pamphlets anyway. The next objection that has been running around was debated this morning, so I will not delay the Senate by going over it in great detail, but the undercurrent is there. I listened to a talkback radio program the other day when a lady rang up and said that she had just been reading the Attorney-General's legal opinion that ticks and crosses were okay. An unkind person may suggest that she was on the Liberal Party roster to ring talkback stations, but there has been at least-I would not go so far as to say `a concerted campaign'; it is almost an unconcerted campaign-a campaign to raise this as an issue. As I said this morning, this Government was never committed to ticks and crosses in referendums. Firstly, in 1984 we legislated to make the advocating of putting a tick or a cross illegal, with a $1,000 fine. Senator Watson —It was Senator Short who raised the issue and clarified it. Where would we have been without it? Senator ROBERT RAY —Your ignorance amazes me, Senator. This matter was raised in December 1984. It was never raised by Senator Short or anyone opposite. It went before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Reform. Most of the Opposition's people were absent, but I am sure that former Senator Sir John Carrick took an involvement and an interest in it. We agreed that ticks and crosses were undesirable and that we should clarify this by legislation. We reported to this parliament, saying that we wanted a definite piece of legislation saying `yes' and `no' only. There is some dispute in this chamber as to whether the legislation I introduced in 1988 was that definitive. I am convinced that it was, but at least, in terms of merit, the Opposition can hardly accuse us of a campaign of deception and deceit when we tried to amend this very fact early in June. Again, I had legislation prepared to be introduced in this chamber yesterday and hopefully passed today on this subject. The only hiccup in that was the legal view from the Attorney-General's Department that we cannot change the rules midstream. We will probably dispute that legal opinion till the cows come home. Nevertheless, again, it does not fit into this so-called pattern of deceit. The final claim that started to float to the surface was: `We have problems with ticks and crosses and we will not be allowed to have scrutineers'. That was not claimed by the Opposition shadow Minister. In no way do I refer to him in that respect, but it was just starting to float to the surface. What have we done? Today we introduced legislation, which we think will get a third reading in three or four hours' time, to allow political parties to have a scrutineer in every booth. I acknowledge the role played by the Opposition, even in polishing up that legislation to make it workable on this occasion. What we are talking about today is an accusation that this Government has been deceitful. The real deceit is in the Opposition. The real deceit is that it does not want to confront the issues. It does not want to talk about four-year terms and fair elections because it is too embarrassed to do so. Most people sitting opposite, at least in the Liberal Party, basically have a commitment to fair electoral boundaries. Of course, their uglier brother who sits a few feet to the right-the National Party-has a commitment in exactly the opposite direction. Because of the fragility of the coalition and because of the tensions that existed and were exhibited in the first half of 1987, a clear agreement was made following the 1987 election defeat and that was: no more blues among the parties, at all costs. That is reflected in the matter of public importance before us and it is reflected in the National Party copying deregulation in the wheat industry. It is quite evident that Opposition members are putting unity ahead of all principle. They are not confronting the basic issues in this referendum. Senator Puplick —There speaks the voice of Caucus; unity before principle. What a terrible thing. Senator ROBERT RAY —I have never apologised for being bound by Caucus decisions. When I signed the pledge when I joined the Australian Labor Party that is what I agreed to. But we are not hypocritical about it. One can look to the whole lexicon of Liberals who supposedly had an individual conscience. I take members of the Liberal Party to Francis and Jennings in Victoria who voted against the party once in the parliament and were expelled. One could point to a whole series of others. I even recall their leader, Senator Chaney, who is sitting at the table, saying that if more of these statements are made, more discipline will be needed. Does Senator Chaney recall that? Senator Chaney —No, I don't. Senator ROBERT RAY —He could have said such! We on this side are not hypocritical. On our side one gets only one chance to twist and then one is out. On the Opposition side one is pushed aside, not promoted or preselected. All the other subtle pressures come to bear. In conclusion, I reject the case made out by Senator Short today. There has been no intention by this Government to run a deceitful referendum campaign. Most of the grounds he has raised have been dealt with effectively and will be so dealt with by further speakers on this side. The public has to understand that the Opposition is running the red herring campaign: not confronting the issues, but looking for little sideways and byways to go up. I think it will run into a dead end. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.40) —We are debating a matter of public importance introduced by the Opposition, namely: The deliberate attempt by the Government to deceive the Australian people in its referendum campaign. Senator Short went through a whole range or items, the most extraordinary of which was to reiterate that there had been some deceit with regard to the booklet that has been sent out. I find it extraordinary that a person who is supposed to be the shadow Minister for Home Affairs in this chamber does not know that the No case presented bromides with that set out not only in terms of the print but also in terms of the type. To come in here and reiterate that seems to be an extraordinary admission of ignorance from someone supposed to be the Opposition spokesperson on the referendum issue in this place. If one looks at the exercise of the deliberate attempt with regard to deceiving the Australian people one has to look no further than at Opposition members. They have engaged in an extraordinary campaign of deceit day after day, at every available opportunity, starting with, of course, a range of deceit and lies in a booklet on the No case. The people of Australia know that. Let us take, for example, the allegation that the Government has not allowed the people to see the text of the Bills, the text of the changes. That point was one I had to meet on a public platform. It was raised by a member of the National Party. In my State of Queensland the Liberal Party is supporting a No case on the second and third questions. It is a most extraordinary proposition because the actual text of the changes appears in the booklet, from page 26 on. When I held that up at the meeting there was a stony silence. Why? Because the National Party member had not read the booklet. He did not even know it was in there. `Let's run the deceit and when we are caught out let's get up another one and run that deceit' is what the Opposition's campaign has been all about. It has not addressed the issues. We had an example of this in here yesterday on the first question. Let us get very clear the first question with regard to the Senate and whether its powers will be reduced. I have asked every Opposition spokesperson on every platform that I have been on where they have appeared to name me the legislative power of the Senate that will be reduced by the referendum. Of course, there is a stony silence. Not one of the legislative powers of this chamber will be changed one whit. I then said, `But you have said in the booklet that it will take away the independence of the Senate. How does it do that?'. I will tell the Senate how it does that, according to the Opposition. Because the precious jobs of Opposition members might be reduced from six years to four, they say they will change their vote and they will be cowered by the government of the day. In every one of those meetings I have made the statement on behalf of the Australian Democrats that our vote will continue to be on the issue, regardless of whether the Government wants to call an election on it. I cut short my first six-year term to 18 months by voting against Fraser's attempt to tax food and other necessities of life. Fraser went out. I cut short another term of office by voting against the Hawke Government's attempt to impose an ID card, and I am still here. I am also able to say that in the last eight years that I have been in this place I have faced the people four times. A four-year term would be a luxury for me. I have had four two-year terms-one after another. Let us get down to the nitty-gritty on the first question. How does it affect the parties? What is the real question? On the Labor Party side it is fairly simple. Since 1949 the Labor Party has not controlled this place under the proportional representation system. That is no skin off its nose. It will not get control in the future, it thinks, so why should it bother? The Australian Democrats will do well; I am happy to acknowledge that. The quota to elect a senator will be halved, because 12 will be elected, and we will do well out of the exercise. What about the Opposition? The real story about the Opposition is that it wants to reduce the Senate to a rubber stamp. It had control of this chamber as recently as 1975 to 1981. It had it as a rubber stamp. So what is the real issue? The real deception, the real hypocrisy, is the Opposition wanting to make the Senate into a rubber stamp. The only way it can do that is by urging a No vote on the first question. It is only the Yes vote on the first question that will keep this chamber as a House of review. Why? It does not have any additional powers to the House of Representatives. In fact, in the letter of the law it has fewer powers. In reality, it has equal powers. Let us talk about the reality. We have equal powers with the House of Representatives. We do not have more. Senator Watson —No, we do not-not in money issues. Go on; go back and read your Constitution. Senator MACKLIN —Why does not Senator Watson listen instead of waking up every 10 minutes? We have equal powers and we can do what we like. Senator Watson —We do not have equal powers in money issues; so sit down. Senator MACKLIN —We can in money Bills as well. Senator Watson obviously was asleep during 1975. We have equal powers and we can destroy the government in the House of Representatives if we want to without going to the people ourselves. That is the other real issue in the first question. Let me refer again to the hypocrisy of the Opposition, the deceit of the Opposition. I quote that deceit back in its face. At the Hobart session of the Constitutional Convention in October 1976 Sir Charles Court moved, and Sir Eric Willis seconded, an amendment which in part said that what was needed was a situation whereby `the Governor-General shall forthwith dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously' if Supply is rejected. That was the Liberal Party proposal in October 1976. Let us say that Senator Watson did not support that. Let us go to something he did support. He might remember that his esteemed colleague former Senator Peter Rae introduced in here on 17 May 1983 a Bill to alter the Constitution. Senator Watson supported it. It was a Bill to alter the Constitution to provide for automatic and simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of Parliament in the event of disagreement between the Houses. Senator Watson —Just you try to reject money Bills and see how far you get. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Watson, if 1983 is too far back, let us go back to 13 June 1984. Can you remember back that far or is that too far back? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! Senator Watson, I ask you to refrain from interjecting. I ask Senator Macklin to address the Chair. Senator MACKLIN —We had a Liberal Party Bill to alter the Constitution to provide for automatic and simultaneous dissolutions of both Houses of the Parliament in the event of disagreement between the Houses in regard to money Bills. Yes, this is where the hypocrisy runs in because on the first question the Liberal Party is not willing to face up to the political realities. It wants to gain control of this chamber but it knows it cannot if the first question is carried. It knows it cannot reduce this place again to a rubber stamp. It is worried. It is scared of that possibility being taken out of its grasp. As I said, it is no skin off the Labor Party's nose. It has never had that opportunity and it will not in the future. On the second question, we find it is a matter of principle for the Liberal Party that there should be a No vote but it managed to give dispensation. I am not quite sure how it manages to give dispensation on a matter of principle, but it has given it to its colleagues in Queensland who are urging a Yes vote. Why are the Liberal Party's colleagues in Queensland urging a Yes vote? Why was I able to appear a couple of weeks ago on a platform with the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, urging a Yes vote to the second question? It is because the Liberal Party in Queensland has been the one most disadvantaged by the rigged and rorted system in my State for so long. It knows it cannot change the system internally and yet it is asking the people of Australia to make a pronouncement with regard to that particular proposition. How was I able to appear also on a platform with the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, a Liberal, urging a Yes vote on the third question? She happens to be the very popular Lord Mayor of Brisbane, running the largest local government body in Australia with the largest budget, a budget in fact in excess of that for Tasmania. She is urging a Yes vote. I suppose the honourable senator is going to say she was hoodwinked somehow or other. She is urging a Yes vote because she knows it is correct. Lastly, we have the fourth question, about which we have had such a range of deceit as to beggar the imagination. I was on a platform when someone said, `The reason the Labor Party is introducing this one is that it wants to abolish religions'. We have had the most extraordinary lies being told about the third question. If Senator Short cannot work out why those three questions are put together it is again a very poor show. They happen to be the three items appearing in the Constitution that affect the Federal Government. That is why, and the issue is identical in every one. Since 1901 the Federal Government has not had those powers. The proposal is that as from 1988 the State governments will not have those powers. That is what the proposal is. That is why they are together. The argument is identical. Either one does not want the States to have those powers or one does. I do not mind arguing on that basis. I have had a chance to argue with one of the Opposition's colleagues, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, Angus Innes, who was in fact able enough to argue a No case which was not a matter of lies and deceit. At least when one gets into a debate with him he will argue on the issue and not on the furphies, lies and deceit that one has had to meet in this campaign. I find it an extraordinary proposition, but well within the keeping of the Liberal Party on this question. The way the Liberal Party has attempted to run the exercise is by accusing everybody else of trying to do this, that or something else and saying the very opposite of what the clauses are doing. It has been saying that it is trying to protect the Senate when what it is doing, in terms of its hidden agenda, is trying to get control of the Senate and turn it into a rubber stamp. It is trying to prop up its coalition colleague in Queensland, the National Party, to allow the system to be rigged and rorted ad infinitum. There will not be any Steele Hall in Queensland, I can assure honourable senators. There will not be anybody in the National Party in Queensland succumbing to principle and deciding that everybody should have an equal vote to elect the government of his choice. That will not occur in my State of Queensland although it did in South Australia, to the eternal credit of Steele Hall. On the third question: the recognition of local government is somehow or other supposed to be an attempt by the Federal Government to get control and yet it was asked for by the local government associations themselves. They have been campaigning for it in and out of every meeting that one has ever attended with them on this issue. Let us just pause one moment on this question. I was at a meeting where one of the local government representatives brought out a sheaf of letters. They were from Liberal Party people all of whom had written back and said they would support a recognition of local government. It was in the Liberal Party's policy as late as last year when it went to the election. It was there in writing. It said, `We will support a constitutional recognition of local government'. What is it doing now when it gets the opportunity? It is running around urging a No vote. Lastly, I find the debate-it might be only in Queensland-a very depressing exercise for democracy in this country. The Liberal Party does not actually address the issues. I am quite happy to have a debate with somebody who wants to address the issues and I acknowledge that there are arguments that can be put on both sides and that one could finally come down on one side or another. When one meets so many lies and distortions one becomes very depressed at how far democracy has sunk in this country. We cannot have a decent debate about what the issues really are and we have to sink to distortions, to lies and to deceit. This matter of public importance should have been directed against the Liberal Party, not the Government and its campaign. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.55) —I would like to issue a challenge to the Australian Democrats and to Senator Macklin. Senator Macklin has said that the referendum debate has been overshadowed by lies and deceit on our side. Perhaps Senator Macklin is not as lilywhite as he would like at all times to make out. I issue him a simple challenge because he said the Senate has equal powers with the House of Representatives. I ask Senator Macklin and the members of the Australian Democrats to introduce into this chamber a taxation Bill and see how successful they will be. Senator Macklin —We have already done so. Senator WATSON —They will not get to first base with it. I ask Senator Macklin to introduce an appropriation Bill and see how far the honourable senator goes. Senator Macklin —I have already done it. Senator WATSON —Yes, you will introduce it for the purposes of rhetoric to show how smart you are but the point is that you will not be successful. You do it as a matter of shadow boxing. Shadow boxers-that is all you are. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! I ask Senator Macklin not to interject and I ask Senator Watson, even though he may refer to Senator Macklin, to address the Chair. Senator WATSON —I draw attention to the fact that this whole referendum campaign has, as my colleague Senator Short so eloquently said, been hallmarked by deceit. Whichever way Australians are going to vote on 3 September the political analysts of the future will look back and ask themselves at least four essential questions. Why did this Government not ask fair questions? There is talk about fair elections but the nub of it is: why did this Hawke Labor Government not ask fair questions of the people in the first place? Secondly, why did the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) attempt to use the supposedly neutral Australian Electoral Commission to promote the Yes case? Why did Mr Bowen continue to refuse to debate the question with the Opposition publicly? For example, when he came to Launceston it was almost a closed meeting. We were not allowed to participate; not one member of the audience was even allowed to ask the Attorney-General a question. What sort of public debate was that in my State of Tasmania? He rushed in and when questions were posed by journalists he showed a distinct lack of knowledge as to how the implications of change would affect the upper House in Tasmania. He was not even aware of its composition. He was not even aware how it was elected. It is not surprising, therefore, that he refused to debate the issue in public either with members of the public or with members of the Liberal Party Opposition. The third question I think political analysts are going to ask in time is: Why was there only a three-month publicity campaign rather than the usual six-month campaign that we have had in the past? Why has there been this sudden rush of blood, this need to get some legislation on the statute books, this need to change the basic law of Australia, the Constitution? The answer to each of these four questions and others of similar nature must hinge on a single word and that word unfortunately is `deceit'. I regret that a lot of the responsibility for promoting the Yes case has fallen on the Attorney-General, a man I have had a great deal of respect for. It is unfortunate in the last years of his political office he has succumbed somewhat and his stature in many people's eyes has been lessened as a result of the proposals that he has put forward. To his credit he does not want to debate the issues publicly because he knows what the hidden agenda is. He knows what is down the track for the Australian Labor Party. I would be charitable if I said that he has been used by this Labor Party to promote an issue which I believe should not have his full backing. The point of the referendum is to hoodwink the Australian people. It is the most blatantly opportunistic scheme that has ever been put before this Parliament. Mr Bowen has publicly stated that if these proposals are successful more proposals will be put in 1989, 1990 and so on. The effect of these changes, if the present agenda is followed, will be to whittle away the basic law of Australia, the Constitution. That law was not agreed to by politicians alone but by concerned people within the community, from all the colonies. They came together, concerned that there would be some attempt down the track by a Federal government to increase its powers at the expense of the powers of the States. So they deliberately said, `We have to protect the smaller States, the people who have less influence'. They were not considering the Bonds of this world who can use monetary gain to promote their particular interests. These people were far-sighted. They deliberately put into place appropriate checks and balances in conformity with good democratic principles. But what are we seeing? We are seeing a whittling away of the system of checks and balances which our forefathers, in framing the Constitution, believed to be so important to the protection of freedoms. What is at risk is the basic freedoms of Australia. What the Government is seeking to change is the basic law of Australia. This whole concept is about transferring power from the people, not only to the centralist government but also to the elected Prime Minister of the day. We have already seen, over recent years, a tremendous increase in the power of the Executive. Question No. 1 will significantly increase the power not only of the central government but also of the Prime Minister of the day. This is a frightening thought to any person concerned about democracy, particularly to a federalist. The Labor Party is caught up in the euphoria of change for change's sake based on what I term a Fabian agenda. I hope that the almighty con trick proposed to be perpetrated on 3 September will not be successful and that the Australian people will vote a decisive no to each of the four questions to be put. I remind the ladies and gentlemen listening to this debate that there is a hidden agenda which reflects the Fabian tactics of the leadership of the Hawke Labor Government. It is true that not a single legislative, deliberative or other function of this chamber will be stripped away by the referendum proposals. That is the thrust of the Labor Party's argument. Senator Tate used it yesterday. Senator Macklin attempted to use it today. But I put it to honourable senators that if we destroy the foundations, the very fabric, the framework upon which the Senate is built, then everything else-the Senate's powers, its ability to debate-becomes superfluous. If we destroy the foundations on which this chamber has been built, we destroy the chamber itself. That is the tragedy in what has been put forward to us today. A Yes vote will render the Australian Senate an impotent echo of the House of Representatives. A Yes vote would destroy representative democracy in some isolated areas on the west coast of Tasmania. The upper House is not the House of government. In Tasmania we have the most democratic system of electing governments in the whole of Australia. There is a need for the electoral system to be somewhat different for an upper House. We acknowledge that concept and the Government supports it in regard to the Australian Senate. If the Government is so keen about the issue of equality all along the way, I suppose that the next thing on its agenda will be to whittle away the membership of the Senate, which has equal representation from each of the States. I presume that will be next on the Government's agenda if it ridicules that sort of concept. The other major problem I think the Australian people should be aware of is how Question No. 4 will threaten state aid to non-government schools, hospitals and welfare organisations. The referendum provisions will not extend religious freedom. If the Government wanted to do that, all it would have had to do would have been to add the words `States and Territories'. But no; the Government was cunning. It went further than that. It removed three vital words-three words so vital that the whole complexion and meaning of section 116 of the Constitution will be changed. They were the vital words on which the defence of government schools case rested. Now we are to have a new ball game. Prayers in schools and in State and Federal government buildings could even be outlawed. Senator Macklin —No money is provided for religion in this country. Money is provided for education and you know it. Senator WATSON —Madam Acting Deputy President, earlier Senator Macklin was asked to desist from making interjections which were not accurate. I hope that I can have the same protection that was previously provided by the Chair. If Senator Macklin thinks that there has been no deception, I draw his attention to what was said by the director of Morgan Gallup Polls, Mr Gary Morgan. He said that any pollster who posed questions like those the Government is putting up and claimed that they were unbiased would lose all credibility. That comment was made not by a member of the National Party or the Liberal Party, but by a man whose organisation is centred on assessing public opinion in as fair a way as possible. Mr Morgan has said that there is no doubt that the proposed referendum questions are biased to obtain a Yes vote because the questions do not honestly convey the issues involved. Let me turn to another eminent critic of the proposed constitutional change, again not a Liberal, a National or a politician at all, but one of this country's most eminent jurists, Sir Harry Gibbs. He said that it is impossible to predict what meaning will in the future be given to any provision of the Constitution which is expressed in the words of a generality, that one cannot assume that any general provision will have more than symbolic effect. One of the problems of these changes is that they are not clear. There is an onus on the Government, when putting forward something as important as change to the Constitution, to get it right. But the Government could not even get the legislation right when it put it before the Parliament. Senator Vanstone had to tell the Government that it had got it wrong. There is also an obligation on the Government to put it not only in fair terms but also in clear and unambiguous terms. It is well known, and the Government acknowledges, that down the track most of these provisions will be subject to High Court interpretation. That is a damning indictment of the deceitful way in which these proposals are to be put. Senator Macklin —All of them are. Senator WATSON —We have an acknowledgment of that. Is it not an indictment of this Government and the manner in which the questions have been put? They are deceitful in every way. I hope that the Australian people reject them-proposals one, two, three and four-with a resounding No vote. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.10) —Some wild statements have been made here today. I will go to the first one, that the Constitution alteration Bills do not properly describe what is contained in the legislation. I will quickly go through them. The first one, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, is entitled: An Act to alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. That very accurately describes what happens. The second, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, is entitled: An Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. It does that. The third Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill, is entitled: An Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. It does that. The fourth Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill, is entitled: An Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any Government. It has been said here today that these Bills are not needed. I will go to each of the Bills in turn. The first provides for a four-year maximum term for both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. In every State of this country other than Queensland, the lower House, in which the Government is made, has a four-year term. When this Constitution was made, the lower Houses had three-year terms. It was properly pointed out to the founding fathers-unfortunately there were no founding mothers-who wanted longer than three-year terms that, since all the States had three-year terms, it would be wrong to give the Commonwealth terms of more than three years. Now all the States have four-year terms. When the terms of the States were extended to four years there was absolutely no outcry. It was seen as a very sensible reform. If it is a proper reform for State Houses, it is also a proper reform for the Commonwealth Parliament. It is said that the Senate's powers would be diminished by giving senators four-year terms. The alternative to giving them four-year terms is to give them eight-year terms. What is wrong with members of parliament facing the electors of the country every four years? Of course we respect the rights of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate but, above all, we respect the rights of the people. Why should the people have foisted upon them a Senate about which they cannot speak for eight years? We are now choosing the Olympic Games team for Seoul. What would be said if we chose that team to represent us not only at Seoul but also at the next Olympic Games? It is a nonsense to have people elected for eight years. They are elected for eight years in Victoria and 12 years in New South Wales-and I simply say that that is an outrage. Four-year terms will not diminish the power of the Senate. What gives this place its special quality is the fact that there is proportional voting for it. The record shows that from 1919 to 1949 either the Government or the Opposition held all but one, two or three of the places in the Senate. The reality is that during those 30 years this place was a rubber stamp for what was done in the House of Representatives. It is only the reforms brought in by the Australian Labor Party in 1949 which have given this Senate any meaning. This Labor Party, the one that allegedly is full of deceit and supposedly in favour of crushing the Senate, is the one that has given the Senate the power it has now, by introducing proportional representation. It was the Labor Party, under Senator Murphy, which introduced the committee system and that party, in respect of both those matters, that has made the Senate an effective body. That has to be remembered. Indeed, it is a Labor government that has brought electoral reform into every State in this Commonwealth into which electoral reform has been brought, except South Australia, where it was brought in by Steele Hall, who has paid, as has been suggested before, very dearly for that reform. The reality is that this Bill will make government more efficient and more productive. It will enable people to plan over a longer term. This is evidenced by the fact that the States now have four-year terms, the House of Commons in England has five-year terms and the Presidents of the United States have four-year terms. Here we have a group of people who say that what they want from workers is efficiency and proper production but, when the same sort of thing is suggested in terms of their Parliament, they do not want it. They want to hold onto their seats for eight years. The second Bill provides for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. I see that Senator Hill has come into the chamber. I would like to ask him directly why he opposes in this Bill the abolition of section 25 of the Constitution and why the people opposite oppose it. I ask that because section 25 of the Constitution is built on the basis that racism is okay. It states: For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. Senator Maguire —It is a disgrace. Senator COONEY —Yes, it is a disgrace that people should oppose removing from this Constitution a relic of the racism which unfortunately this country was once imbued with and which unfortunately is making a reappearance now. The Opposition has fiercely fought a Bill which seeks to delete from the Constitution a provision that is based on the concept of racism and that allows-- Senator Reid —It is your fault for putting all those things together. Senator COONEY —I would like the honourable senator to answer. There is in the Constitution a provision which contemplates that Australian citizens of a particular race will be banned from voting. When we want to remove that from this Constitution by using this Bill, that is opposed by the Opposition. It is a disgrace. I would like to hear why those opposite are opposing a Bill that does that. Senator Hill —Come on, Barney; come clean. It's all about Queensland, isn't it? Senator COONEY —I will read what it says: A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. I am challenged that the Bill does not do that. Senator Hill —What does that mean? Senator COONEY —I am telling the honourable senator what it means. It means, first of all, that anybody who is an Australian citizen should not be barred on the grounds of race. Clause 4 states: The Constitution is altered by omitting section 25. The Opposition is opposing that provision. The next thing the Opposition opposes in that Bill is the provision that all Australian citizens over the age of 18 shall be entitled to a vote. Why do those opposite oppose that provision? Why is it so dreadful that Australian citizens over the age of 18 should have a vote? The next thing the Bill does is ensure that electorates throughout Australia, both electorates voting for the Commonwealth and those voting for the States, as far as practicable will be equal, so that one person's vote is equal to anybody else's-as happens for the House of Representatives now. I suppose the only opposition I can see to this is on the basis that there must be something other than people that comes into account. I remember the great proposition put by the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm. The pigs said that all animals were equal but some were more equal than others. Apparently that is the proposition that the Opposition has picked up. The second Bill abolishes the racial clause. It allows people aged 18 who are Australian citizens to vote; and it says that there should be fair elections. That is why we say it provides for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. The fourth Bill is entitled: An Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. It simply says: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. It has nothing to do with the Commonwealth; the Commonwealth is kept out of it completely. The Bill simply provides that the States will ensure that there is local government. We have had a great outcry from local governments about their inability to get sufficient finance for roads. They say that the Commonwealth denies them money and does not treat them properly and that the States do not treat them properly. If they want to be in a position to ask for money, so that they can say, `We're as good as the States and the Commonwealth because we are in the Constitution', then they should vote for this proposition. Senator Maguire —That is why Jeff Kennett is supporting them. Senator COONEY —That is right. I now turn to the question which proposes to extend the right to trial by jury. The founding fathers said that there ought to be a right to trial by jury for serious offences. They used the words `indictable offences'. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth then legislated to make charges other than indictable and got around the question of the jury system. This proposition will ensure that the Commonwealth will reaffirm the intentions of the founding fathers and will ensure that serious offences are tried by jury, with the notable exception of offences under martial law or contempt of court proceedings which, traditionally, are matters that are tried other than by juries. The next proposition is to ensure that people whose property is acquired by a State or the Commonwealth will receive just compensation. We are supposed to be the great party of socialism. We on this side of the House say that those people whose property is taken from them by the State or Commonwealth ought to receive fair compensation. But the Opposition does not agree. It says that the sorts of things that happen in Pye's case and Magennis's case should be allowed. In other words, it says that, even if there is this protection with regard to property acquired by the Commonwealth, if the States acquire property on behalf of the Commonwealth without paying proper compensation, that is all right. I turn to the question of freedom of religion. There is provision in the Constitution to the effect that the Commonwealth shall not make laws for the establishment of any religion, and so on. This proposition extends it to the States and ensures not only that this Parliament will not make such laws, but also that the Government will not discriminate against people. The Government, apart from the laws, will not exercise any discretion against religion, so that people will not be barred from jobs on the ground of religion. The proposition extends freedom of religion not only in regard to the Commonwealth but also in regard to the States. It has been said that this will make things uncertain. Senator Watson —What have your Catholic bishops said about this? Senator COONEY —The Catholic bishops have said that there are some problems about it. Let us see how well they have been advised by some of the so-called lawyers who give advice in this area. The person in charge of the Constitutional Commission-and this Constitutional Commission was blackguarded in this chamber today, just as the High Court of Australia is often blackguarded in this chamber-and the person who drafted the proposition is Sir Maurice Byers. It is no secret that he is a member of the Catholic Church. He was the person who argued successfully on behalf of the Commonwealth in Black's case. If anybody knows Black's case, it is Byers. Sir Maurice Byers drafted this proposition. I challenge any member of the Opposition to read this case and show how any of those judges-those judges who ruled in favour of it and Mr Justice Murphy, who ruled against it-would have changed their judgments in any way, in light of the proposed changes to the Constitution. The reality is that they specifically stated that they would not follow the American model. If one looks at the American model, one will see that it talks about making no laws in respect of the establishment of a religion. That has already been rejected. If a case was brought now, simply on the reading of Black's case, which is the only case that has been dealt with here, there is no doubt that the application by anybody trying to stop state aid would be thrown out of court. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.25) —I am pleased to contribute to this important debate which has been raised in the Senate this afternoon by the Opposition with regard to the deliberate attempt by the Government to deceive the Australian people in its referendum campaign. I think it can be fairly said that the reality of the questions that will be put to the people, the attempt to cloak the whole campaign in the legitimacy of a Constitutional Commission, and the campaign that the Government has irregularly sought to put to the Australian people, are becoming clear. The deliberate attempt to deceive the Australian people is being realised. The response of the Australian community on 3 September will be to say, `We will not be treated so cynically. We will reject this attempt being made by the Government', and they will vote no. In the short time available to me, I will expand on these three major areas of deception that the Government is attempting to put to the Australian people. I do so as one who actually believes that the Australian Constitution is due for reform. I am not opposed to reform, but I am appalled at the way in which this campaign has been treated so cynically by the Government. It has attempted to mislead Australian voters in this whole exercise. Let me deal with the first aspect-that is, as I indicated, the attempt by the Government to cloak the referendum campaign with an aura of legitimacy as a result of the setting up of the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, the Australian taxpayer spent many millions of dollars on the setting up of the independent Constitutional Commission. At the very least, the Australian taxpayer could have expected the Government to await the report of that Commission and to take into account the Commission's attitudes and advice before it determined what questions, if any, were to be put to the Australian people. This government did not do so. It would not await the first report of its Commission. It decided to proceed. It seems to me, therefore, that it clearly decided to proceed, not in an effort to produce a better Constitution, but because of some perceived political gain of the moment-a political gain that could come out of the spirit that surrounded the bicentenary, or a political gain that could come out of the fact that it could be seen to be part of an independent assessment, which I have indicated is quite improper. I submit to the Senate that the Australian people should be outraged that the Government was not prepared to await the report of its Commission before it determined which questions it would put to the people for their approval. As it turns out, the Commission made 100-odd recommendations. Four questions are being put to the people, although I readily concede that the four questions raise a number of different issues. Even though the Government has the advantage of its Commission's report, is it putting to the people the variations between that report and the questions that it is putting in these referendum proposals? Is it putting to the people the fact that the first question, which is the key question in this referendum-the question that is designed to give a government of the day control of the Senate-is inconsistent with the recommendation of its own independent Constitutional Commission? Of course it is not, but it should be. It should tell the people that that Commission made a recommendation that the term of the lower House be extended to four years, that there be a minimum three-year period-a system which is similar to that which has been adopted in South Australia and Victoria-and that senators chosen in the State should hold their places for two terms. That is the recommendation of the independent Constitutional Commission. But this Government did not choose to put that question to the people. Now that the Commission has reached a conclusion which is inconsistent with that of the Government, the Government is not prepared to come clean and say that the question that it is asking be approved is not consistent with the advice that it has received from this body of experts. What has happened to the final report of the Constitutional Commission? We understand that it is with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) at the moment but that it is not to be released until after the referendum has been put to the Australian people. I ask: Why is that the case? If the Attorney-General has the final report, why do we not find out what are the final recommendations of the Constitutional Commission so that the Australian people can take that determination into account when they make their decision on 3 September? In the circumstances, where the Attorney-General is not prepared to make that report public at the moment, one can only presume that again the conclusions it reaches are inconsistent with the determination that the Government wishes the Australian people to make on 3 September. I believe that there is no better word to use in relation to that mechanism, that way of dealing, than `deception'. That is what we are talking about in this matter of public importance that we bring to the Senate today. I say that it is illegitimate for the Government to attempt to place its questions under a cloak of legitimacy by virtue of the Commission's report. The second area that causes us great concern is that the questions themselves-the wording of the questions that are being put to the public on 3 September-in no way clearly reflect or reasonably reflect the substance of the matters which are included in the legislation that will become part of the Constitution if in fact these question are passed or if in fact there is a sufficient Yes vote. We regard that as deception. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, we tried, in this chamber, to have the Bills amended so that the questions to be put in the referendum proposals reflected more accurately the reality of the matters that are to be put on 3 September. Our attempts to do that were rejected by both the Government and the Australian Democrats, and that is a matter of great disappointment to us. If we look briefly-and we have only a brief time-at the first question, we find that what is being put is the question: a proposed law to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. What does that indicate? Does that in any way indicate to Mr and Mrs Average Australian that the fixed term of the Senate, which has been guaranteed by the Constitution to date, is being abandoned? Of course it does not. Does it in fact indicate that there will be fewer elections in Australia? There is no doubt that the Government has tried to catch on to a nerve in the Australian people that we have too many elections. Of course it does not. It in no way ensures that there would be fewer elections. If the Government had taken up the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission it might have had an argument that there could be fewer elections, but it did not choose to go down that path. Does it say that it will, if it passes, abolish the rotation of terms of senators so that the advantage of continuity which exists at the moment will be lost? No, of course it does not. Does the Government really believe that the public understands these issues from the question that is being put on the day? Surely it does not. That is why we say that it amounts to deception. Does it indicate, most importantly, to the Australian public that this will give the Prime Minister and the government of the day a new authority over the Senate which does not exist at present? That is the authority that comes from being able to haul the Senate out to the people at the will of the Prime Minister, at the timing of the Prime Minister. That control of the Senate by a Prime Minister-- Senator Collins —Fancy having to go to an election. It is terrible, isn't it? Senator HILL —I am talking about a Prime Minister of any colour. My attitude is that one must maintain some independence of the Senate and that degree of independence is guaranteed at the moment by a fixed term. Without that the Senate will rapidly deteriorate into a rubber stamp. The advantages that I believe this Senate has brought to the Australian political system will be lost. That is why I regard it as an abuse. It is clear that the Australian people do believe that the Senate, with the degree of independence it maintains through a fixed term, does serve a worthwhile purpose and should therefore be preserved. So, when the Australian people vote on that first question they must look behind the question. Preferably they will look at the legislation, but they will not do that. Therefore, it is important that, on occasions such as this, we bring to their attention the Government's deception and the fact that the question that is being put does not fairly reflect the substance of the changes to the law and the changes to the Constitution. The same spirit flows through the other questions that are being put. The second question that is being put is: to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. That immediately brings a first blush of approval. We all want fair and democratic elections. But what in fact does it mean? How are the Australian people to define what is meant by `fair and democratic'? If they were able to refer to the legislation, they would find the Government's definition which refers to a tolerance of 10 per cent either way and, in the case of upper Houses, a proportional representation system. They will also know that that in itself does not amount to fair and democratic elections; that that in itself will not guarantee fair and democratic elections. In any event, what is so sacred about the figure of 10 per cent? Why not 5 per cent? Would that not in fact be fairer? Senator Collins would probably say that it is fairer. So, how does this question secure for the Australian people fair elections? Of course, it does not. The real motive, as we all know, has been to attempt to split the National Party and the Liberal Party in Queensland, and some might say that it has been reasonably successful. That is a cynical, base political motive. That is what question No. 2 is all about. That is what the deception is in question No. 2, and the Australian people should realise that. The deception continues in the third question: to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. What is the deception in relation to that? It is the fact that local government believed that out of this, in some way, its ratepayers would be guaranteed funding that they are not presently guaranteed. Local government recognises that under this Labor Government its direct funding has been cut. Senator Reynolds —Nonsense! Senator HILL —Has it not, Senator Reynolds? Road funding has been cut also. Again at first blush it gives one a warm inner feeling that they get recognition. No, they do not. Ask the ratepayers out in the bush of Australia what they want. What they want is funding. They want better roads. They will see through this deception also. It is slowly coming. Senator Collins was right when he said that a little while ago local government was embracing this with great enthusiasm; but the reality is now coming through and by 3 September it will come through. The con continues in question No. 4, with more warm inner glow questions. They are to alter the Constitution to the extent that the right of trial by jury will be guaranteed. That is not happening. What is happening, as Senator Cooney will admit, is a change of the formula. It is a change from an indictment requirement that currently exists in the Constitution to a two-year goal term. It is not entrenching anything further than what currently exists; it is changing the formula. It goes on to say that it is also to ensure religious freedom. As we know, whether Senator Cooney likes to acknowledge it or not, the Catholic bishops of Australia are putting around circulars saying, `We are afraid that in fact this provision will do the contrary'. As the bishops said, a Yes vote on this question could in fact end up seriously restricting the freedom of religion. Therein lies the deception again. Are the Australian people going to take the chance on that? Of course they are not; they are going to reject it. Had I had time, which I have not, I would have liked to go into the question of the cynical attempt of this Government to advertise in a partisan way, in an illegal way; the fact that we had to take the Government to the High Court of Australia and the High Court had to say no to this Government; that its proposed advertisements would have been illegal, that it would have abused the provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act; and that it should not be behaving in such a deceptive way. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(4.40) —Senator Short started off the debate by saying that he wanted reasoned and informed debate on the referendum questions. However, it is very difficult to have such a debate in the face of a statement that he made shortly thereafter. I quote him as saying, `What does freedom of religion have to do with trial by jury?'. If the Opposition spokesman responsible for leading in the debate-- Senator Short —Well, what has it got to do with it? Senator COLLINS —The honourable senator should just wait for 30 seconds. I must say that I am appalled that Senator Short still asks that question after he got the very obvious response that he did to it from Senator Cooney. The three questions are completely linked in that they all involve powers in the Constitution devolved upon the Commonwealth Government which are not enshrined in State constitutions and they all involve some of the very rare sections of the Constitution that touch upon personal liberties and freedoms. We all know that they are inextricably linked. We all know, and it is a debate in itself, that the Australian Constitution does not have a Bill of Rights contained in it. In fact, there are very small sections of the Australian Constitution that deal with the rights and privileges of individual citizens. It just so happens that those sections of the Constitution are some of the few sections that deal with those issues-the right to trial by jury, the right to fair compensation when people's property is ripped off them by government and the right to freedom of religion. In fact, the questions are linked but, in the face of the appalling ignorance demonstrated by Senator Short, it is pretty hard to have a reasoned debate on it. So many canards were flung about during this debate that it is impossible to address all of them but, to my great amusement, Senator Hill said, in another brilliant contribution, that question No. 2 was designed by the Australian Labor Party to split the National and Liberal parties in Queensland. They took care of that themselves. In fact, the split was caused very simply by the Liberal Party wanting fair elections in Queensland and the National Party not wanting fair elections in Queensland. The split is on the issue, not on the question. If we wanted any confirmation of that, and we did not, it was supplied in recent day by that prominent hero of Queensland politics, Russ Hinze, one of my personal political heroes, as I have said in this chamber before. He said quite openly that there were a number of electorates in Queensland that had had their boundaries rigged-his words not mine-for the benefit of the National Party. So there is the split. The question deals with fair elections. As I have raised this issue in the Senate before, honourable senators would know that I am pleased to say that the question also does away with that odious section 25 of our Constitution. It provides that the Commonwealth Government has to stand aside and respect the decision of any State to pass a special law exempting people from participating in our electoral processes by reason of race. Senator Hill —Why didn't you come clean and put that as a separate question? Senator COLLINS —I do not know how much cleaner we are supposed to come. One of Senator Hill's assertions was that there was a hidden agenda, particularly on the question of four-year terms. The only way he can make that assumption is if he is prepared to treat people in the Australian electorate as complete and utter mugs. They are not mugs, Senator. I do not think they are mugs but Opposition senators do. Opposition senators think they are born to rule. I would have thought that after five years of being in the boondocks it finally would have got through to Opposition senators that they are not born to rule, that people are not mugs. The whole basis of the argument against four-year terms and simultaneous elections for both the Senate and the House of Representatives is that-and I quote Senator Hill again in another piece of absolute nonsense-the question is designed `to give the Government', not the electorate, `control of the Senate'. What utter nonsense! The only way he can assert that is if we assume that people in the electorates are congenital idiots who do not understand how the Senate functions. They comprehensively do. Not only do they understand it but also they have comprehensively demonstrated it at election after election and at double dissolution after double dissolution for a very long time. The public understands, the electorate understands, that the Senate is a House of review. It is not a States House. That is a sick joke that was even laughed at during the original constitutional conventions because a number of the delegates realised what a nonsense that was then. But the electorate understands, and the makeup of this Senate demonstrates, that this is a House of review. The question of simultaneous elections is about accountability and that is what the people opposite are not prepared to face. I know quite a number of people in the Northern Territory-and this is reflected across Australia-who, come the Federal election, deliberately cast a vote in favour of the Labor Party in the lower House because they want a Labor government and just as deliberately, unfortunately for me, cast a vote in favour of the Australian Democrats in the Senate because the Australian electorate understands the role that the Senate plays. The question rests completely in the hands of the Australian electorate and I would have thought this a very democratic way of doing it. The people will decide whether the Senate will be just as accountable for its actions as the House of Representatives. The only basis on which we can make an objection to that is if we are sitting in the Senate and we want to play merry hell politically with what government elected by the people wants to do and not have to face up to the consequences of doing so. It is as simple as that. Let me turn to Senator Hill's assertion-I have not even got to Senator Short's assertions and I have four pages of them-that this somehow gives the Government control of the Senate. This is an appalling aspersion on the Australian electorate and it is an aspersion which the makeup of this current Senate, provided by the last double dissolution, simply does not support. Senator Short said that there is a hidden agenda in all these questions. I saw Peter Reith the other night on television putting the No case and Senator Short ran the same line. I waited for the No case in vain. It did not arrive. What Peter Reith said in respect of every question was exactly the same, `There is a trick to this question'. He never got around to explaining what the trick was. He said, `There is a hidden agenda in this question'. He was asked what was wrong with question No. 2. He said, `There is a trick to this question; there is a hidden agenda', but he never got to what the trick was. It was the same all the way through to question No. 4. At the moment the Opposition is engaged in trying to frighten the daylights out of everyone in the same contemptible way as it is engaged in doing so in the immigration debate. Members of the Opposition have no substance to their debate and no rational arguments for opposing these much overdue reforms to our Australian Constitution and, in the last couple of weeks before polling day, they are engaged in a desperate campaign of trying to frighten the daylights out of everyone. If any constitutional referendum question exemplifies that more than any other, it is the proposal to amend section 116 of the Australian Constitution and I have no doubt that we will be hearing shortly from Senator Harradine about that. I have an interesting position on this. Senator Watson —Where do you stand on state aid? Senator COLLINS —Let me tell the honourable senator that not only am I a Catholic but also I happen to be a member of the Northern Territory Catholic Education Council. I have a very intense involvement in Catholic education in the Northern Territory and I hold no fears whatsoever for the future of state aid under this Government or any other Government. People who seriously want to address themselves to the question of the Australian Constitution should not have any doubts about it either. Senator Watson provided another piece of nonsense when he said that the 1981 Council for the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) case was fought `on the three words which are being taken away from the Constitution by this question'. I have read the DOGS case but, of course, he has not. The DOGS case was fought on nothing of the sort, Senator. It was the question of what constituted the establishment of a religion that the DOGS case was fought on and will continue to be fought on. The other canard on this point was that somehow or other, magically, by changing section 116 the case will automatically be brought back before the High Court, as if there is no way to raise this question again unless the Constitution is amended. Section 92 of the Constitution comprehensively gives the lie to that. That section has been before the High Court more times than I have had hot breakfasts, and I have had a few of those. Senator Short —You look as though you need another one, Senator. Senator COLLINS —The honourable senator is running out of arguments. One of the tests that I always had-it never failed-in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was that, when Porky or any of them got on to the question of my weight, they had nothing else left to deliver. The question of section 116 can be brought back to the High Court at any time and any number of times by anyone who has the standing to do so. The issue is: do the changes themselves change any of the fundamental principles-the ratio decidendi-used in the original DOGS case? The fact is that they will change nothing of the sort. The High Court does not have great resort to the debates of the Constitutional Convention, but it does have a long history of referring to Quick and Garran if there does need to be any interpretation. This is what Quick and Garran said about section 116: By the establishment of religion is meant the erection and recognition of a State church or the concession of special favours, titles and advantages to one church which are denied others. One does not have to be a lawyer to accept that as an interpretation of that section. It is commonsense. And that is precisely how the High Court has interpreted and will continue to interpret it. The only difference that will be made by the amendment to that particular section of the Constitution-and I think it is a commendable change-is that it is extended to the States as a result of the Grace Bible Church case in 1984. If Senator Short refers to the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission, he will find those matters dealt with. That case extends the prohibition from law-making to the executive actions of government as well-a commendable shift. It does not change the fundamental basis on which the DOGS case was fought, namely, that the provision fairly by government of public money to private schools, on established criteria that have nothing to do with religion, does not constitute the establishment of a religion. I should have thought that was commonsense, and the amendment to that particular section of the Constitution will change nothing. Senator Harradine —What about Justice Murphy? Senator COLLINS —Justice Murphy, as all honourable senators know, was the sole dissenting voice in that judgment. Senator Harradine —Can you guarantee that that interpretation will continue? Senator COLLINS —Yes, Senator, I think based on the history of the High Court's judgments over the last 80 years I can confidently assert that the High Court will continue to provide that narrow interpretation of section 116 long after I am safely in the grave. Senator Macklin told me today that when he was engaged in debates on this subject in Queensland he had been faced with an argument that he had to answer: the proposed amendment to section 116 was going to lead to the abolition of Christmas. That really typifies the difficulty of trying to cope with the arguments that are being put forward now. The arguments are nonsensical; they are trying to frighten the daylights out of people. I have had it put to me in the Northern Territory that this amendment will mean an end to religious hospitals and religious charitable organisations. It is absolute nonsense. The fact is-and Senator Macklin said it very well, and this debate has demonstrated it-that the amendment will do nothing of the sort. The question of deceit need not concern this Government, which has acted honourably in this matter throughout. It does, however, need to be sheeted home very firmly to the Opposition. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.55) —There appears to be only a short time for me to speak, but I rise to support the proposition that the referendum proposals, by and large, are deceptive, because that is what they are. I am concerned that Senator Collins has taken an emotional approach-as it were, a public barnstorming approach-instead of taking a look at what has happened. The last question typifies the deceit of these questions. It is a proposal to alter the Constitution to extend inter alia freedom of religion. Section 116 essentially is the anti-establishment clause and it has been interpreted. An identical section in the United States Constitution has been interpreted to ensure anti-religious outcomes. Senator Collins —That has nothing to do with Australian law. Senator HARRADINE —It has a lot to do with Australia, because section 116 was placed in the Constitution by the founding fathers-have a look at the debates-using the United States Constitution as the basis for their decision. Mr Justice Murphy pointed to that very fact when he said in the DOGS case that there should be no funding for non-government schools in this country. Senator Cooney —Was he in the majority? Senator HARRADINE —I am asked whether he was in the majority. No, he was not in the majority. I then ask: Can any member of the Government give a guarantee that in future years the High Court of Australia will not be composed of persons of the same view as Mr Justice Murphy or, indeed, of the same view as that held by the current majority of the United States Supreme Court, which, under an identical provision, has done a number of things, including ban religious instruction in state schools, even where the parents of the students have signed request cards? That is how bad it is. In the Australian Bill of Rights debate I raised fears about what the Bill of Rights would do in respect of abortion. At that time I indicated that I was concerned that the provisions of the Bill of Rights could be used to strike down criminal laws on abortion. What was the type of reponse that I received from the Government? Senator Tate publicly stated that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-Catholic father of seven, as he described him-would never have intended that. In fact, Senator Evans said in this chamber on behalf of Mr Bowen that that would not be the case. He said in another context that the provisions of the Australian Bill of Rights would operate like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is the Government aware that the Supreme Court of Canada, in January this year, struck down the criminal law on abortion in that country on the ground that it infringed the Canadian Charter provision relating to the rights of liberty and security of persons? Identical words were to be found in the Australian Bill of Rights. There is an identical provision in the Australian Bill of Rights. All sorts of guarantees were given by Mr Bowen, but they were worth nothing. The Government will not be able to guarantee that the High Court will not have a majority at some stage in the future which will interpret this provision precisely in the manner in which it has been interpreted in the United States Supreme Court. Senator Cooney —You had better take 116 out of the Constitution. Senator HARRADINE —Two of the other questions are also plainly deceptive. Senator Cooney has interjected on me frequently. I think that at one stage he said that the President of the United States has a four-year term. So he has: he has a fixed four-year term. But that is not what question one will achieve. It will not achieve a fixed four-year term. Quite the contrary. I believe that the people of Australia are sick of too frequent elections, but this proposal will not remedy that problem. The problem will not be remedied by a Yes vote to question No. 1. In fact, question No. 1 could equally be posed thus: do you approve of abolishing the fixed term for the Senate and giving more power to the Prime Minister to call an early election? I say that because if people vote yes to the first question the Prime Minister of the day will not need to go through the section 57 hoops which he has to go through now. The Prime Minister and the government of the day can place legislation before the House of Representatives and ram it through. Then it can attempt to ram it through this place. We can hold it up, but the Government can express frustration and say, `We are going to the people'. The Government could have done that on the identity (ID) card issue had this proposal been in place at that time. It could have done it on the Bill of Rights had this proposal been in the Constitution at that time. However, it did not do so because this provision was not in the Constitution and time had to be given for the Bills to go back to the House of Representatives and the Senate. By that time, of course, the people of Australia had woken up to the dangers of both those proposals. Eventually, the Government woke up to the fact that it was banging its head against the wall and had no show of getting the Australian Bill of Rights through. Because the Government had to go through the section 57 double dissolution provisions, the ID card legislation was held up, thus giving the people of Australia the opportunity to understand the ramifications of that legislation. If people vote yes to the first proposition, that protection will no longer be there. The second proposition concerns free and fair elections. It implies that if a person votes yes to that proposition there will be free and fair elections. That is plainly untrue. That provision does nothing to affect the gerrymanders of electoral boundaries. In fact, that provision will diminish the community of interest criteria that are so important for the establishment of electoral boundaries. My time is almost up, but I want to go to the third question. I recommend a No, No, Yes, No vote. I might be the only one in this chamber recommending that, but I know that many people in my State will vote no to the first question, no to the second, yes to the third, which is the local government one, and no to the fourth. I understand the weight of the arguments against the third question, but I believe that the symbol is there. I believe very firmly in a Yes vote on the third question and a No vote on the rest. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance is concluded. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.06) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper is the Government's response to the further report on non-statutory bodies (NSBs) from the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which I chair. In that report the Committee reaffirmed its view that there should be a central register of non-statutory bodies of the Government. I am deeply disappointed at the Government's continued negative response to the Committee's recommendation. By giving a further report, we gave the Government the opportunity to come up with a more convincing response than before but, regrettably, there has just been further entrenchment of a difficult to justify position. One of the arguments in the response is that any difficulty there might be in tracking down reports of NSBs would be significantly reduced by the requirement that parent bodies, in their annual reports, list any NSBs of theirs which produce their own annual reports. That is something, but there is still no explanation of what is meant by a `parent body'. One has to know about all of these unspecified parent bodies to trace an NSB. How much simpler it would be to have a single central register. The response refers to one of the Committee's witnesses. It states: It- that is, the Committee- decided in favour of a current register, even though Professor Hood, the outside expert whom it consulted and whose opinion it cites as authority for its own, is reported only to have `inclined to the idea of a register updated and published annually'. My feeling is that that part of the response tries to damn the Committee on the grounds that we suggest something that goes further than does a witness whom we quoted, as if we were unable to use him in support of the basic issue. Professor Hood still supported a central register. Certainly, there was a difference in emphasis about whether that should be kept on a continuous or annual basis, but it does not seem an honest argument to say that it damns the whole question of a register. The response used a whole lot of emotive words, such as: A current central register would be a trap, creating expectations of reliability but never truly current; liable, rather, to dangerous inaccuracies . . . The point is that the content of the register would be the responsibility of the relevant Minister. If somehow or other there was an inaccuracy or it was not properly brought up to date, or whatever, the relevant Minister would be answerable for that. This is a gross example of the contempt of some senior public servants for members of this place and for parliamentary committees. I think that sometimes they think we are stupid. The officers concerned either did not read the report or deliberately ignored what we were getting at. The response continued: . . . annual reports will be more reliable than a central register would be, as responsibility for the accuracy of information they contain will rest directly with the source of the information. My point in response to that is that the register would have in it only that information lodged by Ministers. No work would be required of those administering the central register. It would require only minor resources. The central register would make more readily available information which should already exist. I guess there is no point in continuing this ping-pong game with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the moment, but I can assure the Senate that the Committee will keep a close eye on the less than satisfactory arrangement that is proposed of having to monitor non-statutory bodies by looking at a variety of annual reports which provide an historical record only. My only praise for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in this matter is that this time the government response was tabled within the required three months. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(5.11) —I support Senator Coates. I commend his courageous pursuit of the Government on this matter. It is a great shame that his tenacity has been rewarded in such a dishonest manner. The proposal for a central register is one that meets with widespread favour around the world by those parliaments that have considered it. Professor Hood is probably the best qualified expert that one could have to consider the implications of the proposal. I am outraged at the way in which the Government has dishonestly dismissed his view. The question is whether we have a central register. The Government for its own purposes has made it consistently clear that it prefers not to have any central register, that it would much prefer to have information maintained in various government departments, reproduced at different times in annual reports and, by definition, almost impossible to collate and to make use of in any sensible form and certainly not with any degree of urgency. It is precisely that strategy which needs to be deplored. It is a classic example of trying to ensure freedom from information and to maintain the veil of secrecy which no doubt the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet thinks is desirable for all other departments to seek. The way in which the Government response proceeds is to somehow pretend to dismiss Professor Hood altogether on the basis that he was inclined to the idea of a register, updated and published annually, rather than to prefer a continuous model. Even a cursory reading of the report makes it clear that Professor Hood has analysed each and every possible alternative. He has gone, in great detail, to the arguments that have been advanced from time to time against having a central register. In the report we quote him as saying: It seems to me that none of those arguments are very convincing. He then proceeds to deal with three reasons for having a central register. The first was a public information case, and he explains why that is very desirable. He referred to the tendencies in political debate for various persons to exaggerate the number of bodies. In every way he spelt out very clearly the advantages of having such a register. The Government has chosen not to attempt to refute any of those; it simply, at a very late stage in the debate, came up with what I regard as plainly desperate stuff. The suggestion that a current central register would be a trap creating expectations of reliability but never truly current, that somehow the agencies would be removed from responsibility, is very shabby. Quite clearly there is always a monitoring problem. There is always a necessity for individual departments to keep their records up to date. That does not involve them in any abdication of responsibility if they are also required to pass the information on to a central register. Our report found that the cost of doing that would be minuscule, that there are no impedimenta to such a scheme, that there are very cogent examples of how it could be done quite simply. We cited an example of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories which said in its annual report that the introduction of computer techniques to assist in the compilation of a directory had improved the method of updating and that in place of the former annual review, agencies now supply amendments on a regular basis for continuous updating, thus reducing the lead time for production. It is quite clear that this is a sensible, modern approach to take, that the information in central form would be very valuable and useful. That is precisely why this Government is not interested in any such proposal. It prefers to keep the information diffuse to ensure that those who might be able to make use of it to good advantage are deterred in the greatest possible way. I regard the response as totally unsatisfactory and unworthy of the Government itself, let alone the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Senator Coates's efforts deserve a greater reward than they seem to have gained in this instance. If this is all we are going to get by way of Government response, it is clear that this Government is not interested in greater information but rather in less information. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As we have only five minutes in these particular debates I cannot do justice to consideration of this report. Quite clearly much research and work has been done by the Australian National University (ANU) which is very beneficial and which is a great credit to that institution. However, I refer to a grant that has been received by the Australian National University which was mentioned on page 211 of the report. That is a grant from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, a grant of $572,586 this year. I understand a similar amount was granted last year. Its purpose is for support to assist the National Family Planning Co-ordinating Board in the development of demography in Indonesia. It was made to the Research School of Social Sciences. I believe it is very important for the integrity of an institution such as the Australian National University that in its dealings with the National Family Planning Co-ordinating Board in Indonesia it understands that there are measures adopted in Indonesia in the family planning area which should certainly be rejected by the Australian National University and by the people of Australia as a whole. I have been informed that the Australian National University has quite a special relationship with the Population Research Institute of the Gadjah Mada University in Jogjakarta in Indonesia. This population institute has been barred by the National Family Planning Co-Ordinating Board of Indonesia from doing any research into the ill effects on women of contraceptives, abortifacients and intra-uterine devices, et cetera, employed by this Board. From the point of view of intellectual honesty, from the point of view of the university's integrity, it is essential that the ANU pause to consider whether its acceptance of this grant from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities is in some way tarnishing its reputation and compromising its research. If it is a fact that there is a ban being placed on researchers by the Indonesian Board so that they cannot even consider the effects of contraceptive devices and abortifacients on women I believe it should have nothing to do with that grant in the interests of its own integrity and the interests of academic integrity in Australia. I was in Jogjakarta recently and I am aware of the lengths to which some people, inspired as it were by the type of cultural imperialism in this population control area that is placed upon them by the United Nations organisations, are putting great pressure on the ordinary people in Indonesia to accept unacceptable methods of birth control. There are farmers who are unable to get credit unless the wife has had an intra-uterine device fitted. I have a list of other very good examples and I am prepared to say that unless the Australian National University accepts-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Toomelah report is a very interesting one to have before the Senate 24 hours after we considered the motion which was moved in this place by the Government at the instigation of sundry churchmen and which was the subject of debate here yesterday. We spoke yesterday of the importance of symbols and I spoke in response to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and suggested there were a great many practical matters that needed attention. This report, of course, presents a series of glaring examples of the practical difficulties facing many Aboriginal people and many Aboriginal communities. As one goes through that report one reads of inter-government conflicts, one reads of deficiencies of housing and one reads about deficiencies of water and sewerage. It is a chronicle which would dismay any observer. One reads of a failure by Federal, State and local government to come to grips with the very severe problems which are exposed. A number of additional questions are raised by this sort of report. The report does not address why it is that we have what is effectively a segregated community. It may well be, of course, that the community has come from the past practice of a reserved base community. That is a matter which is not addressed. The answer, therefore, is not apparent on the face of this report. We are told there are about 1,500 people in the township, that there are many children and many unemployed people. The question arises as to why in a community where there are a substantial number of unemployed hands it appears that so little has been done in the way of self-help to try to remedy what is obviously a drastically bad physical environment for that community. I mentioned that only because again in the debate yesterday I made the point which was made by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Peter Dowding. I really quoted him in my own defence in making the point that the answer to these problems involved not only an improvement in the standards of services provided by government and on some occasions an increase in resources-although I suspect that on many occasions it is not resources but the effective use of those resources we are talking about; in other words, it is the avoidance of waste. It is also vitally necessary that there be a strong Aboriginal involvement, because without that personal contribution and a determination on the part of the Aboriginal people involved to take control of their lives and to use what resources are available everything else will fail. It is timely that after an essentially theoretical debate about our attitudes to Aboriginal Australians in 1988 we have before us this report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission signed by His Honour Mr Justice Marcus Einfeld and Sir James Killen and Kaye Mundine. I do not have time in what is a very brief opportunity for debate to go through the findings at any length. We find, for example, in the first chapter of the report: The Inquiry finds that one result of the existing policy conflicts- these are conflicts between Commonwealth, State and local government- is that the residents of Toomelah, and no doubt of other similar communities, are denied many of the benefits and services provided as a matter of right to all non-Aboriginal citizens of the State. They are denied them because they are Aborigines living in Aboriginal communities. Services, if they are provided at all, are more likely to be provided from specialist, usually Federal Aboriginal Affairs budgets. These budgets are then drained from these purposes so that insufficient funds remain for the support of programs which would boost the living standards of Aborigines to par with community norms, ensure their `equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms' and enable them to realise their right, `in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, [and] to use their own language'. In one of the gloomy final sentences the report goes on to say: On the other hand, we have seen nothing to demonstrate a willingness or a capacity within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs adequately to design and deliver programs to achieve these ends. Mr President, I wish we spent a little less time talking about theory in this place and addressed our minds to the severe and practical problems facing these Aboriginal communities and discussed why it is that a department of which I myself was once Minister is branded as a failure in the way that it is branded as a failure in this report. I believe we might then show a little more sincerity in terms of dealing with the problems of Aboriginal Australians in this bicentennial year. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.28) —I want to speak on similar lines to Senator Chaney on the Toomelah report which seems to me to be a case study of the plight of Aboriginal people in many of such communities around Australia. I must say that in reading the report I find myself embarrassed. It is a real indictment of us all. I refer to the findings in chapter 9: The Toomelah community of 500 Aboriginal people endures appalling living conditions which amount to a denial to them of the most basic rights taken for granted by most other groups in society, and by other Australian communities of similar size. Their houses are substandard and overcrowded, actually contributing to a range of diseases. The community has for decades lived without an adequate and certain water supply, a properly functioning sewerage system and a safe means of sewage disposal. The report continues in the next part of that chapter: Community members display higher than average rates of a range of debilitating diseases for which they cannot get adequate treatment. They suffer from a lack of adequate education and chronic unemployment. Their traditions have been largely destroyed and their self-esteem is low. Their treatment by Government at all levels has been insensitive and uncaring. Their human rights have been ignored. In this report the failure of administration is put at all levels of government. It is hard to apportion blame, but it infuriates me in a similar way to Senator Chaney that we get this continuing self-congratulatory rhetoric from the Government when we have reports such as this indicating such basic shortcomings in major functional areas of health, education, housing and the like. Let me put that in the context of a recent experience I had in visiting the Pitjantjatjara lands in the north-west of South Australia, which would be very familiar to you, Mr Deputy President. I must say that there were things there that I thought were pleasing. Nevertheless, the health clinic in the communities of Kalka and Pipalyatjara, which I abbreviate to Pip because I have trouble with the word, is in fact an empty shipping container that has been turned into a health clinic with no privacy, no separate rooms for men or women. It is an appalling state of affairs that would simply not be tolerated in white communities of that size. They are permanent communities-it is not as if they are there only on a temporary basis-with basic health facilities that are intolerable in the state of Australia's development. The more aware we become as individuals of these shortcomings and the more determined we are to do something in a practical way to overcome them, the better. In this instance the community has no choice but to seek funds from State and Federal governments. State and Federal governments will not support it in providing an adequate medical clinic. I think that is appalling. In conclusion, it is important for us also to realise that these communities are seeking to do as much as possible about their own difficulties. I refer to an excellent document entitled `An Environmental and Public Health Review within the Anangu and Pitjantjatjara Lands' published in December 1987 which sets out how basic health and housing needs can be met and how some of the major shortcomings that have been indicated to us in this report before the Senate today, albeit in relation to another community, can be resolved in relation to the Pitjantjatjara people. I hope that in the future we will look at the areas in which we can make positive change rather than simply dwell on the rhetoric of Aboriginal affairs. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.31) —I read the Toomelah report on the Problems and Needs of Aborigines Living on the New South Wales-Queensland border by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with great concern. I would like to echo the remarks of Senator Chaney who, as an individual, has been more directly involved in trying to help the Aboriginal people to help themselves-with the possible exception of Senator Collins-than anyone else in this chamber. What he did as a compassionate Minister and as a compassionate individual has been of great help to the Aboriginal people. One aspect of the report appalled me, although I was also interested in two omissions from it. The description of the behaviour of the local council towards the Aboriginal community is an outrage in a civilised community. The local council did not treat the Aboriginals as equal citizens of the area. It treated them in a way it would not have contemplated treating non-Aboriginal citizens of the shire. It did so for pseudo-legal reasons, but they were obviously phoney reasons. It was a severe indictment of a local organisation to behave like that. It was also an indictment of the State and Federal governments that their arrangements permitted the local shire council to get away with such behaviour. I was also interested in two things that were not covered in the report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Firstly, why was this separate community of Aboriginals created at all? Was it created by the Aboriginals' own choice? Did they want to live as a separate community or were they forced there by the intolerant behaviour of the white community? That surely is a matter which should have been looked at by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Why do we have this separate community, particularly living in such squalor, with no proper roads, no sewerage, no reliable water supply and substandard housing? Why do they live separately? Why are they not integrated into the rest of the community? That surely should have been a matter for proper report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It should have been dealt with in detail. The other point that worried me was touched on by Senator Chaney. Accepting that the health standards were poor, that the roads were substandard and that the housing was dilapidated and falling down, this was a community with almost total unemployment, with several dozen totally unemployed able-bodied men. Why did they not help themselves to some extent? Why do they have to sit back and wait for the Government to provide? We have made them terminal cases-terminal Government recipients. That is doing them more harm than anything else. I am not suggesting that we endorse or approve the behaviour of the local shire council, but if we have a community that chooses to live separately, if they did so choose, why have we reduced its members to a state of not even being prepared to try to help themselves, sitting back in substandard accommodation complaining of the lack of government support? Obviously the government support is not there. Why have we reduced them to a state of being unwilling or unable to help themselves? It is a severe indictment and an aspect that is not covered by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in its report. There are two deficiencies in this report. Why was a separate Aboriginal community created at all and, if it was created by the choice of the Aboriginals, why has the result been that they are unwilling or unable to help themselves? They are the two glaring deficiencies in an otherwise good report. Debate (on motion by Senator Short) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Motion (by Senator Cook) agreed to: That consideration of committee reports pursuant to sessional order be not proceeded with this day. The PRESIDENT —I present the annual reports of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing and the Department of the Senate for 1987-88. There has been a delay in obtaining the printed copies of the report but they are expected to be available shortly. Ordered that the reports be printed. The PRESIDENT —I present the publication Business of the Senate for the period 1 January 1988 to 30 June 1988. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Mr President, I present the eighty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLLINS —I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The report deals with the motion for disallowance, passed by the Senate on 24 March 1988, of certain freedom of information regulations relating to the Australian Bicentennial Authority. This motion for disallowance was the first occasion since the Committee was established in 1932 that a disallowance motion moved on the Committee's behalf had been passed as a formal motion. It was also the first disallowance motion actually moved on behalf of the Committee since August 1971. The Committee takes the step of moving for disallowance of delegated legislation on its own initiative only as an act of last resort. It is a drastic remedy to be resorted to on the rare occasion when a Minister declines to accommodate the Committee's concerns about the effects which subordinate laws may have on the rights of people. In this instance, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) was unwilling to make new regulations restoring the Australian Bicentennial Authority to the schedule of prescribed bodies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The Australian Bicentennial Authority was set up in 1980 with the specific object of coordinating the running of events in Australia's bicentennial year. When the legislation was introduced, it contained an amalgam of provisions which allowed the Authority an appropriate degree of autonomy and flexibility to operate in a businesslike way, yet subjected the Authority to ministerial direction and parliamentary accountability. As part of that accountability, the Authority was made subject to the Freedom of Information Act in 1982, through regulations listing those bodies which were regarded as prescribed bodies. These regulations were subsequently amended in December 1983, June 1985, December 1985 and March 1986, but no change was made in the status of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Yet, on the eve of Australia's bicentennial year, a regulation was made which excluded the operations of the Authority from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. At the time of the making of the regulation, a political controversy broke out concerning the ramifications of excluding the Authority from the provisions of the Act. The Committee did not participate in that debate but looked at the exclusion of the Authority in bipartisan manner being concerned that individual rights to obtain information, especially in the bicentennial year, were being prejudiced by the regulations. The Committee noted the undertaking of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at that time to ensure that the Authority would still be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, but believed that in the interim it was important to have the Authority subject to a legal provision, even if the Government's view was that it could not be enforced. The Committee's view was that the place to test that regulation was in the courts. The major issue concerning the regulations related to the definition of the word `control'. This issue was based upon a legal interpretation as to who controlled the activities of the Authority. It was the belief of the Attorney-General's Department, in three legal opinions to the Attorney-General which were supported by a number of legal decisions, that the Commonwealth was not in a position to exercise control over the Authority. Hence, using this strict company law interpretation of the word `control', the Government's view was that the Commonwealth could not control the activities of the Authority and, therefore, the Authority failed to be a prescribed authority within the terms of subsection 4 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Committee was concerned that none of the legal opinions looked closely at the powers conferred on the Australian Bicentennial Authority, preferring to concentrate on the application of company law concepts and legal precedents in what was clearly a hybrid and unusual body. None of the entities referred to by the courts in the decisions that had been cited on the meaning of control was a body subject to an Act of parliament which conferred a wide range of directive powers on government. In the Committee's opinion, the question of whether the statutory powers amounted to a requisite degree of control had been dealt with in a less than satisfactory way. Those powers and discretions appeared to be a source of considerable potential control over many aspects of the Authority's existence and operations. It struck the Committee that the power to give policy directions which had to be obeyed, the power to appoint a majority of the directors, the power to terminate the Chairman's appointment on six months' notice and the power to issue directions for the expenditure of money were considerable degrees of power. In the final analysis, the Committee recognised that the issue of the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act involved extremely difficult legal questions about which there was no definitive opinion or recommendation that could be followed. This matter was made more difficult because of the political controversy that the removal of the Authority from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act had caused at the time. I said in March: The Committee is anxious, in a bipartisan spirit, to remain above the politics of this situation. A remedial Bill will, hopefully, very soon make this statement and tomorrow's disallowance merely a matter of history. But until then, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee must act in defence of the principle that the right to freedom of information about the affairs of the Authority should be a legal and enforceable right as far as the law, as applied by the courts, will allow. That was the situation until Regulation 3 was made. Disallowance will return us to that preferable situation while we wait for the legislation. I am happy to say that the remedial Bill was passed by this Parliament on 3 June 1988 and came into operation on 1 July 1988. From that date, any doubt as to the Authority being subject to the Freedom of Information Act was removed. I believe that this report once again shows the importance of the watchdog role that the Committee performs in this Parliament. What many people may regard as an insignificantly brief regulation contained an important limitation on the rights of individuals to obtain information concerning an authority which had been entrusted to organise significant events on behalf of this country and to spend large sums of taxpayers' money in the bicentennial year. The Committee's action in moving the motion of disallowance of regulation 3 of the Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, and the Senate's response in passing that motion without the need for any debate, will, I hope, provide a useful guideline whenever it is proposed in future to amend delegated legislation to make it clear that assumed rights do not, in fact, exist. The Committee will not lightly accept that delegated legislation may be used to remove purportedly doubtful rights before their validity is clarified by a court, or confirmed by an Act of Parliament. I wish to thank my fellow members of the Committee for their bipartisan support on this matter. In closing, I would also like to commend the scrupulous way in which the former secretary of the Committee, Peter O'Keeffe, carried out his work and congratulate him on his recent promotion. I was very sorry to hear that Peter is quite ill. I wish him a speedy recovery and a speedy return to the Parliament. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(5.44) —As a member of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances I am delivering on behalf of the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, Senator Bronwyn Bishop, who is absent from the chamber on parliamentary business, a statement in support of Senator Collins's remarks. The Committee, as is its practice, examined the question of disallowance in a bipartisan way without indulging in any of the political debate that occurred outside the Committee. The long-held tradition that members do not use the Committee for the purpose of political pointscoring while acting for or on behalf of the Committee has given the Committee its strength to meet the Executive on equal terms in ensuring that the Committee's criteria are always upheld to make certain that individuals' rights and freedoms are protected. Having reiterated the premise which is the basis of the Committee's existence, it is interesting to note when turning to the report just how important a role the Committee can play in the protection of an individual's right to seek information under the Freedom of Information Act. I draw honourable senators' attention to paragraph 9.1, part (e), which states, in part, that the name of the Authority was removed from the schedule as part of a larger `tidying up' exercise and `insufficient attention was given to the policy implications'. This view was expressed in one of the legal opinions submitted to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) by his Department. The Committee then makes the following and, I believe, important statement: Over a period of some 18 months there was at the very least a surprising failure within the Attorney-General's Department to grasp the significance for personal rights and liberties of the advice prepared in November 1986 and confirmed in May 1987 that freedom of information rights did not, and had never, existed. I hope that officials from the Attorney-General's Department and other government departments take a close look at the implications of that statement which are the key to this report, namely, that in looking at subordinate legislation the personal rights and liberties factors cannot be ignored. If they are ignored, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee will act in its bipartisan manner to ensure that they are restored. I should emphasise the fact that it took over 18 months for the Department to act on this matter and when it finally did act it was only a matter of weeks before the bicentennial year commenced, thereby depriving individuals of the right to seek information from an Authority which is and has played a major role in the bicentennial year. Turning to the difference in legal opinion that occurred between the Committee and the Attorney-General's Department, I refer honourable senators to the speeches made on this issue in March of this year, but would like to emphasise a comment that I made at that time: In a situation of such doubt, the Committee prefers, as a matter of principle, to leave it up to the courts to determine, if necessary, whether the Freedom of Information Act applies to the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Regulation 3 removes from the courts any right to decide whether the Act applies because it expressly and unequivocally removes the Authority from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Previously it was thought that individuals had a clear, justifiable right to freedom of information regarding the Authority. Doubts were raised about that proposition. Now by virtue of the regulation there are no legal rights whatsoever. Disallowance of regulation 3 will revive the previous regulation and restore the status quo pending the passage of a Bill to place the entire matter beyond doubt by providing that the Freedom of Information Act does unquestionably apply. The simple fact that the Senate concurred with the Committee's view by allowing a formal motion to be passed is a vindication of the principle enunciated in that comment. I join Senator Collins in thanking the then secretary of the Committee, Mr Peter O'Keeffe, for the work he undertook in relation to this matter, and urge honourable senators to read this significant report. I add my and Senator Bishop's congratulations to Peter O'Keeffe on his promotion and reiterate our wishes for his speedy recovery from his illness. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. REFERENDUM (MACHINERY PROVISIONS) (INFORMAL BALLOT-PAPERS) BILL 1988 The Bill. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.48) —When the debate was interrupted earlier today I was responding to a question that Senator Macklin had asked: whether I had included any transitional arrangements in the Opposition's Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-Papers) Bill to meet the claim that there would be two classes of voter for the 3 September referendums if the Bill were enacted before then. The argument being put by some, including apparently the Attorney-General's Department, is that we would get two classes of voter in the sense that some people have already voted-for example, through postal votes-and that these voters would somehow be treated differently if the Opposition's Bill were enacted and applied only to those persons who have not yet voted, including of course all those millions of people who will vote at polling booths on the referendum day, 3 September. The answer to Senator Macklin's question is no, the Opposition has not included any transitional arrangements to take account of that assertion. I do not know whether it would be possible to include any such arrangements. More importantly, the Opposition does not believe that this would be necessary, because we do not believe that the Bill would create two classes of voter for the forthcoming referendums. The Bill is procedural. It does not change the substance of the method of voting; on the contrary, it is strongly supportive of what is written on the referendum ballot papers, namely, that voters should register their vote only in the form of the words `yes' or `no'. The Opposition's Bill has nothing to do with the casting of one's vote; rather, it is about the counting of that vote. I fail to see how that can be said to create two classes of voter. Senator Macklin said that voters who have already voted may have been misled by being told that ticks and some crosses may constitute valid votes. That, of course, is not so. The only reference to ticks and crosses has been in guidelines issued by the Australian Electoral Commission to polling booth officials. There has been no public statement that ticks or crosses are acceptable ways of voting. Indeed, such a statement would, as Senator Robert Ray pointed out this afternoon, be illegal in any event. The two classes of voters assertion, apparently, has come in the form of relatively informal advice to the Government from the Attorney-General's Department. So far the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, has not felt able or been prepared to table that advice. Again, I ask the Minister to do so. I believe that he said today that the Attorney-General's Department had advised that there was `some doubt about the constitutional validity' of the referendum if the Bill was enacted. Certainly, that advice does not sound to be definitive advice by any means. I think the Minister also said that he would `be interested to hear other legal advice'. I hope that he will seek further advice, either more formal advice from the Attorney-General's Department than he appears to have at the moment, or independent advice. The Opposition has already informally sought legal advice, as I said earlier today. That informal advice is contrary to that of the Attorney-General's Department. I urge the Government to put this Bill before the House of Representatives for debate and speedy passage as a matter of urgency. It is in accord with the wishes of all parties and with the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Of course, it has very significant implications. It is essential that voters' intentions at the referendum be indisputably clear; only the passage of this Bill will ensure that that occurs. Bill agreed to. Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 reported with amendments and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-Papers) Bill 1988 reported without amendment; report adopted. Referendums (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) read a third time. Referendum (Machinery Provisions) (Informal Ballot-Papers) Bill 1988 (on motion by Senator Short) read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.55) —The Senate is now debating what has been described by the Government as a major industrial relations reform. It is a rather belated follow-up to the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which sat for a very considerable time and produced a voluminous report. The Government delayed its response for a very considerable time. The Government introduced a Bill in May last year. That Bill produced a storm of protest which related to the attempt by the Government to cut off access to the common law injunction in industrial disputes and also put some barriers or pre-conditions in the path of people seeking to use sections 45d and e of the Trade Practices Act-sections which became very widely known in Australia because of their use in the dispute at Mudginberri. In a rare example of employer unanimity, all sorts of employers in Australia were united in saying to the Government that they did not wish to see those changes to the law. In that regard, they spoke with one voice with the Opposition. The Government withdrew its Bill and it was not until May this year that Mr Willis reintroduced legislation which is in some ways an improvement on the legislation of last year, but which is in other ways a clear step backwards. We are about to commence serious debate on the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 because in the House of Representatives, as is so often the case, a tiny amount of time was allowed for discussion and debate. Mr Willis described this as a major reform of industrial relations. We know that industrial relations is a matter of enormous interest and, indeed, concern, to the Australian people, yet it was allowed 3 1/2 hours of debating time. No opportunity was given for a committee consideration of the Bill. In other words, detailed concerns of the Opposition could not be expressed in the House of Representatives and amendments to the legislation could not be moved in the House of Representatives. I am pleased that we have the prospect of a genuine debate on this legislation in the Senate and of a committee debate which will enable us to deal with the detailed concerns of the community, the detailed concerns of the Opposition and, I understand, some concerns which will be expressed by the Australian Democrats. We face a lengthy debate, but I believe that, as in the past, that lengthy debate will serve a useful purpose in educating the public further about what the Government is doing and about the errors in what the Government is doing. Also, I hope there will be opportunity, if the required majority is obtained in the chamber, for substantial amendments to be made to the legislation, because I think those substantial amendments are required. The debate is taking place in the context of relative complacency about industrial relations. I open the debate for the Opposition by pointing out that there is no room for complacency about the state of industrial relations in this country. The major difference between the situation in Australia now and the situation in May 1986 when the Treasurer, Mr Keating, warned us that we were in danger of achieving banana republic status is that there has been a quite remarkable turnaround in the terms of trade. Whereas Mr Keating was continually telling us until that turnaround occurred that the difficulties we faced were a product of declining prices for our exports, now that he has been put in a rather more comfortable position, and the Australian economy has been put in a more comfortable position by an improvement in the price of our exports, there is this almost conspiracy of silence about the continuing weaknesses which afflict the Australian economy. The truth is, of course, that the position could change at any time. The reality of our failure to come to grips with the need to increase productivity quickly in this country and to get a more flexible labour market will again become a matter of great public urgency. We have an extraordinary level of external debt. That level of debt has yet to stabilise. It has been affected favourably, of course, by the revaluation of the Australian dollar. But the fact is that we face a very long period with significant balance of payments deficits. It will be a long time before we can say with any confidence that we have stabilised our external debt. We have a situation in which the members of the Australian work force are entitled to question the system because it has delivered to them static or declining real wages. It has done that in the context of ever-increasing debt. In other words, even though Australian living standards under the current arrangements are declining, we have, during that period of decline, been going into increasing debt. So, the negative for the members of the Australian work force is even greater than the pressure that they have felt between the pincers of declining real wages and higher taxation. Those problems have not disappeared. Our productivity, as I said before, is stagnant. We have a situation in which we have predicted productivity growth, if one looks at the budget figuring, of 0.75 per cent over the current financial year, following growth of approximately half a per cent last year. When one looks at the current situation and compares us with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development generally, one sees that we have a labour productivity situation in which the figures that I have for 1986-89, which include some estimates for the current year, show Australia with a productivity increase of half the OECD average. There is no room for complacency there if we want Australian living standards to improve. We have had nominal wage rises which in general are about twice as fast as the wage rises in our trading competitors. I have a paper which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Earnings Growth 1987-88 1988-89 Australia ... 6.4% (National Accounts) 6.5% (Budget Estimates) West Germany ... 2.8% Japan ... 2.3% Switzerland ... 2.7% USA ... 3.2% UK ... 8.5% Canada ... 4.4% France ... 3.3% Source: `The Economist' and Budget Paper No. 1, 1988-89 Budget estimate of average growth in compensation per employee in our major trading partners (not defined)-3.8% In other words, earnings growth in Australia over 1987-88 was 1.7 times the average in our major trading competitors. Senator CHANEY —In 1987-88 Australia had nominal wage rises of 6.4 per cent, according to the national accounts. The estimate for this year is 6.5 per cent. Yet in those countries with which we compete and which are doing so well in the world, we find nominal wage growth at a much lower level. I just point out that West Germany has a figure of 2.8 per cent; Japan, 2.3 per cent; Switzerland, 2.7 per cent; the United States of America, 3.2 per cent; the United Kingdom-the only country which is ahead of us-8.5 per cent; Canada, 4.4 per cent; and France, 3.3 per cent. The importance of that is that those nominal wage rises that have gone to Australian workers are not wage rises which have delivered increased living standards because, of course, our inflation rate has gobbled up those nominal wage rises. If we are concerned about our competitiveness and our capacity to trade our way out of debt, then we cannot be satisfied with the situation where nominal wage rises are so much greater in Australia than they are in our competitor countries. We find in every economic survey of Australia, whether it is by the OECD or by some private body, that greater labour market flexibility is an essential element in improving the Australian economic situation. We now find the Labor Government saying the same thing. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission can, and still does, obstruct direct employer-employee negotiations in the interests of the centralised system. I am sorry that Senator Button is not yet with us at the table. He is the Minister in charge of this Bill. I understand that he will be with us during the committee stage of the debate. I am sorry he is not here now because no other Minister in the Government is clearer in his thinking on the importance of having employer-employee relations which are productive and positive. He talks about having a productive culture. Yet in this debate I will give examples of employers and employees who have sought to work together, who have reached agreement on the way they should work together and who have been obstructed by the system of conciliation and arbitration from doing so. In this country we regard as major advances things like the second tier wage negotiations and the award restructuring principles of the current wage case. When we examine those things we see that they are simply means of trying to impress upon the enterprises the need for flexibility. Yet we are doing that in a very bureaucratic and centralised way which in itself can be a barrier to change. There is an inherent illogicality, an inherent conflict, in the system as it is and in the demands of the modern economic world. Perhaps the most serious thing is that in this country we continue to allow the oppression of individuals, whether they are employers or employees-- Senator Burns —Ha, ha! Senator CHANEY —Senator Burns laughs. I invite Senator Burns to read the judgment of the Victorian Supreme Court in the Dollar Sweets case. Let him examine the position of the driver who is dragged from his truck, assaulted and kicked and whose health is permanently impaired. That is the sort of minority behaviour which still occurs in this country and which is a disgrace. When Senator Burns giggles and objects to references to it he does less than justice to his oath of office and to the country which he is supposed to be looking after in the Senate. We do not stand for the oppression of individuals in that way, whether they are employers or employees, and that is a deficiency in the present system which needs to be remedied too. I refer the Senate to the continuance of absurd work practices which have been identified, not merely by Liberal and National Party members in this place, but by many Labor Party observers and many honest observers of the industrial scene. There are plenty of hard figures available on the enormous cost to Australia of many of these restrictive work practices. On the waterfront we have a situation in regard to productivity in Australian container terminals. In the Business Council Bulletin of June 1988 we are told: Lifting productivity in Australian container terminals would save at least $125 million per annum. Changes in manning and closure of under-utilised facilities could provide savings over and above this amount. When we look at the time taken to unload and to unpack containers in this country and compare it with the European figures, the United States figures and the figures of East or South Asia, we see an appalling amount of waste in this country. Finally, I refer to the level of industrial disputes. We are continually being told how good the level of industrial disputation is in this country. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which has a its source the International Labour Organisation Year Book for 1987 and which shows the industrial disputes, working days lost per thousand employed, in a series of countries with which we would normally compare ourselves-Canada, the United States, Japan, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Leave granted. The document read as follows- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES: WORKING DAYS LOST PER 1000 EMPLOYED 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Canada Days lost per 1000 ... 342.8 740.2 753.6 838 806 544 414 352 276 613 United States Days lost per 1000 ... 231 247 206 209 168 91 173 80 66 108.2 Japan Days lost per 1000 ... 28 25 17 18 10 9 9 6 4.5 4.3 Austria Days lost per 1000 ... . . 3 . . 5 1 . . . . . . 7 1 France Days lost per 1000 ... 57 5.5 22 7.5 3 3 7 2 7.4 n.a. Germany Days lost per 1000 ... 1 170 17 5 2.2 . . 2 226 1 . . Italy Days lost per 1000 ... 822 503 1,349 796 508 898 676 418 183 209 Switzerland Days lost per 1000 ... 1.5 2 1 2 . . . . 1.3 . . . . . . Sweden Days lost per 1000 ... 21 9 7 1,058 49 . . 9 7 117 160 United Kingdom Days lost per 1000 ... 413 381 1,175 478 178 225 162 1,143 265 79 Australia Days lost per 1000 ... 276 355 652 528 655 310 263 202 189 202 New Zealand Days lost per 1000 ... 350 306 304 293 305 255 290 329 563 n.a. Source: ILO Yearbook 1987 Senator CHANEY —I thank the Senate. When we look at those figures we find that Australia is among the worst. We find that in many of the countries which are admired by the Labor movement in this country the figures are almost invisible. Somebody in industry said to me the other day, `We are one of the few countries left in the world where strikes are seen as an answer'. I ask honourable senators opposite to study that table, to look at the days lost per thousand in Japan-4.3-compare that with Australia, at 202, and ask: Is it any wonder that we are losing the economic race? I simply pose those matters because this debate is important. It goes to an area of Australian life which is fundamentally in need of correction. If Senator Burns and some of his trade union friends feel that that is unfair and unjust, I simply remind them that, on the very day on which John Howard, in his response to the May statement, identified deregulation of the labour market as the key to achieving higher productivity, their Treasurer, Mr Keating, was reported as follows: . . . that labour market reform was the `last great area of change to be overcome'. He said the policy objective was to create a flexible industrial relations system in which wages and conditions reflected the different levels of prosperity of different industries. I welcome the recognition of the reality that is emerging in this country because that recognition will precede and help the changes that are needed. We do not need to be in an adversary situation on this matter if we realistically assess what is required. The differences between the Government and us are really quite critical in the area of the pace of change. Everyone now seems to accept the need for flexibility, for work place emphasis. Yet in this Bill the Government is putting down a restatement of an approach which puts barriers in the path of that flexibility and work place emphasis. A good deal of what the Government is doing in this area clearly is simply to preserve labour interests and institutional interests which are not necessarily the interests of the Australian people generally. So, our general charge with respect to this Bill-and we will have many specific charges which I will not have a chance to deal with in this second reading debate, but will have an ample chance to deal with in the committee stage-is that this Bill fails Australia. It does not meet the current needs. Paul Keating may have caught up with what John Howard was saying five years ago about labour market flexibility being the essential next area of reform, but this Bill does not reflect that recognition by the Government of how essential this is. We are looking at a Bill which maintains heavily controlled, centralised and essentially bureaucratic procedures. For people who doubt that, let me give some specific examples. I say to Senator Burns that these examples happen to have been drawn from the State of Queensland so they may be examples with which he is familiar. Two of them relate to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which has not had a good record in terms of the negotiation of second tier arrangements, not nearly as good, for example, as the metal workers who were much quicker into that business as they have been into the business of award restructuring. But in a number of enterprises that union was able to force employers into granting a 4 per cent increase without any productivity improvements. Where the union has not had the ability to do that a number of employees have simply missed out. Their union has not been able to do the necessary work for them which involved negotiations with employers. As a result of that rather defective attitude on the part of that union some employers in the industry decided to enter into negotiations with their own employees. One company was Castle Bacon Pty Ltd which employs 550 workers in Victoria, so the first example is from Victoria. The company reached agreement with the great majority of its employees on productivity improvements which were worth at least 4 per cent and 485 of the employees signed individual agreements governing those changes and their entitlement to extra pay. They elected six representatives to put their case to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The employer then applied to the Commission to give effect to the agreement under the restructuring and efficiency principle. In other words, by agreement, these employees, having dealt with their employer, were to get increased pay and they agreed that they could improve the effectiveness of their work in a whole series of ways. That application was opposed by the union and the Commission. Commissioner Caesar, who was sitting, found that an agreement of the nature contemplated by the wages principle did not exist. The Commission then arbitrated, awarded the 4 per cent increase and deleted most of the productivity improvements contained in the original agreement. I ask: Where is the sense of that? Here we have an agreement between an employer and employees and the Arbitration Commission simply moves in and destroys that because the union objects to it. The other example, which was a Queensland example, involved Deputy President Riordan. He directed in this case that all discussions among the parties should involve the union, the employer organisation and the employer. He directed: . . . employer initiated conferences at an enterprise level occurring without the presence of the union should cease because such conferences will not assist this Commission in its important task of preventing and resolving disputes. The words I have just read are from Deputy President Riordan. In my words he is saying that employers should not talk directly to their employees because the union does not like it. I have those decisions here and I would be happy to share them with Labor, Liberal, or National senators in this place. I simply give them as an example of a structure which can get in the way of the sort of productive culture which Senator Button, who is now at the table, has been urging is required in this country. That is why we will be arguing that this Bill must provide for a greater degree of flexibility than the Government is prepared to allow. There are further examples which I will not have time to deal with in this second reading debate. For example, unions at Sanctuary Cove arrived at a common agreement governing employees across a range of jobs which were satisfactory to them and satisfactory to the local Commission and which has now been challenged in the Federal Commission because it does not apply, as this new law will say things should apply, across the board in industry. In other words, there is the active obstruction of people who are trying to do precisely what Senator Button is lecturing them and urging them to do-and I use the word `lecturing' in the positive sense-that is, to find more cooperative and productive ways to work together. The first voluntary agreement in Queensland, under the Queensland Government's voluntary employment agreements, is being challenged before the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission because unions cannot stand the thought that these people-- Senator Burns —By one union. Senator CHANEY —By one union, but we wish to deprive that one union of the chance to do this. If people wish to have the freedom to enter into productive agreements as a voluntary matter, why should that be a matter which should be stopped by this system? So that is very squarely, put in example form, what we are concerned about. We want to see a system where people can do what the Government, with its other voices, is urging them to do to enable them to work flexibly and cooperatively together. Our complaints about this Bill relate to our fundamental economic objectives which are to have a more productive, more wealthy economy which can pay off our debts and deliver higher living standards to the working men and women of Australia. Our second set of objectives, which is closely allied with the first, relates to the promotion of individual rights and freedoms in an area where individual rights and freedoms too often are ignored. We are seeking to foster productive and cooperative change. Our main complaint about this legislation relates to what has been omitted. There is, for example, no protection in this legislation of freedom of association and no protection of the right not to join a trade union. I do not know how the Government maintains its apparent support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides that we have the right of peaceful assembly and association and specifically provides that no-one may be compelled to belong to an association. I do not know how the Government can subscribe to the International Labour Organisation conventions concerning freedom of association and yet deny individual Australians the right not to join a trade union. But that is what this Bill does. Effectively, this Bill enables the continuance of de facto compulsory unionism through the preference clause. We believe that that is a matter which is against the individual interest and against the long term economic interests of this country. We are very concerned that this Bill omits what Mr Willis was prepared to provide in his May Bill last year, which is effective compliance provisions within the system. This is what Mr Willis had to say on 14 May last year: An essential element of any industrial relations system which provides benefits and protections to registered organisations and their members is that there should be effective means of ensuring compliance with the decisions of its institutions . . . He said a little later in his second reading speech: The principal initiative is that the present bans clause provisions, which have long since fallen into disrepute and are now substantially moribund, will be replaced by a new direction and injunction process. Mr Willis said in May 1987 that the present compliance provisions, the measures that could be taken to make unions obey directions of the Commission, are moribund. He proposed an effective direction and compliance provision. In the course of the election campaign, when that Bill had been withdrawn, Mr Willis said in my presence in Melbourne: That will leave us with a compliance system which is more similar to the one which currently exists- he was talking about the new Bill that he would introduce- but with some very substantial differences, a direction system which I believe will be much more effective than the current bans clause which has virtually been moribund for 20 years and also with an array of non-monetary penalties where unions or the employers refuse to accept Commission decisions or orders. On 17 August Mr Crean spoke. Mr Crean, no doubt having heard what Mr Willis was still saying, said this: They can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. We now have a Bill which meets not what Mr Willis promised in the election campaign; we have a Bill which meets what Mr Crean said the Government could do in August after the election. I think that is a shameful situation. We will certainly move amendments which will put into the Bill precisely the sorts of measures that Mr Willis was saying in May 1987 were required. I might say that the Metal Trades Industry Association, which has been in the forefront of working with the metal trades unions on the new award restructuring proposals, has been loud in its support for the private member's Bill which we have put in and which puts this direction and injunction procedure forward. Senator Burns —Taking orders from employers. Senator CHANEY —These are comments made after we had introduced our legislation-a very important difference. What the Metal Trades Industry Association had to say was that we had done the community a service by focusing attention on the need for long overdue compliance provisions in the compulsory conciliation and arbitration system. The Association went on to say: The Opposition's Bill has been carefully drafted with the practicalities of day to day industrial relations in mind. It contains no provisions which any fair minded person prepared to abide by the rules of compulsory conciliation and arbitration could object to. On the other hand, it removes the present imbalances which exist and which favour recalcitrant unions at the expense of employers who are trying to work within the system. That is an area which will be the subject of major debate in the committee stage of the Bill. I want to touch on another area which is probably even more fundamental. This Bill contains provisions which alter the arrangements for trade union amalgamation. Those provisions are clearly in line with the ambition of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to obtain a relatively small number of large unions in Australia. Those plans were outlined by Mr Kelty and they have been made very clear by the ACTU. This Bill not only introduces a new minimum size for unions of 3,000 members-a matter strongly objected to by many small unions-but also opens up the possibility of forced amalgamations and eases the way for amalgamations which will not produce the sort of industry base or enterprise framework that is wanted by people who are concerned about the effective operation of enterprises within this country but which, on the current record of what is happening now with respect to union amalgamation, is clearly going to produce large union structures with no typical logic in terms of employer-employee relationships. Again, that is a matter that can be dealt with in more detail in the debate at the committee stage and by other speakers in this debate. Big is not beautiful in this area. When this Bill was introduced the Opposition looked at the most recent statistics on demarcation disputes and, of the 32 disputes we examined, only one involved a union that would be affected by the amalgamation provisions. Almost all of the demarcation disputes involved large unions, such as the Storemen and Packers Union and the metal workers and other unions which on any description are large unions. The other matter that is of great concern to the Opposition is the general lack of flexibility. I have dealt with that by way of example. The sorts of examples that I have given will continue to occur under the new system. I agree that the present system has moved in a number of important ways to try to encourage flexibility, but I have given examples of the way in which intervention by the Commission stands between employers and employees who are trying to work together constructively for themselves, for greater profits for employers or higher rewards for employees-the combination that this country surely wants. The Opposition is opposed to payments of strike pay. We are opposed to the overriding of State legislation. We are opposed to the idea that conditions of employment should as far as possible be uniform, when Mr Keating himself has said-I have already quoted him on the day of our response to the May statement-that what we want is greater flexibility. Elements of this Government are working hard to try to push this country in the direction in which it must go. It is the view of the Opposition that in significant ways this legislation moves contrary to the basic thrust of the economic plans of the Government. The Government should reconsider the legislation. It should redraft it and design it so that it will fit in with its industry and general economic policy in a way that will be much more productive for Australia. Senator PARER(Queensland)(6.25) —Today the Senate is debating the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. We are fortunate to live in a country that is inherently rich, with a highly educated population. Though we have tertiary institutions with courses in industrial relations, we have one of the worst industrial relations records in the world. We have a disgraceful reputation which adversely affects investment and our export trade; it costs us jobs-the jobs of many Australians. Notwithstanding this appalling record, the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) claimed in his second reading speech that with this Bill the Government was improving a system which had served Australia well. He also described the Bill as the most substantial revision of Australia's industrial relations system since 1904. Both these statements are a joke. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government says that industrial relations have improved over the last few years, and so they have-but relative to other periods in the nation's history. Relative to the rest of the world our record is an embarrassment. Senator Chaney has already tabled figures to prove that point. They are facts. I can tell honourable senators from personal experience that marketing Australian exports is no fun when most negotiations and discussions centre on buyer concerns about lack of reliability because of strikes in key areas-strikes that cannot be predicted, strikes that hold up imports and put buyers in the position where they are required to diversify imports of goods, equipment and commodities that they would prefer to buy from Australia. The effect on negotiations is such that it decreases the quantities we supply and the prices we obtain. It is worth pointing out that from an industry point of view probably the worst period of industrial turmoil and blackmail was the sustained period when the man who is now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). He probably thought he was successful. I can recall him bragging to press people about how successful he was. And so he was, if success is measured by the number of industries lost and, more importantly, the number of jobs lost-in many cases lost forever-from this country. Recovery, particularly in our manufacturing industry, must occur if Australians are to restore their standard of living. I am sure Senator Walsh would agree with that statement and support it. Australia must produce more goods, both for import replacement and for export. To achieve this, a number of things must occur. Australia must have an interest rate equivalent to that of its trading partners. We must have inflation that is somewhere near the same ball park level as that of our trading partners. In the particular area the Senate is debating today-industrial relations-we must become more productive. Our unit cost of production must come down to be equal to or less than that of our competitors. If business is to grow, we must be able to borrow at rates comparable with those of our trading partners. Of vital importance in achieving these goals and restoring confidence is the necessity to rid ourselves of an industrial system that has not served Australia well. One need only look back in history to prove that point. The system, because of its rigidity and because of excessive power in the hands of a few powerful trade union leaders, has destroyed complete industries over the last few decades. We must have an industrial relations system that is productivity orientated-not a centralised system based on big government and big unions, but a system at the enterprise level. Employees and their employers at an enterprise level are in the same boat. That is a comment often made to persons marketing exports by our major trading partner-the Japanese. They have great difficulty in understanding why we in Australia cannot comprehend that simple matter. In many industries that relationship does exist. Sen- ator Chaney referred in this speech to a few. I know of others where we have achieved success in this country. Nucleonics is one that we all know reasonably well. Palmer Tube Mills Australia Pty Ltd is a company in a recent growth industry. There is an intimate relationship between employer and employee, all of whom are kicking in the same direction. The success of individuals, in respect of their rewards, achievements and preservation of their jobs, depends on employers and employees pulling in the same direction. The result is an increase in productivity. Firms become more competitive and create more jobs. We should and must look at and learn from countries which have been successful. The most successful country this world has ever seen, from an economic point of view, certainly in the lifetime of all honourable senators, is Japan. Its near neighbours, Korea and Taiwan, had no hesitation in learning from Japan. In many industries they are now competitive with that country. The key to Japanese success came about from a national will to be the best, and to succeed has been its approach to industrial relations. That is what we want to engender in this country. We do not want hang-ups that go back a century, that in recent times have put us in a position in which our standard of living has been reduced, industries have been destroyed and jobs have been lost. I can recall being in Japan in the 1970s when there was one of the few strikes that have taken place in that country. The strike was at Mitsubishi's heavy industries plant. The reason for the strike was that Mitsubishi had cut back the working week from six days to 5 1/2 days. The workers were on strike because they believed that such a cutback would make them less competitive on world markets, thus reducing growth and eventually putting their jobs at risk. I recount this little story to highlight the attitudinal difference between our unions and theirs. While ours have been doing their best for decades to destroy industries and jobs-I know that they do not do so consciously-by featherbedding and all the other things we know about, the whole thrust in Japan has been to develop and grow. The Japanese knew that they would reap the rewards and they are reaping the rewards today. There has been some improvement in recent years in pockets, such as the motor vehicle industry. I believe that that has occurred not because of any accords but because of the necessity of survival. It is a great pity that we have to reach that survival stage before things happen. Regrettably, one cannot say the same about the coal industry of which you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would be aware, coming from the same State as I do. Restrictive work practices, which the unions would call hard-won gains, have been entrenched in the coal industry for many years. Everyone knows that for the industry and companies to survive, and certainly to grow, in some areas, those old practices must go. Many were introduced at a time of great prosperity in that industry. I would say that at that time the industry could afford it, but it can no longer afford it. Let me give a few examples. Machinery, which is very expensive capital equipment, must stop at midnight on Friday and cannot start up again until midnight on Sunday. Moves were made and agreements were close to being reached-in fact, they were reached in Queensland-between employees and mining officials in the coal industry to remove some of those practices in an effort to keep the industry going, to make it more productive and to increase jobs. By not removing those practices, union members in the underground mines destroyed themselves. In the open cut areas overburden on coal can be removed seven days a week, 24 hours a day; yet, underground, work has to stop at midnight on Friday and cannot start again until midnight on Sunday. The effect of introducing shifts would have been the employment of more men. It would have lowered the unit costs of production and made coal more competitive. It would have meant that more could be sold on export markets. What happened? The Australian Coal Consultative Council, which is dominated by the left wing unions of New South Wales, overrode the agreement that had been reached in Queensland and, as a result, there was a 14-day strike in which nobody won and everybody lost. The miners lost two weeks' salary, the companies lost production and this country lost exports. What I am saying is that the system that allows this to happen is at fault. I do not blame some trade union leaders; they are doing their job. They might not be doing it in a way which I agree with. In fact, they are doing it in a way which I totally disagree with, but what is at fault is the system whereby agreements were reached and overturned simply because of the weight of numbers from some other part of Australia. That is what happens in a centralised monopoly control situation. It does not matter whether one is talking about the labour market or the product market. There are five major problems with this legislation. First of all, it does not deregulate the labour market but rather enhances the monopoly of centralised trade union power, perpetuating a system which has caused enormous problems to this country. It will cause problems to this Government in time. It caused problems to the last Government and to the Chifley Government. I remind honourable senators of the problems that occurred with not only the Chifley Government but also the Curtin Government during the war. Secondly, the compliance provisions do not exist. Thirdly, the legislation entrenches compulsory unionism. Fourthly, there are problems of union amalgamation, which I will refer to in more detail. Finally, there are payments for health and safety strikes. On the compliance provisions, the Government claims that the Industrial Relations Bill represents the most substantial revision of Australia's federal industrial relations system since 1904. The Bill fails to tackle a number of glaring problems in the current system. The most obvious shortcoming is that it fails to rectify the existing lopsided nature of the arbitration system and does not introduce effective compliance provisions which would give the new Industrial Relations Commission the power to enforce its decisions and directions. Trade union compliance with the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is virtually optional these days. Again, I refer to the coal industry. A direction was given by the Coal Industry Tribunal and the unions thumbed their noses. Nothing happened. As I said earlier, everybody lost. The men lost their wages, the industry lost production and this country lost export income. Even though the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) recognised how useless the Commission's compliance regulations were when he introduced the first Industrial Relations Bill last year, he said: An essential element of any industrial relations system which provides benefits and protection to registered organisations and their members is that there should be effective means of ensuring adherence to the principles on which the system is founded and compliance with the decisions of its institutions. He went on to say: The principal initiative is that the present bans clause provisions, which have long since fallen into disrepute and are now substantially moribund, will be replaced by a new direction and injunction process. The Minister blamed employer hostility to the 1987 version of the Bill for new compliance measures having been dropped from the Bill before us. That is an incredibly pathetic excuse for the Government's caving into ACTU pressure. Simon Crean told the Government in an interview in the Australian Financial Review of 17 August 1987: Our position is that if the Bill does not touch Common Law or the secondary boycott provision of the Trade Practices Act then it must not increase or strengthen sanctions. They can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. This is another example of the Government doing what the ACTU demands. The third point relates to the lack of protection against compulsory unionism. This Bill fails to protect the right of workers not to join a trade union and permits the continuation of de facto compulsory unionism through the use of preference clauses and industrial pressure. Compulsory unionism is a brutal reality in Australia today. It cannot be enforced by law but it is widely practised. A combination of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's preference clauses and trade union power implement and maintain compulsory unionism. If a worker chooses not to join a union he can be harassed and, in many cases, can lose his livelihood. I will not go into one of the many cases I could tell the Senate about today, but it happens all the time. Let us take an example-and one would not expect this sort of thing to happen in Australia-of the way compulsory union membership can be enforced by union muscle, where we have closed shop preference clauses. We have a great example of this in Broken Hill where the mining industry has what it calls `badge show day'. It makes sure that in the Broken Hill local newspaper the rules are printed so that if anyone goes to work and does not comply with the requirements of badge show day he is in trouble. I seek leave to incorporate those rules in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- BADGE SHOW RULES The Barrier Industrial Council's badge show rules to be observed today are: (1) That, it be an instruction to all members of affiliated unions that they shall not work on a shift with any non-unionist (other than a recognised staff official) or with any member of an affiliated union not in possession of the recognised badge. (2) Badge Show shall be confined to all members of the Barrier Industrial Council employed on the mines and in the city. (3) No member shall commence work until such member has been okayed by the head steward. (4) No member of an affiliated union shall commence work until the ``all clear'' signal is given by the head steward. (5) Employees are instructed that they are to see that their plants are in a safe condition or handed over to some other responsible person before leaving the mine. To report (6) Members are asked to report to the stewards when they know of anyone who misses the badge show. (7) Members are requested to note the new rule in reference to returning on another shift when sent home on Badge Show day. (8) Members must wear badges in a conspicuous place visible to stewards for the whole of the working shift. (9) In the case where a member may be on one shift up to the day of show and then at the last minute his shift is changed and he has not had time to see the secretary of his union in order to get his badge changed, the steward will take the badge number and check at the union office. Authority to stewards: This means only in case of wrong badges of members having already procured badges from the union secretary and forgotten to bring them to work. This means that, if a man has obtained a badge from his union and has forgotten it the steward shall be authorised to allow the man to return home to get his badge. On his return, he must show the badge to the steward before starting work. OK ticket (10) In the case of a member's being absent from work on badge show day he must present an OK ticket to the steward within two days, the onus being on the man to find the steward. (11) Case of members being sent home on badge show day, they are not allowed to work on any other shift of that day. (12) Members must wear only current badges on badge show day. (13) Badges can be collected up to the commencement of the shift. Conspicuous (14) Members are requested to pass the steward with badges in a conspicuous place on their clothing. (15) Any member of any union failing to display his badge, or failing to pass the appointed places, or committing any breach of the foregoing resolution shall be fined. (16) Any members of any union obstructing the stewards, or who insults the stewards, or in any way obstructs the smooth working of the badge show, shall be reported by the steward to the next meeting of the BIC immediately following the badge show, which shall decide the matter and shall have the authority to fine such member. (17) QUICK SHIFT: Members on night shift on badge show day who are brought in on a quick shift report to their union secretary to get permission, which must be given to a steward before commencing work and the member must wear his previous badge during the quick shift. Day's pay as fine (18) Any member found guilty of working on badge show day without a badge shall be fined the equivalent of a day's pay. The union of which the offender is a member is to be notified and the union held responsible for collecting the fine and forwarding it to the BIC. Engine-drivers are to remain at the winders till all the men on the previous shift are raised: but not relieving men are to be lowered. Senator PARER —The right to refuse to join a trade union is no less a basic human right than the right to join one. It is a right contained, as Senator Chaney referred to, in article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. The article provides: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No-one may be compelled to belong to an association. Having said that I will revert to badge show day at Broken Hill. I have incorporated all the rules in Hansard so I will refer to just some of the requirements: The Barrier Industrial Council's badge show rules to be observed today are: Badge Show shall be confined to all members of the Barrier Industrial Council employed on the mines and in the city. The rule applies to members employed in the whole place. I continue: No member of an affiliated union shall commence work until the `all clear' signal is given by the head steward. Employees are instructed that they are to see that their plants are in a safe condition or handed over to some other person before leaving the mine. Members are asked to report to stewards when they know of anyone who misses the badge show. Members must wear badges in a conspicuous place visible to stewards for the whole of the working shift. This is an industrial ID card. The rules state: In the case where a member may be on one shift up to the day of show then at the last minute his shift is changed and he has not had time to see the secretary of his union in order to get his badge changed, the steward will take the badge number and check at the union office. The rules go on about authority to stewards and so on. Another rule states: In case of a member's being absent from work on badge show day he must present an OK ticket to the steward within two days, the onus being on the man to find the steward. Another rule states: Any member of any union failing to display his badge- his industrial ID card, and this is typical of closed shop preference clauses- or failing to pass the appointed places, or committing any breach of the foregoing resolution shall be fined. What does he get fined? The rules state: Any member found guilty of working on badge show day without a badge shall be fined the equivalent of a full day's pay. Australian workers have no statutory protection of the basic human right in the work place and this Bill provides none. It does make some noises about smoothing the rocky road for conscientious objectors to union membership, but it is still an extraordinarily difficult procedure. The very fact that workers must formally object to union membership proves that they are compelled to join unions. The very fact that they must object conscientiously and that they do not have the freedom to choose whether they wish to associate with an organisation is an infringement of the international human rights document. I raise a fourth point which relates to union amalgamations. We do not agree with the Government's proposal for achieving reform through union amalgamations. We reject the paternalistic proposition that small unions should join large unions for their own good. We do not necessarily agree that there are too many unions in Australia. In fact, we would like to see a growth of enterprise-based unions where employer and employee speak to one another, where either side does not go out to seek the intervention of third parties who may be, in some cases, 400 or 500 miles away, and have no particular interest in the long term growth and prosperity of that particular company or industry. Japan, which I referred to earlier and which is held up as having a model industrial relations system, has tens of thousands of unions. The problem is that any one enterprise in Australia has to deal with a number of unions and in other countries such as Japan, the enterprise deals with a single union. It is not necessary that a single union be involved. Single groups of unions could operate at the enterprise level with everyone with the same goal, everyone wanting to improve productivity, everyone wanting to get the rewards that come from increased productivity, and everyone wanting to see the organisation grow, not just from a monetary point of view but from the personal satisfaction that everyone gets from participating in a growth organisation. There is nothing more debilitating to management or to workers than seeing their organisation dying on its feet. We recognise the need to move to a system where each employer faces a single bargaining unit. Union amalgamations will not necessarily prevent union demarcation disputes. As mentioned by Senator Chaney, a survey of recent demarcation disputes shows that of 32 such disputes only one involved a union that would be affected by amalgamation. I come to the final and major point-health and safety. In 1979 the Fraser Government removed from the Commission its power to act in respect of disputes involving strike pay. The Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems recommended that this discretion be returned to the Commission. This Bill returns limited discretion to the Commission where a claim over strike pay arises out of a dispute over health and safety, where the employer has not acted reasonably and the employees affected have maintained a reasonable control. One of the most offensive aspects of this is that the Hawke Labor Government is supporting the absurd notion that workers should be paid for not working. It is a basic right of workers to withdraw their labour. That is fair enough, but it is absolutely outrageous to suggest that they should be paid for striking, and that is precisely what this part of the Bill will encourage the Commission to involve itself in. If strikes were legitimate no-one would be concerned, but health and safety strikes are historically and traditionally one of the arch rorts of many industries, particularly the building industry. The Australian Federation of Construction Contractors found, for instance, in its interim report on restrictive work practices in the building industry that alleged safety hazards frequently bring work on an entire building site to a halt. Employees will stop work until the complaint is resolved to their satisfaction or they may opt for a 24- or 48-hour stoppage. Under those conditions they get paid. But who suffers? Every Australian suffers. It will cost somebody something. There will be either a reduction in productivity or an increase in the capital cost of what is being constructed, which cost must be recovered later in some sort of rent. If it is in an export industry we all suffer. Hence, the direction we would like to take is to get more and more consultation, discussions and agreements at the enterprise level, not by remote control and not by the industrial relations club. I see that Senator Cooney has come into the chamber. He lives in the city which is the centre of the industrial relations club. I am sure he is not part of it though; he is too decent. I can go through numerous examples. Employees have been known to stay away from a site for two days simply because a handrail was missing. This occurred after the handrail had been deliberately removed to create the so-called safety hazard. These are small examples of the things that happen. On the site of this Parliament House we are sitting in today, which is one of the most famous building sites of the century, we had strikes on health and safety grounds because there was no water in an urn or no toilet paper in the toilets, and so on. I could go on but time precludes me. I sum up by saying that we in Australia must become more productive. We must restore confidence for investment in the productive wealth creating sector of the economy. We must rid ourselves overseas and domestically of the reputation we have as one of the worst and most unreliable countries in the world in regard to industrial disputation. We must lift our game and recognise that we are part of a highly competitive world economy. We must decentralise the decision-making process and put it back in the hands of the individual employees and employers at the enterprise level. This Bill entrenches in Australia a malaise which will guarantee, at best, mediocrity on the world stage or, at worst, a continuing deterioration in our standards of living. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.54) —I should explain why I was not here earlier. Unfortunately, this new building, grand as it is, does not seem to have adequate lifts. I was trapped in a lift for 43 minutes. I am not too sure what we can say about private enterprise, employment or what have you. I thought to myself-- Senator Knowles —They will do anything to stop you talking. Senator COONEY —They will; that is right. I hope that capital and labour get together to provide better lifts and a better form of communication in future. Senator Parer has talked about the shortcomings of workers and has said that there ought to be a different system. Senator Parer —No-the system, not the workers. Senator COONEY —He corrects me now and says that what we need is another system. The Industrial Relations Bill 1988 superimposes on the traditional form of regulating of labour relations and of settling of disputes new and imaginative instruments which no doubt will contribute to industrial relations continuing as they have under this Government. The reality, whether we like it or not, is that under the present Government, with the cooperation of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the trade union movement generally, fewer working days were lost during 1987 than at any other time since 1967, so 176 working days per 1,000 employees were lost in 1967 compared with 223 last year. Australia is now much more prosperous, is much better off and has better labour relations because of a responsible attitude taken by the trade union movement. If one can point to anything that has led to this recovery it is the trade union movement and the way it has adhered to the accord during the period this Government has been in office. This Bill is the result of much work by the present Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and it is a tribute to the way he has worked over the years in his present ministry. It was he, in many ways, who was the architect of the accord. When we point to the various Ministers who have made this a successful Government, the Minister who is often overlooked is Ralph Willis. He, as much as anyone, had much to do with the making of the accord between the Australian Labour Party and the union movement. It is that accord which has led to the economic turnabout in Australia. It has led to a relationship between employee, employer and Government which has not existed before in the history of this country. That is something to be proud of. Senator Parer suggests that in some way it is a bad thing that there should be this close relationship. But if in fact that relationship has led to the present situation, then in my view it is much to be praised. In so far as Australia has recovered, it has recovered because of the sacrifices made by workers and by their unions. Senator Parer is suggesting that we ought to go to a new system, that in some way there ought to be a change from the traditional way of settling disputes in this country to a way that goes back at least to the time the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Act was first passed in 1904. That Act established the pattern for labour relations in Australia. That pattern is repeated in the Bill before us. The Bill does two things: first, it gives emphasis to conciliation and then arbitration to settle disputes when they arise between the parties; and, secondly, it makes conciliation and arbitration effective. It sets up employee and employer organisations. The history of industrial relations in Australia is the history of how organisations have become more and more central to the resolution of industrial disputes. For example, the Burwood cinema case decided in 1925 said that a log of claims related not only to currently employed members but to other people who might be employed in the future and extended it to employees of employer respondents who were not dissatisfied with their wages and conditions. The metal trades case of 1935 extended that principle further and said that award conditions and rates of pay gained by unions would relate not only to members of those unions but to everybody employed in that industry. The whole concept then became one of the unions representing their members in the interests of the whole work force and, through that process, obtaining for them reasonable working conditions. That is a central point to any labour relations conducted in this country. If we go to the decision of Mr Justice Higgins in the Harvester case, which was decided in Melbourne in 1907, it is interesting to see the sorts of things he had to say. He said that fair and reasonable remuneration must be looked at in terms of what the employee, the worker, needed to maintain a reasonable standard of living. He went on to say: I do not regard it as my duty to fix a high wage, but a fair and reasonable wage, not a wage that is merely enough to keep body and soul together, but something between those two extremes . . . The employer can displace men by introducing machinery as he chooses. He can make the work as monotonous and mind-stupefying as he thinks to be for his advantage. He has an absolute power of choice of men and of dismissal. He is allowed, if my view of the Act is correct, to make any profits that he can and that they are not subject to investigation, but when he comes in the course of his economies to economise at the expense of human life, when his economy involves a withholding from his employees of reasonable remuneration, of reasonable conditions of human existence, then as I understand it the Act of Parliament insists on payment of excise duty. Mr Justice Higgins was talking there of an Act separate from the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but the principles are the same. In this day of economic rationalism what must be kept in mind is that people are entitled to a decent standard of living, that in spite of economic considerations it is correct that people should be paid a wage, not only to keep body and soul together, but also to enable them to live with dignity, to live as decent human beings ought to be allowed to live. If we go from the Harvester case to a later case involving the Federated Municipal and Shire Employees Union of Australia and Melbourne Corporation we find this statement by two great judges of the High Court of Australia, Mr Justice Isaacs and Mr Justice Rich, which again put into context the problems that workers faced in the history of their employment and the suppression and oppression they have suffered. On page 555 of the report the two justices have this to say: It is needless to trace the course of the industrial development by which the worker in a trade seeks to carry on a handicraft in which he naturally passed from apprentice to journeyman and then to master and became by force of the application of various interventions a mere animated cog in the capitalist machine. What is called in the industrial revolution of the latter part of the 18th century, and particularly of the 19th century, so transformed his position as to drive him into combination . . . into the unions, in other words. The judgment continues: The details of the struggle which led to the Acts of 1825, 1871, 1875, 1896 and 1906 in England would be tedious. Those Acts deal with the establishment of unions as the proper instrument of workers response to the oppression that they might otherwise face. The judgment goes on: But the broad fact that emerges is that the position of industrialists by a singular reversal of what has been thought to be the general current of history has been gradually changed from one of the pure contract to one of status . . . The industrial revolution made the workman's labour a mere marketable commodity to be bought at the lowest price as individual competition between workers would permit. The degradation and the suffering that ensued, the revolt against the system, the repression of illegal acts, the amelioration of the law, the organisation of labour, the gradual recognition of collective bargaining, the introduction of private conciliation and arbitration as well as of industrial laws securing better conditions for workers are all well known historical facts. From about 1882 to 1896 industrial conditions in Australia by reason of sweating and strikes had received great public and parliamentary attention. During that period the Constitution was drafted and finally accepted by the people of Australia. One of the main planks in section 51 was the settlement of disputes beyond one State. From that the Commonwealth Parliament drew its power to set up the original Conciliation and Arbitration Act which, as I said before, depends on two concepts, conciliation and arbitration and, to enable that to take place, the setting up of both employer and employee organisations. That has worked successfully since then. Senator Harradine —Why are you forcing some out of existence because of this Bill? Senator COONEY —Senator Harradine asks most legitimately why we are forcing some of those unions out of existence-in other words, why we are saying that unions cannot be registered unless they have at least 3,000 members. I take it that that is what Senator Harradine is referring to. Senator Harradine —Organisations, whether employer or union. Senator COONEY —I think employer organisations can be registered with as few as 1,000 members. That is done in terms of where we have got to at this point in the history of labour relations. Union and employer organisations-Senator Harradine would no doubt agree with this-depend for their effectiveness on their ability properly to represent workers. They need a certain amount of income, research staff and the ability to put the case of the workers strongly before the tribunals and, if necessary, to take industrial action. This Bill provides for those organisations to be strong enough to carry out those functions, but those unions which are smaller than the provisions allow for in this Bill are not effective. If they are, then there is provision in this Bill to enable the Commission to deal with them. So it is a matter of efficiency. It is a matter of ensuring that unions represent their workers as effectively as possible. Clause 100 is central to the Bill. It deals with the question of conciliation. The heading states that disputes are to be dealt with by conciliation where possible. If that is not possible, then procedures are taken to arbitration. The Bill sets up ways in which unions can become registered under the Act and have the ability properly to represent their workers. In this context I turn to the question of Mudginberri. Mudginberri has been claimed as a great victory for the forces of the New Right. What the union was asserting in the Mudginberri case was its right to know what negotiations were taking place between employers and employees in its industry whenever they were taking place. After the union's action that right was accorded to it. The law recognises that the knowledge of what people within an industry are doing is central to the way a union operates. We were looking at the question of organisations. As Senator Harradine has said, the Bill provides that a certain number of people must be in a union before it can be registered. In addition, the Bill enables unions to amalgamate. It is proper, for the reasons I have suggested to Senator Harradine, that unions amalgamate and that their ability to do so is made easier. If there is a community of interest between two unions and those two unions then make an application to the Commission, and the Commission through its President or presidential member approves, then a simple vote is held; and if a majority of those in both organisations vote for the proposal, an amalgamation takes place. If there is not a community of interest, then at least 25 per cent of the members of each organisation have to vote and half of those that do vote, plus one, are sufficient to bring the amalgamation about. I spoke before of the necessity for any wage-fixing body to take into account what workers need to live in decent fashion. Over the last few years real wages have fallen, but what has been done or what in any event has been attempted is to preserve at least a basic wage which will enable workers to live with dignity. But there have crept in-and, indeed, they have now been established-other considerations for the Commission to take into account when it is considering an appropriate wage. Under clause 90, the Commission has to take into account public interest, the state of the national economy, and the likely effects of decisions on the level of employment and on inflation. It is always necessary for the Commission, in determining wages, to balance the interests of the community against the interests of the people who are receiving a level of wages at the hands of the Commission. It would be wrong to regard labour and workers simply as commodities and to concentrate, as some do, solely on the state of the economy, on the state of inflation, and on the level of employment. There are other issues to be taken into account. These other issues are part of the traditions of wage fixing. Those are the sorts of considerations that Mr Justice Higgins took into account and the sorts of considerations that judges of the High Court of Australia, such as Mr Justice Isaacs and Mr Justice Rich, have taken into account in the past. They must be taken into account in the future. There is in this Bill provisions for parties to enter into agreements. Clause 115, in part, reads: If the parties to an industrial dispute or any of them agree on terms for the settlement of all or any of the matters in dispute, they may make a memorandum of the terms agreed on. Agreements can be made, subject always to the approval of the Commission, so that no unconscionable wages are paid-wages must enable people to live with dignity. Another issue which this legislation addresses, as set out in clauses 13, 14 and 15, is the dual systems of industrial relations in Australia. We have both Federal and State systems. That has proved to be a clumsy way of dealing with industrial issues. This Bill, if it becomes an Act, will enable people who staff the Federal Commission to also sit as State appointees. It is of course necessary for both the Federal Government and the States concerned to appoint people to that tribunal. If that is done it will lead to a much more sensible resolution of disputes. The Bill further provides that the people who staff the Federal bodies meet with the people who staff the State bodies and discuss with them issues of common interest so that the State system and the Federal system at least know what the other is doing. Clauses 194, 195 and the following clauses deal with the rules of organisations. I note that the rules of an organisation may allow for collegiate voting. Collegiate voting is allowed under this Bill, but I think it is time that direct voting was the only voting allowed. I will rephrase what I am saying: I think it is time that collegiate voting be not allowed and that the only thing that is allowed is direct voting for the officers of organisations. I cannot see, in this day and age when unions are expected more and more to be democratic institutions, that there is a place for collegiate voting. I have a concern with that. However, the Bill allows collegiate voting to take place. Senator Harradine —Would you say the same for the Prime Minister of Australia? Senator COONEY —I simply say that most unions do provide for the election of their officers, presidents and secretaries by the direct voting of the members. After all, the members pay fees and it is proper that they should directly determine the officers that will govern the affairs of the organisation. Under the heading `Rules of the Organisation' what is required of unions is set out. It can be seen from this that unions are amongst the most democratic institutions in this community. Their members must undergo elections at least every four years. Members of a union have effective rights to question what their officers do. That there is talk here of unions not conforming to the will of their members is extraordinary, given the obligations on union leadership as set out in this Bill. Another thing I want to say is that this Bill allows for preference clauses to be inserted into awards. Great criticism is made of that. I say that, where people pay their union fees and where unions struggle to obtain proper conditions and wages for their members, it is proper that those people who are members of the union and who are willing to support, financially and in other ways, that organisation which obtains proper conditions for all workers be given preference in employment. It is said by the Opposition that people should simply have the right to join or not to join a union and that in some ways whether they are members of a union should make absolutely no difference to their entitlements. That approach attacks the whole concept of an organisation which represents the workers, obtains conditions for them and looks after their needs. The whole of the industrial relations tradition in Australia is based on the concept that unions and employer organisations will get together to work out what is a proper wage and what are proper conditions, given the needs of the workers and the needs of the economy. People who attack that system are attacking a system that has served this country well over many decades. This legislation represents a rewriting of the industrial relations provisions of this country. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will now, in effect, be renamed the Industrial Relations Commission. It sets out, as I say, all of those things that have served the country, the union movement and employers over the years, and served them well. It has added new provisions. It has added a new way of amalgamation. The Bill has written into it matters that can be taken into account when the Commission considers its decisions, such as the state of the economy and the level of unemployment. The other thing it does, which is new, is to give recognition to peak councils, such as the ACTU or the Confederation of Australian Industry, so that they are brought into the actual ambit of the Act and can more securely represent the point of view of their constituents before the tribunals. The legislation is a substantial monument to a Minister who has served Australia well and who has served the industrial relations scene well. As he leaves the portfolio, having been an architect of the accord, this Industrial Relations Bill, soon to become an Act, will be a worthy monument to his efforts on behalf of the industrial relations system of Australia. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(7.22) —This evening we are debating the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. Because of the time I will be able only very briefly to cover some of the points this evening. This current Industrial Relations Bill, as we know, is the culmination of years of ducking and weaving on the part of the Hawke Government in its approach to industrial relations. The legislation before the Senate represents the attempt by the Government to disguise the fact that, when it comes to industrial relations, it will do nothing to offend its Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) paymasters, and it will do what it can to weaken effective sanctions against trade union power. That is something that I think Australians should be very much aware of. That is the thrust of this Bill. Even those observers who are prepared to accept that the Hawke Government has in some areas moved away from its socialist sacred cows are not in the least impressed by its industrial record. Let us face it: that industrial record can now be seen by all to be anything but satisfactory. In particular, it fails to stand up to the pretensions of the ACTU, or actively abets it in its desire to put back the industrial clock. We must remember how much this Government seeks to consult with the ACTU before anything is done. Whether it be in the industrial relations area, wages or any other such areas, the ACTU and Simon Crean are the ones who ultimately make the decision-not the Government, not the people, but the ACTU. The only good thing that can be said about this Bill is that it is less destructive than the 1987 legislation that was seen to be such an electoral disaster by the Government itself that it was withdrawn on the eve of the 1987 election. The Government has accepted that neither employers nor the Australian public would accept the removal of common law remedies from the industrial scene when it has been proven time and time again that these are the only effective means of injecting commonsense and basic justice into industrial relations. How pathetic it is of this Government to attack employers for alleged intransigence in forcing the backdown over the question of removal of access to sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act and, of course, other forms of civil law protection. To use a blunt term, did it really expect that employers, especially small businessmen, had come down in the last shower? Who would expect Australian businesses to give away legal protection that has been seen to work, at Mudginberri, in the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd dispute and in various other disputes, in favour of small employers against the evil of secondary picketing, and put their trust in some new labour court that is likely to follow the traditions of the industrial relations club, wagging its finger at unions while it sends businesses to the wall? We all know that the union movement has been instrumental in ensuring that many small businesses have been sent to the wall. If this Government wants to continue that practice, it does so at its own risk. The Australian public would not have accepted such a capitulation to union power. The Government has retreated from its original Bill because it did not want to write its own political death warrant. Let us not forget that it withdrew the Bill on the eve of the last election because it knew that it was electorally unsaleable. Of course, what we are left with, in the form of this Bill, is the attempt by the Government to salvage something to appease and please the ACTU. It is, therefore, a Bill that either fails to enhance protection for the small employer and the individual worker or erodes the rights of individuals, smaller organisations and, of course, the public. It is, therefore, to be expected that there are no new and effective compliance provisions made available to the Industrial Relations Commission. The Government blames the employers for their rejection of the 1987 package. The Government should not blame the employers. The Government simply wanted to get re-elected. It knew that it could not do so with such a Bill. It is obvious who makes the final decisions in industrial relations when we look at a statement made by Simon Crean on 17 August last year. As President of the ACTU, he made it quite clear that any industrial relations Bill would have to be one that did nothing to enforce compliance. Unchanged monetary level penalties ensure that existing compliance provisions will be ineffective, underscoring the importance of civil court remedies. Of course, we cannot be too surprised that this legislation will do nothing to promote voluntarism in the Australian industrial scene. The limitations of the Hawke Government once again become obvious in a question that threatens the interests of union officials as opposed to those of the ordinary Australian workers-workers who should have a choice, but workers who, under the ACTU, have no choice whatsoever. This Bill continues to impose effective restrictions on the right of workers not to belong to unions. That is a further removal of their freedom of choice. It remains necessary to prove conscientious objection to the joining of any union, without allowing objection to a particular union. If that is freedom of choice, I will go he. There is no freedom of choice; to have to prove conscientious objection in this day and age is absolutely outrageous. It therefore continues to contravene article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the second clause of which states unequivocally that, `no one may be compelled to belong to an association'. The fact that it contravenes that article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights means nothing to this Government. It is quite happy yet again to appease the ACTU. The Government cannot afford to concede any ground on this matter because its ACTU masters will be very conscious of the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey that showed a decline in the unionisation of the work force between 1976 and 1986, from 51 per cent to 46 per cent. Of course, if real choice were given, it would decline even further. So it is quite obvious that the Government is not prepared to bite the bullet on these hard issues. It is prepared only to go along with softening certain edges, and the softening has not taken place to any great degree in this Bill. Mr President, I will complete my remarks tonight at that point because of time constraints, but tomorrow I will continue to make more points which show how this Government's Bill is a very weak and washy attempt to appease people in industrial relations. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence and statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period of time-Christmas Island Act-Services Corporation Ordinance-Annual Report 1986-87. Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act-Certificate pursuant to paragraph 9 (1) (b), dated 25 May 1988. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 129. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 159, 160, 163. Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 162. Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 114. Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act-Ordinance 1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Audit Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 130. Australian Antarctic Territory Act-Ordinance 1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 170. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 145. Australian Horticultural Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 187. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 134, 197. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 116. Bounty (Ship Repair) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 174, 175. Bounty (Ships) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 148, 176. Christmas Island Act-Ordinances 1988- No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). No. 2-Lands (Amendment). Civil Aviation Act-Regulations- Orders 1988-Parts 105, 106 and 107. Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 158, 161. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance 1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 169. Commonwealth Electoral Act-Certificate of the Electoral Commissioner, setting out the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth and of the States and the number of Members of the House of Representatives to be chosen by the States, dated 30 June 1988. Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 182. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination 1988 No. 3. Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 104. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 106. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 122. Copyright Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 125. Coral Sea Islands Act-Ordinance 1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 137, 200. Customs Act- Notice 1988 No. 2-Declared rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 27 July 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 111, 136, 177-179, 195, 199. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 132. Defence Act- Determinations 1988 No. 20-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 21-Charge for Rations and Quarters. No. 22-Charge for Excess Water. No. 23-Expense of Office Allowance. No. 24-Salary of Permanent Force Members and others. No. 25-Travelling Allowance. No. 26-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 27-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 28-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 29-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 30-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 31-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 32-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 33-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 34-Transfer Allowance and others. No. 35-Medical and Hospital Expenses of a Member's Family Overseas and others. No. 36-Higher Duties Allowance and others. No. 37-Payment of Financial Entitlements consequent upon the death of a member or a former member. No. 38-Travelling Allowance and others. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 127. Departure Tax Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 157. Designs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 103. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 146. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 173. Excise Act- Notice 1988 No. 2-Declared rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 27 July 1988. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 135. Excise Tariff Act-Notice 1988 No. 2-Substituted rates of duty in respect of excise tariff items, dated 26 July 1988. Expected Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations- Orders 1988- No. 7-Export Control (Fees). No. 8-Export Meat Orders as amended (Amendment). No. 13-Export Control (Animals) Orders as amended (Amendment). Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 141. Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 142. Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules No. 140. Export Market Development Grants Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 168. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 186. Family Law Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos. 164, 165. Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 166. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 144. Fisheries Act- Copy of Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Ulladulla Trawling Company Pty Ltd, dated 22 June 1988. Notices- No. 213-South East Trawl Fishery-Prohibition relating to the taking of gemfish. No. 214-East Coast Tuna Longline Fishery-Prohibition on Pelagic longline fishing. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 131, 133, 172. Futures Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 105. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 185. Health Insurance Act- Determinations pursuant to Section- Section 4a, dated 2 June 1988. 23dc (2) (c), dated 27 May 1988. 23df (2) (c), dated 27 May 1988. 23dn (2), dated 27 July 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 184. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act- Ordinance 1988-No. 1-Migratory Birds. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 184. Horticultural Export Charge Act and Horticultural Export Charge Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 190. Horticultural Levy Act and Horticultural Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos. 188, 189. Horticultural Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 191. Housing Loans Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 121. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 196. Interstate Road Transport Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 152. Interstate Road Transport Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 153. Judiciary Act-Rule of Court, dated 11 August 1988. Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired- Airport purposes-extensions to Brisbane Airport. Pipeline Authority-Brown's Creek, New South Wales. Telecommunication Services-various locations, New South Wales. Statements (5) by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1) for specified public purposes. Life Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 180. Live-stock Slaughter-(Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutury Rules 1988 No. 118. Live-stock Slaughter-(Export Inspection Charge Collection) Act-Regulations-Statutury Rules 1988 No. 119. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 109, 110. Meat Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988-No. 143. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations 1988-No. 4-Meat Inspection (South Australia) Orders (Amendment). Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 201, 202. Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 126. National Health Act-Determination made by the delegate of the Minister under subsection 4 (1), for the purposes of paragraph (dd), dated 16 June 1988. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 128. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 154, 155. Passports Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 147. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 100, 101. Postal Service Act-By-lays 1988-Postal Amendments Nos 3 and 4. Protection of Moveable Cultural Heritage Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 194. Public Service Act- Determination made under sub-section 9 (7a) Nos 1, 2. Determinations 1988 Nos 78-94, 96-99, 101-121, 123-139, 141-145, 147-149, 151-164, 166-169. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 151. Public Works Committee Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 124. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 192, 193. Radiocommunications Act- Frequency Board Plan-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 181. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 120, 156. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determination 1988- No. 6-Office Holders of the Parliament-Salary additional to basic salary and allowance, dated 3 June 1988. No. 7-Remuneration and allowances for holders of public offices. No. 8-Remuneration and allowances for holders of public offices. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 123. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Credit Ordinance-Exemption Notices 1988- No. 11-Variation of Insurance. No. 15A-Trustee Licensing Exemption. No. 15F-GIO:IPMA No. 15L-National Mutual Royal Savings Bank (NSW) Ltd-(American Express Lines of Credit). No. 15M-National Mutual Royal Savings Bank (NSW) Ltd-(Loan Contracts) No. 24-Petrol and taxi cards. No. 35-Farming Property Transactions. No. 36-Business Finance No. 39-Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited: Visa Card. No. 40-Mercantile Credits (Furniture One Card). No. 41-ANZ Sportsgirl Credit Card. No. 42-ANZ Continuing Credit Contract. No. 43-Trustee Exemption. No. 44-National Mutual Royal Savings Bank (Visa Cards). No. 45-AGC Adjustable Credit. No. 46-Citibank Savings Limited. No. 47-Natwest Australia Bank Limited: Visa Card. No. 48-Angus and Coote Dunklings Diamond Card. Determinations 1988 listing fees and/or rates made under the following ordinance- No. 12 Health Authority Ordinance, dated 18 June 1988. No. 14-Gaming Machine. No. 15-Taxation (Administration). No. 16-Electricity and Water. No. 17-Water Rates. No. 18-Electricity and Water. Health Authority Ordinance, dated 18 June 1988. Motor Traffic Ordinance-Regulations 1988-No. 6-Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) (Amendment). Ordinances 1988- No. 24-Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement (Amendment). No. 25-Gaming Machine (Amendment). No. 26-Gaming Machine (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 27-Liquor (Amendment). No. 28-Community and Health Service (Amendment). No. 29-Community and Health Service (Consequential Provisions). No. 30-Electricity and Water. No. 31-Electricity and Water (Consequential Amendment). No. 32-Payroll Tax (Amendment). No. 33-Taxation (Administration) (Amendment) (2). No. 34-Administration and Probate (Amendment). No. 35-Classification of Publications (Amendment). No. 36-Interpretation (Amendment) Ordinance 1988. No. 37-Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment). No. 38-Canberra Institute of the Arts (Amendment). No. 39-Parole (Amendment). No. 40-Cooperative Societies (Amendment). No. 41-Legal Aid (Amendment). No. 42-Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment). No. 43-Canberra Theatre Trust (Amendment). Securities Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 107. Sex Discrimination Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 183. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act- Amendments to the Schedule to the Schemes in relation to the States, dated 17 June 1988 and 2 August 1988. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984- Directions 1988- No. 1, dated 22 December 1987. No. 2, dated 30 December 1987. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1987- Directions 1988- Nos 3-5, dated 11 February 1988 No. 6, dated 17 February 1988 No. 7, dated 23 March 1988 No. 10, dated 11 July 1988 Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 113, 149, 171. Telecommunications Act- By-laws-Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 51. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 167. Territory Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 150. Torres Strait Fisheries Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 198. Trade Marks Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 102. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 138. Wine Grapes Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 117. Wool Marketing Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 115, 139. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act-Consent pursuant to section 9 made by the Minister, dated 4 July 1988. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following sections and parts of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Audit Act 1901-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S176, 28 June 1988). Australian Federal Police Amendment Act 1986-Section 5, subsection 9 (1) and sections 10, 11 and 12-29 May 1988 (Gazette No. S149, 26 May 1988). Australian Film Commission Amendment Act 1988-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S188, 30 June 1988). Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987-25 May 1988 (Gazette No. S142, 25 May 1988). Cash Transaction Reports Act 1988-Provisions of Part I other than sections 1 and 2, section 24, and Parts IV, V, VI and VII-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S192, 30 June 1988). Child Support Act 1988-1 June 1988 (Gazette No. S148, 26 May 1988). Civil Aviation Act 1988-Part III, section 98 and Part X and amendments made by Part IX-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S189, 30 June 1988). Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988-Sub-section 4 (1) and Part VII (other than section 98)-1 July 1988-Parts I (other than sections 1 and 2 and sub-section 4 (1)), II, III, IV, V and VI, section 98 and Parts VIII, IX and X, and the Schedule-1 December 1988 (Gazette No. S196, 1 July 1988). Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Act 1987-Provisions other than subsection 4 (1)-25 May 1988 (Gazette No. S144, 25 May 1988). Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Sections 4-8 (inclusive); sections 11 and 12; subsection 13 (2); sections 14-22 (inclusive); subsection 26 (2); sections 28, 30, 32, 59 and 60; subsection 61 (2); sections 63-88 (inclusive); subsection 69 (2); section 70-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S173, 24 June 1988). Employment, Education and Training Act 1988-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S190, 30 June 1988). Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Act 1988-Sections 22 to 26 (inclusive), section 28 and sections 31 to 45 (inclusive)-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S191, 30 June 1988). Health Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Section 25-6 June 1988 (Gazette No. S154, 3 June 1988). Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S191, 30 June 1988). Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Act 1988-17 June 1988 (Gazette No. S165, 17 June 1988). Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987-See-Audit Act 1901. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1988-Sub-section 2 (7)-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S180, 30 June 1988). Transport Legislation Amendment Act 1988- Subsections 3 (1) and (2) and sections 5, 6, 17 and 18-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S193, 1 July 1988). Wine Research Repeal Act 1986-Section 5-1 July 1988 (Gazette No. S169, 22 June 1988). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 355) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: What moneys were paid to offshore companies, including parent corporations, by Australian companies or subsidiaries in the last financial year for which records are available; (a) in the form of dividends; (b) in the form of royalties; (c) in the form of management fees; and (d) in any other form. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The most recent relevant data relate to 1986-87 and are contained in the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication, Balance of Payments Australia, March Quarter 1988, Catalogue No 5302.0. They indicate that direct investment income of $1361 million was distributed by Australian subsidiaries and branches in 1986-87, comprising remitted profits of $190 million, dividends of $538 million and interest payments of $633 million. Separate details of royalties and management fees paid to offshore companies are not available. (Question No. 380) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 1988: Which Senators and Members who were either defeated at the 1983 General Election or who did not re-contest their places in the Senate or House of Representatives at that election received; (a) a life gold pass or (b) severance travel, and on what date did their severance travel entitlements cease. Senator Robert Ray —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) Life Gold Pass Holders-Mr J. L. Armitage*, Mr D. M. Cameron, M.P., Mr G. O. Giles*, Mr A. W. Jarman, Hon. C. K. Jones*, Mr J. B. Keeffe*, Mr J. A. Mulvihill*, Hon. P. J. Nixon*, Hon. R. I. Viner, Hon. H. W. Young. (b) Severance Travel-Sen M. E. Baume, 5.3.85; Mr R. J. Birney, 5.3.85; Mr J. W. Bourchier, 5.3.87; Mr N. T. Bonner, A.O., 5.3.88; Hon. N. A. Brown, Q.C. M.P., 5.3.86; Mr J. M. Bradfield, 5.3.85; Mr M. H. Bungey, 5.3.86; Hon. M. H. Cass*, 5.3.88; Mr H. G. P. Chapman, 5.3.85; Mr A. G. Dean, 5.3.84; Mr P. D. Falconer, 5.3.85; Mr G. M. Harris, 5.9.83; Mr J. C. Hodges, 5.3.86; Mr J. M. Hyde, 5.3.86; Mr U. E. Innes*, 5.3.87; Mr D. F. Jull, M.P., 5.3.85; Mr A. J. MacKenzie, 5.3.85; Mr G. T. McLaren*, 5.3.88; Mr R. M. McLean, 5.3.85; Mr J. L. McMahon*, 5.3.88; Mr J. R. Martyr, 5.3.85; Mr P. K. Reith, M.P., 5.9.83; Mr M. E. Sainsbury, 5.3.85; Mr P. D. Shack, M.P., 5.3.84; Mr J. R. Siddons, 5.9.83; Sen G. E. J. Tambling, 5.9.83; Mr A. M. Thomas, 5.3.85; Hon. D. S. Thomson, 5.3.85; Mr L. G. Wallis*, 5.3.88. * denotes Parliamentarians who did not re-contest their places in Parliament. Senator Walsh —On 27 April 1988 (Hansard, page 1958), Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Is the Minister aware of the provisions of section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and other provisions, which make it clear that income earned through shares issued under an executive incentive measure are fully assessable as part of the taxpayer's income, although maybe on a deferred basis? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that section 26aac of the Income Tax Assessment Act operates to include a benefit received under an employee share acquisition scheme as assessable income. The benefit is measured by reference to the amount by which the value of the shares at the time they were acquired by the employee exceeds the consideration given for them. Section 26aac has no further application in respect of any additional gain that the recipient may make from the subsequent sale of those shares (i.e., where the sale price is higher than the value of the shares at the time they were acquired). The operation of section 26 (e) is expressly excluded by subsection 26aac (10). The question of whether any further profit not already caught by section 26aac is assessable will depend on the particular facts of each individual case.