Monday, 29 August 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers Region. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park and prevent proposed mining in Kakadu stages one and two by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas in the National Park and by proclamation the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 62 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators 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 Senators 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 Michael Baume (from 796 citizens). To the Honourable The President and the members of the Senate 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 every pray. by Senator Chaney (from 17 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 promotors of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McMullan (from 200 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we oppose time local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not introduce time calls in the absence of widespread community support. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. call upon the Senate to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jones (from 157 citizens) and McMullan (from 129 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia. Respectfully showeth that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide independent radio and television service that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray by Senator Crowley (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth: That while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Alteration (Electors Initiative) Bill 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will refer the above mentioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary Committee and will examine the operations of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. 2. Our deep concern that the recommendations of the constitutional commission and its advisory committees which propose radical changes to the constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. 3. Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke government which give more power to the Government and less to the people and which concentrate that power in Canberra at the expense of the States and weakens the role of the Senate. by Senator Durack (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable President of the Senate and senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, strongly urge that the Australian Government prohibit the entry of nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels into Australian ports or waters during our bicentennial celebrations and at any other time in the future. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 406 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, being concerned that the Australian Government, in breach of its own stated policies, has lifted the bans on the sale of uranium to France; demand that the Government re-impose the bans on such sales, and further, that the Government ratifies and strengthens the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to prohibit uranium sales within the region. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 31 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given on the last day of sitting, I now withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day of sitting for the disallowance of the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Regulations (Amendment). Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109a I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for five sitting days hence for the disallowance of Defence Determinations Nos 14 and 15 of 1988 and Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2 to 4 standing in my name for four sitting days hence for the disallowance of Plans of Management Nos 16, 17 and 18 made under the Fisheries Act 1952. Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement and a brief description of the scrutiny of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and of the Committee's correspondence with the two Ministers. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- The Committee at its last meeting considered correspondence received from the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ralph Willis, M.P., and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Kerin, M.P. The Minister for Industrial Relations supplied additional information which answered the concerns that the Committee had in relation to Defence Determinations Nos 14 and 15 of 1988. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy gave the Committee a number of undertakings in connection with the Committee's concerns which were raised with respect to the three Plans of Management made under the Fisheries Act. The Committee thanks the two Ministers involved for their co-operation in these matters. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE'S SCRUTINY Defence Determinations Nos 14 and 15 of 1988 Defence Determination No. 14 amended certain provisions relating to the payment of financial entitlements to the dependants or the estate of a former member of the Defence Force. Clause 6 of the Determination contained a discretionary provision, the nature of which was of concern to the Committee. The Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ralph Willis, M.P., indicated that this Determination extended the provisions of clause 6 to cover former cadet force members and that the exercise of the discretion was qualified by other clauses of the Determination. Defence Determination No. 15 contained a reclassification of localities for the purposes of calculating the rate of Post Allowances. The Determination contained an element of retrospectivity and the Committee was concerned that, in respect of the reclassification of Manila in the Philippines, no loss of entitlement would occur to an eligible member. The Minister indicated that the reclassification was a beneficial provision which would not prejudice any eligible member. The Committee thanks the Minister for his co-operation in these matters. Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan (Amendment), Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan (Repeal) as contained in Plan of Management No. 16. The Committee raised with the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Kerin, M.P., concerns in relation to (i) the presentation of the Plan of Management which was in a photocopied form with no Notes or gazettal information; (ii) a number of typographical errors in the Plan presented to the Committee; and (iii) the drafting style of one paragraph which appeared to confer discretionary powers on officials in circumstances where there may have been no intention to do so. The Minister indicated to the Committee that there were administrative difficulties in the production of this Plan of Management and that a number of the drafting errors would be corrected in the next amendment to the Plan. He further indicated to the Committee that a standard ``loose-leaf'' format would now be used in the presentation of plans of management which would overcome the committee's criticisms in relation to this plan. The Minister undertook to amend the paragraph in relation to the discretionary power to ensure that any ambiguity was removed. The Committee thanks the Minister for his co-operation in these matters. South East Trawl Fishery Preliminary Management Plan as Amended as contained in Plan of Management No. 17. The Committee's concerns with this Plan of Management related to a number of paragraphs which contained apparent unreviewable discretions that could be exercised by officials; drafting and presentational problems with the new ``loose-leaf'' format; and the legislative authority which provided a safeguard of the right of review of a decision by an official concerning the endorsement of a licence. The Minister indicated to the Committee that the unreviewable discretions contained in the paragraphs referred to by the Committee were unintended and that the paragraphs would be re-drafted to avoid any ambiguity. The Minister further undertook to provide that, in future Explanatory Statements, details of how each amended provision had been altered would be included. The Minister indicated that the right of review would be safeguarded by the provisions of section 16a of the Fisheries Act 1952. The Committee thanks the Minister for his co-operation in these matters. Southern Shark Fishery Management Plan as contained in Plan of Management No. 18. The Committee's first concern with Plan of Management No. 18 related to the inclusion of certain paragraphs that contained apparent unreviewable discretions that could be exercised by officials. The Minister indicated that, as with Plan of Management No. 17, the discretions were unintended, and gave an undertaking that the necessary amendments would be made. The Committee's second concern related to the use by officials of criteria published by the Department in a document that appeared not to be subject to disallowance by Parliament. The Minister indicated that the document which contained the criteria and which was referred to in the Plan was used as a basis of decision-making prior to the Plan coming into force. The Committee accepted, on this occasion, the Minister's contention that the document did not need to be subject to Parliamentary review, as the document was used as a guideline for officials in exercising discretionary powers under the Fisheries Act prior to the Plan of Management entering into force and that the classification process had been subjected to the two-tier review process under section 16a of the Act. The Committee's third concern was in relation to a lack of criteria guiding the Minister in the exercise of an exemption discretion concerning the allocation of units following the splitting up of a licensing package. The Minister undertook to amend the Plan to ensure that any exemptions can only be achieved by further amendments to the Plan rather than by an administrative decision. The Committee thanks the Minister for his co-operation in these matters. Senator COLLINS —I also seek leave to table the correspondence for the information of honourable senators and others. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, five sitting days hence, I shall move: That the Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration, as contained in Declaration No. PB3 of 1988 and made under subsection 85 (2) of the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed. Senator HILL(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate (a) recognises the contribution of the United Nations and commends the patience and professionalism of Secretary-General Mr Perez de Cuellar and his colleagues, particularly Mr Diego Cordovez, in their efforts in helping to bring about: (i) the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, in accordance with the Geneva Accords of 14 March 1988; and (ii) the ceasefire between Iran and Iraq on 20 August 1988, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 598; and (b) urge the Australian Government to support in whatever way it can the efforts of the United Nations to keep the peace in the two regions. Senator HILL(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) commends the Foreign Minister-designate Senator Evans for deciding to make, as his first official trip abroad as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, a visit to the countries of the South Pacific; (b) notes that the timing of this visit, reportedly scheduled to take place within three weeks of his assuming responsibility for the portfolio, is a considerable improvement on the three years his predecessor took to visit the countries in the South Pacific; and (c) hopes that his efforts will go some way towards rectifying the Labor Government's conspicuous foreign policy failures in the South Pacific, our area of immediate strategic significance. 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 that list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Customs Service-Annual report 1987-88-sub-section 17 (2) of the Customs Administration Act 1985. 2. Commonwealth Grants Commission-Third report 1988 on financing the Australian Capital Territory-part One-Summary of Findings-sub-section 25 (1) of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973. 3. Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund-Annual report 1987-including the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 34 of the Service Trust Funds Act 1947. 4. Sentencing-Law Reform Commission Report No. 44-section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. 5. Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)-Annual report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-sub-section 53 (3) of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission Act 1946. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate both as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and as Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Will he continue to urge the Prime Minister to establish a timetable for his departure, despite the fact that his colleague Senator Ray is quoted in today's Age as saying, `If Hawke has a timetable in mind he should keep it at the very most to himself and Keating, and probably to himself'? I ask: Is there a possibility that this conflicting advice will make it more difficult than it is already for the Prime Minister to make up his mind about how he should handle the leadership succession? How is the Government going to resolve this issue, which Ministers opposite have publicly canvassed over recent days? Senator BUTTON —That was a very good effort by Senator Chaney, but there is no conflict between the advice he says Senator Ray tendered to the Prime Minister and the advice-if it might be called advice-or the comments which I made on Friday, which were televised on Sunday. That is a problem which will be resolved in the fullness of time when the Prime Minister and others have decided that it ought to be resolved. That is a matter which I am sure is capable of resolution, quite distinct from the problems of the Opposition however, where there is no resolution of any of these problems in sight. It has a Deputy Leader who does not want to become leader-the most reluctant deputy leader in the history of this country-because he knows he will go down the chute at the next election if he does, and a Leader who is incapable of leading the Opposition to any successful result in any foreseeable election. The problems with the Opposition are much better summarised than I could do by Mr Gerard Henderson, a former adviser to the present Leader of the Opposition, who on 22 July this year was asked: Is there something really wrong with the coalition and its leadership, do you think? The answer was: Well, I think it would be simplistic to say that it's just a leadership problem. It's much deeper than that. There's a leadership succession problem, there's a frontbench problem, a backbench problem and a party organisation problem. So none of the Opposition members are immune from the criticism of this former adviser to the Opposition. Senator Vanstone —He had some good things to say about the women on this side. Senator BUTTON —I thank Senator Vanstone. That is a nice thing to say but none of the Opposition members are immune from this criticism. They will be treated exactly the same way by us. That is a fair description of the problems of the Opposition. In so far as the Government is concerned, these matters will be resolved, as I said, and in a conciliatory way. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is he aware that the Queensland Government may be using Commonwealth funds to mount an intensive television advertising campaign against the referendum for fair and democratic elections? What action can the Government take to stop such a misuse of Federal funds? Senator WALSH —I received information this morning of a very intensive television campaign, against the fair elections referendum in particular, that the Queensland National Party Government is conducting. I understand that the Government has already admitted that it has spent some $800,000 of public money on that campaign. It has, of course, a very strong vested interest in ensuring that fair and democratic elections are not held. I note for the record that, perhaps for equally self-interested reasons, the Queensland Liberal Party is fighting with the Queensland National Party over this issue. I have a clipping from the Brisbane Sunday Sun which quotes the former Queensland Minister, Russ Hinze, as saying: I've carried the National Party, unlike some of the seats in Queensland that are rigged to the extent that the boundaries . . . that all you have to do is set the NP tag and you can win it forever and a day. That comes from Mr Hinze's own mouth and demonstrates the degree to which the Queensland National Party has been dependent upon an unfair and undemocratic electoral system to keep itself in government. I understand that last night, between the hours of 6 pm and 8.30 pm, at least seven advertisements appeared on the major commercial television stations in Queensland for the Queensland Government, taxpayer-funded campaign against the referendum. One does not have to keep that up for very long to get away with $800,000. It seems likely that the campaign would amount to more like $2m of taxpayers' money being shamelessly spent by the Queensland Government in an attempt to ensure the continuation of the corrupt electoral system to which it owes its political power. From past experience, it will be very difficult to get a proper account from Queensland as to the amount of money that it spent. I was also asked by Senator Colston about what action the Commonwealth Government can take. I do not think there is anything the Commonwealth Government can do directly about this misuse of taxpayers' money by the National Party Government of Queensland, but I will speak to the Treasurer to sound out his views on whether an appropriate deduction should be made from the financial assistance grants paid to Queensland next year so that it will at least get the message that if it continues to spend taxpayers' money for such improper purposes, effectively it will be fined for doing so. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I preface my question by expressing my regret, and I am sure that of other senators, about the weekend incident at the Minister's Townsville home involving the writing of slogans on part of her property. Has the Minister noted the comments of the Australian Labor Party member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Graeme Campbell, who has said he is `disgusted' with the Government's handling of the immigration debate? In particular, I ask whether she has noted Mr Campbell's statement: . . . the fascist approach of the Government, in calling anyone who raises the issue a racist, leaves those with legitimate concerns nowhere to go. Does the Minister agree with Mr Campbell? Will she, on behalf of the Government, apologise for the Government's McCarthyist tactics, which have, in no small way, contributed to incidents like the one at her home? Senator REYNOLDS —I certainly will apologise for the remarks that Mr Graeme Campbell has made-firstly, because they do not represent anything that is related to Government policy and they are totally inconsistent with Australian Labor Party policies. So I am very happy to have this occasion to apologise for Mr Campbell's remarks, given that he shows no sign of apologising for them. Secondly, the Prime Minister issued a statement this morning in which he also totally repudiated the comments by Mr Campbell. I make the further point that Mr Campbell, despite his quite outrageous comments, supported the Government's motion last Thursday. So, having supported the Government's motion, he then felt obliged to contradict his own stance completely. As I say, I totally repudiate the remarks of Mr Campbell. I also apologise for them. Senator DUNN —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Has the staff level of the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS) for the Alligator Rivers Region grown to the unacceptable level of 70, as described in a report entitled Prospects for the Northern Territory's Nuclear Industry by the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Barry Coulter, in which Mr Coulter stated that the OSS `has grown in a manner never envisaged by Mr Justice Fox'? Senator Lewis —Just answer yes and trans- fer it to the Northern Territory. Senator RICHARDSON —I cannot do that, Senator; I am sorry. The Government rejects any assertion by Mr Coulter or anyone else that the OSS has grown into an organisation that is performing functions that were not envisaged by Mr Justice Fox. I suggest that the opposite is the case. Obviously, like all organisations, it worries about its staff and its capacity to perform the tasks that have been allotted to it. Currently, the staffing level of the OSS is 73. Two-thirds are located in the Northern Territory and the remainder are in Sydney. All of the laboratory facilities are in Jabiru and all the research staff except three are located there. Obviously one can argue, I suppose, that there is no need for a Sydney office, but at the end of the day the cost of accommodation for the OSS staff in Jabiru, in particular, is extraordinary. If one notes what we have had to spend to house just a few in the conservation zone, one sees that it gets even worse. In fact, relocation expenditure of about $5m for housing and other facilities in Jabiru would be required if we wanted to close down the Sydney part of the operation. Mr Coulter also commented on the lack of returns for the uranium industry as a whole. I have been quite surprised at times by the attitude of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA) to the operations of the OSS. It would seem to me that over time the OSS has proved useful to ERA in demonstrating that ERA is, by and large, conducting its operations correctly. That monitoring helps, and I hope we can see it continue. Senator DUNN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Office of the Supervising Scientist is a key element in the protection of the Alligator Rivers-Kakadu National Park region from the effects of uranium mining and that the OSS 1985-86 annual report recommended a staff of 85 for the Office to be fully effective, will the Minister ensure that the functions of the OSS to protect the region are not emasculated, as Mr Coulter would like them to be, but enhanced, and that a proper staffing level of at least 85 be given to the OSS? The OSS's own report states that because of current staff level cuts there are notable gaps in much needed research. For example, two biologists and a hydrochemist for the study of waste water management are immediate priorities. Senator RICHARDSON —As I have already said, the current level of staff is 73. I realise that the OSS would like 85 staff. Indeed, all the agencies in my portfolio, and I dare say all the ones in my colleagues' portfolios, would like more staff. Nonetheless, it is our job to attempt to estimate what is an adequate number. I know that there are staff gaps. Obviously, when one is talking about laboratory facilities in a place like Jabiru, one cannot cover every single discipline. That is just not possible. For that reason, the OSS is able to fill in the gaps by making sure that it uses facilities at major universities, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the like. So I do not really believe that there are gaps. If and when I am convinced that there are any, I will do something about them. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. On 11 May last year I asked the Minister, in his then capacity as Minister for Resources and Energy, whether he would support a proposal put to the Australian and New Zealand governments by Mr Harold Evans, a prominent former New Zealand jurist. The proposal was for the two governments to initiate in the United Nations General Assembly a request to the International Court of Justice (IJC) for an advisory opinion on the legality or otherwise of nuclear weapons. The Minister, in his response on that occasion, said that he would let the Senate know when he had reached a considered opinion on the matter. He has not let the Senate know. I do not know whether that is because he has not reached a considered opinion; whether he does not have an opinion at all; or whether it is just because he changed portfolios. In any event, I ask: Is the Minister aware that the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists has expressed support for the proposal? Has the Minister and/or his successor reached the conclusion that Australia should support such proposed action? If the Minister does not agree that Australia should initiate such action, would he be prepared to give Australia's support to other United Nations members taking such an initiative? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware that the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists has expressed support for the proposal. As to the more substantive question of the Government response, it has been given consideration within the highest levels of the Government. In fact, the Prime Minister replied to Mr Evans-no relative-some months ago explaining the Government's position, which is along the following lines: The Government is not convinced that referring the issue of the legality of nuclear weapons to the International Court of Justice would constitute a practical and effective means of achieving progress toward the objective of a world without nuclear weapons which is, of course, an objective we all share or, at least, honourable senators on this side of the chamber, running round about as far as Senator Haines. President Reagan and Mr Gorbachev agreed as long ago as their 1985 summit meeting in Geneva that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Underlying this shared view is the conviction, on the part of both the United States and the Soviet Union, that nuclear war between them could not advance their national interests. That mutual conviction would seem to be a more compelling practical restraint on the nuclear weapons states than any ICJ judgment that nuclear weapons are illegal. Even if the ICJ were to conclude that nuclear weapons are illegal under international law, the practical impact of its judgment would be ambiguous. The existence of nuclear weapons is not simply a legal question; their existence has direct implications for the security situation and the defence planning of many countries. Of course, this state of affairs has existed for many years and the goal of the reduction and ultimate elimination of existing nuclear arsenals and preventing the emergence of new nuclear weapons states is most productively pursued in negotiating forums where these considerations and related matters, such as effective means of verification, can be addressed. The Government's objective is, as I have said on many occasions in this place, the maintenance of international security at the lowest possible level of armament, both nuclear and conventional. In pursuing that objective we have in place coherent and appropriate policies. In terms of our priorities in this area, however, we could not give a high priority to a referral to the ICJ of the issue of the legality of nuclear weapons because, for all the reasons I have indicated, we do not consider that it would be more likely to lead to the effective arms control and disarmament measures which we all seek. Nevertheless, I guess that the whole of the Government sympathises strongly with the intent behind Mr Evans's initiative and we share with him the commitment to build a more truly peaceful world. Senator HAINES —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I listened to the Minister's response. I wonder whether he could give some indication of on what the Prime Minister bases his belief that a referral of the sort such as Mr Evans proposed would not be helpful, either as a practical response, which I think were the words that were used in the Minister's answer, or as an additional response to the nuclear weapons issue. Senator GARETH EVANS —There is nothing that I can usefully add to my answer. It is a matter for judgment, all things considered, as to, firstly, whether any kind of a legal foundation could possibly substantiate such an initiative and, secondly, whether it is likely to be of practical utility in terms of the way in which nation states around the world, conscious of their security and defence concerns, are likely to respond. Whether it has some statutory, moral or emotional force and effect such as to justify embarking upon the initiative is, I guess, as I said, a matter for judgment, but it is not something about which we would be so confident as to justify its being given a high priority. Senator HARRADINE —Does the Minister representing the Attorney-General recall that during the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights I raised fears that its provisions could be used to strike down criminal laws on abortion? Does he recall saying around about that time that this would not be possible since the measure was introduced by Mr Lionel Bowen, whom he described publicly as a Catholic father of seven? Does he also recall Senator Gareth Evans stating that the Australian Bill of Rights would operate in a similar way to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Is the Minister aware that recently the Supreme Court of Canada struck down criminal laws on abortion in Canada as they infringe the liberty and security provisions of that very same Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties? Is this not an example of the dangers of governments framing broadly based, loosely worded laws such as the Australian Bill of Rights which are open to interpretation by judges who are far from the will of the people? Senator TATE —The question asked does not relate to any particular legislation currently before the Parliament or any legislation proposed to be brought into the Parliament. It is about an old debate on the proposed Bill of Rights which was before the Parliament some time ago. It may be the case that the Canadian Supreme Court has made a determination resulting in the decision outlined by Senator Harradine. But whether it was in relation to words of an identical type to be found in the Bill of Rights proposal that was put to this Parliament, for example, I am quite unable to say. I am not sure that it was based on trying to embody the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-and I do not believe it was. I doubt whether the wording was exactly the same as that which we proposed. Senator Harradine has, with due respect I imagine, asked this question because he thinks it has some relevance to the present fourth proposal being put to the people by way of referendum to which we seek their assent on 3 September. I want to say very clearly that the extension of the three rights and freedoms presently contained in the Constitution to do with trial by jury, the acquisition of property on just terms, and freedom of religion, which are presently, as the framers intended, contained in the Constitution as a safeguard for the people against the Commonwealth and which protection we propose to extend to the States and Territories, does not in any sense of the word amount to a Bill of Rights. Sir Anthony Mason, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, noted that the common law system: . . . does not protect fundamental rights as comprehensively as do constitutional guarantees . . . The common law is not as invincible a safeguard against violations of fundamental rights as it was once thought to be. It is for that reason that the Parliament has thought fit to put to the people the question of whether they want to provide an additional safeguard to our general common law tradition, to safeguard those important rights of trial by jury, freedom of religion, and the acquisition of property on just terms by way of constitutional guarantee, against State and Territory governments, not merely the Commonwealth Government of Parliament as is presently provided. The Chief Justice went on to say, in an address to the Australian Bar Association Conference on 11 July, of this referendum proposal: By no stretch of the human imagination do those modest proposals amount to a Bill of Rights. It is very important to know that the present Chief Justice of Australia, speaking not from the bench but in an address to the Australian Bar Association, characterised the referendum questions in that way, at least as not amounting to a Bill of Rights. It is very important that we keep in mind that these proposals are modest; they are modest extensions to rights already thought to be important by the framers of the Constitution back in the late nineteenth century. It is important when dealing with the Canadian and the United States experience to concentrate on the actual words contained in their constitutions and bills of rights provisions. The United States constitution, for example, does not use the same words as we propose to use in section 116, despite Senator Harradine's claims last week that identical terms are to be used, and the Catholic bishops seemed to think that they were to be much the same terms. They are quite different terms. Therefore, if one goes to Canadian or United States Supreme Court decisions which interpret different clauses and different words, that is not to find precedents that would appeal to our High Court. Senator HARRADINE —I ask a supplementary question which arises directly out of the Minister's response. I do not know why he assumed that I was referring to the last question. However, since he has responded to and addressed that question, I ask: is it not a fact that the late Mr Justice Murphy interpreted section 116 in a manner similar to the interpretation placed by the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States in respect of a similar provision, which results in state school children being refused religious education even when request cards are signed by parents? Is it not a fact that Mr Justice Murphy's judgments are now being pointed to by various law schools throughout the country as being highly significant? Will the Minister give the Senate a guarantee that in future, say 20 years from now, there will not be a majority on the High Court of persons with similar mind to Mr Justice Murphy's? Senator TATE —The High Court decision to which Senator Harradine referred is, of course, the defence of government schools case, the DOGS case, which dealt with the funding of church organised schools by the Commonwealth Government. Indeed, Mr Justice Murphy's judgment in that case was one of seven judgments. It was founded on reasoning which certainly did not compel the concurrence or adherence of any of his fellow judges. The fact is that the six judges of the High Court in that case put forward a compelling series of reasons for rebutting the assertion that the mere funding of schools by the Commonwealth in that instance amounted to an establishing of any religion in Australia. Those words are extremely important and quite different from the United States clause which speaks of an establishment of religion, which is quite a different concept. The decision in the DOGS case opens different angles. Nevertheless, cumulatively the six judgments by the majority of justices in the High Court provide sound reasoning and a sound basis for assuming that that decision will remain as the precedent governing this area. Senator STONE —My question is also addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the considerable activity undertaken recently by the Hon. Gough Whitlam and Sir Maurice Byers, QC, both members of the Constitutional Commission, on behalf of the Yes case in the current referendum campaign. Will the Minister give an unqualified assurance that in those activities no moneys have been expended nor liability for expenditure incurred in respect of any aspect of the referendums in breach of section 11 (4) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act? Senator TATE —I give an assurance that I am quite sure that Mr Gough Whitlam, the former Prime Minister, and Sir Maurice Byers will at all times seek to act in accordance with the law. I am confident that they will seek to do so. As for any application of that clause or their activities over a period of months, obviously I am unable to give a legal opinion as to whether the activities have fallen within the parameters of section 11 (4). But I am confident that it would be the intention of those very honourable gentlemen always to act in accordance with the requirements of the law of the Commonwealth passed by this Parliament. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not wish, at this juncture, to question the response that the Minister has given as to the intentions of the gentlemen concerned. I simply ask him: who has been paying the bills? Senator TATE —In so far as it can be ascertained I will seek to find out whether in fact there has been any expenditure for which the Attorney-General might have any responsibility in relation to these activities. I repeat that, from my personal knowledge and of course the knowledge of other senators and members, it would always be the intention of both the former Prime Minister and the former Solicitor-General to act in accordance with the law. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Finance whether he has seen an article published amongst the Budget coverage in last Wednesday's Hobart Mercury which strongly implies that Tasmania is treated poorly by the Federal Government. Is it in fact true, as stated in the article, that the Federal Government raises more revenue from Tasmania than it gives back? Does the Federal Government spend more on Antarctica than it does on Tasmania, as claimed? Will the Minister give an accurate account of the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and Tasmania? Senator WALSH —I have seen an article written by one Barry Prismall who apparently once worked in the Canberra Press Gallery but obviously did not learn anything about Budget papers while he was there. He asserts in the article: In fact, it can be argued that the state's PAYE taxpayers and companies alone pay more in tax to Canberra than the state gets in return each year. He then goes on to juxtapose the payments of income tax by companies and individuals totalling $917m to the $905m that is returned to Tasmania in the form of Commonwealth payments and Loan Council borrowings as if that were the end of the cash flow to Tasmania. The logic of that argument, of course, is that no Tasmanian should or would receive an age pension, or a totally and permanently incapacitated pension, or a sickness benefit, or an unemployment benefit from Commonwealth resources. A list which one could add of course is that Tasmanians do not want to be defended and the point that is missed is that there are plenty of payments to people in Tasmania and expenses incurred on behalf of Tasmanians outside the category of Commonwealth payments to State and local government. As to the suggestion or the assertion that the Federal Government is spending more on the Antarctic than it is on Tasmania: the total expenditure on the Antarctic will be of the order of $48.2m compared to direct payments to Tasmanian governments of nearly $1 billion and payments to individuals in addition to that. It is very clear that if Mr Prismall has any expertise in any area at all, it is certainly not in the area of accountancy, or he has been fed a line by somebody-perhaps by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is quoted in today's Australian Financial Review as saying: I am not an accountant and I do not approach the problem of cutting government spending as an accounting exercise. Who needs any understanding of accounting when a bottle of snake oil will do? The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a delegation from the Republic of Korea led by Mr Chung. On behalf of all senators I extend to the delegation a warm welcome and trust that their stay in Australia is a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In view of the media reports of increased civil unrest in Burma and a further report today warning that action might be taken against any embassy, does the Australian Government have any contingency plans in the event of any further deterioration to evacuate Australian nationals in the region? Senator GARETH EVANS —As honourable senators will be aware, since 8 August there have been extensive and serious disturbances in Burma and further large but peaceful demonstrations have been reported in recent days. We are keeping a close watch on the situation and the implications for Australian nationals there. Australians have been advised to defer non-essential travel to Burma. It is our assessment that Australians in Burma do not face imminent danger requiring evacuation although, of course, the situation is being kept under close review. Contingency plans are in place and the Australian Embassy in Rangoon is maintaining close contact with Australian nationals, who are presently reported safe and well. Senator ALSTON —Can the Minister for Justice guarantee to the Senate and the Australian people that, as the official Yes case baldly and dishonestly claims, if referendum question No. 1 is carried there will be fewer Federal elections and certainly no Federal election this year? Given that the official Yes case states clearly that the business community strongly supports question No. 1 and in view of the fact that the Business Council of Australia, the Small Business Association of Australia and the Australia Chamber of Commerce-and the six State chambers of commerce and industry-do not support the Yes case, can the Minister let the electorate in on the well kept secret as to who precisely the Government has in mind in making yet another patently dishonest claim? Senator TATE —The constant bleating by the Opposition that somehow or other the Government has been involved in dishonestly putting to the people its proposal for maximum four-year terms I think will be repudiated by the people on 3 September. The fact is that the proposal for a maximum four-year term does not frighten the electorate as the Opposition would like it to. It already exists in most jurisdictions, apart from Queensland, where of course a four-year term is quite common for the House of Assembly. Indeed, Tasmania has led the way in that respect. Senator Alston asked whether there will be fewer elections. Certainly there will not be any more half-Senate elections, which can be extremely disruptive and can create a situation where there are more frequent elections. That is one result of the passage of this legislation. We will not have those extra half-Senate elections which- Senator Alston —Will there be simultaneous elections? Senator TATE —The honourable senator asked me whether there will be fewer elections. I have given an example, constitutionally, where logic suggests that there will be fewer elections. In addition, a political atmosphere will be created where, with the extension of the maximum term from three years to four years, there will be greater stability, and I believe that the penalty exacted on a government which went to an early election would be very severe indeed, as indeed was the fate of Mr Corcoran in South Australia and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, when he went early in 1983. Having just voted for maximum four-year terms on 3 September, the people would deal extremely harshly with any government which ignored that expressed preference and called an early election. Senator Newman —What about the business community? Answer the question. Senator TATE —Honourable senators opposite have been putting such pressure on the business community that I see that even Andrew Hay may have changed his mind. I have not quite caught up with that. Senator Puplick —It does not take much pressure to make Andrew Hay change his mind. Senator TATE —Senator Puplick tells us that Andrew Hay is a very malleable person indeed. That is certainly not the impression that he has tried to give the Australian people over the past several years. Indeed, that is one example that I am able to pull out of not very thin air but at least thin air. It is quite clear that any government could be tempted to make decisions not in the overall interests of the economic life of the nation if it had its eye cocked to an impending election which was around the corner. By extending the permissible term of the Parliament from three to four years that pressure or political imperative will be modified to that extent. I believe that it will create a situation where governments will make very sound decisions. We have not succumbed to the temptation I have spoken of under the term of Mr Keating as Treasurer and Senator Walsh as Minister for Finance, but we must remove that temptation and I believe that we can do so by extending the term in the way that has been proposed. Senator ALSTON —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I know that the acoustics are bad on this side of the chamber, but we are still waiting with bated breath to hear the names of those business organisations that remain on board. In view of the fact that all sections of the business community no longer support the Yes case, I ask the Minister for Justice to name one that has. Senator TATE —The fact is that we had good support from the business community in relation to this proposal because it understood, as apparently the Opposition does not, that the proposal is all about creating an atmosphere in which decisions can be taken without an eye on an impending election. Naturally that lends itself to stability, which is the climate in which business always prefers to operate. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and is also about the referenda next Saturday. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in a South Australian regional newspaper reporting the comments of Mr Peter Reith, who I understand is the chairman of the Opposition's task force on the referenda? Is it true, as strongly implied by Mr Reith, that should the fourth question providing for freedom of religion in Australia be passed, this Government will abolish Christmas and Easter? Has the Liberal referendum campaign now moved from the sublime to the ridiculous? Senator TATE —Perhaps it has moved from the ridiculous to the sublime in considerations of Christmas and Easter. I am confident that after 3 September Christmas and Easter will still be part of our calendar. Mr Peter Reith, the shadow Attorney-General-by the way, he is not in Parliament again today to deal with these important referendum proposals, as happened last week, when I think he was out around the countryside rather than being in here in the Parliament, which is the task for which he was elected-was asked at this forum at the Town Hall at Balaclava, `Will Christmas and Easter be done away with?' His answer was, `We don't know and we don't want to find out'. The final part of the answer-`and we don't want to find out'-really summarises the position of Mr Reith as he has gone around the country on this campaign. He has been arousing fears and misgivings, rumourmongering, allowing people to remain ignorant rather than clarifying the situation, if that would help the Yes case. A clarification, of course, is called for-- Senator Bishop —Tell us about the Catholic bishops. Senator TATE —Senator Bishop mentions the Catholic bishops. Even they have not gone as far as to suggest that Christmas and Easter are about to be abolished if this particular referendum proposal is passed. Senator Bishop, in fact, has made some terrible allegations around the countryside as she has gone around, arousing fear and misgiving, with a particular racist touch. The honourable senator has kept on repeating the example of the magistrates court in Melbourne, where a person was convicted of assaulting his wife, having bound her to a bed for three or four days, subjecting her to assault, rape and other terrible abuses. When the man pleaded that the Koran permitted him to exact this sort of discipline on his wife it was rejected by the magistrate. It would continue to be rejected if this proposal were passed, as the honourable senator well knows, because the High Court of Australia has made it abundantly clear, in both the Jehovah's Witnesses case and the Scientology case, that the ordinary criminal law, the ordinary laws which are important for the cohesion of society, are not displaced by this provision. So I do not think I need to listen any further to Senator Bishop's interjections. The most widespread concern amongst those who are taking a genuine interest in the question of section 116 and its impact on the community is the question of the funding of schools, hospitals and other community organisations which are organised by church bodies for the making available of services to the community. Indeed, the proposal put forward in referendum question No. 4 merely extends a right, a freedom, a guarantee which the framers thought was so important that they should put it in the Constitution and bind the Commonwealth to ensure that the Commonwealth Parliament could not make a law for the establishment of any religion, imposing any religious observance, or interfering with the free exercise of religion. We are simply saying that it is important that the States and Territories be bound in the same way. Senator Michael Baume —Why did you change the wording? Senator TATE —The wording has been altered in order to ensure that not only parliamentary but executive action is also taken up in this provision. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about prayers in schools? Senator TATE —Voluntary prayers in schools will not be affected, as the honourable senator well knows. Sir Maurice Byers, who as Solicitor-General argued for the Commonwealth in the Defence of Government Schools case, has made it abundantly clear that in his opinion and in the opinion of those other learned members of the Constitutional Commission, such as Professor Zines and Professor Campbell, the change of words does not in any way put in jeopardy or imperil the funding of schools by governments. Senator Stone —The bishops were not convinced. Senator TATE —Senator Stone says that the bishops were not convinced. The bishops took a cautious approach, which I suppose initially could be understood. The proposed new section 116 is worded in a completely different way to the United States constitutional provision. I am sorry that the Catholic bishops' release uses words which indicate that they thought the provisions were identical in the relevant aspect. I do not think that the Catholic bishops have listened, perhaps, to all the warning bells in our society that they should be hearing. The Supreme Court of South Australia has said that the common law is not strong enough to withstand a State parliament which wished to interfere with freedom of religion. Sir Anthony Mason, whom I have already quoted earlier in Question Time, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, has also said that the common law is not the sort of invincible weapon which it was once thought it was, particularly in these areas. Even the immigration debate, which we have heard rage over the last month or so, should remind us that the embers of racism being stirred in it can also have their analogy with minority groups who are composed of adherents of sects and religious groups which do not have majority approval or understanding. I believe that when those warning bells are properly heard in our society the case for the passage of this proposal is even stronger. Senator MacGIBBON —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business to the decision to cut funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in real terms for the sixth successive year and remind him of the magnificent and invaluable work CSIRO has done for rural Australia, particularly the division of tropical crops and pastures in Brisbane, a division whose funds have already been cut by 45 per cent. Has the Government given any consideration to the consequences of these cuts on the Australian cattle industry, particularly the export sector, which must have high quality research to remain competitive? Is it not a fact that it is the Government's strategy to reduce CSIRO to obvious professional incompetence by strangling it of funds and then disbanding it? Senator BUTTON —I have news for Senator MacGibbon: that is not the Government's strategy, and never has been. The Government has had a strategy in relation to CSIRO which is to provide it with what we have termed a `core charter' for its research activities, which essentially relates-- Senator Stone —You put Neville Wran in charge. What more needs to be said? Senator BUTTON —Senator Stone is mumbling away there. I was perhaps to put the CSIRO under him, I think. There has been a core charter devised for CSIRO. The organisation is being asked in respect of that aspect of its work, which will be continually funded by government, to continue with what it has traditionally been doing. On the other hand, CSIRO is being asked to obtain more financial support from the private sector for some of its activities in the more applied research area. Senator Stone —He could make contributions from his cleaning companies. Senator BUTTON —I wish Senator Stone would stop mumbling away. Why does he not go back to the bottom of the barrel and write for the Daily Mail for a little while, instead of interjecting in here? Every decent journalist in this country would not take up the invitation of that scurrilous newspaper, but this bloke did, and he comes in here mumbling away during Question Time. It was garbage that he could not write himself. He is at the bottom of the barrel, the lowest common denominator of Australian journalism. Where did the money go for that? Into the H. R. Nicholls Society, I suppose. I come back to the question, which concerns a great organisation-which I could never in a fit describe Senator Stone as-the CSIRO. The CSIRO is being asked to obtain more funds from the private sector for its activities, and we make no apology for that. The CSIRO budget, if it meets the targets which have been set by the Government, and which the Chief Executive of CSIRO and the Chairman of CSIRO say it can meet, will have a lot more money than the $360m approximately which has been provided by the Government over the last few years. The Government has also guaranteed the same funding in real terms for the next three years. I believe it to be the first time in the history of CSIRO that a government has made that undertaking. Senator MacGibbon illustrated his point with a few references to the cattle industry and rural industries generally. The fact is that CSIRO has made a great contribution to those industries and will continue to do so. The Government is concerned that those industries have state of the art technology, as it is in respect of the mining sector and manufacturing industry generally. The CSIRO has a great mission in respect of all these things. Its importance as an institution in Australia cannot be underestimated but we have to get over the problem which has characterised Australian universities and scientific institutions of this kind-a lack of attention to the relationship between the organisation and industry. Anybody who thinks about that issue recognises that fact. The only person who has really advocated significant cuts to CSIRO is the Leader of the honourable senator's Party. He did that in the last election campaign. That was where he was going to bodger up some of the money for his phoney tax cuts, by attacking CSIRO and abolishing the export market development grants scheme. These things would have affected the industry infinitely more than any moderating program which this Government has introduced, which provides continuity for these organisations in a period of change. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question. Obviously I have a far more intimate knowledge of what goes on on the laboratory floors of CSIRO than has the Leader of the Government in the Senate. If the Government has a strategy of three years guaranteed funding, why are the divisions in my State of Queensland, which are all associated with pastoral or rural industries, running down their staff? Morale is absolutely at rock bottom; professional staff are being fired because the technical staff to support those professional staff have been fired over the preceding three to four years; there is no security of tenure in that organisation; and research programs, which take years to follow through-some of them run for decades-simply cannot exist when there is this continual climate of drastic diminution of funds by an uncaring government, year in and year out. Senator BUTTON —CSIRO is subject to a one line appropriation in the Budget. Within the budget which is given to it each year-and it will be maintained in real terms for the next three years-it is the function of the CSIRO executive and administration to manage the priorities of the organisation. Senator MacGibbon —When every move is being interfered with by Neville Wran. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator should not make silly interjections like that. Neville Wran is Chairman of the CSIRO executive and Dr Keith Boardman is the Chief Executive of CSIRO. As with any board or executive, such people have ultimate responsibility. But it is a management issue and the priorities of an organisation like CSIRO will change from time to time. If they do not, God help us. If they remain the same forever, irrespective of changed circumstances, we will have dreadful problems. The priorities will change. Senator MacGibbon can go around, as a Queensland senator, attracting complaints from people in one division of CSIRO. Any politician can do that; it is not a particularly skilled art form. There are always people who will complain about change, when management makes changes. But it is a management problem and the funding of CSIRO, if it can reach the targets set for it by management-and it says it can-will be increased considerably over the next three years. Senator MORRIS —I seek leave to ask a question of the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs under standing order 98a. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Chaney —I seek clarification, Mr President. I do not think that leave is required. The PRESIDENT —Leave is required to ask it without notice. Is leave granted? Leave not granted. Senator PATTERSON —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs assure the Senate that no veterans in receipt of disability pensions have been contacted by departmental medical officers and required to answer medical questions on the telephone on the basis that this will enable a claim or review to be processed more quickly? If the Minister cannot provide this assurance, is she able to state whether this practice is contrary to normal standards of professionalism which require physical examination? Senator REYNOLDS —I am not able to confirm anything relating to the honourable senator's question. I will seek advice and certainly try to get the information by tomorrow. Senator JENKINS —Will the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories confirm that the Australian Capital Territory Health Services Branch of the then Department of Health received a report written by a consulting physicist, Mr G. Majors, warning of the dangers of domestic asbestos insulation to both residents and insulation contractors as long ago as 1968? Is it a fact that the use of asbestos fluff was not banned as an insulation material in the ACT for 11 years after this report was received, and a public warning was not issued for 19 years? If so, why were such long delays permitted? In view of the devastating effects of this permitted asbestos misuse in the ACT on the health and well-being of residents, as well as on property values, will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government is prepared to assist private owners with the total and safe removal of all asbestos insulation in the ACT, bearing all associated costs, and to institute a long term monitoring program of possible asbestos related health effects? Senator RICHARDSON —I have an obvious difficulty in justifying the actions of governments of 19 years ago. I will not necessarily attempt to do so in answering this question. Obviously, the Government is both aware of and concerned about the problem of asbestos fluff insulation in homes in the ACT. Between 1968 and 1978 asbestos fluff insulation was installed in an unknown number of homes in Canberra. It is thought that up to 8,000 dwellings may have been affected. The type of asbestos used is different from that used in other building materials. The insulation is loose and it is therefore easily disturbed and can enter living areas through the ceiling vents and other openings. Obviously, the Government is concerned about the situation and, because of that concern, has commissioned a survey of all houses built before 1979 to try to ascertain the nature and extent of any health hazard in the community. It has also sought contemporary medical and legal advice. That survey will commence shortly. In so far as the question relates to the 1968 report, I am informed that a Mr Majors from the then School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine reported to the ACT Health Services Branch of the then Department of Health on the process of installation of asbestos insulation in ACT homes in 1968. At the time Mr Majors expressed concern about the hazard of the material to installers and also indicated that there was some evidence that community exposure to asbestos dust was undesirable. It is clear that Mr Majors in his report did not identify all of the hazards, given, of course, that he was limited to scientific knowledge at the time. The use of loose asbestos fluff was finally banned in the ACT in 1978. The use of asbestos was banned totally in the ACT in 1983, in line with the practice in other States and Territories. In the light of all that, of course, the Cabinet had to give some lengthy consideration to the matter. However, given the significance of the problem and the possible solutions to it, it was not decided just to race in and take any action. The Cabinet, therefore, has sought further expert advice. My understanding, and I will try to check it for the honourable senator during the next few days, is that most of that advice has been received. Hopefully, therefore, we will be able to announce shortly what the Government will do. I can promise Senator Jenkins that it will not be another 19 years before we take some action. I understand that a great many citizens in Canberra are concerned about this and have expressed their concern pretty vocally, not just to ACT members of Parliament but also to many people in this building. That being the case, I can assure the honourable senator that the Government will address this problem and hopefully we should have some sort of answer for her over the next few months. Senator FOREMAN —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to reports that imprisoned African National Congress leader, Nelson Mandela, may soon be released. My question is: Will Australia continue to demand Mandela's unconditional release and denounce any attempt by the South African Government to issue a conditional release, thereby taking advantage of Mandela's age and current health? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government continues to urge the South African authorities to release Nelson Mandela without condition. Of course, Mandela is the man who pre-eminently symbolises the struggle of black South Africans for political rights. He is revered by an older generation who remember the failure of years of peaceful effort by the African National Congress to obtain democratic rights for the majority of South Africans. Equally, he is a symbol for the current generation of young South Africans, many born after his imprisonment, whose efforts to organise for democratic rights are still met with the iron fist in that country. Nelson Mandela has now been in prison for over 26 years. He is in ill health and it would be a tragic waste of an outstanding life if he were to die in prison. The time has come for the South African Government to exercise humanity and release him now. As I have said, the Australian Government continues to call on the South African authorities to repeal current repressive laws, to allow free political expression and organisation, and to negotiate now with authentic black leaders on a non-racist, democratic political system based on equality and dignity for all South Africans. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need to defeat the Hawke government's first referendum proposal so as to maintain the characteristics of the Senate which enable it to protect the Australian people against unwise and oppressive government actions. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.09) —The Opposition brings this matter of public importance forward for reasons which should be apparent from listening to the proceedings during Question Time when again Senator Michael Tate, on behalf of the Government, was unable to give us a straight answer to the matters which were addressed to him. Let me start by quoting somebody who is not a politician, somebody who has no vested political interest in the outcome of these referendums, and somebody who can escape the accusation that he speaks from a partisan viewpoint. Emeritus Professor Rufus Davis, who was Professor of Politics at Monash University and is a barrister at law at the Victorian bar, wrote this: The public must learn that never before in the history of referendums has an Australian government put four complex issues to a referendum with so much concern to hide its motives, or hide the truth of why it has chosen these four proposals from the 80 or more that were recommended by the Constitutional Commission. Professor Davis went on to say that `the Government is not justified in treating' the people `as infants, insulting their common sense, or tricking them with trick questions'. He suggested that the Government had `adopted a superficial approach to the constitutional problems' and intended `to market the issues with the insincerity of bizarre salesmen'. We saw something of the bizarre salesmen in Question Time here today when the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) was asked a very simple question by an Opposition senator about the Yes case-the Yes case which claims that business supports the referendum question that we wish to debate today, the first referendum dubbed a referendum about four-year terms. Senator Tate was unable to name a single business organisation that supported the four-year term, yet the Government states in its booklet that the proposal has the support of business. Australians are facing the most dishonest referendum campaign in Australia's history. the position is one which requires the time of this Parliament to help to explain to people what is going on. It probably sits pretty lightly with some people to hear people on one side of politics accusing people on the other side of politics of being dishonest. After all, we are almost hardened now, thanks in particular to Mr Keating, to continuous political abuse in this country. We have seen time after time argument, logic and fact put aside in the interest of abuse which can be used to hide the issues that people are required to make judgments about. If we look at what has been said about these referendums by a host of non-political observers we find the common theme that what is being truly asked of the people, what is being put before the people, is being done dishonestly. Paddy McGuinness is a person who has written in Australia's newspapers for many years. He now writes a regular column in the Australian Financial Review, a paper which is read by only 100,000 or so Australians. He writes columns in weekend papers. I will quote a couple of things he has had to say on the referendum questions. He said: The Federal Government is being very dishonest in its approach to the proposed referendum on constitutional amendments. It is also being quite unjustifiably hasty about the whole thing-itself a reason for suspicion. So it will be only its own fault if even the defensible amendments are defeated. In the same article he went on to talk about the first referendum, the so-called four-year-term referendum, and expressed what was the question that should be asked if the Government were trying not to mislead the people, if it were trying to be honest with the people of Australia. He did not suggest that it was adequate to be asking, as the Government is asking in this question, `Do you agree to a law to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament?'. Mr McGuinness said the question should be, `Do you agree to weakening the power and status of the Senate?'. We bring this forward again because the Senate, if it is to be defended, must first of all be defended in this chamber. When Senator Austin Lewis, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, spoke on this same subject matter last week he made the point that if we look at the $1.1 billion cost of this magnificent new Parliament House we might say that the cost has been half occasioned, say $500m worth, by the need to accommodate this Senate. After $500m has been spent on a magnificent palace, a referendum is being put to the people and the Government is now setting about to reduce the effectiveness and functioning of this place. We will have the palace but we will not have any effective use of it. I think Senator Lewis brought forward a very telling point last week: Why do we spend half a billion dollars to have something that the Government is seeking to reduce to a shell? The fact is that Professor Davis, Professor Lane and others have come forward and said that what the Government is doing is dishonest. If we look at what has been said in the Senate chamber in the debate on these referendums we find that Senator Tate has been called upon time and again to defend the indefensible. So often he has to shillyshally around seeking to avoid the issue and not answer the questions which are directed to him. Senator Tate in the Senate last week responded to Senator Lewis in that debate by saying that Senator Lewis could not get over the hurdle. He said: . . . not one power, not one ability, not one legislative, deliberative or other function of this chamber is stripped away by this referendum proposal. What Senator Tate has tried to argue in this place is that this referendum does not touch the powers of the Senate. One can choose to adopt the views of Senator Tate, who has to argue the partisan case for the Labor party, or one can accept the view of Professor Davis, the view of Professor Lane or the view of Mr Paddy McGuinness, that fundamentally what this referendum is about is reducing the power, the independence and the functioning of this Senate. I want today to address that issue because it is part of the fabric of lies which has been spread about, which has been woven by this Government and which is aimed at trying to trick the people of Australia into making very substantial changes to the referendum which on a proper examination they would not do. Part of the first referendum is to bring about a permanent state of simultaneous elections, to guarantee that the Senate and House of Representatives will always be elected together because the Senate term will be tied to that of the House of Representatives. It is fascinating that the whole notion of simultaneous elections has been omitted from the wording of this referendum. No doubt it has been omitted because on the three occasions that that proposal has been put squarely to the people of Australia without subterfuge, without lies, without deception, without the abuse of taxpayers' funds to put across the Yes case without regard to the No case, the referendum has been defeated. We face a situation where any honest placing of these questions before the people of Australia would guarantee their defeat. Their carriage is made possible only by the deception that has been undertaken by the Government. What is it that has made this Senate a legislative chamber which, almost uniquely among the many parliaments of this Commonwealth, continues to fulfil a legislative role and to check the powers of government? There is a whole series of characteristics of the Senate, only some of which are affected by this referendum, but two of the vital characteristics will be destroyed if this referendum is passed. There are some things-the sorts of things Senator Tate concentrated on in his answers-which will not be affected. The virtually co-equal legislative powers of the Senate are not affected directly by the referendum. It will continue to be the case that the Senate can defeat any of the legislation, including budget or financial legislation, which is brought into this chamber and can either amend or request amendments to any of that legislation. Senator Haines —Then why won't you do it? Senator CHANEY —Another element which is not being changed-I shall come back to Senator Haines's interjection later-is the method of election of senators. There is absolutely no doubt that one of the differentiating characteristics of the Senate as against the House of Representatives is that we are elected on a system of proportional representation. That means that the representation in this chamber much more squarely and fairly represents the voting pattern of the Australian people. Minority parties find it easier to get represented here; the weighting between the major parties is much closer to their respective share of the votes than in the House of Representatives. Senator Button —But if you elect less than-- Senator CHANEY —Only in the case where the rotation of senators applies, so it is certainly not true of the Senate today in 1988. It can be but that is one of the essential limiting elements that was built into the Constitution that we would seek to maintain. The two other key differentials between the Senate and the House of Representatives are the fixed electoral cycle, the fixed term for the Senate, a six-year term for senators which differentiates it from the House of Representatives, and what is called the rotation of senators-the fact that half the senators are elected at each election instead of the whole of the Senate coming up for election. Those points of differentiation are important. It is those four things which have given the Senate its different character. They have enabled the Senate uniquely among legislative chambers, on a regular basis and notwithstanding variations in numbers in the Senate, to continue to act as a check against untrammelled executive power. If one looks at what has been done in this Senate since the last election, one sees a series of things which have been irritating to the Government but of great consolation to the people of Australia. If one goes back further than the last election, one finds that senators such as Senator Button, as a member of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and various other senators, including me, joined together in a parliamentary committee in 1975 to report against the Government's national compensation scheme. That was an example of independence within the Senate not welcomed by the government of the day but an independence which prevented a very expensive mistake for Australia. If honourable senators look at an example when the Liberal Party was in government, when Mr Fraser was Prime Minister, they will find the Senate establishing the Scrutiny of Bills Committee over the objections of the Government; a valuable contribution to legislative scrutiny in this place. Let us look at three things which the Government has sought to do since the last election and which the Senate has prevented. Twice the Government has tried to repeal section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. There is probably not an Australian over 21 years, alive, who has not heard of the Mudginberri case. There are probably very few Australians under that age who have not heard of the Mudginberri case. There will be very few Australians who do not understand that in the Mudginberri case the Trade Practices Act was used to prevent illegal behaviour by trade unions that would have brought that business to its knees. That was a notable landmark case in industrial relations in Australia and twice the Hawke Government has tried to repeal the law that the Mudginberri abattoir was able to rely upon-twice. Many Australians would know that a few years ago this Government tried to introduce a Bill of Rights. Few would know that the Government put the Bill of Rights through the House of Representatives in a day. It allowed one day's parliamentary consideration of a major change to the law which would have changed the way human rights were defended in this country. We kept it in the Senate for month after month and debated it for month after month. Public ignorance was replaced by public knowledge and the people of Australia flooded this Government with their objections about what was proposed. It is notable to remember that the Bill of Rights was not defeated in this Senate. It was defeated by the people of Australia who forced the Government to withdraw it. What this Senate did was to prevent the precipitate passing of that law and to guarantee that the people of Australia had time to find out what was going on. In exactly the same way we gave the people of Australia time to discover what was meant by the identity card proposal. When the Government introduced that proposal it said to the people of Australia, `Isn't this a good thing, it will enable us to deal with tax cheats and dole frauds'. Virtually every person in Australia wants to see tax cheats and dole frauds dealt with. It took three defeats of that legislation in this chamber for 70 per cent of the people of Australia to realise that what was proposed was in fact wrong and represented a threat to them and not to the tiny minority of Australians who abused the systems, by they the tax system or the social security system. Again, the Senate was pressed to the limit by the Government, even taken to a double dissolution election, but it was only the persistence of the Senate that enabled the people of Australia to wake up. It is precisely that that is objected to by senators opposite and lies behind this first referendum proposal. The simple objective of this referendum proposal is to make the Senate more subject to the whim and to the will of the government of the day. I think we can be grateful for the fact that in this, as in a number of other matters, Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce who is at the table, has been a little more honest than some other senators. When we were debating and looking at the question of simultaneous elections in 1977, Senator Button said: Of course the real importance and significance of this proposal from our point of view in the Opposition is that it does what many of its critics say it will do. Senator Button, I interpolate, was then in Opposition. He was speaking on behalf of the Labor Party in opposition in 1977. He went on to say: It limits the significance and influence of the Senate . . . we do have a very strong view that the powers of the Senate should be delimited at every opportunity, these are the basic reasons why we will be supporting the legislation. In saying that we are being consistent with everything we have said before. That is a telling statement by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. He wants the significance and influence of the Senate to be reduced and delimited at every opportunity and that is not what is disclosed in the question which is being put to the Australian people. All that is being disclosed in the question that is to be put to the Australian people is that it is a referendum about four-year terms. They are not being told that whilst a maximum four-year term means a possible increase in the length of the term of the House of Representatives, it represents a diminution of the term of the Senate and the destruction of the fixed term of the Senate. Indeed, the basic emotional point that the Government seeks to rely on with respect to this referendum-the point that the people of Australia would like to see fewer elections-is in no way guaranteed by this referendum. That has been made very clear-- Senator Button —I never said that it is. Senator CHANEY —I am pleased to have an interjection from Senator Button to the effect that he has never said that it is. Indeed, in questioning in this place Senator Tate admitted that there will be constitutional capacity for the Prime Minister to have an election for both Houses in October, November or December this year if he wishes. The simple reality-and this point again was brought out by Senator Michael Baume in questioning of the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, in this chamber last week-is that the Australian Prime Minister cannot have an early election for both Houses of Parliament as the Constitution now stands because he is not able, constitutionally, to call an election for the Senate until after 1 July next year. If this referendum is passed, that constitutional limitation on the freedom of the Prime Minister to call that early election is abolished, it disappears, and in fact it will leave an untrammelled capacity on the part of the Prime Minister to have an election for both Houses whenever he likes. Senator Haines —Are you saying this is retrospective? Senator CHANEY —I think I am asked by Senator Haines, who is talking in that far distant corner-and I am not sure whether I heard her interjection properly-whether I am saying that the Prime Minister will call an early election. All I can say is that the Prime Minister has twice promised to go his full term and he has broken that promise on both occasions. I make no attempt to predict what the Prime Minister might choose to do. The attitude that would be adopted on any proper and honest assessment of the first referendum proposal will basically come down to whether or not one agrees with the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, that the influence, authority and role of this Senate should be reduced. Those Australians who have seen over the past few years the capacity of this Senate to stop precipitate Government legislation, and who have seen the Senate's capacity, often under very great political difficulties-including at times in the teeth of public opinion-to ensure that there is a lengthy and proper debate on issues such as the ID card and the Australian Bill of Rights, will see the danger proposed in this referendum. It is part of the elaborate hoax that is being wrought on the people of Australia. This chamber, almost uniquely amongst legislative chambers in this Commonwealth, still performs legislative functions and still checks and challenges the Executive when it ignores the interests of the people. The passage of this referendum proposal will reduce the capacity of this Senate to do that, and for that reason it should be soundly defeated. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(3.28) —Those of us who have actually looked at the proposal and have analysed it can come to only one conclusion on what Senator Chaney has contributed to the debate this afternoon-that is, it was an opportunist contribution and a smokescreen. It was opportunist because Opposition senators know that what they are saying is wrong; and it was a smokescreen because the stand taken by the Liberal Party of Australia on these referendum proposals is just another cover-up for the leadership crisis within that Party. This is a right and proper proposal. It is right because it makes the terms of both Houses of Parliament four years. There is some threat that the proposal itself is not adequate. One needs to go no further than probably one of the greatest tacticians in this place, the former Liberal Party senator and leader in this place, Senator Reg Withers. He was not a theoretician but very much a tactician, as not only we found out in 1975 but as quite a successive number of Liberal leaders found out from time to time. He would be a great authority on the proposition before us, and what does he say? On the Face to Face television program Mr Withers said that, far from harming the powers of the Senate, this proposal will strengthen the powers. Mr Withers argued that in fact the Senate could well become more assertive because it could claim to have the same mandate as the House of Representatives. Senator Chaney is leaving the chamber; maybe he should listen to the words of his former leader in this place. The powers of the Senate are untouched by this proposal. There is nothing in this proposal that would lead to the alteration of the Senate's powers to reject or amend legislation. That is basic and it is known by everybody. There is nothing which could affect the Senate's clearly proven powers to investigate any legislation. Further, there is nothing that would affect the Senate's powers and the Senate's ability to investigate any other matter in which it took an interest. I ask the Opposition: can it mention one matter in the last five years of this Government, one thing this Government has done in those five years since it was first elected, that this constitutional change would prevent the Senate from doing in the future? It cannot; it knows it cannot. It knows the committee system will not be affected. It knows the powers and the functions of the Senate will not be affected. It also knows that the Senate will be able to continue its work through the systems that we have operated and developed over the years and that those functions will remain completely untouched. We are told that this proposal will affect the independence of the Senate. There are a number of responses to that matter. Firstly, the independence of the Senate is protected and guaranteed in a number of ways, amongst other things by the proportional representation system of voting for senators. This system, as Senator Harradine and a succession of minority senators know, guarantees that minority groups will continue to have a place and a voice in national affairs. There is nothing in this proposal that will affect that guarantee of independence. There is no diminution of powers or independence of the Senate, and we know it. We acknowledge that there are people who wish to alter the powers of the Senate, but the public would reject that and the Government understands that full well. What this proposal will do is bring us into line with just about every other parliament in the country. It will set a national standard for parliaments, and that is not a bad thing. At the moment every parliament in Australia, except for Queensland and the national Parliament in Canberra, has a four-year term. What is wrong with bringing the national Parliament into line with the majority of other parliamentary jurisdictions in this country? If the Liberal Party really does not believe in a four-year term, why is Nick Greiner in New South Wales not moving to amend the term of that Parliament? He will not because he knows full well that the people of that State, as in other States as well, are quite happy with the system of four-year terms. Senator Vanstone —Tell us about the upper Houses in the States. Senator BOLKUS —I will tell Senator Vanstone about upper and lower Houses. More than 90 per cent of all the parliaments in the world have terms of longer than three years. This is not some machiavellian proposal. It is about time those opposite brought themselves into the twentieth century, into the mainstream of Australian politics, rather than withering as a bad taste sideshow. The Government has brought Australia forward over the last five years. We have done many things since we were elected. We have rebuilt the economic shambles we inherited in 1983. We have given Australia an administrative structure, a government structure, which is appropriate to the late twentieth century. This proposal gives our parliamentary structure a reflection of the attitudes of the twentieth century and not the end of the nineteenth century. We talk a lot about the attitude of the business community. Andrew Hay, interviewed on the subject of the Opposition having a very narrow political focus, said: Well, on this subject they very clearly have. It's not real life to expect this country to be constrained within a document drawn up in . . . at 1901. There are grounds for constitution reform, and in terms of the Parliamentary system itself, the duration of the House of Representatives, the grounds are very solid for reform. Andrew Hay acknowledges that there is a need to update the system from that of the attitudes of the late nineteenth century. (Quorum formed) Everyone in this place and in the community understands that we have had too many elections. Since 1945 Australians have had to go to the polls once every two years, even though during that time we have had six-year terms for the Senate and three-year terms for the House of Representatives. Each election costs $50m. If I had served all the years for which I have been elected since 1981, I would be 17 years older than I am now, having contested four elections, each one being for a six-year term, totalling 24 years. Yet I have been in this place only seven years. The basic point is that since 1964 we have not had a senator serve a six-year term in this place. The last half Senate election took place in 1970. The taxpaying public understands the need for fewer elections. Senator Vanstone —But this will not guarantee that and you know it. Senator BOLKUS —We intend with this proposal that Australians should go to the polls less frequently and that they should get governments that will have sufficient time to implement programs for the good of Australia. We refer to business groups. It was not all that long ago, when the bunsen burners of the Opposition were placed on some in the business sector, that the business groups did come out in support of the Government's proposals. Let me refer to what Andrew Hay said a few months ago about constitutional reform: Well, as far as the referenda questions are concerned, we are. I mean, I think for a long time the business community has argued for an extension of the Parliamentary term. We don't want to see a situation where constitutional reform is continually frustrated because of the application of a very narrow political focus. That is how Andrew Hay referred to the Opposition. He went on to say, only a few months ago: Yes, I'm very disappointed. I don't believe that they consulted widely enough and they certainly didn't canvass the matter at all with the business community so, therefore, I can only interpret it as a somewhat ill considered decision which has been based very largely on a narrow political perspective. The issues raised by Andrew Hay are central to the reasons for this Government taking the decision to the people this Saturday. They highlight the difference between this Government and the Opposition. We are prepared to make the hard decisions. We are prepared to drag Australia out of the economic shambles in which we found it. We are prepared to bite the bullet. The Opposition is just a collection of followers. It is not just Andrew Hay who is on record as saying that sort of thing. Eric Mayer, the managing director of National Mutual, as a representative of the Business Council of Australia, not all that long ago said: It would indeed be an indictment of this generation of politicians and an ill omen for the opening of our new Parliament House if politicians of all parties cannot act in a meaningful way to obtain a solution that would enable all parties to support a referendum that would give the House of Representatives a four year term. Yet we have Senator Chaney coming in here today talking about hypocrisy, with all sorts of shallow arguments. The Western Australian Confederation of Industry, from his own home State, makes the point that it would support a four-year term. It is quite apparent that that Confederation would rather talk to us, who run the country, than the sideshow of the political process we have on the other side. We are told by the Opposition that this proposal would make it easier for the Prime Minister of the day to call an election. Let us look at why early elections have been called over recent years. The main justification put to the people is that we have had early elections to bring the Houses back into line. The reality is that, if adopted, this referendum proposal would do away with the excuse, for any Prime Minister in the future, to call an election because the Houses have to be brought into line. The Opposition's argument is shallow. If any Prime Minister were to go to the people arguing for an election to bring the Houses into line after this proposal was accepted he would be laughed out of court. So would she. So we have the somewhat strange and bizarre proposition from the Opposition that if we have a four-year term for the House of Representatives, we should have an eight-year term for the Senate. I am sure that would satisfy some Opposition senators. It would mean that after one election honourable senators would be eligible for the pension. Some who have been here for only a short period look as though they are on it already. I am sure that the public would not accept that argument. Does the Opposition suggest that we should continue with the notion of having half-Senate elections? As I said, we have not had one since 1970. They cost an extra $50m a year. Eighteen years ago was the last time we had a half-Senate election. But the Opposition still plods on with this anachronistic proposal. What do Opposition members say about the proposals? In the last couple of weeks I have spoken privately to about 13 members of the Opposition in this place. They will say then that they will support one or another of the Government's propositions this coming weekend. They will not do that in the Parliament. But some of them are on record as supporting them. In 1983, Senator Walters, talking of an eight-year term, said that the people of Australia would not agree to it. Senator Townley, in the same debate said: I do not believe that the people of this country will agree to giving anybody an eight-year term. But the most considered comment in that debate came from Senator Watson, who said in 1983: Many Australians would welcome a four-year term, rather than a three-year term, but a lot would reject an eight-year term for senators. It would be far too long . . . For example, it would give a non-performer too long an opportunity to remain listless on the back bench. There is a need to be motivated by the needs of the electorate. It would tend to put too many senators far too removed from the feelings of the electorate. The Opposition is not serious about its alternative proposal; its senators have told us that already. Our bottom line, and what has to be remembered about our proposal, is that we would increase the certainty that parliaments would run their full term. Let us go back to why the Opposition is pursuing this issue in such a loud and aggressive way. It is a smokescreen for the fact that there is a leadership crisis on the Opposition benches and in conservative politics in Australia. If the Liberal Party had a real leader, it would have joined with the Government to explain these necessary and worthwhile proposals to the Australian people. But the stand of the Opposition on this matter, as on so many other matters, is further evidence of the weakness of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The Opposition Leader is not a leader. He is a follower. (Quorum formed) The point I was making is embellished by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who is not a leader but a follower, dictates the priorities for the Opposition, lays out the agenda, has a matter of public importance called on, and who is here? Two senators from the Opposition. The rest of them certainly would not follow him over hot coals. There is one Opposition senator here, with Senator Vanstone acting as an adviser. If I were taking advice from Senator Vanstone I would give up. Senator Reid —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. That was not the case when Senator Chaney was speaking, leading the debate. It may be the case now, but not many members of the Opposition want to hear what Senator Bolkus has to say. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Teague —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. No-one from the Opposition is interested in hearing Senator Bolkus. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.48) —The debate that is before the Chair has been raised by Senator Chaney as a matter of public importance as follows: The need to defeat the Hawke government's first referendum proposal so as to maintain the characteristics of the Senate which enable it to protect the Australian people against unwise and oppressive government actions. At least that is what Senator Chaney and members of the Opposition parties would have us believe. Senator Chaney began his argument by referring to one or two selected authorities. The first person to whom he referred was Professor Rufus Davis. I received the same paper Senator Chaney received. I would have to say that the good professor lost a considerable number of points with regard to credibility, despite his position as Emeritus Professor of Politics at Monash University, because in the same article in which he was putting forward his arguments for the No case he referred to the role of the Senate as being extremely valuable, which indeed it is for most of the time, and cited as one example of this the Senate's role in what he called the defeat of the Australian Bill of Rights. He cites as one example of this the Senate's role in what he called the defeat of the Australian Bill of Rights. He claimed that the Bill was defeated in the Senate. It was not. It was withdrawn by the Government and not proceeded with. As far as I can recall, every clause that was put to a vote in this place was passed. If Professor Davis cannot get something as obviously checkable and basic as that right one wonders how accurate are his assessments of questions one to four. Essentially, Senator Chaney also echoed the No case that was drafted by the Opposition parties and included in the booklet sent around by the Australian Electoral Commission. The points that are laboured in this No case, and that were put by the Liberal and National parties, are as follows: they argue that the proposal in question one, to increase the maximum term of the Parliament from three to four years, would cripple the Senate's independence. They then argue that the proposal is a direct attack on the fundamental purpose and structure of the Senate, and that the proposal would give the Federal Government more power over the Senate and the States. They point out that the fundamental importance of the Senate is, first, in its capacity as a House of review and, secondly, that it protects the rights of the States and their people. Presumably this is what Senator Chaney was referring to in his motion when he talked about oppressive government and what it was likely to do to the people. One needs to ask how much protection the Senate has offered the Australian people against the unwise and oppressive actions of this Government in the last five years. The Opposition argues that the Senate is a States House and a House of review, yet its own actions in the last five years, taken of its own accord, effectively have prevented the Senate from operating in either of these ways. When did the Senate last divide on an issue from a States rights perspective? When did we ever see all Queensland senators, for example, aligned together regardless of party affiliation against senators from some or all of the other States? The Constitution and the founding fathers who drafted it certainly expected-and for very good reason-there to be occasions when senators from one State, regardless of their party affiliation, would align on certain legislation. Constitutionally, the Senate was meant to protect the interests of the less populous States from the `unwise and oppressive' or downright discriminatory decisions made by a government or by the House of Representatives as a whole. After all, the House of Representatives is made up of members representing single electorates; the Senate is made up of members representing an entire State. The more populous the State the more members of the House it returns. I guess that what happens in Cabinet and party meetings is that legislation which suits the needs of New South Wales and Victoria, which return well over half the members of the Parliament, is supported and it is supported regardless of the impact that legislation could have on the smaller States. The Senate, which returns the same number of senators from each State, was intended to offset the possibility of this bias. Yet it does not do that now-and I doubt whether it ever did. What happens is that this chamber divides strictly along party lines. I cannot remember when we have ever decided that something that was bad for South Australians and Western Australians should cause us to divide separately-Labor, Liberal, Democrat and Independent senators-from the rest of our colleagues. Senator Chaney, Senator Teague and others should have been concerned when the Government's Austudy payments for 15-year-olds in the last two compulsory years of schooling were cut back. That did not affect most 15-year-olds in New South Wales and Victoria; but it certainly affected a lot of 15-year-olds in Western Australia and South Australia. I did not see Senator Chaney or Senator Teague voting against the Government's legislation in that regard. Senator Teague —It was a Budget matter. Senator HAINES —Senator Teague makes an interesting comment. He said it was a Budget matter. This is the other reason why this chamber no longer operates as a House of review and why it no longer looks at legislation on its merits. When the Liberal and National parties, to their considerable concern, found themselves in opposition instead of in government back in 1983 they made what has to be the most extraordinary decision of all time: they decided that they would not oppose or amend-that is, they would not vote against or change in any way-any piece of legislation that the Government raised as part of its Budget proposals. This produced one immediate effect, and that was that the Government then moved to having two Budgets a year, one in May and one in August. As far as the Opposition was concerned, any legislation that was hinted at in the May economic statement fell into exactly the same category as legislation that was promulgated in the August Budget statements, and was therefore safe, cushioned and quarantined from being opposed, amended or defeated. If that is not rejecting the idea that this place is here to be a House of review I do not know what is, because the majority of legislation that we deal with in this place now stems from propositions put forward in May or in the August Budget session. Senator Teague —The ID card wasn't. Senator HAINES —No, the ID card was not but it was one of the few things those opposite chose to oppose. Had it been part of a Budget measure, they would not have opposed it. They would have done what they frequently do; stand up and grizzle and complain about how it will affect a group of individuals, an entire State or the whole country but, on the grounds that it was a Budget Bill, they would not have opposed it. To any honourable senator here who is somewhat confused about the difference between Budget and Supply Bills, Budget Bills and money Bills, money Bills and tax Bills, or any one of those Bills and any other piece of legislation that we get, I recommend two extremely good papers. One was written by our own Clerk, Harry Evans, and the other was written by an ex-Liberal Party senator in this place, now a Minister in the Liberal Tasmanian Government, ex-Senator Peter Rae. Those two papers set out very clearly the rights and responsibilities of the Senate-and they are not to revoke unilaterally, as this Opposition does, any right to amend or defeat legislation that comes up in a Budget session. I find it extraordinary that Liberal and National Party senators in this place say that question one will reduce the rights of the Senate or will stop it from maintaining its role of protecting the Australian people against unwise and oppressive government actions when those honourable senators have abrogated their responsibilities for the past five years. Senator Vanstone —We will have an ID card if this referendum passes. Senator HAINES —Senator Vanstone says that we will have the ID card legislation if the referendum passes. I cannot see how her arithmetic would lead her to this position. Certainly, if this proposal goes through and the House and the Senate are taken out simultaneously each time there is an election, and prior to that election the tax file number legislation or an Australia Card Bill was defeated, presumably the Government could campaign on that. If it won, which I very much doubt it would, campaigning on such an issue, what would happen presumably is that the legislation would be reintroduced once the Government got back into power. What we can be sure of is that it will not have control of the Senate, because it is now almost impossible, with a double dissolution, for any party to gain a majority in the Senate. If this referendum question is not passed, we will be taken to a double dissolution every time that an election is required, because the alternative is for whoever wins government to face a hung Senate, and a hung Senate is far more unstable than a Senate which is out of the control of the government of the day. I remind honourable senators in any event that, to all intents and purposes, over the last few years double dissolutions have become the norm. I, like most senators in this chamber, have not yet served any of the entire six-year terms for which I have been elected, and I have been elected for three of them since 1980. So in three elections for six-year terms since 1980, neither I nor anyone else in this place has served one of them. If this referendum proposal is not passed, we will face the ludicrous situation of the government of the day searching around for a bit of objectionable legislation to put before the Senate so that it can manufacture an occasion for a double dissolution. Thanks to the alignment of the National Party of Australia with the Australian Labor Party Government in 1984, the size of the Parliament and the Senate has increased, which means that instead of five senators being up for election in a half Senate election in each State, six will be up for election. This gives each of the major parties the opportunity to have three out of six senators elected, while in the past they would not have had three out of five elected. A hung Senate is about the last thing that any government of any political persuasion would want. For Senator Chaney and his colleagues to claim that somehow the passage of question No. 1 will reduce the role of the Senate as a watchdog, reduce the States rights element of the Senate, reduce the power of the Senate to act as a House of review to look at legislation on its merits, is nonsense. The Liberal and National parties have abandoned that review capacity. As long as legislation is brought forward in a Budget, they keep their hands off it. So a 45-year-old widow whose youngest child turns 16 is forced on to unemployment benefits and a loss of disposable income, because while the Opposition said that it opposed this in principle, it did not oppose it in fact. In the last 20 years we have had elections, on average, every two years and three months. For the Opposition parties to argue that they could be any more frequent is a nonsense. If the four-year term proposal is passed, at least we might stand a chance of having elections every three years and three months and, as a consequence, having not only more accountable senators, but also better government. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.04) —The Senate is debating why it is so very important that the people of Australia, when they go to the ballot box next Saturday, should vote no on the first question in the referendum-in fact, on all four questions-and so preserve the rights of the States and of individual Australians. Senator Haines, who preceded me in this debate, did not honestly state the vested interest of her Party; that is, if question No. 1 is passed on Saturday, if the Yes vote is in the majority, her Party will find it twice as easy to get its members elected to the Senate. Yet she did not refer to that point once in her speech. I say to Senator Bolkus, who has also spoken, that the vested interest of the Australian Labor Party (ALP)-it has been part of that Party's platform for decades-is that it wants to destroy the powers of the Senate. If this referendum question is passed, it will effectively do that. The Labor Party is advocating a Yes vote on question No. 1 in the referendum because it wants to destroy the powers of this chamber, and the Australian Democrats are advocating a Yes vote because they will find it twice as easy to get elected. Let me cite the precise figures: a quota in an ordinary Senate election under the present Constitution requires them to get 14.3 per cent of the votes in any State-a fairly tall order. I pay Senator Haines a compliment in that she is the only member of her Party in the country who would go close to getting elected. She manages to gain about 11 per cent of the vote, and the allocation of preferences would trip up that figure to 14.3 per cent. All the other Democrat senators would be history in an ordinary Senate election, but if question No. 1 is passed on Saturday, they would have to gain only 7.7 per cent of the vote. Because there are twice as many senators to be elected, the quota for election is so much reduced. This would give the Democrats the same kind of chance as in a double dissolution election, in which one member of that Party is elected in each State and two are elected in Senator Haines's State. So they have a vested interest, and there should not be any obfuscation about it by the Democrats or the Government. As for the Opposition's point of view, the reason that we have raised this matter in the Senate today, just six days before this important referendum, is our vested interest in the rights of ordinary Australians and the established powers of this chamber to act for the States and to act for the electors of Australia. That is why the terms of our matter of public importance are as follows: The need to defeat the Hawke government's first referendum proposal so as to maintain the characteristics of the Senate which enable it to protect the Australian people against unwise and oppressive government actions. Some of those unwise and oppressive actions have concerned the Australian Bill of Rights and the identity card. Because of the debate in this chamber neither of those proposals saw the light of day. The Government feels resentment about that, and it wants to take away powers from the Senate, and the ability of the Senate to act with its current powers that defeated those two measures, so that it can more easily get its programs in place. Senator Haines said in her speech that Professor Davis did not know what he was about because he claimed that it was the Senate that had blocked the Bill of Rights. I say that Professor Davis is right; that because the Bill of Rights was blocked in the Senate-there was days, weeks, even months of debate on the Bill of Rights-the people of Australia were alerted to its real nature. Such were the expressions of public support for what the Opposition was saying in the Senate that the Government withdrew the measure, said that it would not proceed with it and took itself off the hook. With regard to the ID card, as everybody knows, the Opposition forcefully opposed it and, happily, Senator Haines and her colleagues in the Australian Democrats agreed with the Opposition on that occasion. We were able to refuse twice, by direct vote, that measure in this chamber. As a result, the last election was called in mid-1987 on the double dissolution grounds that Government legislation had been twice refused in the Senate. The resentment of Mr Hawke, Mr Keating or the Labor Government is no reason for the people of Australia to say, `Let's give them question No. 1 so that the Hawke-Keating program can be all the more easily achieved and so that the Senate will not deter it'. There has been a longstanding commitment in the Labor Party, that has only recently been amended, to abolish this chamber. The Labor Party has had the abolition of this chamber on successive platforms. It wanted to have an untrammelled right in the House of Representatives to put up legislation that fitted its socialist policies, so that there would be no check, no balance, no House of review, no Senate to stand up for States rights. Therefore, it would have untrammelled power; a single chamber in the national parliament. When the Government saw how unpopular this was, because of the Opposition's coherent arguments, it changed it. Guess what? The Labor Party no longer wants freely to admit to the public that it wants to abolish the Senate. It just wants to take away its powers. So it wants everyone to vote yes on question one at next Saturday's referendum. Do not be fooled. Do not be deceived. Study the implications of question one. Read the circulated booklet of the Electoral Commission, which sets out the Yes and the No case and which has at the end of it the precise words that would be changed in the Constitution. Let me turn to the actual questions that will be on the ballot paper. When we all go to vote next Saturday and we pick up the ballot paper, we should write `No' in all four of the boxes, in answer to each question. The statement to the first question is: To alter the Constitution to provide for- wait for it- 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. That is a very acceptable concept. Most of us have been arguing for four-year parliamentary terms. If people did not know anything else and they just went in and read that simple proposition they would say: `Fair enough. South Australia has four-year terms; Victoria has four-year terms; New South Wales has four-year terms. There are lots of arguments for it'. If that were all people knew-this Government wants to gull the public into believing that they do not know any more than that-they would be likely to write `Yes'. But they must write `No' because-what would it do? It would immediately abolish the six-year fixed term of the Senate. It would give a flexible period for all senators alike-it could be one year; it could be two, it could be three; at the maximum, four-and the actual term would be determined by the decision of the Prime Minister. It would no longer be fixed in the Constitution, above the grubby hands of Canberra politicians. It would be squarely in the decision-making power of the Prime Minister to take out the House of Representatives when he liked, and at the same time all of the Senate would have to go. Secondly, it would abolish the concept which we call the rotation of senators. At the moment, half the Senate is elected at each Senate election and the other half three years later. Six-year fixed terms for the Senate are in the Constitution. That has been the case for the last 88 years, and it has served us well. Instead of this rotation, whereby half the Senate is elected at one election and the other half at the next, the House of Representatives and the Senate would both be elected together. That would give Senator Haines and the Australian Democrats their precious little advantage, and that is, to make it twice as easy for them to get the quota needed to be elected. But it would mean that at any one election, the whole of the Senate is determined at the same time as the determination of the government of the day. There would be no check and balance, such that some senators are elected at another time and can continue into the second half of their term. In fact, the Senate would become a rubber stamp for the House of Representatives and at the beck and call, as far as its term goes, of the Prime Minister of the day. My colleagues and I have written a summary on this question. We say, in a nutshell, that proposition one does not mean four years between elections. It does not mean fewer elections; we could have many more. It does not require a government to serve out its term. It does not mean better government. However, it would radically change our parliamentary system. It would abolish the Senate's fixed term. It would abolish the rotation of terms for senators. It would reduce the Senate's independence. It would make it easier for a government to control the Senate. Is that what the people want? Of course they do not! It would give a Prime Minister scope to call more early elections. It would give nothing, but it would take much away. Let us see what the leading pollster in this country, Mr Gary Morgan, said about this. He is asking questions of the public every day through the Morgan Research Centre. When this proposition was first announced he is reported to have said that there was no doubt the questions were biased to try to obtain a `yes' response from voters. I quote him directly: Any public opinion polling company who asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility. Is that the kind of record that the Government wants before the public as it comes towards this important referendum? It is gulling them with simple words on the ballot paper and it is deceiving them so that they do not understand that it would be achieving ALP objectives to take away powers from the Senate. Let me note what the Australian has said in most responsible editorials on this question. On Thursday, 16 June, in the middle of the discussion of this whole matter, it had an editorial on question one headed, `Question really is, do you want a Senate?' The editorial stated: Do you want to keep the Australian Senate or would you rather we got rid of it? If you believe that the Senate is not worth keeping, you should vote `yes' on September 3 to the referendum proposal that there be a four-year maximum term for both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. After many weeks of letters columns and invited articles on all four referendum questions, weeks later, on 5 August, the Australian then carried a consolidated editorial of its opinion headed `Referendums-conclusion'. The subheading was, `Our federal system is now at stake'. The editorial stated: When Australians vote in the constitutional referendums on September 3 they will be able to make a choice as to whether the growing drift towards centralisation of power in Canberra will be accelerated or resisted. My time has nearly gone. I can only say that the Government is not acting on the report of its Constitutional Commission. That report, which came down only in May, recommended that the Senate have two terms of the House of Representatives-not one. The Government has rejected its own expert advice. Let me quote from a learned man of the law in my State of South Australia, Mr Andrew Wells, a former Crown Solicitor, a former Solicitor-General and a former Justice of the Supreme Court. In a long paper entitled `The Rule of Law or the Rule of Lawyers', he firmly advocates that before people vote, they should study the fine print and not be gulled, and that they should vote no on 3 September. I do not have the time to cite all of the aspects of his argument. I can only urge people to vote no on Saturday on the referendum questions. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(4.19) —I would like to add at the end of Senator Teague's speech the words `Written and authorised by Baden Teague' et cetera, or whatever it is, because it was basically a campaign speech. Of course, that is what this whole debate is all about. This matter of public importance debate, brought forward by Senator Chaney, seeks to protect, in theory, the position of the Senate in the Australian political framework. Most of his arguments and the arguments of those people on the other side of the chamber who support them revolve around the view that, first of all, the Senate is the proper House of review, that it protects States rights, and that it protects civil liberties and individual rights against oppressive governments. Implicit in the criticisms that they have made of the Government's constitutional referendum proposals, particularly the first proposal, is the view that the Government has a hidden agenda-namely, the destruction of the Senate. Senator Teague has already implied that once again. I wish to examine some of those criticisms because I believe that despite the fact that we are in the middle of what appears to be some sort of semi-election campaign, it is important that we put the whole issue in some sort of perspective. The proposals for the constitutional changes arise almost wholly not from the Government but from the Australian Constitutional Commission. It has put 2 1/2 years work into these proposals. It received 2,000 submissions. The Commission met and talked with a significant number of interest groups and individuals throughout this country. The Commission was established with the particular view in mind of making Australia's constitutional framework a matter for proper public debate. At the end of the day, action by the Government of the day would allow the people of Australia to make a decision about the sort of constitutional framework they wanted. Without a doubt, in the back of everyone's minds were the events of 1975 when Australia, for the first time in many years, got to the stage of having its politics go beyond a democratic framework: where the elected Government of the day was twice sent to the people by this Senate, where that Government was dismissed by the Governor-General, where the majority party in the House of Representatives-that is, the Whitlam Government-having been given a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives still could not see the Governor-General and say, `We are once again, the elected Government'. That issue was in the minds of all those who supported the establishment of the Constitutional Commission. They knew then that the constitutional framework of Australia, the political framework of this country, is a delicate one; it is a question of give and take, of ensuring that everybody who is in a key position plays within the rules. Those rules were broken. The framework that we had in those days was not sufficient to deal with the issues that came up. The Commission was set up on that basis, to make recommendations to the government of the day, having listened to the people of Australia about the best sort of political framework we should have. It is impossible to understand how a group of men and some women in the 1890s, coming from various fractious colonies, could write a blueprint for the way politics should operate in this country and be totally right. Of course they were to draw up a document for the good conduct of politics that had to be flexible, hence the provision for constitutional reform through referenda. Yet here we have today the Opposition raising a matter, with about two hours' notice, asking for a debate about an issue of major importance. The Opposition does not heed the dangers that we all faced in 1975. Honourable senators who have looked at political systems around the world will know that democratic countries are few and far between, and that some countries that were democracies, say, 20 years ago are no longer democracies simply because, in many cases, their political framework, their constitutional framework, could not tolerate the stresses and strains of party politics. Let us look at some of the principles that were raised by the Opposition today. The important one, of course, in the question of the Senate itself. Is it worthwhile? I came to this Senate not as some green, young boy out of the backwoods; I came here with six years' experience in a State parliament, three of those years as a Minister involved in seven portfolios. I expected this place to be different from what I found it to be. I was terribly disappointed, and I have not changed my mind. If the Senate is to fulfil its function as a proper House of review, I believe that rather than oppose every constitutional change everyone in this chamber ought to look very closely at the way we operate in this place. I ask honourable senators to look around this chamber. Some people have dropped in to see the Senate in action. There is one member of the Press in the gallery. There are four Opposition senators in the chamber to hear a debate on a matter they raised. (Quorum formed) That is now the third quorum which has been called by the Opposition in this debate. It is its debate and it has had to call four quorums to get its own people in the chamber. There are still only four Opposition senators sitting there, and another standing. The point I am making is that if the Senate is to be considered a proper House of review, it ought to be behaving as a House of review. For example, it ought to be ensuring that there is proper debate in this chamber without the constant misuse of the calling of quorums to stifle debate. The calling of quorums has taken four minutes out of my 15 minutes and eight minutes out of Senator Bolkus's 15 minutes. The Senate ought to ensure that that sort of thing does not go on because it is that type of behaviour that gives this House a bad name. Let me look at the third principle that Senator Chaney raised, that the Senate is a States' House. I ought not to spend too much time on this, given that the Opposition has already cut four minutes out of my speech. I recall two Liberal senators crossing the floor to vote with the Government of the day on a matter of principle. They were Senator Townley and Senator Jessop, and I look in vain for their positions or nameplates on the other side. I can tell the Senate why they are not there. They were dumped by their Party because they decided that matters of individual principle-States' rights, for example-were matters that were going to be put into operation and they were going to vote as their consciences dictated. What happened? The Liberal Party says, `We have no caucus. People are free to do what they wish in this chamber. This is a States' House; a House that is concerned with the rights of individuals'. But it dumped them both. One wonders what will happen to Senator Peter Baume, a man for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, a man who has the concerns of individuals at heart, a man who is prepared to vote with his conscience, a man who has crossed the floor twice since I have been in the Senate. I guarantee that at the next election Senator Peter Baume will be struggling for preselection because the Liberal Party has shown that it does not believe that this place is a States' House. It does not believe that this is the place where people vote with their conscience. It believes that this is a party political House. If that is accepted as a matter of principle, why are we in this chamber pretending that we are a collection of individuals, a collection of senators supporting our States and looking after the interests of only our States? It has become a farce. Once we recognise that this is a party political House in almost exactly the same way as the House of Representatives is a party political House, once we accept, for example, that as a House of review it has not always done what it should, particularly in party political work, we cannot put the Senate on a pedestal. We cannot say that it has a special position in the Australian constitutional framework. We cannot allow it to have untrammelled power in future to send a duly and properly elected government, such as the Whitlam Government, to the people on two separate occasions within three years. The people of Australia will not accept that any more. This humbug about a States rights House and a House concerned with individual conscience has to go. The House of review principle is important. When I first came here the first thing that impressed me about the way the Senate operated compared with the House of Representatives was the way in which the committee system worked. People worked across party lines to examine major issues in this community. Many valuable reports were written. The community was given an opportunity to have its voice heard directly in this chamber. Executive government was restricted to some extent by those reports. But the Senate has never taken to the full extent the powers of those committees. It has never utilised the capacity of those committees to provide for individual liberties, to ensure that this House is a proper House of review. Again I ask the question: Why put the Senate on a pedestal? Let us face the fact that what the people of this country want is stability of government. They want to know that when they elect a government to the House of Representatives that government will run its full term, hopefully of four years. Businessmen want to know when they plan for the future that the government that was elected four years ago will go its full term, so that they know that the management of the economy will be at least consistent. The population at large wants the right to say, `Yes, we have seen that government in operation for four years. We are now in a position to make an assessment of its capabilities and performance'. They have the right to throw it out. If the Senate is in a position, as it was in 1972 to 1975, to reject a government on two occasions and send it to the people, how can the electorate at large ever make an objective judgment about the value of that government? If the electorate cannot make an objective judgment about the value of a government, we are in deep trouble in terms of the future of politics. I am saying, this Government is saying, that people out there who have an opportunity on 3 September to vote in favour of the four proposals should do so keeping in mind that the protection of the Senate, of the whole Constitution, of the Parliament lies best in ensuring that the Senate runs in the most efficient and effective way-and it will not do so if it continues on the path we are following. I oppose the motion. It has been a waste of time to bring it here today. Nevertheless, we will debate it-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.34) —The four referendums which next Saturday the Australian people are to be asked to vote upon are among the most important for many years. One would not have that impression from the manner in which the Government has proceeded to put these referendums to the Australian people. We are this afternoon addressing particularly question No. 1, but I make the point in passing that each of these questions is very important, although it has to be said that of all of them the first proposal is overwhelmingly the most important. It is that question which, if passed, goes to the heart of the constitutional framework of this country in that it goes to the heart of the relationship between the Senate and the House of Representatives, to the heart of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and to the heart of the power of the Prime Minister of the day. I refer not merely to the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We might all have our views about the manner in which the present Prime Minister would exercise his powers, but I look to the future. I would be just as disturbed about placing in the hands of a Prime Minister from this side of politics the powers that this proposal would place in his hands, as I am about having such powers placed in the hands of the present Prime Minister. I have worked in this town for 30 years and during that time, before moving out and then coming into the Parliament, I saw a continual process involving the drift or accretion of power from the periphery to the centre; that is, from the States to the Commonwealth, to Canberra. I saw a continual shift of power from the Parliament to the Executive, that is, to the Ministry. Within the Ministry I have seen a continual shift of power from Ministers to the inner Cabinet and from the inner Cabinet to the Prime Minister. This proposal, if carried, will represent a further and even a quantum leap in that process. It would give power to the Prime Minister of the day to sack the Senate. Let us look at the genesis of these proposals because the Australian people, in judging them, are entitled to look at the honesty, or lack thereof, of purpose with which this Government has brought these proposals forward. I put it to honourable senators that the genesis of these proposals is flawed. They have nothing to do with constitutional reform as such. They have a great deal to do with distracting the attention of the Australian people from the terrible mess in which the Australian Labor Party found itself in April this year. Let me take the minds of honourable senators back to that time. Earlier this year the Labor Party went through a very bad patch indeed. There had been a disastrous outcome of the New South Wales elections on 19 March. There had been the loss of a Federal seat previously held by the Labor Party-a very safe seat, the seat of Adelaide. There had been the near loss of a blue ribbon Labor seat in Port Adelaide following the retirement of the Hon. Mick Young. There had been massive swings against the Labor Party in two State by-elections in Western Australia following the retirement of the Premier and Deputy Premier of that State. Following all that, Senator McMullan-and I have much respect for his sagacity-in an interesting article in the Australian gave his Party some gratuitous but nevertheless undoubtedly sound advice. In that article he said that the Government would be well advised to embark upon what he called some low risk political distractions, such as constitutional reform. That is precisely what the Labor Party proceeded to do: it embarked on a low risk political distraction. As a consequence of that decision taken some time during April the whole of the due processes of the Constitutional Commission, which was set up over two years earlier by the present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), were truncated before it had time to come to a conclusion. The Government pushed forward these four proposals, three of which have either no support or only partial support in the reports of the Constitutional Commission; we know that now that we have those reports after the event. Let us take the first proposal, which is the subject of this afternoon's matter of public importance proposed by my colleague Senator Chaney-the so-called parliamentary terms proposal. Let us take that as an example of the extent to which this Government has been guided by the Constitutional Commission which the Government itself instituted, and which was to provide us with the basic guidance and counsel against which the Australian people were supposed to examine the processes of constitutional change. The proposal which is being put to the Australian people next Saturday is not what the Commission recommended. It recommended a four-year maximum term for members of the House of Representatives and to that extent, and to that extent only, this proposal follows the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission. But it also recommended a three-year minimum term because the Commission took the view that there would indeed be, as other speakers have said in this debate, merit in having fewer elections. Therefore, it provided to ensure that outcome by suggesting or recommending a three-year minimum term. That recommendation has not been picked up by this Government. Honourable senators will not find that recommendation contained in the proposal before them next Saturday because this Government does not want to have fewer elections. It wants to keep its hands entirely free to have elections just as frequently in the future as it has had them in the past under the present Prime Minister, who has broken a series of promises in the process of achieving that outcome. Nor did the Constitutional Commission recommend simultaneous terms for the election of members and senators, which is the proposal contained in the referendum Bill on which we will be asked to vote next Saturday. It did not recommend that at all. It recommended that a senator's term should be equal to two terms of a member of the House of Representatives. As a matter of fact, in passing I note that that proposal itself is not altogether without its difficulties, but the key point here to note is that it is not what the Government has put before the Australian people. What the Government is putting before the Australian people is a proposal for simultaneous elections. The same proposal was put to the Australian people in 1974 by Mr Whitlam, in 1977 by Mr Malcolm Fraser-I was about to say a Liberal Prime Minister but there are some doubts about that these days-and in 1984 by Mr Hawke. On every one of those occasions the Australian people rejected the proposal. Madam Acting Deputy President I ask you: Why is this Government wheeling up this proposal for simultaneous elections once again, it having been defeated by the Australian people on no less than three separate occasions within the last 14 years? Does it not suggest the desperate need which the Australian Labor Party feels to get this proposal for simultaneous elections passed? Of course it does and it is entirely in keeping with the views of Labor Party members and senators that it should do that. The whole purpose of this proposal is to muzzle the Senate to give the Prime Minister of the day the power to sack the Senate by simply obtaining from His Excellency a decision for an election of the House of Representatives which under this proposal would automatically send the Senate also to the polls. I do not need to spell out the intimidatory powers which that would give the Prime Minister of the day for people to understand the additional power which that places in his hands. The Prime Minister would get his way in this chamber in a way in which he was unable to do at the time of the Bill of Rights, unable to do at the time of the identity card debate, and unable to do on many other such occasions when this chamber has carried out this role as the people's chamber. This is quite contrary to the view being put from the Government side that the House of Representatives is the people's chamber. It is the Executive's chamber; it is the Minister's chamber. There was never a case when any Government backbencher got up in the House of Representatives and said boo to a proposal being brought forward there by the Government of day. That is no longer the people's chamber. This is the people's chamber today. Senator McKiernan —It has never been. Senator Aulich —You have got to be joking. Senator STONE —I ask Government senators who are interjecting to express their pride in the fact that it is. The Government's whole approach to this and indeed to all four questions has been one which I can only describe as calculated deceit. First of all we have had false and misleading descriptions certainly of three of the proposals before us. I might allow some validity to the recognition of the local government proposal but the other three are totally false descriptions. The first proposal which we are now debating is a proposed law: To alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. That is all it says. It says nothing at all about the simultaneity of elections except very indirectly. It says nothing at all about the other complexities of the Bill itself which will form part of the Constitution if this proposal were to be carried next Saturday which I devoutly hope it will not be. The other proposals are spelt out in language just as deceitful. Then we have had what I might call the crooked case being sent out to Australian electors with the Yes case printed in enormous typeface and the No case in extremely diminutive typeface. I can only say, because I do not have the time to spend on it here this afternoon without elaborating, that the Electoral Commissioner carries a heavy responsibility for allowing that document to go out to the electors of Australia and it will rebound against the Australian Labor Party that he has done so. Next we have had the so-called ticks and crosses rort where again, if I may say so, the Electoral Commissioner has played an interesting part-I use a low key description-in the procedures which apparently are to be still used in counting the votes following next Saturday. Many members of the Australian public, I think still to this day, are unaware that according to the instructions sent to the scrutineers by the Electoral Commissioner if people complete their ballot papers next Saturday, not by voting yes or no as they should, but by voting with ticks and crosses, four ticks will be counted as a valid vote; that will be interpreted as four yeses. A mixture of ticks and crosses will be counted as yeses and noes respectively, a valid vote, but if anybody should fill in his ballot paper with four crosses because he wants to vote, no, no, no, no-as I hope everyone will do-that vote will be counted as invalid, it will not be counted. What a travesty of an approach to electoral justice. I simply hope for the future of the constitutional debate in this country that they do not get any of these questions passed next Saturday but if any of them should be unfortunately passed I certainly hope that they do not get passed on the basis of the invalidation of a number of votes marked with four crosses. We have had the illegal advertisements rort under which the Attorney-General was authorising the expenditure of $3m of our taxpayers' money to put over a series of four separate television and other advertisements which, on challenge in the High Court of Australia, the High Court ruled two of them to be illegal and there was a good ground for thinking that if in fact we had been a little bolder and had sought to invalidate the other two as well they also would have been ruled illegal. What a travesty of the approach to fair and honest electoral or referendum procedures from this Government. We have had what I call the mushroom approach by Mr Lionel Bowen. The mushroom approach: keep them in the dark and feed them manure. That is what Mr Bowen has been doing with these proposals from the day when he first set out across this country. He has failed to tell the Australian people about them. Mr Bowen is still out there saying he does not want the politicians to be involved in this debate. He wants them to keep out of it. He said that it is just left to the people. How can one leave these things to the people when the Government is telling the people nothing. Senator Chaney —Except lies. Senator STONE —Except lies as the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has just quite truthfully interjected. We have had the untruthful statements in the Yes case. For example, we have had the statement that the first proposal, the one we are talking about, enjoys the general support of the business community. This very afternoon at Question Time the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, in response to my colleague Senator Alston, was unable to name a single business organisation which supports this proposal-not a single one. Of course we have also had the statement in the same document in relation to the Yes case, prepared by this Government, that this proposal if carried will lead to less frequent elections. The hole in this is simply demonstrated by Senator Robert Ray who, when we were debating these Bills as they were being guillotined through the Senate on 31 May 1988, said: . . . there is no guarantee that a government's term will run for four years if this proposal is carried in the electorate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —(Senator Bjelke-Petersen)-Order! Senator Stone, your time has expired. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.49) —There has been a lot of puff and wind spoken about this particular matter this afternoon. The constitutional question that is asked in this first referendum is quite clearly set out. It is a Bill for: An Act to alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. It is said that there have been illegal advertisements. What happened, of course, was that the advertisements were challenged, and two deletions were made which this Government accepted. It did accept the judgment of the High Court of Australia and did accept the umpire's decision. What is the position on the other side? One of the ways these referenda are attacked is to say that the High Court cannot be trusted with interpreting the fourth question; that is the one that gives the three rights. It was not the Government that attacked the High Court and said that it could not be trusted; it was the Opposition which brought that body into question. It is the Opposition which has brought the Electoral Commissioner into question, as has just been done. We are not the side in this debate which picks on traditional institutions which have served this country well over the years; it is the Opposition which has done that. Honourable senators opposite say that this is a House of review. As I look across the Senate chamber I notice in the Opposition former Ministers from past governments. How can this be called a House of review when Ministers sit in it, when the Ministry is responsible to this chamber and when Ministers can initiate legislation in it? It is not a House of review similar to the United States of America where Congress has only legislative powers and no executive powers. How can this chamber be called a House of review? The Opposition says that the Government attacks the Senate, and it says that the Government wants to defeat the proposition that the Senate should be a chamber which looks at and reviews legislation. The Senate can review legislation because there is a fine balance between the parties-the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats-and therefore there can be an independent mind. How did that independent mind come about in the Senate? It came about because in 1948 the then Australian Labor Party Government legislated for proportional representation and increased the size of the Senate from 36 to 60 senators. It is that proportional representation, that balance of the parties in the Senate, that makes it democratic-it is not the fact that it has two terms. When the Labor Party introduced that change it had a majority of senators. In fact, it had every senator apart from three. The Government, being in that position, with 33 of the 36 senators, it brought in the sort of change that has made this chamber a democratic institution. That is what has made the Senate a democratic institution-it is not as a result of anything done by the Opposition, whether in government or otherwise. Let us make it quite clear. Insofar as this is an effective chamber, it is because of what the Labor Party has done. It is an effective chamber because of the committee system. The great initiator of that system was Senator Lionel Murphy. It is the committee system and the fact that this chamber is evenly balanced that makes it a democratic place. Great play has been made of simultaneous elections, but the Constitution itself contemplates that there will be simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and for half the Senate. Over the years that has been mainly the case. Indeed, when the elections have been forced out of kilter Prime Ministers both of conservative and Labor persuasion have called elections to bring the two Houses back into kilter. So let us not have all this nonsense about objecting to simultaneous elections. The Constitution itself contemplates that there will be simultaneous elections. Of course, that was the position adopted by the Liberal and National Party coalition in 1988 when the then Attorney-General said: Under the existing provisions it is theoretically possible to keep the elections for the two Houses in phase by holding elections for the House of Representatives whenever half Senate elections are due. However, the exigencies of political life are such that synchronisation on this basis is difficult to maintain. On that basis the then Attorney-General introduced the reform which at that stage was supported by everyone. Referring to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill the then Attorney-General of the coalition Government said: It provides for half Senate elections to be brought into line with elections for the House of Representatives whenever those elections may occur. Apart from the benefits of public convenience and savings of expenditure the proposal will benefit the parliament. By ensuring that the people's will is reflected simultaneously in both Houses, it will provide a more satisfactory electoral basis upon which the Government of the country can proceed. It is so that, if elections are held at the same time for the House of Representatives and the Senate, the will of the people is reflected. We have heard much about the rights of the Senate and the rights of the States, but what about the rights of the people who, in 1977 the coalition supported simultaneous elections, as is illustrated by the words of its Attorney-General. It has now turned away from that position. It is said that similar Bills have been defeated in the past. Of course, one was supported at referendum by over 60 per cent of the Australian people but, ultimately, it was defeated because it was not supported by a majority of the States. That point was not made clear by the Opposition. Why do honourable senators opposite stand up and make the bald statement that similar referenda have been defeated by the people in the past when the clear evidence with respect to one referendum at least is that the people accepted it-indeed, it was endorsed by over 60 per cent of the people-but it was defeated because it was not supported by a majority of the States? Let us be quite clear about what has happened. The proposal is for reform-that is true-and it is a reform that has been accepted all around Australia other than in Queensland. The reform is for the House of Representatives to have four-year terms. Senator Stone said that the Constitutional Commission suggested a minimum term of three years. If we are to have a minimum term of three years, we must deny the Senate the right to deny money Bills. In other words, we must introduce changes to the Constitution to weaken the Senate to enable three-year terms to operate. Do honourable senators opposite want the Senate to be weakened? The only way that it can be suggested that the Senate is weakened under this proposal is that senators must face the people at the same time as members of the House of Representatives. What would have been the reaction from the other side if we had come into this Parliament as a government and said that we were going to reduce the power of the Senate by denying it the right to reject Supply? There would have been an unholy cry. So for Senator Stone to stand up and say that we have not followed the Constitutional Commission's suggestion is absolutely correct. However, we did not accept the Constitutional Commission's proposition because we respect the Senate and we respect its powers. The only argument put against a reduction in the term of office for senators from six years to four years is that the Prime Minister may call an election. How many times over the many decades since the Commonwealth of Australia was constituted in 1901 have there been early elections? In other words, what the Opposition is doing to oppose this proposal is to extrapolate from a long history some instances where a Prime Minister has called an early election and has said, `Look, that is what this Bill is all about'. Of course, the Prime Minister can go to the people. He will do so if he is ruling well and his Government is in favour. If that is the case and the Prime Minister wants the endorsement of the people with respect to what he or she is doing, why should he or she not have that endorsement? Support for that proposition comes from the fact that that is the constitutional convention in England which is where, ultimately, we derive our conventions. So, if it is good enough for England, why is it not good enough for Australia? It is almost absurd to say that a much needed reform-and everyone agrees that the House of Representatives ought to have a four-term term-a reform that has been carried out in every State, as I have said, except Queensland, should be rejected on the sole ground that the Senate must face the people every four years or every time that an election is called. It is correct that, if all 12 senators go to the people at the same time, it is more likely that the minority views in the community will be reflected in the Senate because it is quite clear that there are parties in this chamber which are not present in the House of Representatives as a result of the voting system set up by the Labor Party. It is not this side of the House that is rejecting the calls for democracy; it is the other side of the House, which wants to deny minority parties the ability to be represented in this chamber. It is not the Opposition on its own that has set up opposition to the various Bills, it is also the Australian Democrats who, may I say, have blackguarded others most unmercifully in respect of this proposition as well as many others. That is hardly a democratic approach to take. It is said that the Senate is a States House. That furphy has been met again and again. This House, as was foreseen by some of the founding fathers, is very much a party House, and Senator Aulich illustrated that most eloquently. If anybody on either side moves out of line then heavy punishment can follow. In that context of electoral reform, who has a better history around Australia than the Australian Labor Party? I have indicated that over the years it has been the Australian Labor Party that has introduced legislation to make this a proper House of review, in so far as it can be that, which has led to the balancing of the parties in the Senate. In state politics all the reforms that have been carried out around Australia have been carried out by the Australian Labor Party, with the exception of the South Australian electoral system, which was reformed by Steele Hall. Of course, the reaction of the Liberal Party to Steele Hall is well and truly documented. He was downgraded and has never been a Minister here. He is not in the shadow Ministry now-- Senator McKiernan —He never will now. Senator COONEY —And never will be, simply because he carried out electoral reform. He is the only Liberal that can be pointed to in the history of Australia as having introduced any electoral reform. Senator Maguire —They threatened his preselection. Senator COONEY —Yes. So it fits ill in the mouths of the Opposition to berate us about this much needed reform. Where were the screams and yells when the term of the House in which the government is formed in the States was increased to four years? I have not heard them take Margaret Thatcher to task. Thatcherism apparently has limited attraction for the Opposition. Margaret Thatcher is able to hold office for five years and there are no great yells and screams from the other side about that. Yet when the Government wants to introduce four-year terms, to bring us into line with every House in Australia other than in Queensland in which the government is formed, the Opposition opposes it. Senator Hill —We are talking about the Senate. Senator COONEY —Senator Hill asks about the Senate. If the House of Representatives moves to four-year terms, the Senate has to move to either four-year terms or eight-year terms. I think it is ridiculous that politicians should sit here for eight years without being subject to the will of the people, particularly when many Ministers come from this chamber and help form the government. Why does the Opposition want eight-year terms? Why do Opposition members want to sit on their seats over there for eight years? Why do they want to get their pensions in one term? Why do they want to capture a job for life and not face the people? What is wrong with facing the will of the people? What is wrong with the people of Australia having a constitutional right to say who their representatives will be? What is wrong with the people of Australia saying what they want in their government, which is formed not only in the House of Representatives but also in the Senate? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.04) —I apologise for not being here for the duration of the debate but there was a meeting of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which a number of us from both this chamber and the other place had to attend. However, I have heard Senator Cooney and he put in an appeal for the minority groups and for minority representation in this place. If I had my own self-interest at heart I would be voting yes for this proposition because what it would do, in effect, is reduce the quota from 14.2 per cent to 7.82 per cent. If I were self-interested I would vote for that proposal, but I am very strongly opposed to it because it will affect and alter and undermine the special characteristics of this chamber, this Senate, which is a House of review and not a rubber stamp for the government of the day. I have heard people quoting the Opposition when it was in government as saying what a great thing this would be. I must say to honourable senators that that is precisely the reason that the people of Australia should reject this proposal. This proposal does not guarantee four-year parliaments. We have heard arguments about sitting here for eight years. That is a nonsense. I have never voted to sit here for eight years. I am quite happy with the Constitution as it is, provided that each government that is elected goes its full term-that is, three years. That has happened only twice since Federation. Why do governments not go their full term? I think the people of Australia want to see a fixed term for Parliament, as is the case in the United States of America. Thus, of course, the executive government in the US cannot manipulate public opinion and then go to the people when it suits it. It has to go to the people when it suits the Constitution and when the Constitution says it may. The people are certain that a government will last its full term. This proposition is very deceptive. It would undermine the power of the Senate although, as has been said, there is no limitation to the power of the Senate to reject government legislation or to initiate Bills; the power is still there in the Constitution. Let me use the example of the identity card. The ID card was defeated because the Government had to go through the processes of section 57, which gave people time to wake up to what was going on. It was the people who really defeated the ID card. If the people had already voted yes to proposition No. 1 and if it were in the Constitution, we would have an ID card today. There is no doubt about that. At the time of the initial hysteria about the ID card the Government would have rammed the Bill through the House of Representatives, put it up here, it would have been rejected, and then it would have gone to the people immediately, without having to go through the section 57 constitutional requirement. As my time has almost expired, let me say to the people of Australia: this proposition is not a guarantee of a four-year parliament at all. The proposition could well be posed thus: Do you agree to abolishing the only fixed term in the Constitution, namely, that of the Senate, and do you agree to giving more power to the Prime Minister of the day to call early elections? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for the consideration of the matter of public importance has expired. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(5.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Australian Customs Service is a very important document. At the beginning of 1988 we saw the introduction of the harmonised tariff system, under which products that were not manufactured in Australia attracted a minimal 2 per cent tariff. However, along the line, the Government has made it difficult for importers of goods to get concessional orders for them should they not be available in Australia. It is one thing for the Customs Service to say that the goods can be manufactured in Australia; it is another to say that they are available in Australia. I will give the Senate three examples of areas where we have trouble. A local manufacturer of tractors, who has to import a number of components used in their manufacture, must pay duty on them. However, his competitor, who imports the whole machine, pays none. An importer of fire pumps for replacement on fire engines must pay a hefty duty on them because no local manufacturer is prepared to manufacture a one-off replacement, although they may have the capacity to do so. Another point, which concerns women in the home, is the hefty tariff on imported hobby tapestry and embroidery kits, there being only limited local production. Small flat electric motors are not available in Australia, yet hefty import duties have to be paid because motors of similar horsepower are available in Australia-although they are round, not flat. These four examples show the absurd situation that has been created by the introduction of the harmonised tariff system. The problems could be overcome by quicker concessional orders. It is difficult for small manufacturers, employers or anybody who wants to import a one-off part to have to go through all the manufacturers in Australia to find out whether it is available. Let me relate a personal experience. I wanted an odd part which was not available in Australia. There was a hefty duty on its import. I took the working drawing on it to an engineering shop and asked the engineers whether they could make it. They said, `You have to be joking. If you gave us an order for 1,000, we would consider making it. But you only want one, so you will have to import it'. So I had to import the part and pay the hefty duty on it, which I considered unnecessary because duty should not have been payable on such items. That must happen a thousand times every day. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.14) —In speaking to the annual report of the Australian Customs Service, firstly I would like to congratulate the Comptroller-General, Mr Tom Hayes, on being elected as Secretary-General designate of the Customs Co-operation Council, a post he is to take up on 1 January 1989. Mr Hayes has had his hand on the tiller of the Australian Customs Service at a time of rapid technological change and has been subject to severe fiscal restrictions. His task cannot have been easy. I would also like to congratulate the Comptroller on successfully persuading the Government to refer the Customs Act and other legislation to the Australian Law Reform Commission for comprehensive review. That was certainly long overdue. I would also like to thank the Australian Customs Service for the many briefings it has given me and to my staff during my term of office as shadow Minister responsible for this area. The introduction of the harmonised tariff, which was intended to simplify classification of imported goods for duty purposes, created many anomalies and a great deal of effort by the Opposition has been put into seeking to remedy these anomalies. The harmonised tariff was expected to be revenue neutral, but it is interesting to note that, despite reductions in tariffs, Customs collected more than $13,800m, or $13.8 billion in revenue-an increase of nearly 7 per cent on the previous year. The new anti-dumping legislation was successfully amended by the Opposition to meet the concerns of industry about response time, and the creation of an anti-dumping authority is yet to prove its worth. It was pleasing to note that the contraband enforcement teams to target high risk port and airport areas were introduced during the year and that the number and quality of seizures has risen, but there remains concern about the effectiveness of the Customs barrier operations, particularly on our northern coastline. This was evidenced by the recent discovery of jetsam containing huge quantities of compressed cannabis. The continued intrusion of Indonesian fishing vessels into northern Australian waters and the seizure of 15 such vessels indicates the size of the problem. The chance discovery of arms in a 12-tonne container of `used machinery' from North Yemen being transhipped to Fiji also indicates that adequate resources may not be directed to barrier control operations. The decision to transfer primary responsibility for northern surveillance to Customs does not appear to overcome many of the bureaucratic problems associated with the previous arrangements and the Opposition believes that the defence forces, with their sophisticated command and control arrangements and their assets, would be in the best position to undertake this task. The commercial tariff concession system appears to be another area in urgent need of reform. Complaints have been received from industry about the slowness and other difficulties in dealing with tariff concession orders and indications are that staff reductions were premature and have greatly added to the difficulties in reducing the harmonised tariff anomalies that I referred to earlier. It is noted that the report states that it is expected the customs tariff and excise legislation which we successfully deferred in November last year will be re-presented in this Budget session. It was deferred because the Opposition and Australian Democrats were very concerned about its draconian provisions. We determined that the Government should be given an opportunity for proper consultation with industry. Our indications are that proper consultation has not taken place. A team was sent out to discuss things with industry in this area, but in our view that team was unsuccessful in meeting the genuine concerns of industry. We look forward to that legislation to see whether the Government has turned its mind to the problems which were raised by industry when the legislation was introduced last November. This report is comprehensive. It is impossible to do more than touch on some of the problems in this important area, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(5.18) —I, too, would like to comment on the annual report of the Australian Customs Service. My association with the Customs Service goes back to my childhood. I have many acquaintances in the Customs Service, including an uncle, who was a collector of customs in Hobart. So I have always had a close affinity with the Customs Service. The report covers quite comprehensively all aspects of the operations of the Service. One aspect that concerned me somewhat was the report on the investigations into drug trafficking. The total amount of seizures in kilograms for 1987-88 of restricted drugs is quite impressive-737 seizures and a total of 4,174 kilograms. However, the page describing comparisons of drug seizures with previous years leads me, and, I presume, would lead the Government, to have some concern. In 1984-85 there were 168 seizures of heroin, 32.9 kilograms. In 1987-88 there were 74 seizures of heroin, 17.3 kilograms. One would be foolish to believe that the heroin trade diminished by half in that time. One would think, therefore, that the detection rate is not as it should be. With the other forbidden drugs, cocaine and cannabis, there is a similar story. The amount of cannabis seized in 1988 was similar to that seized in 1984-85, and almost half the amount of cocaine seized in 1984-85 was seized in 1988. So it seems that the detection rate is not what it should be: certainly it is not as good as it was in 1984-85. If we take out the two large hauls made in north Queensland and off Sydney, involving something like four tonnes of cannabis, there would probably have been a very diminished amount seized. I was a member of a very recent delegation to South East Asia. One of the things we did there was talk to the members of the Australian Federal Police there. Without exception, in both Singapore and Malaysia, they showed a lot of concern about the continued infiltration of drugs from the golden triangle. Our bipartisan delegation will be making a report to the Government. I am sure that in that report we will be strongly asking the Government to support the Federal Police in their work in those areas. We will be saying that we should be giving more backup to the one or two officers who are there: we seem to have only limited numbers of Federal Police in those areas. Having said that, I would also like to comment on something Senator Lewis talked about, the harmonising of tariffs. I refer to the effect of the harmonising of tariffs, particularly on our fashion garment manufacturing industry. I have taken this matter up with Senator Lewis and Senator Button on more than one occasion, but that does not seem to have come to anything. Woolgrowers would remember that something like $34m a year is spent on wool promotion. One of the major wool promotions has been the cool new wool promotion. It has taken something like five years to educate people into using cool new wool. The harmonising of tariffs has meant that tariff costs on those imports have gone from 2 per cent to 40 per cent, and we find today that fashion garment manufacturers are returning to synthetics rather than using the wool that we are trying to sell. So the harmonising is having a significant effect on our fashion industry. I hope the Government will look again at one of the anomalies caused by the so-called harmonising of tariffs. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.23) —I, too, would like to speak to the annual report 1987-88 of the Australian Customs Service. It is time the Government had a good look at the Service. Customs officials seem regularly to be under scrutiny for the industrial action they take. Frankly, it does not surprise me at all that they take such action. The pressures they work under are very considerable. Even the airlines cannot organise their incoming and outgoing arrangements better than they do. I have been at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport when four 747s have come in at the one time-and Customs officers are supposed to take all this in their stride. They are regularly under inquiry. It does not seem to matter at what stage we talk to Customs people, there is an inquiry about something going on-and very little ever happens. Customs has been chopped and changed around between various Ministers and ministries. There is a conflict of authority. At airports, for instance, there might be Australian Federal Police, State police, security services and Customs officers, all with a policing function. It is very difficult to know exactly what is happening as far as the authorities are concerned. We expect Customs officers to do more and more about the illicit drug trade yet we are not providing them with adequate facilities to do that. We know there are problems; they are raised in the report-such things as terrorism, unlawful immigration, unlawful traffic in arms and so on. All these issues are becoming more widely known around the world, but we are not giving enough support to Customs to cope with them. The appointment of Mr Hayes is excellent. We should give great credit for the fact that he has been appointed-it says a lot for the people in the Service. We ought to make the most of the fact that even though Customs officers in Australia are often criticised considerably, internationally they are very highly regarded. We also ought to regard them highly. The closer economic relations agreement will require special changes. The understandings that already exist between Australia and New Zealand in this customs area will have to be very carefully ironed out. Four issues are mentioned: the harmonising of customs policies between the two countries; the acceleration of the achievement of full free trade to 1990; the removal of export incentive and bounty payments on goods between the two countries; and the abolition of the anti-dumping provisions. None of those things will happen easily but it is up to the Government to make sure that they do happen, and happen efficiently. The efficiency of the operation is very important. We need to get more cooperation from the Government on these matters. The allocation of $13.8 billion also gives some idea of the importance of this organisation in the overall fiscal scheme of things. We need to take account of the fact that there are two separate functions: one is a revenue-raising operation and the other is a security operation. We ought to give Customs great credit for the way it carries them both out. I ask the Government to take this matter seriously and see that the Customs Service is not fiddled and fussed about in the way it has been in the past and to see it is provided with adequate resources to make sure it can do the two jobs we give it-one of the raising finance and policing those matters and the other concerning drugs, imports, tariffs and things of that nature. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.28) —I support Senator Archer's concerns about having an effective Australian Customs Service, but I am even more concerned about the fact that the Government seems to have set out on a course which is not bringing that about. It is ironic that in this report the Government claims: . . . a co-operative climate was maintained with unions- in the Customs Service. It goes on: The long standing consultative arrangements with major staff organisations were upgraded to the level of a National Consultative Council. It goes on: The consultation process on specific issues was facilitated by the ability to deal primarily through one union, the . . . ACOA. The clarification of the coverage issue between the ACOA and the Customs Officers' Association . . . has left the ACS in a good position to build on the communication structures and networks established with the ACOA. They are fine words but they are absolutely and totally meaningless in the context of the major strike that has been disrupting imports and arriving passengers in recent times. I am certain that no one needs reminding of the disruption that has been taking place, and which has received enormous publicity. What is interesting is that the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA), which the annual report of the Customs Service says is now wonderful, lovely and easy to get on with, contains the same people whom the Comptroller-General of Customs, Mr Hayes, has said have been bunging on a dispute not for industrial purposes but for another purpose. I quote from Mr Hayes's memo to Senator Button last week, in which Mr Hayes said: . . . the dispute was not about proposed staff cuts, but the union wanted to make a political point about Senator Walsh's general reductions of Public Service numbers. Quite frankly, if that is the situation, I think that the Government has to take, as Mr Hayes suggested, a strong hand. We must recognise that while it is true that there is an absolute need for a high level of efficient Customs Service activity, particularly in the areas of drugs and illegal imports, some of the works practices have not been in the best interests of the Australian taxpayer, nor, I believe, of the Customs Service. It is in everyone's best interests for the skills of these people-and they are highly skilled people-to be directed towards productive rewards. I saw a statement recently by Carole Palmer, the Assistant Director of Public Affairs for the Customs Service, to the effect that the ACOA should be more concerned about the work practices which leave many Customs officers with little or no work to do for long periods during a shift. If we are to save money in the Customs Service it would be much more sensible to get rid of the work practices than to have an arbitrary 5 per cent cut in staff. Ms Palmer stated: These periods of down time effectively mean the taxpayer is paying wages for Customs officers who are not fully employed for an entire shift. . . . down time at international airports cost the taxpayer a big part of the annual $26 million allocated to passenger processing. Officers in this area earned an average of $35,000, including penalty rates and overtime. By discarding unproductive and inefficient work practices, Customs expects to become even more effective in its law enforcement and revenue collection functions. I would much rather see a concentration on greater efficiency and greater use of these competent and effective officers than simply a mathematical 5 per cent cut which I understand that the Government is recommending and over which, I am told, the strike has been called. Nonetheless, if it is true that the ACOA is simply bunging on this strike to make a general point about a reduction in Public Service numbers, I believe that it is a muddle-headed and wrong strike. It underlines the fact that the wishful thinking in this annual report that the consultation process has made it easier to resolve problems clearly has not worked, and the Government, in this report, is quietly having itself on. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.33) —I wish to speak to that part of the Australian Customs Service annual report entitled `Barrier Control'. The definition of `barrier control' given in the `Objective' section is: To protect the community by maintaining the integrity of the Australian Customs Barrier against the importation or exportation of prohibited goods, particularly illicit narcotics, and the unlawful movement of cargo and people. Since the report was published the Customs Service has assumed wider responsibilities than it had at the time that the report was written. It now has been virtually tasked with the whole of the management of surveillance of Australia's northern approaches and has taken over the management of the functions of the Coastwatch and the littoral survey service. There is a very great, constant and continuing worry in northern Australia about the way in which this Government has left northern Australia wide open to entry by anyone. It was apparent in the 1970s that something needed to be done about it. The Liberal and National parties instituted the first of the surveillance schemes. They were experimental and developmental. They were progressively better year by year. But in the five years in which the Australian Labor Party has been in government, it has been downhill all the way. I will give two examples of that. In the 1970s 30,000 hours were flown by the littoral survey group. The figure is now down to 10,000 hours being flown by Coastwatch. The P3Cs of Nos 10 and 11 squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force, which patrol the Australian fishing zone, are flying only 700 hours this year. Last year they flew 1,220 hours and in 1985-86 they flew 1,450 hours, which represents over twice the effort that they are currently putting in. That has occurred in the short time span of three years. One can argue about effectivity and suitability of equipment, but at least it provided some deterrent factor, and that factor is no longer there. The principal deterrent to the present has been the Coastwatch system, which carries out purely a littoral survey, which is operated at predictable times along predictable tracks, over the beach, in daylight, using only eyeballs to find any intrusions-directed primarily towards quarantine breaches. I think that the Customs Service was quite successful, but it did its own thing in its own way in isolation from the other services. Of course, the defence forces-the Navy and the Air Force-also made some contribution. The system that is in place is a daylight system. There is no radar surveillance, so it cannot check aircraft flying in and out. It is entirely predictable and it has very low grade intelligence support. The Labor Party has decided to take away this role from the Australian Federal Police and give it to Customs. While I think that Customs has done quite well with the limited resources available to it, one must recognise that there are about 14 different Commonwealth departments involved, each with their own jealousies and priorities. Coordination is critically important to making it work. Quite bluntly, Customs does not have the muscle to make it work. We have been bedevilled by the `user pays' doctrine in this regard. One department, jealously, will not give any service to another department unless it charges it at the marginal rate. There is no prospect of Customs being able to make the system work any better than it has in the past. Senator Michael Baume said that there are manpower problems, which seem to be endemic under this Government with respect to departments. The Customs Service is on strike because it is overloaded, and there are no resources, no budget allocations, for increased capabilities to cope with these increased responsibilities. The situation is not quite as bad as that in the defence forces. About 44,000 men and women out of 70,000 have resigned from those forces in the five years since Labor came to government. But the proposals put forward for Customs to operate this service simply will not result in a better service. We must have a 24-hour capability in the north. We must have flexibility, good intelligence and good coordination. That is why the management of it, not the execution of it, in the eyes of the Opposition, should be with the Australian defence forces. Customs simply cannot cope with the situation at present. Even if the money were given to it, it would have to develop a whole new range of skills to provide the surveillance that we need in order to prevent illegal activities, such as those involved with the seven 44-gallon drums of cannabis which were apparently anchored on the reef and which became known about only when they were washed up, having been blown away by a storm. That sort of thing is quite intolerable. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.39) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I understand that I have but one minute before this debate will close. However, I will continue my remarks on Thursday. The report of the Law Reform Commission on Sentencing is an interesting report which has taken 10 years to arrive. Nevertheless, there have been some discussion papers along the road. It covers the important subjects of inconsistency in sentencing and the difference-often very substantial-between the term of imprisonment imposed by the court and the period which is actually served in prison by the offender before being paroled. This is very topical in my home State of South Australia. In particular it focuses attention on the vexed question as to whether imprisonment is in many circumstances the most appropriate penalty for particular offences. In fact, it concludes that in many circumstances imprisonment is not the most appropriate form of punishment, for a whole series of reasons. They might include the negative and destructive effect on the offender-recidivism is of no benefit to the community at large-and also simply the cost of imprisonment. We are reminded by this report that the Commonwealth pays, in recurrent costs alone, some $40,000 per year for each prisoner who is held in custody. So the report looks at alternatives. As that minute has now passed, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The time allowed for consideration of Government papers has expired. Assent reported. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On behalf of the President and for the information of honourable senators, I present to the Senate the judgment of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the validity and effect of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. The judgment upholds the validity of the Act and interprets it in accordance with its intended effect. Copies of the judgment are available from the Clerk. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received a letter advising him of Senator Haines's resignation from the Standing Committee on Procedure and the nomination of Senator McLean to replace Senator Haines on that Committee. Motion (by Senator Reynolds)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Haines be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Procedure and that Senator McLean be appointed a member of the Committee. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(5.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Mr President, this Bill will amend the capital gains tax and substantiation provisions of the income tax law and the fringe benefits tax law. Capital Gains Rollover Relief The Bill gives effect to the proposal announced on 28 January 1988 to extend relief from tax on capital gains to a number of kinds of business reorganisations, and to make a number of technical amendments to the existing rollover provisions. Generally the rollover amendments in this Bill will apply to reorganisations commencing after 28 January 1988. Interposition of a Company into an Existing Business Structure Rollover relief will be given where a resident company is interposed between an existing resident company and its shareholders who dispose of their shares in the existing company for non-redeemable shares in the interposed company. Crown Leases The Bill will allow rollover relief from 20 September 1985 where a crown lease of land is converted to freehold or to a lease in perpetuity, or is renewed, extended, reduced or expanded in size, subdivided or consolidated with another crown lease held by the taxpayer. The 28 January 1988 announcement indicated that rollover relief would be available where the land under the new lease was the same, or substantially the same, as that under the original lease. This Bill clarifies what is meant by substantially the same by broadly proposing that rollover relief be available to the extent to which land under a new lease or a freehold interest comprises land held under the original crown lease. A related amendment to apply from 20 September 1985 broadens the scope of the principal residence exemption to include a dwelling on land under a crown lease, regardless of the term of the lease. Rollover relief will also apply if the crown pays compensation to the lessee where a crown lease of land has expired and is not to be renewed and the lessee acquires a replacement asset. Renewal of Licences or Authorities Rollover relief will be extended from 20 September 1985 to the renewal or extension of a statutory licence, authority or permit. Prospecting and Mining Rights Specific rollover relief applicable to the mining industry will be widened from 20 September 1985 to include renewals, extensions, consolidations or splits of prospecting rights or mining rights and the relinquishment of part of an existing prospecting or mining right on the issue of a new right. Involuntary Disposals Rollover relief will be extended from 20 September 1985 where a government or government authority acquires an asset by voluntary agreement rather than under the compulsory acquisition processes. Also, a replacement for an asset acquired before 20 September 1985 will be taken to have been acquired before that date if its acquisition cost does not exceed 120 per cent of the market value of the original asset immediately before its loss or destruction. Transfer of Asset to Wholly Owned Company The Bill will extend the rollover relief available to a partnership that transfers assets to a wholly-owned company where one or more of the partners are trustees and the requirement that at least one of the partners be a natural person is to be removed. Public Trading Unit Trusts Rollover relief will be extended where the trustee of a public trading trust established before 20 September 1985 makes, as a result of a reorganisation, a proportionate distribution in specie to unitholders of shares acquired before that date. Generally, the amendment to extend relief in this way will apply to transfers of shares after 28 January 1988 and before 1 July 1988. Marriage Breakdown The scope of the present rollover for the transfer of assets on the breakdown of a marriage is to be extended to include a court-directed or court-sanctioned transfer between a company or a trust and one of the spouses. Unit Trusts/Companies Categories of rollover relief now available for certain transactions by companies are to be extended to comparable transactions by trustees of unit trusts. Relief will also be extended to splits or consolidations of company issued rights or options to acquire shares and to rights or options to acquire units in a unit trust. Transfer of Assets to Non-Resident Companies In the announcement of 28 January 1988, it was said that where a taxable Australian asset was transferred to a non-resident company in circumstances in which rollover relief was available, the asset would be taken to be a taxable Australian asset in the hands of the transferee and an asset received in consideration for the disposal would also be a taxable Australian asset. On further review it was found that a more satisfactory approach is to provide that rollover relief will be available only where the asset is in fact a taxable Australian asset of the transferee company, instead of treating the asset as a taxable Australian asset. To ensure that there is no element of retrospectivity in this approach, the limitation of the availability of rollover relief will apply only in respect of assets disposed of after today. Amendments to treat the transferred asset as a taxable Australian asset will apply in respect of assets disposed of after 28 January 1988 and on or before 25 May 1988. Mr President, the nature of these rollover amendments is such that a reliable estimate of the revenue effect cannot be made. Substantiation Rules The substantiation rules will be amended in a number of respects. Overseas Travel Expenses Employees in receipt of a reasonable travel allowance will, with effect from 1 July 1986, not have to substantiate claims, within that allowance, for expenses in respect of food, drink or other expenditure incidental to overseas travel. Travel diary requirements for members of the crew of an international flight will also be removed from the substantiation rules. Motor Vehicle Fuel and Oil Expenses The substantiation rules were amended in 1987 to allow fuel and oil expenses for cars to be verified by a record of total kilometres travelled during the year. From 1 July 1986 this Bill allows similar treatment for other vehicles such as motor cycles and small trucks. Car Hire Expenses Care hire expenses incurred after the start of the 1988-89 income year are not to be treated as car expenses for the purposes of the substantiation rules. Instead, they will be substantiated as employment-related expenses or, if the hire car is used for overseas travel or extended travel within Australia, as travel expenses. Reimbursements The Bill also makes it clear that reimbursements of fringe benefits tax are exempt from income tax. Fringe Benefits Tax Several refinements of fringe benefits tax rules, generally having effect from 1 July 1986, are also proposed. Employers meeting the reasonable food, drink or incidental expenses of overseas travel by their employees will be able to appropriately reduce the taxable value of the relevant fringe benefits without first obtaining documentary evidence of those expenses. To ease the paperwork burden on fringe benefits tax employers, the Bill provides that employers may specify certain information about car fringe benefits in records to be retained by them, rather than in fringe benefits tax returns. From the start of the 1989-90 fringe benefits tax year, car records will have to be in a form approved by the Commissioner of Taxation. The remote area holiday travel concession, under which employers pay fringe benefits tax on only one half of the taxable value of fringe benefits arising from reimbursing employees' holiday costs is to be extended to cover cases where the benefit is an allowance paid to an employee's spouse or children. Another change is the exemption from fringe benefits tax of the cost to employers of compassionate travel. Broadly, the exemption will apply where an employer meets the cost of an employee's travel to visit a seriously ill spouse or child or to attend a family funeral. It will also be made plain that an employee contribution to an employer's fringe benefits tax liability does not reduce the taxable value of the fringe benefits the employer provides. Other minor technical amendments are included in the Bill. The fringe benefits tax and substantiation measures in this Bill will have a negligible effect on revenue. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(5.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is an omnibus bill for legislation administered within the Primary Industries and Energy portfolio. Its introduction will facilitate the passage of amendments to existing legislation. The Bill contains minor typographical and administrative amendments to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, Dairy Produce Act 1986, Pig Industry Act 1986 and Rural Industries Research Act 1985; and repeals a redundant Act, the Dairy Industry Act 1967. These amendments will be self evident and are sufficiently explained in the Explanatory Memo- randum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to addressing the more significant changes which will be made by the Bill. Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979-Repeal Canned Fruits Levy Act 1979-Repeal Canned Fruits Levy Collection Act 1979-Repeal The Bill provides for the repeal of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 and two associated Acts, the Canned Fruits Levy Act 1979 and the Canned Fruits Levy Collection Act 1979. These amendments were foreshadowed in September 1987 in the announcement of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission Interim Report on Canned Fruit (Statutory Marketing and Interim Assistance Arrangements). Under the Canned Fruits Marketing Act, the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation is empowered to acquire canned deciduous fruit produced in those States where complementary State legislation exists and to market the acquired product in Australia and overseas. In addition, the Corporation operates a pooling scheme whereby returns from gazetted pool markets are equalised and an equalised return is paid to canners. The Government considers that the canned fruits statutory marketing arrangements have served their purpose of bringing about a degree of stability to the industry. However, the industry now needs to adjust further to changing market circumstances, and the repeal of the legislation will allow for necessary structural adjustment and encourage more innovation. In reaching its decision to wind up the Corporation, the Government has also taken into consideration the possible future relationship of the canned deciduous fruit industry to the Australian Horticultural Corporation, for which legislation has recently been passed. The Government believes that certain functions currently performed by the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation could be transferred to the Australian Horticultural Corporation either directly or on a fee for service basis. These are matters to be decided upon by the industry. Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977 The purpose of this amendment to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act is to make clear that shipping lines involved in the carriage of meat or livestock on behalf of licenced exporters do not themselves need to hold a meat or livestock export licence. Whilst this has always been the understanding and intention of the legislation, recent legal advice to the Government has indicated that the matter is not beyond doubt and that clarification is therefore desirable. The amendment maintains the status quo, and has the support of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Export Control Act 1982 The amendments will restrict `authorised officers' to persons appointed under section 20 of the Act, will put beyond doubt the power of an authorised officer to take photographs or video tape recordings as evidence of a breach of the Act, will permit the regulations to impose penalty for non-payment of fees and will clarify that the orders can impose penalty for the non-payment of fees but cannot impose penalty for offences against the orders. Fishing Industry Research and Development Act 1987 This amendment is to place beyond doubt the power of the Fishing Industry Research and Development Council to enter into arrangements with the Department of Primary Industries and Energy for the provision of, and payment for, clerical and administrative services. Meat Inspection Act 1983 The amendments will permit the regulations to impose penalty for non-payment of fees, will put beyond doubt the power of an authorised officer to take photographs or video tape recordings as evidence of a breach of the Act and will clarify that the orders can impose penalty for the non-payment of fees but cannot impose penalty for offences against the orders. Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981 The Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981 provides for a regime to allow exploration for, and exploitation of, minerals from the seabed. Administration of this regime will be shared between the States, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth in accordance with the Offshore Constitutional Settlement of 1979. Although passed in 1981, proclamation of the Act has been held up pending the passage by the States and the Northern Territory of complementary legislation which is necessary before a common regime covering offshore minerals activity can be established. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the current requirement that the States and the Northern Territory pass legislation to authorise their respective Ministers to carry out the day-to-day administration of offshore minerals activity under the Act. Instead the States and the Northern Territory will be able to authorise their Ministers by administrative action. The Commonwealth has received expressions of interest from companies seeking to explore the seabed for minerals beyond the three nautical mile territorial sea and the Government does not wish to unduly delay exploration pending the establishment of a common offshore minerals regime. The Commonwealth is therefore considering proclaiming only those portions of the Act as will be sufficient for a regime covering exploration. Once the complementary States and Northern Territory legislation has been enacted the Commonwealth will proclaim the remaining portions of the Act. Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 Subsections 3 (1) and 3 (7) will be amended to change ``public knowledge'' to ``common knowledge''. The concept of public knowledge requires only one person to know about the new variety whereas common knowledge infers that the variety is known within the trade, ie by experts in the field. This change is in line with the intent of the Act and will more closely reflect actual practice. Common knowledge is used in Plant Variety Rights legislation overseas and in the International Convention of the Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties. Australia will now conform with international practice. Section 46 of the Act will be amended to remunerate all part-time members of the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee equally. Under the current legislation only two of the six part-time members receive Remuneration Tribunal allowances and remuneration. The others only receive Senior Executive Service travel allowances. This is clearly an anomaly as the members all contribute equally to the working of the Committee and were appointed for their expertise and experience in areas specified by the Act. The extra cost involved will be $3,000 per annum which can be absorbed in the current appropriation. Wool Marketing Act 1987 Wool tax, paid by woolgrowers into the Market Support Fund, administered by the Australian Wool Corporation for the operation of the wool reserve price scheme, is refunded when market circumstances and the amount in the fund allow. The Bill provides for the Commissioner for Taxation to provide specific information to the Australian Wool Corporation to facilitate the payment of the refunds of wool tax to woolgrowers. These provisions effectively reinstate two paragraphs from the part dealing with refunds in the new repealed Wool Industry Act. It was the original intention that all the administrative procedures relating to refunds should be included in Wool Marketing Regulations. However, advice from the Attorney-General's Department was that delegated legislation could not confer powers over another Commonwealth body. Accordingly these provisions are to be reinstated in the Wool Marketing Act, with the concurrence of the Treasurer. Wool is expected to be Australia's major export income earner in 1987-88. To preserve the market dominance of Australian wool and its competitiveness relative to other fibres, everything possible must be done to ensure that wool sold for export meets the quality requirements of buyers. The Australian Wool Corporation has powers under Section 74 of the Wool Marketing Act 1987 relating to quality assurance. These provide for the Corporation to prevent the sale, at export auction, of wool which does not meet industry standards. This includes wool which contains unacceptable levels of pesticide residue and wool which has not been classed by a registered wool classer. These powers are limited to the sale of wool at export auctions and do not cover the 20 per cent of the wool clip which is sold outside the auction system. They are also inconsistent with the Corporation's power under section 63 to formulate and secure the adoption of industry standards and terms for the sale of wool at auction or otherwise. Therefore, the amendments will bring the Corporation's powers under both Sections of the Act into line and enable it to prevent the sale of wool contaminated with pesticide residues, for export, by private sale as well as through the auction system. These powers are necessary to ensure that the international reputation of Australian wool is maintained. Attorney-General's Department has advised that the present penalty provisions of the Wool Marketing Act and Wool Marketing Regulations are ineffective with respect to the prosecution of corporations. Accordingly the corporate knowledge provisions to the Bill, based on those of Section 84 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, have been developed to enable successful prosecution of corporations. Section 127 of the Wool Marketing Act provides for regulations to be made in relation to registration of wool test houses, but not for their inspection. The lack of any legislative authority to inspect test houses, for the purpose of registration or to ensure compliance with approved procedures, could jeopardise the confidence of buyers in the integrity of Australian wool testing and description, with adverse effects on our wool export trade. A regulation-making power providing for inspection of wool test houses will therefore be inserted in section 127 of the Act. I commend the Bill to the honourable senators and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) proposed: That Government Business notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Richardson, relating to the introduction of a Bill to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, be postponed until the next day of sitting. Senator Puplick-Why? Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.45) —The shadow Minister, Senator Puplick, who is responsible for this legislation, is raising a query as to why the introduction of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill is being postponed. It was my understanding that it was to be, but perhaps the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) could explain. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(5.46) —I understand that it is the wish of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) that the introduction of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill be postponed until the next day of sitting. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.47) —I just make the point that there are certain courtesies which should be observed. I believe that when I am advised by a Minister that a Bill for which I have responsibility is to be introduced, as shadow Minister I should be advised when it is not the intention of the Government to proceed on a particular day with the introduction of that Bill. It would facilitate the passage of business in the chamber if certain courtesies were observed in terms of informing the responsible frontbenchers on this side of the Senate of that sort of decision. Senator Reynolds —I will pass on Senator Puplick's comments to the Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(5.48) —Last week, when the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill was adjourned, I was expressing concern about many areas of the Government's handling of industrial relations during its term of office. Not the least of those concerns was the Government's being controlled by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and, added to that, the bullying tactics used by union officials to make many people who do not necessarily wish to be members part of a union. I was also saying that, given the choice, the majority of those people would prefer not to be in a union. There is a difference between the public propaganda of the ACTU as to how popular unions are and the quoting of statistics to their own members. I think that real distinction needs to be drawn because it becomes very clear that a great many Australians do not want to belong to a union; yet, as I have said, they are being bullied into it by the pressures of de facto compulsion in many industries. It must also concern the ACTU that, in all industries, total unionisation of private enterprise stands at 35 per cent compared with 71 per cent of the public payroll. Especially significant is the fact that, by occupation, 44 per cent of trades people in the private sector are unionised compared with 82 per cent in the public sector; for clerks, the respective proportions between private and public sectors are 21 per cent and 61 per cent unionisation; and, for labourers and other unskilled workers, 45 per cent and 74 per cent. To shore up the power of unions, clause 122 of this Bill continues to enshrine the powers of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to grant preference to unionists and that is of great concern to me. I state unequivocally at this juncture that a Liberal Government will legislate to remove this power in accordance with our objective of ensuring that no Australian is required to join, or remain in, a union against his or her will. Surely that is what we are all about-true and total freedom of choice. Neither will we allow union dues to be collected by employers without the specific request of the individual employee. In so doing, we will be responding to the wishes of the 83 per cent of Australians who totally reject compulsory unionism-a figure from September 1986 that included 76 per cent of trade unionists themselves. So the trade unionists are of that belief, contrary to what the ACTU is constantly telling us. We will also be in accord with the 78 per cent of Australians who believe that unions have too much power. We have seen the unions flex their muscles over recent years and, again, bully and harass employers. Employers, after all, are the ones who are providing the jobs, but that seems to matter not to the union movement. That is where the Liberal policy for a future Liberal government is particularly pertinent. The trade union officials have done very well out of this Labor Government. In return for $1.14m in recorded donations to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) between 1984 and 1987, unions have received a total of $5.8m in various Federal Government grants-that is not a bad return on $1.14m-not including the cost of running union elections or those of the Trade Union Training Authority. Clearly, these handouts of taxpayers' funds are not enough. The ACTU is demanding the implementation of at least some of its own agenda. That is where the flexing of its muscles comes in time and again. That is where we see the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) time and again, also, ensuring that he consults Mr Crean, the other Prime Minister of this country, to ensure that Mr Crean agrees with whatever he does. Much of this agenda was set out last year in the document Australia Reconstructed. If Australia were to be run along the lines of this document, it should be named `Australia Deconstructed'. It is a document in which it is proposed that all restrictions to union amalgamations be removed so that the 326 unions in Australia be rationalised to 20. Just imagine the muscle they would have then. No further organisations would be registered unless they were the result of amalgamations. That is a very dangerous position; it is a very dangerous proposition that the ACTU is demanding. This quest for bigness, eliminating many smaller and more moderate unions, can be achieved only through the further curtailment of the right to freedom of association. This Bill takes major steps to fulfil the ACTU proposal and in doing so tramples several articles of the International Labour Organisation's convention regarding freedom of association. No one in this Government can honestly say, if they really believe in freedom of association, that they go along with what has been happening in the past. Article 2 of that convention, for example, gives workers the unfettered right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing `without previous authorisation'. This right is definitely circumscribed by clause 189, which will not allow the registration, except in what are described as `special circumstances', of any new union that has less than 3,000 members that is not industry based and that may impinge upon any union `to which members of the association might conveniently belong'. The whole thrust of this legislation will be to force many Australians to remain members of organisations whose methods and political stance may be absolutely and utterly repugnant to them, or who simply do not represent their general industrial interests. But that seems not to matter in the slightest. As long as they are members, that is fine. Existing unions will be freed from the threat of a rival union seeking to represent their members. For example, it would be impossible for moderates who had lost confidence in a radical union, tightly controlled by its leaders, to establish an alternative body-once again, removing the freedom of choice or freedom of association. Can any honourable senator who claims to uphold the principle of freedom of association deprive Australians of that specific right? Surely, that is what Australia is all about. It is one of the great freedoms we have enjoyed for time immemorial, yet it is something that is being put at risk. Whether or not we would concede that guaranteed industrial harmony is worth the sacrifice of any individual right, the fact is that that heavy-handed prohibition of new unions, and the pressures of amalgamations, cannot promise freedom from demarcation disputes and industrial strife generally. It is a very large price to pay. It is a price that we should not be considering paying for one moment. In Japan, for example, industrial peace is not threatened by a large number of small unions. Nor should it be inferred that demarcation disputes are likely to be caused by small as opposed to larger unions. The record of recent demarcation disputes is otherwise very small. The Liberal Party believes that our industrial system would be better served by the substitution of unions based on enterprise rather than on occupation as the only effective means of preventing demarcation disputes. We must ensure that that is prevented, because enterprise-based unions are a very different matter from the creation of a small number of massive union structures that are the objective of both this Government and the ACTU. The formation of enterprise-based unions in accordance with the wishes of the employees concerned may well require secession from existing unions as well as amalgamations. It is obvious that this Government is carrying out the wishes of the ACTU to ensure that the current political stance of Australia's major unions is not threatened by the rise of any alternative bodies. Avoidance of demarcation disputes is the cloak for this real motivation. That is where we have to look at the bottom of this whole thing. What is the real motivation? The Government, in framing this Bill, has not worried at all about International Labour Organisation convention article 4, which states that neither employers' nor workers' organisations shall be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. Under clause 193, small unions of fewer than 3,000 members will, after three years, be deregistered by the Commission unless `special circumstances' allow them to continue `in the public interest'. This threatens to close down half of the 148 federally registered unions as noted by the Minister, by what can only be described as administrative action. I state clearly and unequivocally that the Liberal Party is not against unions. It is very much in favour of the moderate unions that seek to do the best possible job for their members, but we do not see that this Bill, by amalgamation, will achieve any of those objectives. The proposals are far harsher than interference with their freedom of association than was proposed even in the 1987 Bill that was rather selectively or judiciously removed prior to the last election because it was seen to be too hot to handle. That bill provided for the deregistration of unions of less than 1,000 members after five years. It should be added that clause 261, ordering unions to admit as members anyone applying and eligible for membership unless of `general bad character', is also a restriction on freedom of association. How outrageous! Until there is genuine voluntary unionism in Australian industrial relations, unions will be subjected to this kind of governmental interference ad nauseam. I do not think this country can afford that for one moment. Nor ought we to forget that while the rights of small unions which may well be doing an effective job in representing their members' interests are disregarded by this Government, the ACTU, on whose behest these changes are being made, is not itself a registered trade union. This Bill is all about industrial politics, not effective industrial relations or the rights of workers. Industrial relations politics are very obvious in clause 128 which allows the full bench of the Commission to restrain a State industrial authority from dealing with a dispute. The ACTU is, I think, smarting over the action of the Queensland Government in recent years to protect its citizens from the blackmail of certain unions and wishes, therefore, to reduce the authority of the States in industrial matters. That is a great tragedy. It was obvious a few years ago that the Queensland Government had the courage to do what its citizens wished and it was admired by many Australians throughout Australia for having that courage. It is therefore highly doubtful that this clause will do anything positive to protect Australians from irresponsible union action, and it may indeed have the reverse effect. The Liberal Party equally does not regard as positive the extension of the power of the Commission by clause 124 to consider claims for strike pay in those instances where employees had `reasonable concern', in the words of the Minister, for health and safety. We saw what happened on this very building site in the new Parliament House and remember some of the concerns that people had. Frankly, I believe that many people should have had more concern about what was not going on in the construction of this building at times than about what was going on. It will be likely that health and safety aspects will be found in what are nothing more than applications for strike pay. We saw that once again during the construction of this building. There is nothing to be gained in enabling the Commission to ratify what are simply destructive industrial fixes. I recall being told about one strike that was held on this site for health reasons. One of the toilets was out of toilet paper. A strike took place over that. The Liberal Party stands firm on the principle that payment and acceptance of strike pay should be an offence, that industrial action to obtain strike pay should be prohibited, that those causing loss by such action should be liable for damages, and that such action should be grounds for union deregistration. I think that is a responsible proposal. Altogether there is a very real difference between the approach of this Government/ACTU-it is one and the same-and that of the coalition to industrial relations reform. The coalition's stress will be on the voluntary principle which the so-called industrial relations club finds totally inconvenient but which the Australian people find totally convenient. While we believe in enterprise-based unions, we believed that union structures must be determined by the wishes of membership expressed through secret ballots. If we are to continue with an arbitration commission, the Opposition realises that it must have recourse to effective sanctions to ensure compliance with its directives and appropriate penalties-matters which the Government in this legislation fails to tackle. It goes nowhere near even looking at those matters. Such compliance provisions are complementary to the proven sanction of the civil courts and of the Trade Practices Act against secondary boycotts. A future coalition government will allow the Federal Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to bring proceedings under this Act to further industrial relations justice. Unlike the Opposition, this Government steadfastly refuses to learn the positive lessons of industrial developments in Britain, where union structures and general problems are not dissimilar to our own in Australia. The present British Government promised to deliver ordinary citizens from the tyranny of arbitrary union power, and to a large degree they have done so in a very short period of time. An essential feature of change has been the prohibition of secondary boycotts and the increasing subjection of trade unions to civil law. Enforcement of the rule of law means that the consequences of holding the community to ransom can become prohibitively expensive for unions that break the law in so doing. The breaking down of the closed shop has brought immense benefit not only to these workers no longer compulsorily dragooned into union membership but also to those who do belong to those unions that have adapted to new realities. The electricians and the engineers, who make up Britain's second and fourth largest unions, have adopted a firm policy of providing maximum service to their members, and of taking industrial stances in the interests of members. This has involved making no-strike deals with employers to the financial benefit of the workers concerned. It is part of a process where union leaders put the interests of their workers ahead of any policy adopted by the British version of the ACTU, the Trades Union Congress. This Labor Government, however, has failed dismally to grasp the truth that the interests of Australian workers, inside and outside trade unions, are not the same as the interests of the ACTU. The interests of the ACTU are totally different from the aims and objectives of many of their members. This legislation perpetuates these weaknesses and injustices that exist in the current industrial relations system, and its initiatives constitute a further assault on freedom of association in seeking to build super unions, as desired by the ACTU. The proposal for super unions must be resisted at all levels. I know that once the people of Australia become more and more aware of the ACTU proposals they will resist the notion put forward in the document Australia Reconstructed. Australia needs industrial reform that will enforce the umpire's decision and the rule of law. That gives scope for agreements between individual employers and their employees; it promotes voluntary unionism; and it gives scope for enterprise-based unions. As a member of the coalition industrial relations committee, I am pleased that we have given all due consideration to all aspects of the importance of the responsible areas of the trade union movement and the important role of employers to ensure that there is a real possibility of total harmony between the two, but also remembering the rights and freedoms of the individual. It is clear that it is up to the Opposition to deliver these reforms, and that the ALP and this Government dare not and will not do so. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales)(6.08) —In this my first speech in the new Parliament House, on our fourth sitting day here, I wish to support the Government's Industrial Relations Bill. However, I assure honourable senators that this will not be my last speech in this place. The Bill before us represents the conclusion of a process that was set in train soon after the Australian Labor Party's election to government in 1983. In commissioning the Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, the Government recognised the broad concerns about the present functioning of the industrial conciliation and arbitration system. In recent times we have seen attacks on the functions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. One regrets the extent to which that system has been denigrated by those who believe that its function is not in the best interests of the Australian community. The Government's concerns were varied and the solutions put forward following the report of that Committee were often completely opposed to the system as it presently functions. There was a strong mood for change, however, among unions, employers, the general public, and indeed the Government. The mood for change had much to do with the approach of the previous Liberal-National Party Government to industrial relations. The wages freeze, the ad hoc approach to amending the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, anti-worker legislation, such as the Commonwealth Employees (Retirement and Redeployment) Act and the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, restrictions on union amalgamations and interference in union affairs were some of the hallmarks of the years of conservative government. It was pleasing to note in the debates that took place in the old Parliament House in the last year or so how even Opposition members were prepared to concede that perhaps they had been too conservative in respect of union amalgamations. It is no surprise that the anti-union, pro-capital industrial relations stand of the previous coalition Government led to a serious decline in industrial relations, in national productivity and, as a natural corollary of that, in the country's economic performance. The bad industrial relations environment and the callous `inflation first' and `jobs last' policies pursued by Messrs Howard and Fraser, coupled with an increase of nearly 200,000 in the unemployment queue in 1982-83, led to a change in political attitudes and the election of a Labor government. The emergence therefore of a new, reinvigorated government with strong union support, based on the prices and incomes accord, heralded a new era in relations between workers, business and government. I want to pay public tribute to those union officials who put together the prices and incomes accord and particularly to those members of the Left in the trade union movement who initiated and gave strength and leadership to establishing a much better working relationship between government, unions and the private sector. In seeking to institute cooperation instead of confrontation this Government acted swiftly to appoint a committee of review, a move which was welcomed by all of the parties concerned. It was chaired by Professor Hancock and reported in the middle of 1985 and then spent two years conducting widespread negotiations and consultations with interested parties. The outcome of this was the Industrial Relations Bill of 1987. History now records that the Bill never progressed beyond the Minister's second reading speech because, after all the consultation and the research over a period of nearly four years, employer organisations would not wear the compliance provisions of the Bill. I will return to a discussion of the compliance provisions later. The Bill now before the Senate resulted from another year of extensive consultation between unions, business and government. That consultation underlines the strength of the Bill and must surely be one of the most comprehensive and exhaustive since Federation. The 1980 Bill is different in a number of ways from last year's Bill. I wish to outline the strengths and some of the weaknesses of the present Bill with references where appropriate to the changes from the 1987 proposals. At the outset the Senate should take note of the fact that this Bill is the first update of the 1904 Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Consequently, upon the passage of the associated legislation, I have confidence that that will be the situation in the Senate. This historical Act will be repealed. One has to draw attention to the fact that the conservative parties had 39 years in the post-war period to bring about a more modern industrial relations Bill but failed to do so as indeed they did in respect of the legislation which I was proud to be associated with, the repatriation Bill of 1987. Since 1904 the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has been amended so many times that in many areas it has become unworkable. Largely this has been as a result of attacks on the system by conservative governments over those periods. In the dying days of the McMahon Government I told the Senate the following and I quote from my speech recorded on 25 May 1972: . . . in the period of 22 1/2 years that this Government has unfortunately been running the affairs of this country it has passed 185 Acts or amendments relating to trade unions. Since federation and the establishment of the early legislation, it has been amended 52 times. Of that number, 23 amendments were associated with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. As I mentioned earlier, in 1975-1983 conservative government continued in the same fine amending tradition as its predecessors in the pre-Whitlam era. It is ironic that the senators opposite, as they follow the speeches made by their counterparts in the House of Representatives, continually complain, whinge and whine about the unions' alleged contempt for the rule of law. To the contrary it has been successive conservative governments which have amended, appended, enacted and repealed legislation to hamper the legitimate role of the unions in representing their members, both inside and outside the arbitration system. It is not to be repudiated in this legislation that it is essential now for the Parliament to pass legislation to strengthen the role of the trade unions, not in some capricious way, but to counter the immensely strengthened role that private capital plays in the development of our country. We have seen the great mergers and amalgamations taking place in recent years and that very strength of capital reflects itself in political power. It is essential therefore that the trade union movement that represents the organised working class people who work for their salary and wage have sufficient resources and strength to play a fair part in the relationship between labour and capital. This Government has sorted out the mishmash that existed when we came into office and for that the Minister, Mr Willis, deserves our applause and support. Of course, there are a number of additions to the consolidated Bill. Amalgamation of trade unions has been made much easier. There are 148 federally registered unions in Australia and of these the smallest 72-almost half of them-cover only 2.9 per cent of the total membership. One wonders what sort of a strange registration system we have. For example, from my personal knowledge we have a shop assistants union but we find an association of pharmacy employees gaining registration. Obviously these people are performing the same function of dealing with customers. One can give many other instances of the small unions which have been established and which have a very slight variance with a Federal or State registered union. Altogether there are about 300 different unions in Australia and this contrasts most unfavourably with countries like Sweden and West Germany. I know that the Opposition will talk about Japan but there is no magical number of unions that one can accept. One has to have regard to the historical conditions and positions that labour and capital play in the development of a modern society. I pay tribute at least to some members of the Opposition parties in the House of Representatives who acknowledge that there are too many unions. It is very difficult for the employers and for business organisations to negotiate with too many unions that are at the workshop or factory level. There is a need for a reduction in the numbers and hence an increase in the size of unions in this country. This is recognised by most unions and by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). This is also recognised by this Government and for some reason that could only be associated with a bias on behalf of the Opposition, it seems to believe that if there is some arrangement, some understanding and some agreement between the ACTU and a government that that is a very negative situation. Of course that is absurd. There has to be an arrangement and an agreement between the peak organisations representing the workers' of government and of the employers. This Government makes no secret of the fact that it supports that particular approach. The reduction in the number of unions will substantially reduce the bureaucracy of the conciliation and arbitration processes and will allow industry based discussions between business and the unions to proceed on a much more efficient basis. Larger unions will be able to provide a better service for members without increasing membership dues. We will have a stronger hand in the bargaining processes and the bargaining processes can only succeed on the basis of a superior argument and evidence that will be produced either in private negotiations with the employer or through the conciliation and arbitration system. Another change from the existing Act involves the efficient encouragement of workplace dispute settlement. Clauses 91 and 92 of the Bill recognise the positive role of the procedures in defining a process which can often resolve a dispute without the Commission's involvement. The Commission is to be seen as a last resort. We will still encourage the agreements between employers and employees and that is recognised by this Government. The great underlying philosophy of this Bill is that the Industrial Relations Commission should avoid involving itself in disputes where employers and employees can settle them themselves. Where the Commission does get involved it should be by way of conciliation rather than arbitration. I find it somewhat strange, although I suppose one should not be surprised but nevertheless can be dismayed, that we see that the linchpin of the Opposition's attitude to industrial relations is to rely upon voluntary agreements between the employer who is in a much more superior position and the employees who are in a much more inferior position, particularly in the smaller establishments, in isolated areas, and in those areas and agencies where they are few in number and are disorganised. To rely on that process is quite inadequate in today's modern industrial world. It is a disgrace that employers insisted that the new compliance provisions, as included in the 1987 Bill, be dropped. At the centre of the employers' objections was that a common law injunction could no longer be sought, and that before an action around the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act could be availed of there had to be a process of conciliation. Rather than accepting that there are legitimate reasons for industrial action by workers, the employer organisations fought strongly to keep open the avenue to the courts as a first resort. If any process has had a negative and alienating effect on unions and dispute resolution in this country, it has been the rigid, complex, impersonal and strictly formalised process of the common law courts. One would hope that there will be some change in attitude because that is what finally must be recognised and applied when we deal with industrial relations. Despite all the employer objections about lack of sanctions, the original legislation had vested power in a labour court to issue directive and injunctive remedies and to impose penalties. Presumably employers felt that there was something to fear about that process. In my view and that of the Government a labour court would have greater expertise in industrial matters, and it seems to me that it would involve more than a contract in the relationship of employer to employee. The Bill before us also contains provision for greater coordination between the Federal and State industrial tribunals. Senators are aware of the complex situation that exists with respect to responsibilities in this area, based on interpretations of section 51 (xxxv) of the Constitution. This Federal-State division has made the system of industrial relations much more bureaucratic and complex than it should be. Many of the requirements flowing from this division of responsibility in the Commonwealth and State industrial jurisdictions are absurd in that we see people perform the same functions but nevertheless have different awards and a different approach depending on their geographic position. The provisions of this Bill pave the way for the appointment of joint Federal and State commissioners and they formalise consultations between the States and the Commonwealth. Therefore, they are to be welcomed. These provisions allow for a streamlining of the tribunal process without exceeding the bounds of the industrial relations power. I now wish to discuss some areas of the Bill which cause me concern. My concerns relate to long-term trends for the union movement. It is a matter of fact that the level of unionisation in Australia is on track for long-term decline. The explosion of anti-union employment practices such as casual work, outwork and contracting out and a sustained anti-union propaganda campaign over a number of years has led to a decline in the number of workers unionised in our country. For the first time in memory the officially recorded worker unionisation rate has fallen below 50 per cent; and among young workers it is even less and, in fact, I believe that it is about one-third. It seems that the conservative elements within our society have had some deal of success in spreading the myth of union power. If unions had real power, real wages would not have fallen year after year; unemployment would not stand as high as 7 per cent; investment would not be at such low levels; and the social wage aspects of the prices and incomes accord would be much nearer to fulfilment. I find it difficult therefore, when one is dealing with subjects as sensitive as this, that the Opposition brings forward matters of public importance on the decline in living standards. Of course, there has been some decline and that is acknowledged. However, it arises out of the arrangements and agreements that have been reached between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is Liberal and National Party policy to criticise this Government when that process brings about a reduction in actual living standards. However, that is seen by government as an essential part of the process to reinvigorate Australian economy. Of course, if that had not occurred we would have a fairer society, albeit one that certain vested interests would prefer not to contemplate. As the ranks of organised labour thin out at this time, the fight for a better deal for workers falls on fewer and fewer shoulders. To that extent the trade union movement needs to have both human and financial resources and the strength that will come about as a result of union amalgamations. Many of the disputes that take place in the manufacturing sector of our economy arise because of the craft nature of our industrial development since the colony of Australia achieved some form of self-government more than 150 years ago. It is essential that unions have the power to put a case before the industrial court if negotiations with employers are unsuccessful. The unions should have sufficient resources and strength to present their viewpoint and to represent workers, particularly those in the lower wage brackets. The principle of wage productivity has long been a tenet of Australian industrial relations. No worker is happy or prepared to watch fellow workers bound ahead in the income stakes. There is no doubt that the very rationale behind the national wage case is to ensure a broad and even approach to wage fixation. That is why the Government supports the current processes, which serve the worker, the employer and the economy. Yet many workers are not prepared to take action to achieve some improvement in their living standards. Is it any wonder then that those workers who lose pay in order to fight for industrial gains feel betrayed and are often angered by fellow workers who refuse to act but who benefit equally through wage relativity? Of course, that is what the centralised wage system does. It provides a degree of uniformity for those who lack the understanding, the ability and the resources to act in concert with other workers who are better organised, better researched and better able to exert some strength in their consultations with the employer or through the industrial relations processes. These emotions of betrayal are felt not only in the work force. I remind the Senate of my personal experience in the company that I worked for prior to becoming involved in World War II. There were something like 70 women working in a clothing industrial enterprise. In those days those young women were not members of a union. They sought to have annual leave recognised. Under my award I was able to have a fortnight's annual leave, but the employer was not prepared to grant female employees the right to have an annual holiday. So every Christmas eve the female employees were sacked and then re-employed on 2 or 3 January following a 10-day break. It was not until they were unionised when a Labor government came into office that a fortnight's annual leave became part of the award of that organisation. So one cannot rely purely on the voluntary arrangement between employees and the employer, and I refer to the period just following the Great Depression. What strength did those 70 women have against the employer who was not prepared to negotiate on the right of other employees to receive a benefit workers in my union received. So there is a need for workers to appreciate unity and cooperation because only through that process can they realise the objective of improving their living standards. Therefore, it is disappointing to see that the provisions regarding conscientious objection and protection of non-members' interests are still maintained. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) speaking without limitation of time when speaking to the motion that the Senate take note of Budget Statement and Papers 1988-89. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.01) —The Senate is about to debate the Government's Budget brought down last week. Already it seems semi-forgotten in the light of other events which have drawn greater attention. It is important that over the course of this session, with respect to both the Budget and the other opportunities that will be provided in the Appropriation Bills, the Senate focus on the economic situation of Australia and on the failure of the Government to come to grips with some important elements which do require attention in 1988. There are three fundamental things that I want to say tonight about the Budget. The first is that it is a high risk Budget, that it sets a course which does not take into account the risks Australia faces, that it is a Budget which leaves Australia exposed in various circumstances, and I will expand on that a little later. The second thing, which probably does not need lengthy addressing because it is evident to every taxpayer, is that it is a high tax Budget. That is related to the high risk element because what is needed in Australia at the moment is not merely tax relief for personal reasons but tax relief in terms of encouraging people both to work and to invest. One of the serious deficiencies in this Budget is that it continues a succession of high taxing Budgets. It continues a record level of taxation in this country, and that is not in Australia's current interest. The third matter I wish to raise with respect to the Budget is that it is socially unfair. It is possible for the Government to point to measures in the Budget which go to the relief of poverty and hardship. The Opposition in no way joins issue with or complains about those relatively small changes that have been made which will give assistance to some less fortunate Australians. What is socially unfair about this Budget is that it provides absolutely no fairness or justice for middle Australia. In particular, it provides no fairness or justice for those Australians on moderate incomes who meet their responsibilities and who are looking after dependants. Later in my speech I will address that matter in more detail. At this stage I simply wish to say that we have heard a lot of talk in this country about the terms of trade. We have heard a lot of talk about the fact that the terms of trade moved against Australia in 1985 and 1986. We have heard much less talk from the Government about the terms of trade moving back in favour of Australia in 1987 and 1988. The fundamental thing that can be said about the position of Australian families under this Government is that the terms of trade have certainly moved against the family. The conditions of families have deteriorated under this Government because the tax system has moved against those who meet their responsibilities to their dependants. With respect to the risk element, if I may return to the first point, let me remind the Senate that in 1986 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) told us that we were at risk of becoming a banana republic. He was moved to that comment I believe because of the balance of payments crisis which Australia faced at that time. There were various other indicators that things were seriously wrong but, fundamentally, Australians were deeply concerned because month by month we saw incredibly bad trade figures and month by month those figures caused the dollar to decline. In 1986 there was a deep understanding in the Australian community that the economy was in significant difficulties. We have had a great deal of self-congratulation from the Treasurer over the last few months, and indeed from all of the Ministers and supporters of this Government. Yet if one looks at the fundamentals and at the continuing deficit on our balance of payments, which the Government predicts might be something in the order of $10 billion this year, one sees that the improvement relates not to improvements in the volume of goods and services we are selling when compared with what we import but to the improvements in the terms of trade Mr Keating was so keen to talk about until they improved and went in Australia's favour. The improvement in our balance of payments situation is not an improvement that can be sheeted home to improvements in our fundamental situation. It relates to improvements in the prices we are getting for what we sell abroad. That is fortuitous from Australia's point of view. It has to do with the condition of the world economy and the demand for what we produce. It is totally beyond Australia's control. To have a steady as you go Budget, a take it easy on reform Budget, which this Budget certainly is, in those circumstances is extremely foolish and is playing games with Australia's future. It is important to note that last year the physical volume of goods and services we exported deteriorated against our imports. That is why within days of the Budget we received a report from the Reserve Bank of Australia which made it quite clear that we remain in a situation of risk. The report makes it clear that there are some hopeful signs in the outlook, but let me quote a couple of passages. The Reserve Bank said: The higher prices- I interpolate that that is the higher prices we are getting for our commodities- should be regarded as a windfall which provides the opportunity to reduce markedly the balance of payments deficit. It would be tragic if they were absorbed in an overly rapid increase in domestic demand, with the pressures that would unleash, or if we were deflected from the long-term task of adjusting the structure of the economy. Again I interpolate that the first leg of my criticism of this Budget squarely lies within those words I have just quoted. The Government has been deflected from the long term task of adjusting the structure of the economy. A little later in the report the Reserve Bank stated: . . . it is disappointing in that context that Australia's high economic growth in the year just closed largely reflected strong domestic demand with no further gains in volume terms in net exports. Again, this is a vital point. We have a situation where our net exports position has not improved. The gain simply lies in the improvement in the prices we are getting for our commodities. Finally, the Reserve Bank said: International competitiveness is vital. For this, further reductions in the rate of price increases, to levels more consistent with those of our competitors and trading partners, are essential. Whilst the link between prices and wages is well recognised, greater productivity offers opportunities for both real wage increases and lower costs. It is quite clear that the working men and women want real wage increases. Indeed, we would say they are entitled to real wage increases. But those real wage increases cannot be delivered by a Budget or by some stroke of the pen of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Real wage increases can come only if there is an increase in productivity, as the Reserve Bank observes and in this Budget, of course, we find recorded the fact that productivity in this country is stagnant. The reality is that, year by year, our productivity is simply not rising in a way that enables us to solve these fundamental problems. The latest figures from the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) show Australian productivity is rising at about half the rate of the OECD countries. For the Opposition there is something of a dilemma in criticising the Budget on these terms because it can be said that one is being pessimistic and looking for reasons for gloom. Yet if we go back to last Friday, a matter of a few days after the Budget is delivered, we hear the British Chancellor of the Exchequer on Australian radio recording yet another rise in British interest rates because of a great blow-out in the balance of payments deficit. On the very same day we find that Paul Keating has done it again-he is the fastest working Treasurer Australia has ever known. On Friday we find that he has managed to get two months of our annual deficit crammed into one month. In other words, in July the deficit figure announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics was about twice as high as the monthly average that we require if we are to meet the Budget prediction. The response from the Government has been careful. After all, it is one month's figures, although if we look at the last six months' figures a disturbingly high pattern appears to be emerging. Senator Walsh, who is said to have expressed concern before the Budget about the terms of trade forecast in the Papers, has said that he is shocked by the $1.7 billion trade deficit for July. He described the nation's foreign debt and current account deficit as the pall that hangs over the Australian economy. It was a matter of days before we had at least some warning signs about the variability of the international economy with rising interest rates in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the fragility of our own situation, with a lowered volume of exports compared with imports and a $1.7 billion deficit on our current account in month one. What ought this Budget be trying to achieve if we want long term solutions? The Government should be going for reduced inflation. It should be watching the link between prices and wages and the risk for Australia that the Government has now embraced-a wage fixing arrangement which will deliver wage rises and, of course, inflation twice as high as those of our trading partners. They are the sober realities that this Budget is delivering to the Australian people. The Government should be concentrating on greater productivity. There is little or nothing in this Budget which goes to that end. In the view of the Opposition these should be the key areas for the Government's attention. If we are to meet the social requirements of the Australian people, if we are to stop the squeeze on people's incomes from rising taxes and inflation, we have to do something about this issue of productivity. The Government must give it attention. What we said about the Budget in 1986, the year of the banana republic, still applies. I have noticed in the Senate an increasing tendency for honourable senators to quote their own speeches. I have found it so engaging that I am going to quote one of my own, my response to the Budget Speech in 1986. I said: Clearly, what has to be done, what is needed at the moment, is that we have to overcome our fundamental problem of buying more than we can sell. That really is the basic problem that Australia has . . . So the questions have to be posed: What can the Government do about that, what can we do about that and how do we reverse that situation? We have no choice but to produce our way out of our difficulties, to produce more and to produce more efficiently. This Budget does nothing to achieve that. In the two years since I said that, Australia has had an appalling lack of productivity improvement. Again that is a mark of failure and a mark of why we still have fundamental problems. Instead, the Government has taken fright at its election losses. This Government has now suffered a series of debilitating losses at by-elections. We have seen losses in South Australia. We have seen losses in Queensland. We saw the loss of the New South Wales State Government election. We saw massive swings away from Labor in my State of Western Australia. The lack of action on the part of the Government can, I think, be attributed to its loss of nerve. It has adopted the approach that it can gamble on taxing rather than axing, that is, by increasing taxes instead of reducing government expenditure. It is gambling that it can hold back tax cuts to the pre-election Budget next year. It has failed to do what it could have done, which was to arrange a wage tax trade-off this year. That last point is of deep concern to the Australian people. There is an enormous pressure for increased wages in this country. That pressure flows quite naturally from the reduced living standards of those people who are paying a higher proportion of their income in tax-I will come to those figures shortly-and the very high rates of inflation in this country. Under those circumstances it is not surprising that the people of Australia are demanding wage increases. What the Government has done, however, is, for its own electoral advantage, put off tax relief, put off any idea of a wage-tax trade-off-in other words, offering people more money in their pockets by reduced taxes instead of increased wages-because it wants to give some of that tax money back just before the election. In the view of the Opposition, that is economically unsound and certainly totally irresponsible. The Government says that it would have been economically unsound to give tax reductions this year because it would have increased consumption and forced up imports. That is the sort of economic argument the Government is using-that it would be irresponsible to give tax cuts now. Yet, at the same time, it is, by allowing taxes to remain as high as they are, fostering a situation where wage rises in this country will be anywhere between 6 1/2 per cent and 8 per cent, perhaps even 9 per cent. In those circumstances the Government is losing a great deal economically, in terms of both increased inflation and increased demand until inflation catches up with those money wage increases. To argue that it would be irresponsible to negotiate a lower level of wage rises in return for a tax trade-off is obviously absurd. The Government is allowing workers to get hold of extra money which will be destructive in two ways. It will be destructive because it will be inflationary as far as workers' purchases are concerned and it will be destructive because it will reduce our international competitiveness. What is happening-it needs to be said over and over again-is that earnings in our competitor countries are growing half as fast as those in Australia, yet the workers in our competitor countries are better off because they are getting real wage rises, and not the fictitious wage rises that are delivered in inflation-ridden Australia. The area which has been most substantially omitted from the Government's reform program is the labour market. I have already touched on the issue of wages. It is important to remember that just a few months ago Mr Keating was saying that what was fundamentally required was labour market reform. He described it on 26 May as the last great area of change to be overcome. He said that 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. That was targeted by the Treasurer, on the day of Mr Howard's response to the May mini-Budget, as the critical area for reform. What we have in this Budget is virtually no reference to that critical area of reform, an anodyne booklet issued by Mr Willis, the Minister for Industrial Relations, and an embracing by the Government of a continuation of a system which is simply not delivering the sort of flexibility that the Treasurer says we need. We will be debating this in much more detail in the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill, which is currently before the Senate. The simple illustration of the lack of consistency on the part of the Government with respect to that is the fact that that Bill specifically provides that as far as possible wages and conditions should be uniform across an industry. In other words, specific provisions in that Bill go against the flexibility which is required. We believe that the changes which are currently occurring in the wage fixing system, if anything, have been a step backwards. The second tier wage negotiations last year at least required people to focus within the work place on productivity improvements to pay for wage rises. But now the Commission has moved to requiring no more than an argeement for people simply to look at award restructuring. Certainly the Commission is doing its best to focus people's attention on the need to find more efficient ways to work. If we look at the first agreement that has been approved by the Arbitration Commission we find the union saying, `There is no agreement set in place, there is no trade-off. We agreed to take a genuine look at the prospects for improvements in the industry and to sit down with employers'. Specifically the representative of the Australian Glass Workers Union said, `There has to be no agreement set in place, there is no trade-off'. In other words, wage rises are flowing through now without any requirement that there be any offsetting improvement in the efficiency of the firms involved. That is in stark contrast to what the Commission sought to achieve last year in the second tier wage negotiations. It is going to require a herculean effort by employers to ensure that these negotiations do take place and that there are some productivity gains. The reality is that the system which is now in place has little guarantee of change-indeed, no guarantee of change-in this vital area of how we work more efficiently. In the Budget Papers we find the comment, `There are many such mullock heaps on the Australian landscape which could produce rich rewards from a careful combing'. The mullock heaps that the Budget Papers are referring to are the restrictive work practices which bedevil Australian industry. The Government's Budget Papers acknowledge that we have heaps of inefficiencies which currently are not being tackled. The sad reality about the industrial relations system, which is receiving the full support of this Government and is being amended in a way which will make it even more centralised is, as I pointed out the other day in the debate on the industrial relations legislation, that it actually stops people working together efficiently. There are circumstances of the sort I outlined in your State of Queensland, Madam Acting Deputy President, where agreements between an employer and employees on more efficient ways of working were obstructed by the Commission and the employer was told that he could not talk to his employees directly; that he had to involve the trade union. It is the implementation or maintenance of that sort of inefficiency in our economy that lies at the heart of the failure of this Budget. The other areas which go to making the economy more efficient and go to our capacity to respond to the world situation when the terms of trade turn against us, as inevitably they will at some time, areas in which we could increase efficiency to enable us to give Australians better working conditions, higher wages and improved standards of living, are privatisation and those areas of the economy where there is little or no competition. Again, this is not the time to make a speech about privatisation, but I remind honourable senators of how, after the 1987 election, Ministers from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) down were acknowledging that privatisation provided an avenue for real efficiency gains in the economy. We know that purely for ideological reasons, the ambitions and efforts of Ministers such as the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) to see some effective privatisation to enable greater competitiveness and greater efficiency in the economy and a greater capacity to improve the living standards of Australians, have been thwarted. There is no mention in this Budget of the means which could be adopted by the Government to get greater efficiency in many areas of the economy. Indeed, we have seen from this Government clear evidence that in terms of protecting vested trade union interests, it is prepared to attack even proposals for reform. Let us look at Senator Ray's response to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report on coastal shipping-that is a classic area of the economy. The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), who is at the table, is from Tasmania, a State which is dependent upon coastal shipping as its lifeline. He, more than anyone, should know of the gross inefficiencies of Australian coastal shipping, identified by the IAC as costing Australian consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a year-a classic case of Australian inefficiency in circumstances where there is featherbedding which flows from undue protection from competition. The response from the Minister was to put the report down. It was not to say, `Here is an area were we can set about improving the living standards of Australians and the efficiency of the economy'. Instead, he protected the vested interests which had been protected for so long, instead of protecting the public interest and the interests of consumers. Let me now turn to what this Budget really means for the people of Australia, people who, in increasing numbers, are no longer voting for this Government. Let me explain the attitudes which are arising because of the figures I am about to give, figures affecting the position of families in this country. A few months ago there was a State Parliament by-election in the seat of Balga in Western Australia, a seat which had been held by Premier Burke-a classic Labor seat with an enormous Australian Labor Party majority. It is an electorate consisting almost totally of State housing commission areas-Homeswest areas-with a great number of welfare people and a great number of people working on relatively modest incomes. The matters I want to talk about affect the sorts of decent, hard-working, honest Australians who are trying to meet their obligations and bring up their families under the circumstances imposed on them by the present Government. I was talking to a fellow handing out Liberal Party how to vote cards. He told me that he had been a Labor supporter. He explained to me why he was handing out Liberal how to vote cards and why he was no longer a Labor supporter. He explained that he could not pay his bills. He said, `I have to try to find part time work because I can no longer pay my bills with the pay I get from my job'. The swing against Labor in that seat was 23 per cent. I do not know whether that is a record but it says very clearly how those people feel about the treatment that has been meted out to them. I put it in those terms because I sometimes think that this Government will listen only if the matter is put in those terms. Let me now put the problem in more general terms. The simple reality, when we look at the situation of an average earner with a dependent spouse, is that when the Fraser Government lost office, the average earner was paying an average tax rate of 17 and a bit cents-somewhere around 17 1/2c in each dollar of income. Senator McKiernan —If they were working. How many were unemployed? Senator CHANEY —I do not mind interjections from the honourable senator from Western Australia because he is one of the people who have led the Labor Party down the path of deserting its constituency. If he is proud of it, that is fine, and I do not mind his interjecting. Let him identify himself. But the truth is that in that short period of Labor rule from 1983 to 1988, the average tax rate has gone from about 17 1/2c in the dollar to something over 22, nearly 23, cents in the dollar-and it is continuing to rise. Those people have been told that they cannot have tax relief-although business got a 10c reduction in tax from 1 July-for another 12 months. The increase in pay as you earn tax under this Government is 13.8 per cent, or something just under 14 per cent. The total increase in taxation caused by no more than fiscal drag, the amount that people's taxes have gone up because of inflation since the Government last gave a tax cut, will be $10 billion by the time of the next Budget. In other words by the next Budget, which is the Budget until which this Government has postponed tax relief, it will have taken another $10 billion from the working men and women of Australia, purely through the inflationary rises in their wages. That rise gives them nothing in terms of increased living standards and is taken as a higher proportion of their wages. That is the reality facing people. What has this Government done about this matter? It has provided further assistance for families on the bottom quarter or so of the income scale. I welcome that. But it has done nothing in the last five Budgets for the 75 per cent of working families-nothing. So we have a record of five years of neglect which has seen, as I said before, the terms of trade move against families with dependants. Let me give some specific examples. We tend to think of people on low incomes as the sorts of people who are getting assistance from the Government's family assistance supplement. Let us look at the people referred to in the weekend edition of the Catholic Leader. They are what we would call middle income, even higher than middle income, earners who are feeling the squeeze drastically under this Government. A senior technical officer with Telecom Australia is getting something around $600 a week. That is a little over $30,000 a year. He is paid monthly. He said: `In the last week of every month we wonder if we are going to make it through. We are penalised because we choose to have my wife at home caring for our family'. A draftsman with a consulting engineers firm is supporting a wife and three children on about $500 a week and is barely surviving. These people talk of the need for tax relief because they cannot pay their bills. They are finding that their lives are very difficult. Yet these are the people who have seen their family allowance, which was to give them some relief from their taxation burden, reduced by over 40 per cent in value under the Hawke Government. I suppose that these people are the `fatbacks', the people who are not worthy of consideration by a Labor government. These people, in my view, represent the heartland of this country. I am not suggesting that those who are poor, unemployed and on very low incomes should not get assistance. As a Minister in the Fraser Government I introduced the family income supplement which forms the basis of the Government's family assistance arrangements. We are not arguing about that. What we are saying is that there are hundreds of thousands of decent Australian families on modest incomes who have been squeezed more and more under the policies of this Government. That is a disgrace. The fact that they are being kept waiting for tax relief for another 12 months-for 12 months after this Government was able to reduce the company tax rate from 49c to 39c in the dollar-tells one something about the changes in this Labor Government. I believe that it is absolutely true that having a sound economy is the fundamental contribution that government must make in its caring for the Australian people. I agree with Senator McKiernan's interjection that the Government is entitled to express its satisfaction and to say that the welfare of many Australian families has been improved by the growth in employment under this Government. I think that is a legitimate and appropriate point to make. But the truth also is that this Government's priorities have become political, and the political priorities of this Government have overtaken its duty and obligations to middle Australians. The fact is that those middle Australians are among those who are demanding wage increases of their unions. Who can blame them? It is within the capacity of this Government, this year instead of next year, to do a wage-tax deal which would give those people financial relief without adding to the nation's costs, without adding to inflation. Suggesting that that would be economically responsible demonstrates that the Government is not prepared to do its sums in a global fashion. The cynicism of Paul Keating, the cynicism of Bob Hawke, the cynicism of all of those senators opposite who have supported this approach to those middle Australians must be exposed and talked about. It will bring the electoral contempt that was shown for the Australian Labor Party in that Balga by-election, when people from Labor's heartland changed their vote-many after a lifetime of commitment-because they saw that they had been treated with absolute cynicism. I find it offensive that matters relating to family justice are regarded as welfare matters. The health of Australian families is not a welfare matter; it is a matter of common sense and a matter of seeing that there is some justice. I am sick of the proposition that anyone who is earning a decent salary is well off. I remind the Senate that there are enormous discrepancies in the disposable incomes of individual Australians, not just according to their incomes but according to the degree of family responsibilities that they maintain. Senator Harradine —The bachelors are well off. Senator CHANEY —I acknowledge the interjection from Senator Harradine that bachelors are well off; so are many single people. But let me not put that in general terms. I remind the Senate of the research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies which shows that a one-income family with two children requires an income of approximately $42,900 in order to have the same disposable income as a single male on average yearly earnings of $24,000. The same study shows that a family with a dependent spouse and three children requires an income of $51,000 to have the same disposable income as a solitary earner with no dependants on average weekly earnings. Yet this Government has taken away the entitlement of many of those families to family allowance, on the basis that they are well off. The Government is denying tax justice to those families. It is not denying them welfare; it is denying them tax justice. I remind the Senate that in our approach to the people of Australia at the last election, as was the case in the previous election, our tax policy contained specific concessions aimed at those families with dependants. The matter has been raised in the Senate before, I raise it again, and I stress it in this Senate debate because I think the Labor Party has forgotten the reality of Australia. The revulsion which people feel about the association of senior Labor politicians with wealthy businessmen is not because Australians do not understand that it is important to have close understanding and rapport between business and the government of the day. Of course there must be communication. But this Government, by its actions, has demonstrated that it has remembered business and forgotten its constituency. I find that revolting, and I object to it. I believe that if this Government had any spark of decency it would not have framed the Budget in the way that it has. I return to the economics of the Budget. Our concern is that it will do virtually nothing to improve productivity, competitiveness or our ability to stand independently in a rapidly changing world. From an individual's point of view, the bottom line is that it offers little opportunity for sustainable increases in living standards. The Government is taxing more; it is encouraging a welfare mentality; it is ignoring real reform in the labour market; it is sweeping privatisation under the carpet; it is steering a course around strong, privileged union interests; and it is undermining the process of individual enterprise and improvement. I think it goes without saying that the Government must be praying for a stable world outlook because it is doing nothing to ensure that we can respond to sudden adverse conditions. It has implicitly acknowledged this by admitting that if things go wrong, monetary policy-that is, higher interest rates for the men and women of Australia-will be used immediately. In other words, other major policy instruments, fiscal and wages policy, will not be flexible enough to cope. All I can say is that we have not come very far since the 1985 depreciation. The Opposition's approach combines economic responsibility with the opportunity for higher living standards by freeing up those elements of the economy which can and would produce more. It combines greater individual freedom and responsibility with greater rewards and choice. The only solution that we have to our ongoing economic problems is to be more productive and to earn more. There is no magic solution to be given by government, but hope for the future could be offered in a Budget. The Government's strategy is about balancing the books by draining the most productive elements of the economy. I believe that, socially and economically, it is a dead end. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.39) —I can recall back in 1981-82, when this process was being undertaken in the old Parliament House, listening to speeches somewhat similar to the one made by Senator Chaney just now, delivered instead by people like Senator Don Grimes and Senator Walsh and directed then at Government Ministers such as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Chaney himself. We heard complaints in 1981-82 that the then Liberal Government was paying far too much attention to the demands of big business and far too little to the needs of Australian families and to the plight in which the Australian taxpayer was finding himself or herself. The Budget that we are discussing tonight is the last in a long line of Labor Government Budgets that indicates quite clearly that there are two classes of groups in Australia-businesses and families. There are two classes of people in Australia, if this Budget package is any indication-business people and ordinary Australians. One is favoured by the tax system under this Government; one is not. The favoured group and the favoured people are businesses and those who run them, in particular big businesses and those who run them. There is little joy in this Budget, as in previous Budgets, for the owners of small businesses. The less favoured group is the Australian family and the less favoured people are ordinary wage and salary earners. Anyone with any doubt about this need only look at the Government's priorities in this Budget, as with previous Budgets, to see just to what extent ordinary Australians are suffering from the damage done to our economy by some big businesses as the Government uses the surpluses to pay off the foreign debt run up, in the main, by those big businesses. This Budget does nothing for families, for ordinary Australians, or for small business. It does nothing to stop the foreign debt increasing while, at the same time, we see the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Government patting themselves on the back because they are able to use the tax paid by average weekly income earners to pay off that debt. This Budget is for big business, for banks, both foreign and domestic, and for beer drinkers. It does nothing to increase the disposable income of women and their families and it does nothing to increase their standard of living. It is a Budget that sounds good on the surface; certainly it has pleased the Treasurer and, I presume, the rest of his front bench-or rather the front bench of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), if we are to believe that he is still in control of that front bench. Underneath the rhetoric of the Treasurer, this Budget is a con trick. The top rate of business tax was dropped a few months ago to 39c in the dollar. This was done despite the fact that when the top tax rate for business was 49c in the dollar the average tax paid by the top 200 companies in Australia was a mere 28c in the dollar. Despite that, the Government felt able to drop the top business rate-the only business rate-from 49c to 39c. Indeed, almost at the same time that the Treasurer was announcing that the country could not afford to drop the marginal tax rate for individuals, Alan Bond was announcing that his company had posted a profit of nearly $400m on which $4m would be paid in tax-a tax rate of one per cent, a little over 1c in the dollar, to be paid on a profit of almost $400m-and this when most individuals and families in this country are paying, on average, at least 20 times that amount. What is worse, those families will be hit hard as far as household expenditure is concerned. We discover in Budget Paper No. 1, the section devoted to wholesale sales tax, that the Government's priorities with regard to the income tax structure are repeated. Under the heading `Anomalies and Inconsistencies' the Government has applied the following: Tax at 20% goods of a kind used to wrap up or secure goods for marketing or delivery . . . and wrapping materials marketed for household use . . . So we are seeing the ordinary cling wrap, or Gladwrap, that most women use to preserve food to make it go a little further, taxed at 20 per cent. Also taxed at 20 per cent are prepackaged coffee, chocolate and malt flavoured milk drinks with less than 95 per cent milk content. Bad luck about the fact that these are sometimes used by mothers to encourage recalcitrant children to drink the milk that we are told is so good for them. Taxed at 10 per cent are containers used by retailers in marketing biscuits, snack foods and ice creams made on their premises, containers used by retailers in marketing take- away food or beverages, muesli bars and similar health food bars, thick shake mixes and those ice cream mixes previously exempt. The disposable income of most families will be cut back considerably by these sorts of additional taxes. The woman who runs the household budget, whether she stays at home or whether she is working as well, will find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet, because I can pretty much guarantee that the cut in the cost of beer for her husband will not be passed on to her in additional disposable income. Instead, the cost of everything from Gladwrap to the kids' takeaway treat each week will be increased. Mind you, at the same time there were some sales tax reductions and I think we need to acknowledge those. But again, they apply not to those people in need or to Australian families but to Australian business. So we now find that all aircraft, except gliders, are sales tax exempt. Food we tax, wheelchairs we tax; private aeroplanes we do not tax. What an extraordinary set of priorities! Senator Coulter —Put wings on wheelchairs. Senator HAINES —One of my colleagues has suggested that we should put wings on wheelchairs. Maybe that is the only way we will get the sales tax removed from that item. Year after year my colleague from Queensland, Senator Michael Macklin, has been attempting to amend the sales tax exemptions and classifications legislation to have the sales tax dropped from wheelchairs. What do we see in the 1988-89 Budget? A government that finds itself ideologically and financially capable of removing the sales tax from private planes but not able to remove the sales tax from something as basic to the needs of a disabled person as a wheelchair. As far as low income families and the needy generally are concerned, I think the Press release that was put out by the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission probably says it all. In the letter that accompanied the Press release the National Director, Reverend Caldwell, said: While the Commission is very much in favour of the Government's policy to help the most needy through the Family Allowance Supplement, it is concerned that this assistance goes to less than 10% of families. Reverend Caldwell expanded on this in the Press release: Unfortunately, Family Allowance Supplement goes to less than 10 per cent of families, some 140,000 out of 2 million, and tends to discourage self-sufficiency by those families because it is income-tested. Reverend Caldwell went on: The Federal Government's Budget does not return to most families what has been taken from them since 1983 and earlier. I think that point is worth stressing. A lot of what has apparently been returned by way of largess to low income families in this Budget is nothing more than a partial recoupment of assistance that was taken away from them in previous Budgets-taken away from them, I might add, with the cooperation of the Liberal and National parties, which refused to amend or oppose any of those pieces of legislation that hit hard at widows, at children, at supporting parents and at 15-year-olds in their last two years of school. The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission's Press release goes on to point out: Families are being discriminated against in the tax system, because tax allowances for expenses for dependants have been abolished or eroded by inflation. Yet tax deductions that encourage our businesses to play monopoly with companies inside Australia and increase our foreign debt by negative gearing continue to exist. As a result, our gross foreign debt-that is, the amount that our various governments, public enterprises and the private sector have borrowed from overseas-has risen from $6 billion in 1975 to $67 billion in 1985 and was $115 billion at the end of the last financial year. To keep the banks lending to us, the Government pursues an economic strategy that maintains the bankers' confidence. Bankers would like to see Australia increasing its foreign currency earnings through increased exports-and would not we all! If that happened we could stop borrowing to pay for previous borrowings. However, this Government has been either unable or unwilling to achieve a substantial increase in exports or a reduction in imports. It has done very little to encourage the manufacturing sector to increase its export potential or its import replacement potential. It will not be able to encourage the manufacturing sector to do that while it continues to cut assistance to export industries. If we look again at Budget Paper No. 1, we find that there has been a significant cut, a little over 3 per cent, amounting to almost $70m, in industry assistance and development outlays. The Treasurer admits to this quite cheerfully saying that apart from the outlays he mentioned earlier in the section headed `Industry Assistance in Development' `considerable assistance is also provided to industry through special provisions in the taxation system which, as they result in a reduction of Government revenues, are as much a call on the Budget as are outlays'. He then goes on to say: Outlays on industry assistance and development are expected to decrease by $69.5m or 3.2% in 1988-89. That is a great way of encouraging and assisting Australian-based industries to get their act together sufficiently to increase our export markets and to come up with import replacement items that will assist our balance of trade figures. Instead of doing all this the Government has elected to attempt to placate bankers by reducing expenditure in areas such as welfare-and, like Senator Chaney, I resent the fact that money paid to Australian families is regarded as welfare-by reducing wages in real terms, by deregulating the financial system and by producing big Budget surpluses. In doing so it has forced average and low income Australians to bear the brunt of reducing our foreign debt. It has done all of those things under pressure from a big business sector, including the big banks and the rest of the financial sector that, as I said earlier, are contributing far less than ordinary wage and salary earners to Consolidated Revenue. Fiscal drag, bracket creep, or whatever else anybody wants to call it, has meant that ordinary Australians and their families have contributed to the surplus through an unfair tax system and a reduction in their real disposal income. If we analyse the composition of our foreign debt we can see an alternative course of action if the Government is prepared to take it. Currently, 54 per cent of our foreign debt is due to private sector borrowing. While I accept that that is down from the 66 per cent that it was a couple of years ago, we still need to acknowledge that the majority of our foreign debt is being run up not by governments or the public sector but by the private sector. Foreign borrowing is one way in which the largest private companies can reduce their tax liabilities to as little as the one per cent that the Bond Corporation will pay this year. Had Mr Keating chosen to disallow the practice of Australian companies borrowing overseas and then claiming the cost of borrowing as a tax deduction, he could have reduced Australia's level of foreign debt and increased tax revenue from companies such as Bond Corporation and Elders IXL Ltd which paid last year, I think, around 10.6c in the dollar in tax. A great deal of our foreign debt is tax driven. The rationale for allowing negative gearing is certainly, at least in part, to encourage efficiency, to encourage expansion, hence to encourage employment, job opportunities, and so on. But it is no longer justified. Most of the borrowings are undertaken simply in order to give the business doing the borrowing a tax break. It has very little to do with generating new investment or increasing production, yet the Government lets this private foreign debt accumulate and then uses it as an excuse to reduce the living standards of average and low income Australians. This has put the Hawke Government in something of a predicament because this sort of foreign debt is not regarded as acceptable by the very bankers who do the lending. So the Government is now so desperate for foreign currency that it has reduced the controls on foreign investment in Australia. The result is that foreign investment here has almost doubled in the last 12 months from $9.8 billion in 1985-86 to $19.5 billion in 1986-87. The Foreign Investment Review Board has suffered staff cuts, and the Government is exempting more and more transactions from their surveillance. To all intents and purposes the Foreign Investment Review Board is now a foreign investment approval board. It seems to do very little knocking back of requests. Unfortunately, nobody is really aware of what the level of foreign investment is and, until we get a national register of foreign ownership, Australians will not be able to know what proportion of the total value of Australian land, social infrastructure, factories and residential development is owned outright, in part, or through exotic financing mechanisms by foreign residents. It seems that with our massive foreign debt, accumulated by the borrowings of private corporations, the Government is prepared to do anything to bring foreign currency into Australia. In effect, it is replacing our foreign debt problem with a foreign ownership problem. Senator Coulter —It is selling the farm. Senator HAINES —Yes. In fact, it is selling more than the farm; it is selling our central business district and anything else that people are prepared to buy. For the moment, the foreign currency value of increasing levels of foreign investment can be used to service the foreign debt; a foreign debt, I remind honourable senators, that would not be there if negative gearing were not allowed to run rampant. But how will we meet the foreign payments when rent, profits and dividends will need to be paid overseas to those who are currently investing in Australia? The economic rationalists who dominate the Labor Party-to say nothing of the Liberal and National parties and the big business community-are not concerned about this issue. If they are they are hiding their concern particularly well. But all Australians eventually will be. They must be concerned if they are not already concerned about the level of foreign investment in Australia through this sort of purchasing of everything that is not tied down or even a lot of things that are. There is a lot for the Australian community to be concerned about in this Budget; not just the disparity between business tax levels and its contribution to Consolidated Revenue and that applying to Australian individuals and families. The community will live to regret very much the Government's proposal to tax or to apply fees to tertiary students. I hope that the Opposition parties will acknowledge that because this proposal has stemmed from the Wran Green Paper-ultimately refined, if we could call it that, by the Dawkins White Paper-it is no longer a Budget measure and deserves to be defeated. I appeal to honourable senators opposite not to hide under the Budget measure tag that they have hidden under when it has come to depriving Australian families of other benefits in the last few years. Let us make no mistake about it: if Australia wants to become a Third World country by the year 2010, hitting our university and tertiary education students in the way that this Government proposes to do is the fastest way of going about it. Yet again the Government has succumbed to pressure from the big business community, and in the way that it has attacked health care expenditure, welfare expenditure and education in other areas it is now attacking the tertiary sector. Certainly the tuition tax or the tertiary tax-because it is not a graduate tax, but will apply to anybody who undertakes any studies at tertiary institutions, whether or not he or she graduates as a consequence-may make some sense to an economic rationalist who believes in the user pays principle, but it can only be justified if the user is properly defined. In fact, the user is not the student. The user is the community at large, and business and industry in particular. I find extremely offensive the Treasurer's Budget statement that: All taxpayers fund the education of a minority who, by virtue of their qualifications, enjoy a higher income throughout their working life. What Mr Keating has carefully ignored is the fact that graduates have in the main given up three to six years of income in the process of getting that degree, and that it will take them a long time indeed in their working lives to make up that difference. It also ignores the fact that, as those graduates move into higher income brackets, they pay back through the progressive tax system the benefits that have accrued to them through their education. Indeed, an Australian National University study showed that the Federal Government actually makes a $13,000 profit on average from each higher education graduate. It is absurd to say that students are the users. It is absurd to argue that most taxpayers neither use nor directly benefit from higher education. If a taxpayer does not use a doctor or dentist or lawyer, if a taxpayer does not ride in a car, does not use the sewerage system, drink water from the tap, watch television, use a computer or wear clothes, presumably that taxpayer, and only that taxpayer, could claim that he or she does not directly benefit from higher education. All those areas are assisted by the qualifications that individuals gain at some tertiary institution. I issue a warning now that this is only the first step in a return to full fee-paying, regardless of whether the Liberal Party or the Labor Party wins the next election. It does not take a giant intellect to work out that at the next Budget there will no longer be a discount applied to the up-front fee payment. In the Budget after that the tax option will no longer be an option if family income is say, $25,000 a year or more. In the Budget after that, the fee component that has to be repaid will have doubled, and within five years there will be a return to the full fee paying system that applied prior to the election of the Whitlam Government. Senator McLean —Inevitably. Senator HAINES —As Senator McLean says, inevitably this will spill over into apprenticeships, technical and further education colleges and other areas. Sooner or later this ideology will be used to argue that those people who obtain unemployment benefits should pay them back through an additional tax after they obtain employment. It will be argued that those women who receive widows' pensions should pay them back if they remarry, that the sick should pay back invalid pensions if they get healthy again, that single parents should pay back the supporting parent benefit if they find another spouse. It makes a nonsense of what is known laughingly in this country as the progressive taxation system. Finally, I turn to one of the areas that the Treasurer waved gaily under our noses last Tuesday night-the issue of child care. In his speech the Treasurer said: . . . the vastly improved budgetary position- a budgetary position, I remind honourable senators, which is only vastly improved because of fiscal drag- has enabled the Government to embark on three major programs to enhance health and community services. The first will expand by 30,000 the number of child care places over the next four years- that is, 7,500 new places per year. I remind honourable senators that we have heard those sorts of promises from this Government before. The Treasurer continued: Two-thirds of these places will be for care which extends outside school hours, particularly helping working parents. It is useful to look at more precise details. That sounds fine, assuming one believes that it is any more likely to happen than under previous promises. The following statement is to be found on page 167 of Budget Paper No. 1: The Government has decided to further expand the Children's Services Program by the provision of an additional 30,000 places over the next 4 years made up of 4,000 centre-based places, 4,000 family day care places- a scheme which encourages one group of women to exploit another group of women because the hourly rates paid for family day care are appalling-low- 2,000 occasional care places and 20,000 outside school hours care places. Of the 4,000 centre-based places, 1,000 have been assigned for a new initiative with industry aimed at the expansion of child care provided by employers for low income employees. In other words, 1,000 of the new 4,000 child care places per year will be assigned for industry involvement. Yet business-in particular big business because it will be hardly likely to apply to small business-has already indicated that it is not interested in partaking in this scheme. Indeed, big business is about as interested in making access to the work force easier for women as is the Government. There is nothing in this Budget to give joy to low income families. There is nothing in this Budget to give joy to women, either those who are at home caring for children and managing a budget, or those who are in the paid work force and who probably also are devoting much of their time at home to caring for children and to balancing the budget. There is nothing in this Budget to assist ordinary Australian taxpayers and their families. I repeat that it is a Budget for big business, for banks, both foreign and domestic, and for beer drinkers. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.08) —Senator Haines at least closed on a cheerful note compared to most of the rest of her speech. I do not want to follow Senator Haines's rather doleful remarks based, so far as I understood, on the philosophy that resources are free and therefore they should be provided to Senator Haines's clients. I would rather talk about the Budget as such. In particular, I suggest that in addressing this Budget people should take care not to buy the sizzle, but rather to look at the steak. There is no doubt that the Budget has a considerable sizzle pertaining to it, the most important element of which is, and was intended to be, the figure of $5.5 billion surplus-that big fat figure which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) put up last Tuesday evening and expected everybody to focus upon that and on nothing else. That was quite a sizzle, combined with the estimate that in this financial year the whole of the public sector borrowing requirement would be totally eliminated. Those two things together the Treasurer calculated, because he is a considerable calculator, would enable him to sell this Budget to the financial market in a way which, regrettably no doubt, he failed to sell his two previous Budgets to the financial market. Along with these other elements of the sizzle there is the inflation forecast and I note the careful choice of words by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech on that matter. He forecasts the consumer price index to be `running at 4 1/2 per cent by the end of the financial year'. I take the Treasurer to mean by those very carefully chosen words something like a rate of 1.1 per cent on some kind of seasonally adjusted basis in the June quarter. Well, we will have to wait and see how that actually works out but again it is an attractive forecast by recent Australian standards, although not by the standards of most of our major overseas trading partners. There is also the attractive forecast of business investment being up by 12 per cent in real terms and at first sight the attractive forecast of the balance of payments deficit being down by almost $2 1/2 billion to a level of $9 1/2 billion. I note in passing that this would still be 3 per cent of the national product or the domestic product which by traditional standards, even if those standards were still appropriate which they are not, would still be a very high figure. This is all part of the sizzle. There is also the promise for the repayment of Commonwealth debt and if one has a surplus of $5 1/2 billion or indeed any other figure there is only one thing one can do with it and that is to repay the debt. The Treasurer has undertaken to repay some debt of the Commonwealth Government currently domiciled overseas and some currently domiciled in Australia. As to the latter he indicates that he expects, as a consequence of that, to see some downward pressure on interest rates. Finally, there is that element which Senator Haines referred to, the cut in the beer excise, combined with the one which he did not, I think as far as I recall, refer to and that is the tax cuts of undetermined quantity and kind which are promised, held out to us, to commence on 1 July next year. Up to a point one will have to say the sizzle sounds fine. What about the steak? Well, the surplus of $5 1/2 billion and along with it the removal of the public sector borrowing requirement is, as I said, an excellent outcome until one recalls how it has been achieved. Quite contrary to-I suppose one would have to say regrettably-the characteristically boastful claims in the Budget Papers, the achievement of that is not by genuine cuts in spending but by an enormous increase in the yield of taxation. The answer indeed as to how the Treasurer has obtained his surplus is to be found in the fine print, not in the Budget Speech which is television glossy, but in the fine print which is where one will find most of the steak. The sizzle is up front; the steak is in the fine print. What we find, if we turn to Budget Paper No. 1, in the tabulation of the revenue estimates is that the yield from net pay as you earn (PAYE) taxation-that is the tax paid by ordinary wage and salary earners not by the Treasurer's friends, not by Alan Bond, Mr Anderson and people like that-is estimated to be up by 13.8 per cent, an amount no less than $4.3 billion. That increase alone more than accounts for the improvement in surplus between the $2 billion of last year and the $5 1/2 billion estimated for this year. Indeed, not only should PAYE income taxpayers expect to pay a lot more tax this year, but individual taxpayers generally must expect to pay a lot more tax this year because, taken as a whole, they are estimated to yield an increase of 14.6 per cent of taxation revenue to the Treasurer's coffers. Companies also are expected to do their bit. It is true, I think, that companies had a good year in 1987-88 which is the tax base upon which this year's company tax receipts will be levied and it is therefore not surprising that they should be estimated to be paying almost 16 per cent more company tax this year. Last in this litany but not least, sales tax is estimated to yield an additional 14.4 per cent this year; an additional $1.1 billion. There are a couple of interesting reductions in the revenue receipts for this year and one of them is in the crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas levy which is estimated to fall by $670m. That has been in the making for some time now and we are beginning to see a sharp decline in that area of the tax field. The other significant decline in the non-tax area of the government revenue is in the dividend estimated to be payable by the Reserve Bank of Australia this year which is down by over $1 billion because of the significant change in the Reserve Bank's losses as distinct from previous gains in its sales of foreign exchange. Let us have a look at that part of the sizzle which constituted the inflation forecast, that is that 4 1/2 per cent by the end of the current financial year which the Treasurer has arrived at by allocating approximately $500m of revenue to reducing the excise on beer. All of that is estimated to reduce the consumer price index this year by one half of one per cent in direct terms-it may be a little more than that taking direct and indirect effects together-and that is no doubt a useful element in achieving that 4 1/2 per cent figure which otherwise the Treasurer might have found to be unobtainable. The other element which will have a worthwhile effect in restraining price inflation this year will be the restraint flowing from the lower Australian dollar prices of imports as a consequence of the appreciation of the exchange rate which has taken place recently. Let us come to the improvement in the balance of payments deficit. The balance of payments deficit is estimated to improve by $2.4 billion this year but the Treasurer has assumed, in his Budget, that the terms of trade will be 9 per cent better on average this year than they were last year. That is an estimate which flows from the assumption that commodity prices or export prices will on average remain where they are now, that there will be no decline from their current levels during the course of the current financial year. A 9 per cent increase on average in the terms of trade on our balance of payments is worth about $3 to $3 1/2 billion. The Treasurer estimates that our balance of payments will improve by $2.4 billion, so that we are roughly going backwards in some underlying sense of what one might call a cyclically adjusted sense. In other words, if we exclude the `fortuitous' terms of trade effect, we are going backwards by $1 billion in the balance of payments this year. I use the word fortuitous advisedly because it is precisely the word the Treasurer used when talking about the fortuitous improvement in the terms of trade and hence the balance of payments which had been achieved by the Government in the last financial year. He described that phenomenon as fortuitous when he spoke, using his prepared statement, to the Premiers on 12 May last at the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting on that date. It is worth while reminding ourselves that just as the balance of payments is, on the Treasurer's own forecasts, estimated to be going backwards by $1 billion in an underlying sense this financial year, if his forecast should be realised, so it went backwards by about $1 1/2 billion last financial year. Again we had a large improvement in the terms of trade-9.4 per cent on average-last financial year, and yet our balance of payments improved by only $1.3 billion. In fact, I understated it when I said that we went backwards by $1.5 billion; we went actually backwards by about $2 billion last year. There is a very interesting table on page 23 of Budget Paper No. 1, in which the Treasury has very helpfully set out figures for the net interest deficit and the net income deficit in our balance of payments. The table shows that for the year just ended, 1987-88, the net interest deficit-that is, the net amount of interest paid by Australia to foreigners less what we received from foreigners by way of interest payments-amounted to 70.5 per cent of the total current account deficit on the balance of payments. In fact, if we take on board property income as well as interest on debt, so that we arrive at what is called the net income deficit, we find there is a net income deficit of almost 90 per cent of the current account deficit. They are continuing outgoings. I think that that is as indicative a symbol of the continuing mess with respect to our balance of payments as I have seen previously in an official document. As Senator Chaney indicated during his remarks earlier, the Reserve Bank of Australia has expressed a degree of concern about the present external adjustment process-or rather, I should say, the lack of external adjustment-which goes considerably beyond the very guarded language used by the Treasury in its description of those processes in its statement No. 2 in Budget Paper No. 1 and certainly beyond that used by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech. The Reserve Bank, apart from those passages quoted by Senator Chaney, says on page 12 of its annual report, which was published two days after the Budget: The current account deficit was smaller- that is, in 1987-88- both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP. However, most of the improvement- in fact, it was more than most of the improvement- was due to gains in Australia's terms of trade as a result of the strength of commodity prices. The Reserve Bank report goes on to say: . . . the strength of domestic demand contributed to higher import volumes, which grew more rapidly than export volumes. Unlike the two preceding years, net exports did not contribute to growth. The Reserve Bank also has something to say, no doubt in an appropriately guarded way, about the high risk nature of the assumption on which the Treasurer has based his Budget. At page 15 of its annual report the Reserve Bank remarks: . . . small, open economies- and I wonder which ones it had in mind- are vulnerable to sharp shifts in world sentiment, the more so when, as in Australia's case, the current account deficit is being balanced by basically short-term capital flows. It might have called it `hot money'. Of course, the Reserve Bank is perfectly correct in drawing attention to that danger, and it goes on to say: Foreign exchange intervention by the authorities- such as the Reserve Bank itself has been conducting- does not, of course, deal with the fundamental issues . . . it can provide a breathing space while other policies are coming into effect or are being further adjusted. It is quite clear that underlying those words is the concern of the Reserve Bank that other policies are not coming into effect and that further adjustments are not taking place. I must say that I share the Reserve Bank's clear concerns in that regard. Indeed, those concerns are expressed even a shade more sharply at page 31 of the Reserve Bank's annual report. I always find that the language gets a little more direct the deeper one gets into a document. Most people assume that one will read only the first few pages and therefore they can be franker on, say, page 31. Page 31 of the Reserve Bank's report states: The major medium-term issue for Australia continues to be the need to correct the balance of payments deficit and the high level of international indebtedness. It goes on to say: Despite the evidence of a further reduction in the current account deficit in 1987-88- because of the terms of trade improvement- there were some signs that the pace of underlying adjustment was not proceeding as in the previous two years. The reduction in the deficit in 1987-88 was due to a sharp rise in commodity prices and a consequent improvement in the terms of trade; the fall in import volumes was reversed. The Reserve Bank is pointing to a very serious situation, a situation symbolised by the fact that by the end of June 1988 our net foreign debt amounted to $88.7 billion compared with $82.1 billion 12 months earlier-and, if I might interpolate, a figure of only $23 billion shortly after this Government came to office in June 1983. It is also fair to add that during the June quarter this year there was a fall in our foreign indebtedness, as revealed by the statistics published by the Australian Statistician on, I think, 15 August, amounting to $3.4 billion. However, when one looks at these figures it is clear that they were more than entirely due to a valuation effect. During the June quarter this year the Australian dollar appreciated against the US dollar and indeed against foreign currencies generally. That reduced the Australian dollar value of our foreign currency denominator debt by $4,000m, which more than wholly accounted for the $3,400m fall in our debt during that quarter. But for the valuation effect, in other words, our debt continued to expand by $558m. Of course, the valuation effect is perfectly legitimate and I do not question the fact that it is there. I am asking whether the Government is going to bank on it continuing to reduce our debt through the continuing appreciation of our Australian dollar. I do not think so. So what will the Government do for an encore? In his Budget Papers the Treasurer says that he proposes to repay some Commonwealth debt, which is part of what I earlier called the sizzle. He will repay some foreign debt and he will repay some domestic debt. It is very important, to be quite clear, that any repayment of foreign debt made by the Treasurer this year-that is to say, foreign debt of the Commonwealth Government-will not in itself make one iota of difference to Australia's total foreign indebtedness, because our foreign indebtedness flows from our balance of payments deficit. We finance our balance of payments deficit either by borrowing or by selling off bits of Australia-selling off the farms, as I think Senator Haines said earlier. The fact that we have chosen to pay off a particular piece of debt does not affect that outcome in any way other than in the longer term through the reduced interest payments that we will have to make on it, and that may make some difference to our current account deficit to be financed. So let us be quite clear that when we see the Treasurer being photographed up in Tokyo repaying a bit of Australia's debt to Japan he is not reducing Australia's debt in any net sense; he is simply getting Japanese yen from the Reserve Bank's holding of foreign exchange and paying it to the Japanese banks, thereby reducing the debt owed by the Commonwealth to those Japanese lenders. Therefore, on that side of our balance sheet the debt is reduced, while on the other side, that is, the foreign exchange assets of the Reserve Bank, there is an equal and opposite reduction. The worth of the country is totally unchanged as a result of that process, as anyone who can read a balance sheet would understand. As to domestic debt, it is true that if the Treasurer does, as he must if he has a surplus, repay the domestic debt he will make Commonwealth bonds a somewhat scarcer form of debt instrument within our markets than they have been otherwise and certainly relative to other forms of debt instruments such as bank bills, corporate debt, and so on. That does have some implications for the relative interest rates to be paid on Commonwealth bonds compared to the relative interest rates to be paid on other forms of debt instruments. Let us be quite clear again: that does not have any particular implication for the general level of interest rates in Australia, contrary again to the implication the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is seeking to convey to us by that magnificent sizzle which constituted the Budget Speech last Tuesday. The general level of interest rates, of course, is a function today of two things, roughly speaking. One is the need to go on borrowing to finance that underlying balance of payments deficit which continues, even on the Treasurer's estimates, at $9 1/2 billion this year, or 3 per cent of domestic product. There is the need to go on financing that by borrowing and hence having to pay the interest rates to attract that foreign capital, those foreign loans to Australia. The second is the interest rate relativities between Australia and the international markets. So far as that last point is concerned-as I think Senator Chaney may have remarked-there have been in the last couple of months some rather disturbing signs that interest rates internationally are beginning to rise. Indeed, we saw another such rise, in London at least, only last Friday. I think it was the eighth successive rise in the course of the past two and a half months, making a total rise of 4 1/2 per cent during that time. Finally, we come to the tax cuts. I do not often appeal to our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for authority on economic matters or indeed, for that matter, on any other matters, but I have to say that in an appearance on the Sunday program a week ago our Prime Minister did deliver himself of a piece of excellent economic analysis in response to a question asked of him by Mr Laurie Oakes. Senator Short —It was an aberration. Senator STONE —Senator Short suggests it was an aberration. I am prepared to defer to his opinion in that regard. He has known the Prime Minister, at least in these halls, longer than I have. Mr Oakes put to the Prime Minister on the Sunday before the Budget: If there is a huge surplus then people are going to start really demanding to know why they can't have tax cuts now? That is fair enough. The Prime Minister said: Well, you see I disagree with you on that . . . 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 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- that is to say by giving tax cuts- our import bill would go up to unacceptably high levels and it would be dangerous. As I say, the Prime Minister's analysis is impeccable. It happens to agree, as a matter of fact, entirely with the analysis spelled out during the course of last year's election campaign by Mr Maximilian Walsh, a well known correspondent with the Sydney Morning Herald, when he was attacking-admittedly on the basis of a false assumption-Mr Howard's tax policy. What I would like to know-you may recall, Madam Acting Deputy President, that I put this question to Senator Walsh on Wednesday of last week, the day after the Budget, and I put it again to the Senate tonight-is this: by the end of 1988-89 will we not still have, to use the Prime Minister's words, `a significant external problem'? Even on the Treasurer's assumption, we will still have a balance of payments deficit of $9 1/2 billion at that time. Even if he is right, will we not still have, again to use the Prime Minister's words, `a large external debt'? From all the signs, it will be larger than it was at the end of June; it will probably be in the order of $95 billion by that time. Will not demand, again to use the Prime Minister's words, still `be running strongly in the economy' at that time, or is the Treasurer anticipating a recession by the end of the year? Again, his forecasts do not suggest so. He is forecasting a growth of 3 1/2 per cent in real terms in gross domestic product this year. If none of those things is going to change from the present position, if at that time, again to use the Prime Minister's words, `we were to significantly increase the level of demand in the Australian economy'-that is, by giving a massive tax cut, which the Treasurer is apparently promising us-would not our import bill, to use the Prime Minister's words once more, `go up to unacceptably high levels'? Why would that not be just as dangerous then as the Prime Minister says it is now? The only answer I received from Senator Walsh last week was to say, `Well, we will have another nine months of adjustment between now and then'. As I have said, the only adjustments we will have during that time will be that the debt will be $6 billion, $7 billion or $8 billion higher than it is now and the balance of payments deficit will have gone backwards in underlying terms by another billion dollars, and so on. The other part of Senator Walsh's answer at that time was that we will be having at that time a wage-tax trade-off. We will have to wait and see whether that will solve the problem for the Government. What I would like to put to honourable senators is that all of this is on the basis of the Government's own forecast. It is all assuming that nothing goes wrong. Yet even on the basis of nothing going wrong, it is very difficult for me to see that it is possible for the Treasurer responsibly to make the tax cuts at that time that he is promising now. Of course, he can always do so irresponsibly. Perhaps if he calls an election quickly enough after doing so he might even get away with it. It is just possible. It would certainly be helpful to him in that case if he were to get this referendum passed shortly. We will have to wait and see about that. I put to honourable senators: What will happen if things do not go right? What if between now and then we find that the terms of trade have not improved by an average of 9 per cent over the year, that export prices have begun to droop, that the balance of payments figure, instead of improving by $2.4 billion, has only improved by $1 billion, or has not improved at all, and looks like deteriorating in the period beyond that time-in 1989-90? Will this Government at that time have the consummate hide to say that it can still give the tax cuts the Treasurer is promising us today and on which he will be going early next year to negotiate with Mr Kelty for a wage-tax trade-off? What kind of steak will that be? Very much underdone, I would suggest. What we are dealing with here is not a promise at all. Even on the basis of the Treasurer's own assumptions, that is to say, if things go right, it is very difficult to see how the trade-off can be delivered responsibly. If things go wrong it is very difficult to see how it can be delivered at all. It is a conditional promise only but a typical disposable promise, of which the Treasurer of this country has become over the past five years such a master. Debate (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-Earlier today in speaking to the matter of public importance the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) quoted selectively from a speech I made in the Senate in 1983 in relation to the terms of senators. The Minister implied that my views have changed and that in some way my advocacy of the no vote for question one in Saturday's referendum is inconsistent. This is not the case. Then, as now, I was firmly against the linking of the terms of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I fully support the Opposition parties in opposing the proposal to make the terms of the two Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament the same. If Senator Bolkus had looked carefully at what I said in 1983, my speech on the referendum Bills last session, and my contribution to the matter of public importance debate last Wednesday, he would have seen that my stance has been one of consistency and support for the integrity of the powers of the Australian Senate. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Debate resumed. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales)(9.40) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was talking about the difficulties facing the trade union movement in regard to conscientious objection and other provisions in the legislation which allow for people to refuse to belong to unions. I pointed out how over time union activity had won many of the improvements and important gains that have been made for workers. I instanced the case involving the industry in which I worked prior to World War II. Examining the Opposition's philosophy of voluntary unionism, I point out the tragic event in Western Australia some two years ago when two young men went to work on a non-unionised pastoral property. There was no award covering them. As the result of a disagreement with someone involved at the management level at that pastoral property the young men lost their lives. Earlier I gave the example of women not receiving annual leave. They are both examples of the sorts of problems that beset workers if we rely upon the Opposition's philosophy of voluntary unionism. I remind the Senate that it was the conservative attitude that existed a couple of centuries ago-which brought about the Tolpuddle Martyrs and early events which formulated the principles of trade unionism-which gave rise to that terrible period of English history as industrialism was developing which is often referred to as the Dickens period. In that atmosphere and with that attitude in this country 100 years ago, when the trade unions were endeavouring to express their point of view about decent working conditions and decent incomes, they took the step of forming the Australian Labor Party. Their experience at that time of being unable to have any impact on the employers and community attitudes generally led them to take the political step of forming the Australian Labor Party. Over time we have seen that voluntary unionism has not protected the average worker from the employer, from those who seek to impose how much salary or what wages should be paid to those employed by them. The struggle between labour and capital has gone on for centuries. It is because of this inherent struggle and conflict of interest that there is a need for industrial relations legislation. The Government is to be commended for bringing before the Parliament this important legislation which seeks to improve the balance between the power of capital and the power of labour. Given the lessons of history, one would have thought that we would have had the support of the Opposition. When we consider the debate that took place in the House of Representatives it is clear that even though the conservatives generally do not oppose trade unionism they still fall back on the principle of not having a proper industrial relations policy and system of conciliation and arbitration courts. Rather, they rely upon voluntary unionism and agreement at the work place, the coal face, the office, between the employer and the employee. Over time we have seen how unequal that situation has been. Workers have found it absolutely necessary to combine their efforts to get improvements in their working conditions and in their living wage. I find it hypocritical, therefore, that members of the Opposition rely upon such a specious argument to oppose this legislation. They support the attacks made upon the arbitration system by talking about it being the `industrial club', as though the system were some sort of mechanism invented by this Government or by the Labor Party. In fact, it was the arbitration system that brought about the downfall of Prime Minister Bruce in 1929. The workers clearly showed then that they wanted to rely upon a judicial process that would protect the lower paid workers from the exploitation that existed at the time and that still exists to this day. Let us make no mistake about that. I instance what is taking place with the rationalisation and reconstruction of industry, what is taking place in the coal mining and pastoral areas of our country. We witness the rapacious and greedy attitude of some employers to employees who rely upon not only their own resource but also upon the collective strength of their union to protect their economic interests. We see this in even the Parliament. We have an interparliamentary union. We see the need for coming together to protect a common interest. This is all the more important in the period of great change that is taking place in our various industries, competing with those of other countries. If we consider the great development of industrial production which will take place in the Asian region in the next 20 or 30 years, the increased competition that will bring and the need for Australian industry to be reconstructed, we realise how important it will be for us to have an industrial relations system operating in this country which will protect our workers. That new source of productive capacity will have considerable effect upon industrial relations in the work force and the living standards of our workers. Yet the Opposition simplistically suggests that all we have to do is to get rid of the industrial relations club and get things back to the work place, where the employer has the cards stacked completely on his side. The employer is able to dictate, as he has done over the centuries, to his employees their conditions, salaries and wages. As everything else becomes bigger, unions also will need to become bigger. So I support unequivocally the proposals in this Bill to amalgamate our unions so that they can meet the new challenges facing them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.48) —I am pleased to contribute to this debate tonight on the Government's Industrial Relations Bill 1988 and the associated legislation. I intend to argue that the Industrial Relations Bill does not represent substantial reform, as is claimed by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and by the Government through the Minister's speech, and that there is nothing imaginative, dynamic or exciting in it. Furthermore, if the legislation is an attempt to finetune the existing system, I argue that it fails in a number of important ways. We on this side of the chamber will be looking to change by means of amendment to try to put the Bill into better order. This Bill has been slow in coming. I can remember in 1984 spending a couple of days in Melbourne at the chambers of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems reading the submissions to that body. That was some four years ago. The Hancock Committee's report is claimed to be the basis of this legislation. As I said, at best the Bill lacks imagination. It could best be described as orthodox. However, if one accepts that the current industrial relations system of this country is satisfactory, and if one accepts that the philosophy of the centralised wage fixing system remains sound, then I guess one examines this Bill in terms of an updating of that system. If one looks at the report of the Hancock Committee and at the Government's rationale, rather than at its rhetoric, that is exactly what they are talking about. The Hancock report saw no reason for radical change. I will refer to page 2 of that report, which summarises the position. It says: We accept that the system is in need of revision and that efforts should be made to improve its operation. Our recommendations are directed to that end, and are aimed at improving the practical working of the system, reducing uncertainties and promoting a closer relationship and better co-operation between the existing institutions used to administer the system. In other words there is an acceptance of the system, the rationale behind it and its operation. Hancock simply puts a case for updating the legislation. That rationale has been accepted by this Government. In turn, that is not surprising because we all know that this Government has a very special relationship with one of the key players in the industrial relations environment-the trade union movement. The trade union system supports an industrial relations system which gives it a major position in that game. Similarly, employer organisations accept their role. It is the role of a small number of groups that are given a very powerful responsibility over the lives and interests of a very large number of employees in this country. It is not surprising, therefore, that this Government has a vested interest in the maintenance of the existing system, and it is not surprising that it was not prepared even to countenance radical reform of the system. When we look around the world we see many and varied industrial relations systems. Ours has developed in our cultural environment and there is no doubt, as with other industrial relations systems around the world, that it has its strengths and weaknesses. In this chamber on many occasions I have heard honourable senators talking about the American, Japanese or German systems, and looking at the strengths and virtues of such industrial relations apparatus. But one will always find, on any objective analysis, strengths and weaknesses in each. Because each is set in a different cultural and historical background, it is extremely difficult to assess which is a better system. When I look at the second reading speech of the Minister I accept that our system has credits. In particular I refer to the statement made on page 4 of the Minister's speech, which I will quote. He says: Historically these arrangements have meant that all workers, whatever their industrial bargaining power, have enjoyed minimum standards of award entitlements which are protected by law. Protection of workers through the award system is one of the real achievements of the conciliation and arbitration machinery. Indeed, by the operation of this system we have, to a far greater extent than most other comparable industrialised countries, been able to prevent exploitation of the industrially weak. That case for preventing the exploitation of the industrially weak, by the preservation of minimum standards, is the real strength of the existing Australian system. Built into the system is a safety net. However, it can be argued that in many cases the minimum standard that is referred to in the Minister's speech has ceased to be a minimum standard. The system has got away from the safety net concept and the standard awards are not necessarily at a mean level but, in some cases, at a level beyond that which some businesses can maintain and still remain in existence. That is when the system starts to break down, as it has when it has ceased to be a safety net type system. As we know, this system, as I indicated, is divorced from business realities. For individuals in many ways it is a system which is remote and a system in which people pass responsibilities that are very important to their lives, to others-to professionals. There is the use of a language which they do not understand and an atmosphere far removed from their places of work. Such is the case in Melbourne where these bodies meet at a national level. The result of all this is that the award conditions that are passed down in many ways are remote from the individuals and their working environments. There is a separation, therefore, from the award making procedure-the industrial relations procedure-and the coalface. We, on this side of the chamber, believe that therein lies a major shortcoming of the system. The history of the system, as has been stated tonight by Senator Gietzelt, is very much the history of the labour struggle. The rhetoric of Senator Gietzelt tonight was that the struggle between labour and capital is legendary. He said it has been going on for centuries. A little earlier, before the dinner suspension, he talked of the conflict of strength between employers and employees. He said that the workers should unite in order to combat the employer. It is that rhetoric of class warfare, the continual battle of labour against capital. What we are suggesting, however bold it may be, is that perhaps we should be moving away from that type of rhetoric. Some of my colleagues interjected on Senator Gietzelt. One honourable senator said it is a rhetoric that is perhaps 30 years past and another said it is 50 years past. We on this side of the chamber are asking why we must always presume that there must be a conflict between labour and capital. Why must they have conflicting objectives? Why can we not look in the other direction and realise that both can have a common interest in mutual prosperity; that labour and capital, with the right industrial relations atmosphere and the right leadership, can work together as a team towards such things as improved productivity, greater rewards, greater work satisfaction, the prospect of higher living standards, improved job opportunities through greater prosperity in business, and so forth. We on this side of the chamber have that optimism that with a different attitude these goals can be achieved. It is true that this requires a greater faith in individuals than have those honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. They have greater faith in organisations and structures that make decisions for individuals-the corporate state mentality. We believe that, if individuals are given the opportunity, they can make very sound decisions for their own benefit and welfare. We would say, furthermore, that with that type of attitude-decisions that are made at the coalface-what is introduced into the system that is not there at the moment is a new flexibility. So what we have put in our new industrial relations policy is the case for radical change to the existing industrial relations system, not simply the cosmetic changes that occur in the Bill. We would go further than Hancock or the Government. We would allow employers and employees, when they wish to take an alternative path to the existing centralised system, to reach voluntary agreements in their labour relations, voluntary agreements that reflect the uniqueness of each and every work environment. As I indicated, that involves a passing of responsibility back to individuals. It allows choice and rejects the uniform standards and approaches that derive from a centralised system. It facilitates the removal of archaic work practices through the greater flexibility that can follow. It allows greater scope, as I said, for flexibility in hours of work, including permanent part time work. We could say there should be flexible rewards for skill and ability. It would introduce a new enthusiasm and hope into industrial relations that will not be introduced without a radical change. We, therefore, are disappointed that the Government has not been prepared to seize this opportunity for a new direction. It has not been prepared to live up to its rhetoric of claiming to make substantial change. Although we advocate that more radical position, we nevertheless accept that the existing safeguard of a centralised system will remain the basis of the system for a very long time. We hope, as I said, that some individuals, by agreement, will take courses separate from that. Nevertheless, we accept that the basic centralised system will exist for some considerable time. Therefore, it is necessary in this debate to examine that system in the light of this Government's proposed amendments. As I indicated at the outset, even when we attempt to do that we are disappointed that this Bill fails in what seems to us to be a number of fundamental ways. The first way, which was mentioned by my Leader, Senator Chaney, is as to compliance. I suggest that compliance has been the major failing of Australia's conciliation and arbitration system. The system was designed to avoid direct industrial action and, with it, all that that represents in terms of costs to individuals and to the nation. Of course, there is within the system an opportunity for an appointed independent arbiter to make a fair decision upon the parties that is binding. In other words, when conciliation fails or whenever the parties are unable to agree, the provision is for independent arbitration which is binding and, therefore, according to the theory of the system, there should be no need for direct action. I am not a union knocker; I am a former unionist myself, I am pleased to say, on a voluntary basis. But I regret to say that on one side organised labour has been able to disregard the decisions that it has found unsatisfactory, and with no effective remedial action. That has caused the system to break down. Unless both sides to a bargain are going to be bound to that bargain, it will not be enforceable, it will not stand, and the other side, and eventually the community, will lose faith in the system. That is not just what the Opposition says. In fact, it is said by Labor's Minister when he speaks of the failing of our current system in relation to compliance. It is reasonable, I suppose, that we should therefore presume that there would be significant change in that regard in this Bill. I remind you, Madam Acting Deputy President, of what Minister Willis said in relation to the first version of this Bill 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 therefore agrees that an essential requirement is that there be effective means of ensuring compliance. He continued: The principal initiative- that is, of the previous Bill- 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. We know that that new direction and injunction process is not included in this Bill. But it does not mean that his statement that the compliance provisions of the existing law have become moribund and fallen into disrepute has changed. So he acknowledges the major failing of the existing system. Regrettably, when we look at this Bill, we see that he has made no change to that failed system. I would have thought that even this Government would have to concede that it cannot talk about this piece of legislation as a substantial reform without there having been introduced within it effective new compliance provisions. They are simply not there. We know that the failing of the compliance provisions has forced employers to resort to the common law to protect themselves from abuse. It is now history that there was a public uproar when this Government sort to abolish those common law powers of injunction and to downgrade the capacity to use the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act to protect innocent third parties. The Australian community was simply not prepared to allow those safeguards to be lost. When the Government directed its attention to its changed Bill, what did it do? We presumed that there would be new compliance provisions but, of course, the Government received its instructions from the trade union movement, and its instructions were, simply, that it was not to introduce effective compliance provisions. I remind the Senate of the words of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Simon Crean, as reported in the Australian Financial Review of 17 August, when he gave his directions to the Government. He said: They can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. That is what we find to be the Bill that is before us. It is a major shortcoming of this Bill and one that, by itself, means that it fails any reasonable test as a substantial reforming piece of legislation. The second shortcoming I wish to address is that, whether or not we have a centralised system in this country, it is the view of those on this side of the chamber that there should be freedom of the individual not to join a union, and that that freedom should be protected. We do not say that in an attempt to weaken the unions of Australia. We have a view, which of course the Government would not accept, that a new element of voluntarism within unions would strengthen the union movement. There is no doubt that de facto compulsory unionism exists in this country through preference clauses and closed shops, and that it is enforced by industrial pressure. We say that it is not essential to an effective centralised system. We realise that it is a valuable tool to enhance union power. Thus, in the same way as in other cases that I have mentioned tonight, it is supported by the Australian Labor Party as the political wing of the trade union movement. We on this side of the chamber say that it will be a wonderful day for individual freedom when Australian people have the opportunity to contribute to genuine voluntary unionism. As I said, the effect of that might well be strengthening of the union movement, not a weakening of it. Of course, that is not in any way achieved by this legislation, which simply reinforces this de facto compulsory unionism. The third criticism that I raise is that this system does not provide the accountability or the representative capacity that we would like to see in industrial bodies. I am dealing with the provisions of the Bill that provide for amalgamation of unions by, in effect, a compulsory process. It is our concern that these larger amalgamated bodies will not have the accountability or the representative capacity that we believe is necessary for effective industrial relations in this country in the future. We are not talking about the past; we are talking about the future and, hopefully, an environment in which more individuals will seek to play a role. If our dream ever came true it would be on a voluntary basis. We would therefore support, rather than the direction that is being taken in this Bill, measures aimed at a movement towards enterprise unions. We believe it would achieve single bargaining units and also units with a better understanding of enterprise, rather than particular trades or skills, and with a closer relationship with the work force and, therefore, better accountability. It fits well with our theme of looking for greater cooperation in industrial relations in this country rather than confrontation; in other words, an entirely different attitude to the entrenched rhetoric of class conflict upon which the Labor Party's position has been founded. We believe that this would improve the industrial relations position in this country. Before people say, `But the industrial relations position has been vastly improved', I simply ask them to look at the coal industry and the shipping industry in this country, and to look at what happens on our waterfront-and another major report will be brought down on that aspect in the next few days. They should look particularly at the position in the eastern States in relation to grain storage, handling and transport. If we look at those areas, we very quickly realise that industrial relations in this country are still costing individuals and the nation a great deal. I wish to touch upon the coal industry and remind honourable senators that in 1987 8,902 working days were lost per 1,000 employees in the coal industry-40 times the national average. So here we have an industry which, until very recently, was the major export earning industry of Australia-it has now just been passed by wool, but it is critically important to our future-and we find that it suffers from major industrial problems that are making it less competitive on the world scene, and that is costing the nation and, as I have said, individuals greatly. Let me touch again upon shipping and the waterfront in this country. I remind honourable senators that the Industries Assistance Commission, an independent body, recently released its draft report on coastal shipping, which concluded that excessive coastal shipping freight rates wipe between $300m and $700m from Australia's gross domestic product annually, and a considerable part of that is put down to industrial practices. Productivity levels in Australia in these industries are about half the level of European container terminals, that is, of developed Western nations, and 40 per cent of many Asian ports. And we wonder why our current account balance is so appalling. Unless we can compete in these very basic areas we will not run a trade balance that goes into the black. In relation to the grain storage, handling and transport area, I remind honourable senators also of the recent royal commission into those industries that identified total cost savings under a more competitive environment in these sectors of around $10 per tonne of grain. Of this, 15 per cent conservatively would arise from an improvement in the industrial relations environment and, more specifically, better working practices. So much remains to be done in critical areas. We say that, if we provided this country with an environment in which individuals could play a greater part and employers and employees could join together to find a relationship that could be of mutual advantage, there would be benefits in that for the community as a whole. So we do not see in this Bill the structural reforms that would be necessary to help overcome problems critical to Australia's economic well-being. In the few minutes that remain I just want to touch upon a few of the specific changes that are included in this piece of legislation, because even if it is not all that important from a substance point of view it is nearly a couple of hundred pages in length. Firstly, we are told that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is to change its name. It is recommended by Hancock, it is true, but that does not seem to us to indicate any major change in substance. Secondly, we read that the parties will be encouraged to formulate and use their own dispute settlement procedures. I remind honourable senators that that falls short of the Hancock recommendation, which was that legislation require all awards to contain a procedure for the resolution of grievances. That is not included within this Bill. The third of these separate areas, that of the new idea of certified agreements, could almost be described as a small, timid step towards the industry-type bargaining of which we have been speaking. Certainly the Minister, in his speech, picks up our language by claiming that it adds a new flexibility. But when one looks at the legislation one finds that these agreements are likely to be rare, that they cannot come into being without the Commission's certification and that, nevertheless, the Minister retains power to intervene-all of which we would suggest is a very patronising way of encouraging employers and employees to reach their own agreement. I note that it was not in the Hancock report, which suggests to me that it is being introduced in this Bill largely as a political response. The labour court idea has been dropped, and that I applaud. There are new provisions in relation to demarcation-weird provisions, I would suggest, even though they had the blessing of Hancock-to give peak bodies within the system, those who have this special relationship, an extra responsibility to try to resolve demarcation disputes. We on this side of the Senate believe in certainty in the law and certainty in operations of this type, and we say that the Commission should accept its responsibility to settle demarcation disputes and have adequate powers to enforce the orders that it makes. There are improved coordination and cooperation provisions in the Bill between Federal and State tribunals but I note that they fall far short of Hancock's recommended integrated system. The Bill provides that secret ballots will apply to registered associations, but of course it does not provide that there should be secret ballots prior to industrial action, as we would have advocated. We believe that that one step is a step back. There are now circumstances in which strike pay can be ordered. It can be ordered in relation to health and safety issues. I suppose that in a world of goodness and light that would seem to be reasonable but we are all aware of abuses, particularly within the building industry, where issues that are not health and safety issues nevertheless are promoted under that description. In summary, therefore, the Bill does not offer the structural change that we on this side of the chamber believe is necessary. The Bill is nowhere near as significant as the Government indicates. Even if we accept the existing system it can be substantially improved and that we will seek to do in a constructive and positive way in the committee stage of this debate. Finally, I simply say that a better system is outlined in the coalition policy statement on industrial relations and I commend that to all those interested in this subject. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(10.17) —I rise to speak in this debate with some anger tempered with sadness, having listened to people on the other side of the chamber uttering terms such as `anti-union', `anti-worker' and `anti-community'. These people have read in books and newspapers about what happens in the industrial relations field, but I speak from the position of having been involved in that history making process and knowing the people involved in it on both sides of the fence. So I can speak with some authority and some force. The Industrial Relations Bill provides for necessary and constructive changes in Australia's industrial relations system, more far-reaching than any other changes over a period of more than 80 years. This Bill is debated by a Labor Government which has a clear understanding of the importance of, and the need to improve, opportunities for consultation rather than growing confrontation, which would be the case if the coalition were in power. It was designed and compiled in a spirit of cooperation and consultation amongst enlightened representatives of the Government and the trade union movement with an input by employer organisations to the Hancock Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. We need to look in a positive manner not only at the words in the Bill but also at its potential for change. A new direction is being taken by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and its collective constituent unions which is leading to a more interventionist and more participative role by trade unionists at all levels of industry and workplace activity. It takes into account the rights and responsibilities of participating in the future shaping of our society and our nation which will create a new image on the world scene. Compare the negative, nagging and unconvincing arguments of the New Right and its representatives in this chamber with the forthright, constructive statements of trade union spokespersons and senators on the Government side of the chamber. We, the labour movement, negotiated the prices and incomes accord and then gave life to that document which established the base upon which we have built a better economic structure. This document was more than a proposal for prices and wages. It was a far-reaching economic document providing for wage and salary stability, redistribution of income to profits-that is, less wages to encourage expanded investment-industrial democracy, restructuring of industry, training for skills and, last but not least, health and safety. It sought to protect real wages, but it recognised that the 10 per cent lost during the Howard years would take time to regain. It gave clear recognition to the need to create jobs for the unemployed. This Government has met those goals, those challenges, and has created more than one million jobs in less than five years. This Government, very early in its first term, called an economic summit at which a broad cross-section of our community was represented. At this successful operation of consensus, representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions showed themselves to be the most competent in the gathering when identifying our problems and putting forward solutions. The clear and unequivocal commitment by the ACTU and its collective constituents to changes in our society involved more enlightened social attitudes and more constructive economic approaches, including the production of wealth and the fair distribution of that wealth. It is not just a notional view of acceptance that with rights go responsibility but a clear and ringing assertion of it. It is against this background that this Bill will pass through the Senate. Senator Chaney picked out what he calls unfortunate incidents. He talked about the problem with the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd and the fact that a truck driver had had problems with people on strike. I assure Senator Chaney and other Opposition senators that when people are involved in industrial disputes and lose their total income they bear all sorts of pressures. As the history of industrial relations has shown, people who break picket lines or scab certainly pay the penalty in mental torture if they have any decency. The Mudginberri dispute was also mentioned. A group of people without any concern for the long term effects on other unions in the industry or people in the community decided to make an agreement which was worse than award provisions. Is it any wonder there was a dispute about that? It is impotence that is felt by the unions in seeking to protect hard-won gains; it is not so much aggression. (Quorum formed) Honourable senators opposite talk about the force of the trade unions. What force do the trade unions have? They have this wonderful weapon to seek the support of their fellow workers, to convince by argument that certain actions should be supported. What about the force on the other side? The employer calls the police and has people thrown off sites if there are any problems, such as there were in the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute. Employers even had workers arrested and charged with an offence when no offence was committed. The Supreme Court found that to be so. The subcontractors on the Commonwealth Bank Building in Brisbane went broke recently. Workers decided to peacefully stay on the job so they could be seen to be asking for the wages to which they were entitled. They felt, as happened in the past, that the prime contractor had a responsibility to pay them the wages their wives and families needed. What was the response of the employer? He sent for the State police to have them removed. They would not be moved and it is to the credit of the police that they did not proceed any further. I mention that to demonstrate that the force of the trade unions is not very great, but that the forces of darkness, those in opposition to the trade unions, represented by people on the other side, are very great indeed. Senator Parer and Senator Chaney talked about the safety and health problems in the construction industry as though a person's life or health was not important. My advice to workers has always been that if they get the sack they can find another job somewhere but that if they lose a leg or an arm or their life that cannot be replaced. So safety and health are very important. Of all the agreements that have been made in Queensland in relation to construction work and other work place agreements, there is one thing that employers have always agreed upon and that is not to demand a `no strike' on health and safety issues. On many occasions when there have been those sorts of problems the trade unions have said, `That area is dangerous. We will work on any other part of the construction site'. They have sought only to protect the lives of their members. What happens when the employer says, `You are not going to make any management decisions. You'll work when I tell you'. Whose fault is it when work stops? Very clearly it is that of the employer. At least I have one ally: Senator Crichton-Browne said last night that he supported the ban on the use of the lower dining room because one of the staff had fallen on a faulty staircase and injured herself. At least someone on the other side of the chamber is not totally in darkness. I have never argued for the settlement of disputes; I have always argued for the prevention of disputes. I think that is a much more positive approach. When we look at the amount of lost time because of disputes, we see that from January 1976 to February 1983 the monthly average of working days lost was 249,000. People may wonder why we choose that period: it was that of the Fraser Government. From March 1983 to December 1987, when the Hawke Government was in power, the figure was 115,590. When that comparison is made we can see who has done the best job of gaining continuity or work in this country and eliminating or reducing disputes. If we look at the Menzies years and the way in which the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the court operated, we see that the Commission used to make decisions about awards and then took unto itself the right to penalise people if those decisions were not carried through or respected by the unions. When one went into a dispute in those days about an issue no-one ever asked, `Does it endanger people's lives? Is the dispute merited? Is there a case?'. One question was asked: `Are you in dispute?'. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under Sessional Order, I put the question: That the House do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order 1988 No. L6-Livestock for slaughter or breeding purposes to the Socialist Republic of Romania. Civil Aviation Act-Civil Aviation Order Part 107-Amendments, dated 26 August 1988. Public Service Act-Determinations 1988-Nos 92, 122, 150, 170-174, 176-179. Telecommunications Act- By-Laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 82. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 53. Direction pursuant to section 7 (1), dated 18 July 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 132) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 24 November 1987: (1) Is it true that the appointments of all the members of the Council of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority have been terminated by the Minister. (2) Is it further true that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Ordinance 1976 as amended provides that appointments of members of the Council of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority can only be terminated by the Governor-General; if so, on the basis of the advice given to him has the Minister, in dismissing the members of the Council, exceeded his authority under the Ordinance. (3) With respect to the statement in the Minister's media release of 15 September 1987 regarding the transition of the powers of the Council to the Chief Education Officer: (a) what steps does the Minister plan to take to ensure that the Consultative Committee is in fact consulted by the Chief Education Officer; and (b) does the Minister regard this Committee as an adequate check on what are, in effect, dictatorial powers which he has vested in the Chief Education Officer. (4) Since the Australian Capital Territory public school system under a representative statutory council was widely regarded as the most successful in Australia, is it the intention of the Minister to restore a participatory form of governance to this system; if so, when. (5) As a matter of law and in practical terms, has the Minister not left the Australian Capital Territory public education system without effective management at the system wide level, when regard is had to the fact that the body charged with responsibility for the management of public education under the aforementioned Ordinance has purportedly been dismissed. Senator Richardson —The Minister for the Arts and Territories has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) On 15 September 1987, the Hon. Minister revoked the appointments of three acting members of the Schools Authority. He also terminated the appointment of one of these acting members as acting Chairman. The appointments of other members ceased upon the commencement of the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 which implemented the proposal to restructure the Schools Authority announced in the Budget context on 15 September. (2) The Australian Capital Territory Schools Ordinance 1976, before the amendments which commenced on 31 December 1987, provided for the dismissal of permanent members by the Governor-General. However, the Minister had power under the Ordinance at that time to appoint acting members. The Minister also had power to revoke acting appointments made by him. (3)- (a) In view of the representations received, the Minister for Arts and Territories agreed to make changes in the advisory arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. The Ordinance will be amended to introduce a statutory Advisory Committee in place of the Committee provided for in the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1987. The legislation will provide for a Committee of 7 members: a Chairperson appointed by the Minister, 2 School Board representatives, 1 Ministerial representative and 1 representative each from the Parents and Citizens Association, the Pre-Schools Association and from an organisation representing the teaching staff. The functions of the Committee will be specified in the Ordinance. The Advisory Committee's role will be to provide advice to the Chief Education Officer, who will be required to take account of that advice in the performance of the Authority's functions. The Committee will meet at least eight times a year and will report to the Minister when it considers it appropriate to do so. (b) The Consultative Committee is not intended to act as a check on the activities of the Chief Education Officer, but rather to provide him or her with advice on the views of the community on issues relating to public schools in the Australian Capital Territory. The powers conferred upon the Schools Authority are not exceptional. The Authority is subject to Ministerial direction in the performance of its functions. (4) In addition to the Advisory Committee mechanism referred to above there is a significant degree of community participation in the governance of the Australian Capital Territory public schools: as well as various formal and informal consultative mechanisms, each school has a Board comprised of parents, teachers and, in the case of secondary schools, students, which is responsible for determining the educational program and policies of that school. In addition, an Australian Capital Territory Education and Training Council has been established to achieve better planning and co-ordination of all sectors of Australian Capital Territory education. The Council comprises the Chief Executives of all Australian Capital Territory education bodies together with employer, union and community representatives and is chaired by Emeritus Professor Fred Gruen. (5) Under the Schools Authority Ordinance the Chief Education Officer is solely responsible for conducting the affairs of the Authority. Management of public education is more effective because authority and responsibility are clearly focused. There is no question as to the legitimacy or effectiveness of the Authority's management. (Question No. 147) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the article in the Canberra Times of 28 November 1987 by education correspondent Jeannie Zakharov, headed, `Legal Authority in Doubt'. (2) Has the Minister received legal advice on: (a) the legality or illegality of his action in purporting to dismiss the Council of the ACT Schools Authority in September of this year; and (b) the legality or illegality of decisions taken since than by the Chief Education Officer; if so, what was the advice received in each of these respects, and from what source was it received. (3) If the Minister has not received such advice, would he agree that growing community concern about these matters, and the intrinsic importance of these matters, would make such advice appropriate. (4) Will the Minister be presenting a Bill to this Parliament seeking to legitimise retrospectively decisions made by the Chief Education Officer. If no, what steps will the Minister be taking to remedy the situation. Senator Richardson —The Minister for the Arts and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2), (3) and (4) Legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor's Office is that the revocation of the appointments of three acting members of the ACT Schools Authority and the termination of the appointment of the Acting Chairman, made by the former Minister on 15 September 1987, were valid. The Australian Government Solicitor also has confirmed that decisions subsequently made by the Chief Education Officer are not illegal by virtue of the action taken in respect of acting members of the Council. (Question No. 268) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 March 1988: (1) Does the Minister agree that there is complete incompatibility between Mr Beazley's views as expressed in the Peace and Disarmament Bulletin of December 1987 in which he states that `the Australian Government would take full charge of the management of any nuclear accident in Australian territory' and his statement in the Cairns Post of 20 October 1987 that `Contingency plans for accidents involving nuclear warships were a state responsibility'; if not, why not. (2) How does the Minister reconcile these statements with the reports in the Cairns Post of 9 July 1987 which refer to the detailed plans which the United States has to deal with a nuclear weapons accident in Australian ports. (3) Have there been 3 changes of Australian Government policy on this matter within the last 6 months; if not, how does the Minister explain these conflicting statements. (4) If there have been changes in Government policy, what is the current Federal Government policy and who has responsibility in the event of: (a) an accident involving nuclear-powered warships in Australian territory; and (b) a nuclear weapons accident involving warships in Australian territory. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) No. As the honourable senator would be aware, the State Governments control various emergency services organisations (notably the Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance) whose resources might be required in the event of an accident involving nuclear weapons or the reactors on visiting warships. As it would be inappropriate for the Commonwealth to draw up detailed contingency plans for the use of State Government resources, the development of such contingency plans is primarily a State Government responsibility. The Commonwealth of course also accepts responsibilities in the contingency planning area, such as in establishing the basic conditions under which foreign warships may visit Australia and assisting the State Government in the emergency planning process through the provision of scientific and technical support and facilitating and coordinating assistance in the event of an accident from the foreign government involved. The statement in the Peace and Disarmament Bulletin of December 1987 was provided in response to a query whether Australia or the US would be responsible for dealing with a nuclear weapons accident in Australia and was intended to make plain that Australian government authorities would be in charge-not US Government authorities, as had erroneously been inferred from a CINCPAC Instruction that had been released by the US Government under its Freedom of Information legislation. Contrary to the reports in the Cairns Post of 9 July 1987, the contents of this Instruction do not represent `detailed plans for dealing with a nuclear weapons emergency in Australian ports'. The Instruction instead provides broad policy and administrative guidelines on nuclear safety. (3) No. See answer to parts (1) and (2) above. (4) (a) and (b) In the event of an accident involving the nuclear reactors or any nuclear weapons which might be carried on foreign warships visiting Australia, the provision of any assistance that might be required from authorities under the control of State Governments would be a State Government responsibility. Similarly, the Commonwealth would be responsible for providing such assistance as might be required from the relevant Commonwealth authorities. The foreign government whose reactors or weapons were involved would itself be responsible inter alia for notifying the appropriate Australian authorities that an accident had occurred and for cooperating with them so that prompt action might be taken in order to minimize the consequences of the accident. The overall direction and control of emergency action within Australian territory would be the responsibility of Australia; in the case of naval ports, provision of emergency services is the responsibility of the RAN and in civil ports it is a matter for State authorities. (Question No. 409) Senator McLean asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 1 June 1988: (1) Approximately how much, taking into account CPI increases since then, in 1988 dollars, was spent on the control and treatment of poliomyelitis in the five years before and the five years after the introduction of the general vaccination against the disease. (2) What is the projected cost, in the same terms as in (1) above, of the control and treatment of AIDS-related illnesses between 1989 and 1994. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Poliomyelitis vaccination, using Salk vaccine was introduced in Australia in July 1956. The five years before and after the introduction of the vaccine is the period from 1951 to 1961. A great proportion of the relevant information needed to answer this part of the honourable senator's question is only available from each State Government and from individual public hospitals. Given the length of time which has elapsed since Salk vaccine was introduced, and the number of organisations from which details would need to be sought, I am not prepared to authorise the resources needed to collect and collate the necessary data. (2) Problems in projecting the incidence of AIDS and uncertainties about the impact of new treatment regimes on the progression of AIDS and on mortality rates, mean that related costs for the period in question cannot be projected with a high degree of confidence. There is currently no vaccine for AIDS available. Earlier this year, the Department of Community Services and Health commissioned a two stage study into costing the AIDS epidemic in Australia. Results of phase 1 of this study are to be included in a policy discussion paper on the National AIDS strategy, which is to be tabled in Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Parliaments later this year. The second part of the study, anticipated to commence later this year, will determine a framework for identifying and projecting total costs of AIDS-related illnesses.