Tuesday, 30 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 the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 35 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows a request for Medicare benefits for in vitro fertilisation for the medical treatment of infertile couples. Your petitioners pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled grant Medicare benefits for in vitro fertilisation, IVF, for the medical treatment of infertile couples. 1 in 10 Australian couples are infertile and unable to conceive and carry a baby to birth. Having a family is one of the most fundamental and rewarding aspects of life and benefits the community as a whole. IVF is an established and proven treatment for infertility. There are existing mechanisms to regulate and control IVF, including the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. Currently IVF patients pay up to $1500 per treatment cycle for IVF out of their own pockets. This means that some couples who need IVF to help them establish their own family do not have access. We request that Medicare funding be granted for IVF for the treatment of infertility, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 12 citizens). The Honourable President and members of the Senate. The Petition of the undersigned citizens showeth that we are totally opposed to the decision of the State and Federal Attorneys-General to recommend the Banning of the `X' classification for videos containing explicit sexual activity between consenting adults, without the introduction of a new classification for the abovementioned material. We further believe that the recommendation for the removal of the `X' classification without the introduction of a new classification for sexually explicit adult video tapes is undemocratic, authoritarian, morally and socially irresponsible and overwhelmingly opposed by a majority of the Australian public. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate not discontinue the `X' classification without introducing a new classification to cover depictions of sexually explicit actions between consenting adults. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McMullan (from 117 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whilst acknowledging the Government's desire to contain the growth in health costs, the introduction of 61 new drugs to the `Authority Required' listing will result in potentially serious delays in patients receiving medication prescribed by their doctors. Your petitioners request the Senate to immediately reverse the Government's decision and withdraw these drugs from the `Authorities Required' list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 19 citizens). To the Senate, Parliament of Australia. We, the undersigned petitioners, humbly request that the Ordinance for the ACT Casino to be tabled by the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, be referred to an appropriate Senate Committee and that it not be allowed to become law until the residents of the ACT have been able to express their opinion through either a locally elected self-governing body or an ACT-wide referendum. by Senator Chaney (from 13 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 Archer (from 178 citizens), Bolkus (from 380 citizens) and Newman (from 201 citizens). Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-I present the following petitioning letter which is not in accordance with the Standing Orders from 114 citizens requesting the Government to adopt the minority report of the Helsham inquiry into the World Heritage value of the Tasmanian Lemonthyme and Southern Forests area: Senator Graham Richardson Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Commonwealth Parliament Offices Chifley Square Sydney NSW 2000 May/June 1988 Dear Minister, We the undersigned strongly urge that you recommend that Cabinet adopt the minority, or dissenting, report of the Helsham Inquiry into the World Heritage Value of the Tasmanian Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Area. As concerned members of the general community we fully support the Federal Government in its attempts to protect these irreplaceable forests, and believe that their preservation for future generations has greater value than that obtained in the short term from forestry operations. Only World Heritage listing could provide this protection. Yours sincerely, Name Petitioning letter received. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-I present to the the Senate the following petition, from 323 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it does not contain a prayer at the end thereof, requesting that the use and production of chlorofluorocarbons in Australia cease: KIDS AGAINST C.F.C. We, the children and Friends of St Francis Xavier school, Montmorency-would like all production and use of C.F.C. (chlorofluorocarbons) to cease in Australia. Help us protect the Ozone layer. Petitions received. Senator HILL(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) conveys to the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China its sincere wishes for a successful outcome to their negotiations in Beijing on the future of Kampuchea; (b) hopes that the two countries will use their leverage with the parties immediately involved in the conflict to effect a withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and to bring about a peaceful political settlement in Kampuchea; (c) regrets the extent to which Australia has been excluded from regional initiatives on Kampuchea as a result of the inappropriate and impetuous actions of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and the failure of the Hawke Government to recognise the sensitivities of the parties immediately involved in the conflict as well as that of their regional neighbours in ASEAN; (d) calls on the Australian Government to support a Vietnamese withdrawal from Kampuchea and composition of a government in Kampuchea that is most likely to result in peace for the Cambodian people after 10 years of war and suffering; and (e) makes clear Australia's willingness to join in international efforts to rebuild Kampuchea. Senator JONES(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Collins, pursuant to notice of intention given on the last day of sitting, I now withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Collins for four 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 the name of Senator Collins for three sitting days hence, for the disallowance of Plans of Management Nos 16, 17 and 18, made under the Fisheries Act 1952. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in that capacity and in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister would be aware that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has begun ratifying agreements leading to pay rises in line with its national wage case decision. Is it a fact that these rises are being granted on the basis of a promise from unions to do no more than enter into discussions with employers about the restructuring of awards, and without the necessity of guaranteeing that any changes will actually occur? Is the Government concerned that there will be a rapid flow-on of the 3 per cent rise without achieving any productivity improvement? Does the Government believe that its wages target of a 5.5 per cent rise on a survey basis, or a 6.5 per cent rise on a national accounts basis, will be exceeded? What attitude has the Government taken to pay rises sought by its own employees as a result of the last wage case decision? Senator BUTTON —I am aware that discussions have commenced under the auspices of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to the wage increase to take place not before 1 September 1988. In the course of discussions before the Commission the question of award restructuring is a matter of substance to be discussed. As I recall the Commission's decision-I do not wish to be held to this-whether it is the Commission's decision or a commitment made by the trade union movement it is understood that the second part of the national wage rise, which it is predicated will take place in March or thereafter next year, is dependent on progress with those discussions about award restructuring. That element of the wage rise is, as I say, intimately bound up with progress on award restructuring issues. There is within the trade union movement, as I understand it from discussions with trade union representatives in a number of industries, a very strong commitment to the award restructuring process. It seems to me to be one of the most important things that has ever happened in this country, particularly in an area like the area covered by the metal trades award where there is discussion about reducing the number of award classifications from about 300 to fewer than 10. The issue of multiskilling and so on, or some other name for multiskilling, is very much active and being discussed by the parties. These things are enormously important breakthroughs. I was asked about the Government's discussion about implementing the pay increase awarded by the Arbitration Commission in respect of Commonwealth employees. I understand that those discussions have not yet commenced, but they will probably commence next week. The Budget estimate of the wage increase, or movement of wages, for the current financial year is 6.5 per cent, as I recall it. I, of course, am unable to comment or speculate about that Budget estimate, except to say that this Government's estimates have normally been pretty right. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his reply, but I ask him to consider the question further in consultation with his colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, and perhaps give the Senate a further answer. I am not sure that a couple of points the Minister mentioned are exactly accurate. I ask him to check them and let us have the benefit of a more detailed reply after consultation with Mr Willis. Senator BUTTON —I will certainly do that. I indicated, in answering the main question, that on most of those issues I felt fairly confident about what I had said, but one or two things could be clarified further. I will do that as soon as possible and give the Senate an answer. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Resources aware of several recent newspaper reports about the continued security of water resources, including supplies to rural communities, irrigation supplies and water quality? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the direction the Government is taking on this issue to ensure that future generations are assured of adequate, usable water supplies? Senator COOK —The Government identifies, under four broad headings, the requirements of the Australian community in terms of water resources. The first one is to secure for country or rural and provincial centres a secure water supply. That has not always been the case in the past, particularly for small towns. Our program to do that is the country water supply improvement program, which goes under the glorious acronym of COWSIP. The second part is to assist State governments, in particular, with major public works. A good example of what we are doing there is that we have joined the Western Australian Government in financing the construction of the Harris River Dam near Collie in Western Australia. Under the third heading I mention the fact that we, in association with State and local government, run a flood mitigation program. The recent Budget provided extensive funding for flood mitigation works in New South Wales, particularly in the western suburbs areas of Sydney. The fourth area concerns specific catchment-type programs to lower the level of salinity and/or get rid of waterlogging in river systems or in basins that are the feature of river systems. The Murray-Darling Basin initiative is the most outstanding example of that. In the last Budget we allocated $62.7m for these programs, an increase of 14 per cent on what applied previously-or $10m for those interested in the actual money. The strategy we apply is to look at the whole of the catchment and develop a strategy for that catchment or the particular project rather than simply to have a project based arrangement. The projects that we have funded out of this Budget allocation are, as I have mentioned, the Harris River Dam in Western Australia, the Brisbane Norman Creek flood mitigation project, the Launceston flood mitigation pump station in Tasmania and the Cooktown water supply project; and COWSIP money was allocated to ensure that rural communities have access to water at acceptable standards on the basis that we worked out with the States. As well, half a million dollars has been allocated to the Townsville-Thuringowa water supply project. Senator BISHOP —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the double page $20,000-plus advertisement placed in today's Melbourne Age by the Council for the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS), which again raises the divisive issue of government funding for denominational schools. Does the Minister accept that the Government is directly responsible for reopening this divisive debate by proposing the fourth referendum question? I remind the Minister that on 1 June this year he said that he could not `nor can anyone give an absolute, untempered guarantee' that state aid will be upheld by the High Court of Australia should question four be carried. Should question four be carried, what guarantee can the Minister give that organisations such as DOGS would not seek to reopen through the courts the whole question of state aid? Senator TATE —If Senator Bishop recalls the history of dealings by governments at both Federal and State level on the funding of church based schools, hospitals and other community organisations she will know that it is the Australian Labor Party which has an extremely proud and enviable record in creating a political situation in Australia in which the divisive state aid debate was brought to an end under the leadership of Prime Minister Whitlam and under the very good work of the then Minister for Education, Mr Kim Beazley, Sr. It was the Labor Party at the Federal level which closed the debate and created a situation such that over the last three or four years, as I have gone around particularly Tasmania opening extensions and new buildings for non-government schools throughout that State, I have seen that parents, church communities and students have been grateful that this Hawke Government, in line with the precedent set by Gough Whitlam, has created more real, practical opportunities for freedom of choice by parents in relation to the school in which they wish their children to be educated than ever was the case under the Liberals. I am not trying to score a political partisan point. I believe that in Australia we have reached a very good situation in which the funding of church based schools in various measures by both Federal and State governments is part of the political scene. In relation to the DOGS case, people can attack the present DOGS ruling at any time of they so wish. My point is that the decision by the High Court in the DOGS case, when one reads it, is so clear in its tenor that those who wish to throw away money on a legal challenge to that decision are free to waste their money if they so wish. It is quite clear that the decision by the High Court in that case provides a very sound foundation for the prediction that such a challenge would be totally unsuccessful. We have had over the last several weeks an attempt by the Opposition, in relation to this very important question of a further guarantee within our political framework, on what is the quintessence of conscience-that is, freedom of religion-to stir up fear and misgiving in the community, to the extent that Mr Reith, as I quoted yesterday, at a town hall meeting somewhere in South Australia, preferred to leave people in ignorance rather than seek an answer to a question that was put to him along the lines of whether Christmas or Easter would be abolished if this referendum were passed. The Opposition prefers that people be left in a state of ignorance rather than a state of enlightenment on this and many other questions. That is the only way in which it can hope to secure support for its scaremongering campaign. I believe that the Labor Government has a very enviable record, as I say, in relation to the funding of non-government schools. It would not put that funding in jeopardy. Obviously, it would be political suicide to do so. Senator Newman —Well, why do it? Why take the chance? Senator TATE —The fact is that I do not believe that there is a chance, when one looks at the very high legal authority, including the Constitutional Commission, chaired by Sir Maurice Byers-- Senator Lewis —What about Sir Maurice Byers? Senator TATE —The honourable senator can spurt out the word `Byers'. I regard Maurice Byers, QC, as a very able lawyer who, as Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth, led the arguments in the DOGS case which secured funding for non-government schools from Commonwealth coffers. If anyone would have an understanding of the law relating to this matter, it would certainly be Sir Maurice Byers. Other eminent lawyers on the Commission, people such as Leslie Zines, Professor of Law at the Australian National University, and Enid Campbell, another Professor of Law, are all held in extremely high esteem. If one adds to that list Sir Rupert Hamer, a former Premier of Victoria and certainly not a partisan supporter of the Australian Labor Party, one sees the group of people whose opinion in this matter I certainly hold in much higher regard than those thoughts emanating from the Opposition benches. Senator BISHOP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The educational `dogs of war' were certainly unleashed this morning in the Age. I ask the Minister what guarantees he can give that will prevent the DOGS Council taking action, should this proposed referendum question be passed. Senator TATE —It is not the function of a Federal Minister to prevent anyone approaching the courts if they so wish. I certainly do not intend to stand in the way of anybody who wishes to do so. As I have said in the Senate in the course of the debate on the referendums-one comment I made has been taken completely out of the context of the paragraph in which it was situated-the DOGS case provides a very sound foundation for the prediction that the funding of schools and hospitals of other community groups does not establish any religion within the terms of our Constitution. It does not create a situation in which a particular religious group, denomination or sect is given the privileges and status of a national church, which is what `establishment' is all about. In that situation there is no way in which the mere funding of an educational enterprise, even though it be conducted by a church based organisation, amounts to the establishing of a religion. Senator SCHACHT —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to comments on the Government's fiscal policy made by Mr Andrew Peacock and reported in yesterday's Australian Financial Review? Will the Government be modifying its fiscal policies in response to Mr Peacock's criticisms? Senator WALSH —The answer to the second part of the question is an unequivocal no, and there are a number of reasons for that. But one of the major reasons comes out of Mr Peacock's own mouth, because he is quoted in the same report as saying: I am not an accountant and I do not approach the problem of cutting of government spending as an accounting exercise. In other words, who needs an accountant when a bottle of snake oil will do? Snake oil, of course, is what has powered the Liberal Party's budget and other economic policies for almost as long as anybody can remember. In the same article Mr Peacock asserted that a person on average weekly earnings was paying $56 a week more in tax than he or she was paying in 1983. In making that assertion he demonstrated an inability to distinguish between the notional nominal tax that would be paid and the real tax that would be paid. The difference between the two is that, if incomes increase and if the income tax rate scale, which is progressive, remains unchanged, the proportion of income paid in taxes increases. If the source of the increase in incomes is equal to the inflation rate over a period, in real terms the amount of tax paid by individuals increases. It increases very much more in nominal terms than it does in real terms. The figure of $56 a week that Mr Peacock quoted was based on a notional nominal increase in the amount of taxation paid over a five-year period. In other words, it was resting upon a fictitious base-something like the Opposition's alternative Budget last year; that also rested on a fictitious base. Mr Peacock, of course, was not responsible directly for that, but the indications are that he is not likely to do any better than his predecessor did. For a person to have actually paid, in constant dollars, $56 more in taxation, we would have required over that 5 1/4-year period a compound rate of wage increases of 11.4 per cent. That is something that would be pretty easy to achieve if we had the Liberals in government. John Howard presided over a wages explosion of 13 per cent in 1981 and 14 per cent in 1982. Had we had the sort of wages inflation which was associated with the last Liberal Government and which I have no doubt would be associated with the next Liberal Government-unless it drives the economy into a 1930s-type depression-what Mr Peacock says has happened might in fact have happened. Likewise, for there to have been an increase in tax paid of that magnitude, average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) over the year would have been something above $32,000. I am sure that, if people on AWOTE actually had incomes of that magnitude, they probably would not mind paying an extra $50 a week in taxes; but, of course, they do not have them. Mr Peacock has demonstrated, in his own words, that he is approaching the question of compiling a budget on the outlay side not from the perspective of an accountant but from the perspective of a snake oil merchant. He has also demonstrated with his further comment that he does not understand the concept of tax indexation. I recall that, when the Fraser Government had its brief flirtation with tax indexation, one of the reasons given by the then Prime Minister for the withdrawal just 12 months later was that people do not understand the concept of tax indexation. I do not know whether people do or not, but, very clearly, Andrew Peacock does not. He understands neither accounting nor the concept of tax indexation. As I said before, who needs to be numerate when a bottle of snake oil will do as a substitute for policy? I might just as a final comment add that given the record of the Liberal Party over recent years his innumeracy and lack of conceptual understanding should provide excellent qualifications for Andrew Peacock to remain as the shadow Treasurer of the Opposition. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. By way of preamble I point out that the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has claimed that the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) has two levels of confidentiality relating to personal medical information held by the Commission; for example a release of more sensitive information to senior political figures and the Governor-General. If this is the case, is the practice continuing? Does this practice not breach the principle of medical confidentiality? Is legislation currently being drafted to ensure proper protection against infringements of a medical practitioner's privacy and that of the patient? If so, will this legislation give individuals more legally enforceable rights over their own confidential medical information? Senator COOK —I too have seen the reports that Senator Coulter refers to and I might say that the Australian Medical Association is and has been a constant critic of the Health Insurance Commission. When one views the criticisms of the AMA it should be recognised that it has a vested interest in making criticisms of the HIC and in trying to argue that it does not effect its responsibilities properly. Despite the fact that the AMA does have a vested interest one should treat all criticisms properly, and the Government treats these properly. The honourable senator's question gives me an opportunity to reply as to what actually does happen and to clear the record. The HIC, I am advised, does not maintain an extra security VIP list as alleged. What in fact does happen and has happened since 1983, when the Medicare computer was first set up, is that certain individuals' medical records are flagged in special circumstances for particular treatment. The records which are flagged are the records of the Health Commission staff because it was believed that staff records should be treated in the same way as or in a similar way to personnel records. Where Health Commission staff deal with each other's records it was felt in those circumstances that it would be better if they were flagged and dealt with by higher authorities within the Commission. There are some individuals whose records are being flagged as well for such a treatment. Those individuals are people nominated by the State Manager of the HIC and it is not something over which the Government has any control nor seeks to have any control. They are individuals who are in a position where there is a need for special sensitivity or where there are particular concerns which the State Manager thinks make it appropriate that those records should be flagged. The HIC recognises that privacy is of course an important and basic right and believes that its normal privacy standards as applied to the rest of us are adequate to guarantee protection of privacy. Flagging will continue because of the special categories that I have mentioned. The honourable senator asked whether there were any plans to put in amending legislation. I can say that the Government has no plans to change the existing legislation as it believes that, as far as legislative prohibitions are concerned, the current legislation goes as far as is reasonably possible to ensure proper protection against infringements of a medical practitioner's privacy or that of a patient. We point out that legislation cannot prevent the improper disclosure of information but can provide penalties, which the current Act does, and those penalties should act as a deterrent. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Can the Minister inform the Senate what the level of Commonwealth Budget outlays will be in 1988-89 as a percentage of gross domestic product? What comparisons can be drawn between the present Government and its predecessor? Senator WALSH —As the Budget Papers show in a number of places, outlays for this year of, in round figures, $82 billion comprise 25.6 per cent of gross domestic product. It is worthy of noting that in no year of the seven years that the coalition Government was in office were outlays, as a proportion of gross domestic product, as low as that. Indeed, the lowest that outlays ever reached under the previous Government was 26 per cent of gross domestic product, in 1979-80. That fact stands, even though there has been a substantial change to the base. I refer, of course, to the introduction of the Medicare policy, which shifted a considerable amount of expenditure from the household budget to the Commonwealth Budget and is included in the figure of 25.6 per cent of GDP which I have cited. Were it not for that Medicare transfer, the figure for this year would be 25 per cent or may be lower. It is also worth noting that in the last year of the unlamented former Government and in the last Budget which the discredited former Treasurer brought down, in 1982-83, outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product were a full 29 per cent-that is, 3.4 percentage points higher than this year, or in terms of the present size of GDP some $11 billion more. That is how much extra John Howard spent in the last year that he was Treasurer. To convert it into modern figures, John Howard's last Budget spent $11 billion more than the estimate of expenditure for this Budget. Despite all the Opposition's windy rhetoric-and we still get it-the plain fact is that this Government, despite having absorbed the Medicare cost, has expenditure much more firmly under control than the Fraser-Howard Government did at any stage, and vastly more under control than John Howard had it in that last desperate irresponsible 1982 Budget. They were the big spenders of yesteryear and they are the fiscal ratbags of today. Senator PUPLICK —I address my question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Given the fact that the Government's minders, of which Senator Richardson is the acknowledged expert, are trying to paper over the rift between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, which the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, has conceded is destabilising the Government, can the Minister enlighten the Senate and the Australian people of the purport and substance of the conversation which he had with the Treasurer last Thursday, which conversation apparently was taped and offered for sale to the Canberra Times? Will he enlighten the Senate whether the terms used by the Treasurer to describe the Prime Minister are in line with the Treasurer's usual disgusting personal vocabulary, and is Senator Richardson game to repeat them in public? Senator Gareth Evans —I seek guidance on a point of order, Mr President. The question does not relate in any way to the Minister's portfolio, and I submit that it is out of order. Senator Puplick —On the point of order, Mr President, I draw attention to standing order 98, which says: After Notices have been given Questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs . . . Mr Odgers says, on page 216: Questions may be put to a Minister of the Crown relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected. I put to you, Mr President, that the standing order which says that questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs puts the question in order since the public interest in the relationship-the declining relationship-between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is a matter of public interest. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President-- Senator Lewis —Mr President, I take a point of order on Senator Evans's intervention. Senator Evans has already spoken to his point of order and has no right to respond. Senator Gareth Evans —Further to the point of order, Mr President: if it were the case that the definition of what is a permissible question at Question Time were broad enough to encompass public affairs at large, it would not be part of the rulings of this place, with which we are all familiar, that questions as to party political views of the world and the views of the Opposition are out of order. The point is that the definition has been narrowly construed to relate to matters that are within or can be squarely attached to or related to the conduct of a Minister's portfolio. I ask you to rule accordingly. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr President, clearly Senator Evans is misrepresenting the question when he says that it is a matter that goes to party affairs. It goes to the relationships between senior Ministers of this Government which have been publicly commented upon by at least two Ministers of the Government in this place over recent days. They have both commented in terms of it being a matter which is pertinent to public interest and not a matter of private party interest. I think also, Mr President, that you should be guided in your ruling on this matter by the practice of this place in terms of the scope which Ministers allow themselves in answering questions. It seems to me that the Ministers cannot have it both ways: they cannot on the one hand claim that they are at liberty to answer questions in the broad way in which they do, which usually includes a great deal of political abuse of the Opposition and a great deal of quite irrelevant material with respect to the question which is being asked, and then take a narrow and technical interpretation of the Standing Orders when a question is asked that they do not like. Therefore, I suggest to you, Mr President, that it would be quite improper to rule this question out of order. The PRESIDENT —I am aware of the standing order that says that questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs and I am reluctant to rule any question out of order. My predecessors have consistently ruled that questions must relate to matters within a Minister's area of responsibility in a personal or representative capacity. If Senator Richardson wishes to reply to the question within his area of responsibility he may do so. Senator RICHARDSON —I would be happy to answer the question if it will facilitate the affairs of the Senate. While of course not conceding for a moment that I believe it to be within order or appropriate, all I know is that an anonymous person from Canberra has alleged that he-and I believe it is a he-illegally taped a conversation between two people, allegedly the Treasurer and me. I do not believe that I have to respond in any way to anonymous persons who allegedly illegally tape conversations, and I have nothing further to say. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence on the floor of the chamber of the Prime Minister of Western Samoa, the Hon. Tofilau Eti Alesana, MP. On behalf of all senators I extend to him and his entourage a warm welcome to Australia and trust their stay is a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator VALLENTINE —Can the Minister for Resources provide details on the nature and amounts of assistance given by the Federal Government to the French Government owned chemical giant, Rhone Poulenc, in support of that company's proposal to process monazite sand and to deposit radioactive waste in Western Australia as referred to in press statements of the then Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, dated 15 January 1987? Can the Minister further explain on what basis this project was endorsed and why financial incentives were provided to Rhone Poulenc before the environmental implications had been assessed and public comment considered, as per the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974? Senator COOK —The development by Rhone Poulenc of a monazite processing plant accords with the broad thrust of Government policy in developing industries in which there is a higher technological input and, in particular, it accords with the thrust of something which keeps me occupied during most of my working day; that is, how we can add value to Australia's raw materials that we export. This project would add considerable value to monazite and in that sense it accords with the broad thrust of our core policy. However, we do not just say that baldly; it needs to and has to conform with environmental protections and safeguards. It needs to and has to conform with health and safety standards and, in this particular project, it has to come within the ambit of our nuclear policy as well. The particular project that Senator Vallentine has referred to requires approval under our foreign investment guidelines and thus automatically comes under the purview of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act that she has referred to. The Western Australian Government and the Commonwealth Government-the Commonwealth Government in the manifestation of my colleague Senator Richardson, the Minister responsible for the environment-is currently assessing the environmental aspects of this particular project. I am advised that no direct financial incentives are provided by the Commonwealth. However, if this particular project proceeds it will benefit, as have many other mineral processing projects in Australia, from the lifting of import duty on caustic soda, which is a major agent in the treatment of monazite processing in Australia. So to that extent there would be some advantage. Senator NEWMAN —Now that the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney-General, has had 24 hours to think about it, and in light of the formal announcement by the Australian Chamber of Commerce that it no longer supports referendum questions Nos 1 and 2, will the Minister name one major business organisation that supports the first referendum proposal, as claimed in the Yes case booklet? Senator TATE —I am quite content to rest with my answer of yesterday, which makes it quite clear that the referendum proposal to provide a maximum term for both chambers of Federal Parliament enjoys widespread support throughout the Australian community. I am sure that that must include, on the law of averages, many of those involved with the business community. Senator NEWMAN —I have a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's total inability to justify the misleading claim in the Yes case booklet which ties support for a four-year term to the Government's question No. 1, which is aimed at weakening the power of the Senate-which is the reason business has deserted the Government on this issue-I ask the Minister to apologise to the Australian people for this deceitful and deliberately misleading assertion of business support. The PRESIDENT —Order! That was more of a statement than a supplementary question. Senator TATE —It was, and the trouble with that sort of allegation is that it invites a debating type response, which I know that you, Mr President, would probably rule out of order. The fact is, as you know-- Senator Puplick —Only to protect you. Senator TATE —I think that is a reflection on the Chair, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator TATE —One knows that the Australian Local Government Association has spoken of Mr Peter Reith's campaign, particularly with respect to the local government question, as being composed of `blatant lies which will do an enormous amount of damage to the Liberal Party's credibility'. I believe that is the sort of response that is called for to the sorts of allegations put forward by Senator Newman, but I would not like to get into that sort of swapping of allegations across the chamber. Senator Michael Baume —You are an expert in lies, and you are doing it right now. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Michael Baume to withdraw the comment that he just made about the Minister. Senator Michael Baume —I withdraw. Senator McMULLAN —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen a letter in today's Australian Financial Review from a senior consultant to the New South Wales Industrial Supplies Office accusing the Federal Government and the Australian people in general of `abject acceptance that our manufacturing has deteriorated since the mid-1970s' and accusing the Government of doing `absolutely nothing' in practical terms to replace imports? The letter also asserts that the Industrial Supplies Office is the only practical cost-effective import replacement scheme that has been put in place. Can the Minister confirm the accuracy of this statement? Senator BUTTON —I can do all the things that Senator McMullan has asked of me but I might take a minute or two because in order to elaborate on the details I have to find the brief on this matter. The letter was drawn to my attention. I am very grateful to Senator Gareth Evans and my staff. Senator Chaney —What will you do when he is overseas? Senator BUTTON —That is something that I will worry about at the time. I am indebted to him. Let me say that the correspondent in the Australian Financial Review was a person intimately associated, I understand, with the New South Wales Industrial Supplies Office. Some of the allegations made in the letter, apart from advertising the services which the Industrial Supplies Office gives, ignore a number of facts to which I want to draw the Senate's attention. First of all, it is not true to suggest that the manufacturing sector has declined in terms of total output, productivity, and employment. Manufacturing employment has increased over the last three years and the value of goods created in the manufacturing sector has reached record levels. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that for the last five quarters manufacturing production is up and has reached previous peak records. Manufactured exports as a proportion of total exports are at the highest figure ever and private capital investment is budgeted to increase by 12 per cent in the current financial year, which of course means increased manufacturing capacity. More importantly than that, the writer of the letter ignores the thrust of Government policy, which is to facilitate companies becoming more internationally competitive and exporting. In that process, as industry becomes more part of the international economy there will be increased exports and increased imports into some sectors of manufacturing activity. That is inevitable as specialisation occurs. The writer ignores a number of Government programs intended to boost exports and not just develop import replacement. I remind the Senate that export activity in the manufacturing sector has improved significantly and import replacement has not perhaps improved as much as one might have expected, which is related to the point I just made. Industry policy is directed towards building industries that can compete in global markets-not supporting them with high tariffs and so on. Companies selling to the Australian Government, for example, are required to make substantial commitments to the Australian marketplace. There is less emphasis on offset deals and encouragement of activities consistent with the vendor's core business. In the information industry we have implemented a particular program-this is an area referred to by the author of the Australian Financial Review article-in the field of information technology. The Government has done a number of other things such as encouraging the formation of a venture capital market in Australia with the management investment company scheme, improving the export market development grants scheme, and so on. There are a number of matters one could raise in response to an article such as that. There is no substantial evidence which supports that letter in terms of a decline in manufacturing activity in Australia in the context of increased exports and a much greater specialisation in the manufacturing sector. I draw those matters to honourable senators' attention just in case some of them might be misled by that letter. Senator REID —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer and ask him about the International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention No. 160, which deals with the collection of statistics and which the Government ratified in 1986. Is the Minister aware that article 13, in referring to household expenditure surveys, binds Australia to compiling such surveys `in such a way as to be representative of the country as a whole'? Will the Minister explain why 1,541 households, or just on 20 per cent of the total 7,500 households to be surveyed under the 1988-89 household expenditure survey, come from Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, where 5 per cent of the population lives? Why is the Government walking away from a convention it signed two years ago? In other words, what are the Government and the Australian Bureau of Statistics up to in violating this article? Senator WALSH —I do not know what ILO convention 160 is, much less what article 13 of that convention is; nor do I know for sure why 20 per cent of the households to be surveyed cover a geographic area in which only 5 per cent of the total population lives. I would expect, however-I will have this confirmed-that it is done for statistical reasons. If there were a uniform percentage sample taken in those areas with low population, the absolute number of people in the sample would probably be so small that a very large statistical error could be produced; but I will have that checked out. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of the report in the Australian Financial Review on 29 August indicating record productivity levels at Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd's (BHP) Port Kembla works? Senator BUTTON —This has been a matter of continual debate depending on quarterly reports. If there is a bit of industrial unrest at Port Kembla, the Opposition comes in here and moves matters of public importance and censure motions and asks a whole series of questions. That was the March quarter report. When the June quarter report came out and said that Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd had messed up its technology, that the technology was not working and that that had caused an enormous downturn in production, there was not a question from Opposition members-not a bleep out of them-which makes a mockery of Senator Chaney's claim in here the other day that the Liberals are not about taking sides in industrial relations issues. There was not a question from the whole lot of them, including Senator Michael Baume, the champion of the steelworks at Port Kembla. Senator Childs referred to a statement by BHP recorded in the Financial Review on 29 August relating to a continuing trend in productivity figures. I made the point a minute ago that the result for earlier this year was poor, as a result of the mechanical failure of the largest blast furnace at Port Kembla. By March the position had been reversed, with a record productivity level being achieved at Port Kembla. The latest figures mentioned in the Financial Review show that the improvement has been maintained. Not only is the equipment running well and producing near record quantities of quality steel, but also there are encouraging signs of a cooperative industrial relations climate at all of BHP's plants. They are encouraging as the steel industry plan approaches its scheduled end. The results reported at Port Kembla for recent months show what the industry can achieve now that the investment in high technology equipment is coming good, is in place and is working. The other encouraging sign is that all the parties in the industry seem to be working together towards the post-steel plan period in terms of their industrial relations commitments. That is a matter of ongoing discussion. Senator Stone —What about Korea and Japan? Senator BUTTON —I am sure that the productivity levels are still below those in Korea, as they are in most countries. But the fact remains that there has been an enormous improvement and BHP is once again able to say, as it has said, that it produces the cheapest steel in the world. Senator BOSWELL —Mr President, I refer you to a paper entitled Guidelines: Use of new Parliament House facilities for functions, issued to senators and members, in which it is stated: Functions held by organisations will not be considered where, while the organisation or function is not in itself objectionable, the association of the building with the organisation or function would not be desirable (for example, to have a particular church holding a religious or ecclesiastical function in the building which may offend other religious groups and secularists). I ask you, Mr President: Have these guidelines been endorsed by you and Madam Speaker? If so, would you and Mrs Child consider reviewing the decision, as it is concerning the Christian community that they may be denied access to the people's House to hold religious functions, whilst business, sports and other organisations can be granted access? I request that in your answer you consider the recent public statements made by church leaders around the country who are worried that the Constitution referendum question on freedom of religion could lead to freedom from religion in the same way that these guidelines restrict religious functions. The PRESIDENT —The guidelines which Senator Boswell has quoted from I think were taken from a draft set of guidelines prepared for consideration by the Joint House Committee. Following discussions, which included the Speaker and me, a final set of guidelines was drafted which removed the two guidelines to which Senator Boswell has referred. For the information of honourable senators, I table a set of current guidelines. The Speaker and I have approved these guidelines and they will be subject to discussions at the Joint House Committee meeting on 31 August. To date, a number of functions sponsored by the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship have been held in the new Parliament House, including a service which 2,000 people attended on 21 August. I believe that the annual national prayer breakfast is to be held on 10 October in the Great Hall. Senator BURNS —Has the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, seen a transcript of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview with the Queensland Minister for Finance, Brian Austin, responding to suggestions Senator Walsh made in the Senate yesterday that he would ask the Treasurer to reduce Queensland's financial assistance grants by $2m? Does the Minister accept Mr Austin's statement that the cost of the Queensland Government's campaign against the fair election referendum is only $750,000? Given Mr Austin's statement that the funds for this campaign are `coming from Consolidated Revenue and it's impossible to say whether it comes from grants to the State or taxation by the State', has Senator Walsh's view as to whether the Commonwealth should recover the money been modified? Senator WALSH —Whether the correct figure is $750,000 or $2m, or even $50m, disregards the important point that whatever the amount it is being spent improperly. We know that there is nothing at all unusual about the improper expenditure of funds in Queensland under the present National Party Government, the survival of which is of course dependent upon the continuation of the corrupt electoral system to which the taxpayer-funded advertising campaign is directed to preserving. I am not at all surprised, however, that the Queensland National Party Minister for Finance does not know whether the cost of the campaign is coming from State or Commonwealth sources of revenue. The bigger problem in Queensland normally is not where the money is coming from but where it is going to-whether, for example, it is going to some National Party apparatchik up in the north of Queensland who is quite improperly being granted a loan following political intervention by the Minister concerned. The authority responsible for administering drought relief funds had knocked back this particular application, the Queensland National Party Minister intervened, and a Mr Michael Behan-no relation at all to Senator Beahan-got $150,000 from what the Queensland Government clearly regards as a slush fund to be delivered to National Party apparatchiks at the discretion of the State Minister. Again, it is not really surprising that the Minister who is responsible in the State of Queensland for authorising expenditure does not know how much it is. It is not the first time that Queensland Government or Commonwealth Government taxpayers who have had money directed through the Queensland Government have seen money misused. Given the state of public accounting in Queensland and the disclosure of public finances, it is unlikely that we will ever know for sure how much the campaign has cost. In closing, I wish to say that the average cost of the advertisements which are being put to air is around $2,000. The Queensland public might like to reflect on the fact that every time one of those advertisements appears, that is $2,000 that is not going into Queensland's schools, hospitals, roads, public transport, public housing and whatever else we can think of, which are quite proper and legitimate areas for the expenditure of State government funds. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. Is it the Government's intention to reverse its decision to delist 53 drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme? Senator COOK —No. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister able to explain why his colleague the Western Australian Minister for Health, Mr Wilson, has stated quite publicly that he is satisfied that he will be able to have the Government change its mind? Senator COOK —I think that is a question that Senator Crichton-Browne should direct to Mr Wilson. I cannot answer on his behalf. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Is it a fact that a number of pilots of Air Nauru have been dismissed from their jobs because of disputes over the airline's operational and safety procedures? Is it also a fact that the New Zealand Ministry of Transport suspended Air Nauru's air service certificate on 24 August 1988 and that, as a consequence, all subsequent flights by Air Nauru have been downgraded to a private category which prohibits carrying passengers or goods for remuneration? Is it a fact that, in spite of operating in a private, non-commercial category and having questionable safety standards, Air Nauru has continued to fly in and out of Australia carrying goods for which freight was paid? If so, why has the Government not taken appropriate action to protect the Australian flying public from the hazards created by Air Nauru operations in Australian air space? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand that Air Nauru dismissed most of its pilots in June this year in the context of attempts by those pilots to form a union. The reasons for the dismissal action have not been formally conveyed to us. I am unable to comment further on the circumstances of the dismissal. New Zealand has acted as the aviation regulatory authority for Air Nauru for some years, but suspended its air service certificate in June 1988 as the airline had insufficient suitably qualified personnel to manage and operate the airline. The Australian Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which came into operation on 1 July this year, did not issue an air operator's certificate to Air Nauru because of the airline's inability to meet the New Zealand requirements. So it is the case that since 1 July Air Nauru has been able to operate only private flights into Australia, The airline has given an undertaking that it will not carry commercial freight, and agents and freight forwarders are aware that Air Nauru is not available for freight services or for fare paying passengers. With regard to the safety aspect, which I suppose is the nub of Senator Sanders' question, the CAA has no reason to believe that the private operations by Air Nauru have not complied with international safety standards or that the safety of the Australian public has been adversely affected. If any event, I am advised that no further flights are planned by Air Nauru in that capacity at this stage. Senator BEAHAN —Has the Minister for Finance received any representations to amend the eligibility requirements for loans under the natural disaster relief arrangements (NDRA)? If so, what is the Minister's response to those representations? Senator WALSH —I have not received any representations directly but I have had forwarded to me by Mr Kerin a letter from Senator Crichton-Browne regarding natural disaster relief arrangements which are administered by the Department of Finance, not by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. It is the custom and practice-if not in all States, certainly in most States-for a State body to administer the distribution of funds, be they rural adjustment funds or natural disaster relief funds. It is administered by a common body in Western Australia which these days is known as the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation, or RAFCOR. In the letter Senator Crichton-Browne bemoans that it is not possible for an individual to get drought relief and cyclone relief at the same time. This reminds me of something Senator Puplick said in an earlier incarnation-the best three lines he has ever produced-as National President of the Young Liberals. He said of the National Party, `When the sun shines they want drought relief, when it rains they want flood relief, and if it grows they want a subsidy.' That attitude of mind is by no means confined to the National Party; it has obviously infected the Liberal Party in Western Australia as well, or at least one member of it. But, more importantly, the administration of NDRA and rural adjustment scheme funds in Western Australia a few years ago was extremely slack. Of course, in some States it still is. On all the evidence available to me it is pretty clear that it is still extremely slack in Queensland, but it was extremely slack in Western Australia until the present Director, Mr Groves, took over the job. It was slack in a number of ways, but the one which is relevant to Senator Crichton-Browne's letter is that people would apply for a loan and get $40,000 or $50,000 at 4 per cent interest and nobody would even inquire what other assets they might have. They might have had $100,000 in the bank, or $100,000 in Commonwealth bonds, or $1m for that matter, and nobody even inquired, when these people made an application for a 4 per cent loan, whether they had any other assets, liquid or otherwise. The new administration in Western Australia has cleaned that up. Honourable senators should remember that Senator Crichton-Browne-- Senator Stone —It is one of the few things they had. Senator WALSH —If there were any rorts going I am sure that the honourable senator would be up to his ears in them if he had half a chance. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator WALSH —I am sorry, was that Senator MacGibbon interjecting? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator WALSH —Was it Senator Stone? I thought it was Senator Crichton-Browne. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw that inference. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I certainly withdraw it. I did not think it was Senator Stone who interjected. Senator Crichton-Browne-- Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. I think the Minister is confused and has got in a complete mess about whom he has abused and who actually made the interjection on him. Clearly, his statement implies that there is some dishonesty on the part of a senator and he should be asked to withdraw the inference without qualification. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I withdraw. Let me quote what Senator Crichton-Browne said: Further, the requirement regarding- and this is a quotation from the guidelines- `assets not essential for the future viability of the pastoral station operation' is particularly restrictive. This could mean having to mortgage a child's education and depleting investments made for retirement. Senator Crichton-Browne said that this is an intolerable condition to impose on anybody who wants a $40,000 loan-or two $40,000 loans if he gets his way-at around 4 per cent interest, from the taxpayers. He said it is absolutely intolerable that people should actually be required to look after themselves first before they line up to get a 4 per cent loan from the taxpayers. What this shows, of course, is that deep down the Liberal Party, especially in Western Australia, has not changed at all. The Western Australian Liberals-one or two of them, who are no longer members of the Parliament-had a reputation for some understanding, some intellectual comprehension of how a market system operates and some personal integrity. In particular, they believed that the expenditure of public money should be subject to close scrutiny and rigorous accountability. The Liberals from Western Australia who believed that were people such as John Hyde and probably Ross McLean, who have now lost their seats. What we have left here is the dregs. So-called small government dries, such as Senator Crichton-Browne, still have the same view that they have always had-that is, that ordinary people should be taxed to accumulate slush funds from which they can then distribute patronage to their cronies. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time today Senator Chaney asked me a question about the national wage decision. I undertook to get a further answer from the Minister. I will do that but I just want to supplement what I said by making the point that, under the Commission's decision, any wage increases, including the March one, are dependent on a formal commitment to a review of award structures. The Commission will sit in February 1989 to hear detailed reports on progress in individual award reviews. There may be some aspects of the question which Senator Chaney still wants elaboration on and I will obtain a further answer from the Minister for Industrial Relations. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time late last week Senator Lewis asked me a question which in essence was whether companies could meet their partnerships for development commitments by importing equipment, exporting it to New Zealand and re-importing it into Australia, thus apparently achieving an export-import ratio of 50 per cent, the target figure for the partnerships. In relation to that question I just want to make two points. First of all I was somewhat confused by one aspect of the question which was included with others. The question referred to sales tax and customs duties. I was somewhat confused by that because there are no customs duties on computers and associated equipment. In respect of the two main points I want to make these observations: The partnership commitments undertaken by each corporation are part of a corporate mission given by corporate headquarters to its Australian subsidiary. The work program or the investment program has to have some underlying rationale. It is not just a matter of meeting export targets by any means possible, but of developing in Australia some strategic, internationally focused activities of long term significance to each corporation. The activities proposed by companies must be approved by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce as part of the annual review and audit process which is agreed between the company and the Department. Secondly, the export targets referred to in the partnership agreement involve the value added in Australia. The partnership program requires the average Australian content of exports by a partner firm to exceed 70 per cent over the range of its export activities. The imported content of the exported goods-if one were to export to New Zealand and import back again-thus conveys little benefit to firms, which must develop genuine Australian-based export activities to meet their targets. To take Senator Lewis's example: if $1m worth of goods is imported and then exported, the value added is zero. This does not help a corporation to meet its partnership target. The practice would also defy business logic, which underlies the whole partnership program in seeking to produce beneficial situations for the partners, that is the corporation, local firms and Australia overall. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer. At this stage I would just like to say a few words. I certainly would appreciate some explanation-I know many colleagues on my side of the chamber who would like some explanation-from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) as to what the partnerships for development program is all about. It makes it extraordinarily difficult to understand the matter when all we have is some sort of phraseology called the partnerships for development program. The Minister has elaborated slightly in his answer today and we now grasp some of the details but I put to the Minister that at some stage, and preferably in the very near future, he ought to make a statement in the Senate so that we in the Senate and the people of Australia can find out what this is all about. It should be a statement which sets out the nature of the arrangements. I am asking not for personal, confidential information about the particulars but, in general, about the nature of the partnerships for development program. I believe the Minister has an obligation to provide that information to the Parliament. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —by leave-I will try to do what Senator Lewis has suggested. The Department's development agreements are aimed at doing something about our current account problem in terms of information industry equipment. That is essentially the underlying strategy. I shall try to put together a statement relating to the details. I simply say that during the Estimates Committee hearings in the Senate on the last occasion discussion on this issue took about two hours. I think Senator Lewis was away at the time, but other senators were involved. Senator REYNOLDS —Yesterday Senator Patterson asked me a question regarding veterans in receipt of disability pension and said that she was concerned that they were being required to answer certain medical questions on the telephone. I have received a response from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. There are occasions when the Department of Veterans' Affairs makes telephone contact with veterans in order to seek information. Such information is required for clarification purposes and is not sought where a medical examination is required. The information is to augment that which already exists on departmental files. This practice is designed to provide a better service for veterans and to expedite the processing of a veteran's claim. It is not considered that any veteran's claim would be adversely affected by these pro- cedures. The Department of Veterans' Affairs at all times considers its responsibilities to the veteran and ensures that everything possible is done to assist the veteran in the presentation of a claim for disability pension to the determining authority. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —In the process of purporting to answer a question, Senator Walsh led the Senate to believe that I had applied, by way of representation to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, for drought relief and for cyclone relief at the same time, as if to give the impression that it had been raining but was dry at the same time. Though it may be greatly amusing to those in the Government, led by Senator Walsh, to trivialise the pain, suffering and economic devastation of people affected in the way in which those I represent were affected, it in no way does credit to the senator from Western Australia, who I presume from time to time purports to represent his constituents. There is an area in Western Australia, East Gascoyne, which suffered devastation from a dry cyclone-even Senator Walsh will understand what a dry cyclone is. The wind erosion was enormous, and the loss of stock, fences and windmills was devastating. That came at a time of deep drought in the same area. Honourable senators will understand the combined effect of those two climatic circumstances. But Senator Walsh finds that very amusing. He thinks it very amusing that in a matter of hours people can see a lifetime of effort and work go past them-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! A personal explanation must not be used to attack another senator. Senator Crichton-Browne must confine himself to explaining how he was misrepresented. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, Mr Deputy President. I would never do that in relation to Senator Walsh. He himself is unaccustomed to such behaviour. Senator Button —Don't be uncharitable. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Button is quite right. To say that of Senator Walsh is to be uncharitable. Senator Walsh purported to be quoting my correspondence. What he was doing was quoting two or three phrases out of context, for which practice he is notorious. As you point out, Mr Deputy President, a personal explanation does not give me an opportunity to go into the details of the representation that I made to the Minister; I shall save that for another time. Suffice it to say that my representation was made on the basis of devastation wreaked upon the pastoralists of Western Australia by way of a drought and a cyclone at the same time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Mr President has received a letter from Senator Calvert proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need to oppose Labor's empty but dangerous proposal for local government by voting no to the third referendum. 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 CALVERT(Tasmania)(3.20) —I lead the debate on this matter of public importance with a great degree of honour. I thank my colleagues for the support they have given me in opposing the third referendum question. It is an honour because this debate is a matter of grave public importance to everyone, particularly to the ratepayers of those 800 councils and shires throughout Australia. It is a matter of importance because, put simply, should this question be passed in the forthcoming referendum the very existence of local government as we know it today will be lost. Over 100 years of tradition will be thrown out of the window merely to satisfy this Australian Labor Party Government's hidden agenda. I am very proud to say that I have supporting me two members of the coalition, Senator Panizza and Senator McGauran, who have both had long and distinguished careers in local government. As honourable senators know, Senator McGauran represented the central business district of Melbourne on the very distinguished Melbourne City Council, which has a budget in excess of $200m. Senator Panizza served as a West Australian shire councillor for some 12 years, including five years as shire president. Before he retired he was a delegate to the Country Shire Councils and a delegate to the great eastern areas of the Country Shire Councillors Association. He retired from all these positions in local government to become a senator. It is important to realise that when we speak on the possible effect of this question on local governments and how they would suffer we all speak with considerable experience and practical knowledge. As a former member of local government for some 12 years and a warden, or shire president as some might interpret the position, for four years, I am well aware of the fervour with which some elements of local government have sought to get some acknowledgment of the system of local government in the Federal Constitution. Since the heady days of the 1970s, recognition has almost become local government's holy grail. Perhaps for those of us who can remember some of the early radio serials, I suggest that it has become a search for the golden boomerang. For some reason there are some local government members who believe that if they can achieve this so-called ultimate aim of achieving recognition in the Federal Constitution, like manna from heaven a great change will occur and the massive taxes which are paid by the ratepayers will be returned to them in bigger lumps and with fewer strings attached. I say categorically that in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I have to make a confession that when this matter was first raised in the party room I gave serious consideration to supporting the proposal for a Yes vote. Senator Reynolds —Well done. Senator CALVERT —However, Minister, I was new to the ways of politics and, thankfully, wiser heads than mine prevailed. Thank goodness they did, because I was wrong and I am quite happy to admit it. Since that time, and as this matter is debated more and more in the public arena, it has become quite evident that this proposal is a trojan horse for local government. It promises much, it delivers little, and it takes away a great deal. It has been condemned in the media and by academics. Smarter men than I, and men of greater esteem, have attacked this proposal. The Australian newspaper's editorial of 2 August made a scathing attack on this proposal. It said: . . . it is an unnecessary intrusion into the internal administration of the States and could be the cause of endless confusion and a deluge of litigation. Further on it continued: Nevertheless, it is at best unnecessary and at worst could be confusing, costly and time-consuming. Far from extending democracy it would take the power to determine local government questions away from elected State parliaments and deliver it to unelected judges. Further, Associate Professor George Winterton from the University of New South Wales Law School mirrored the views of so many constitutional professionals in an article in the Australian with the headline `Local government-leave well alone'. In the article he says: . . . it would be a mistake to reduce the power of the States to ensure honest and competent local government by introducing Federal constitutional complications into such questions. There are other quotations, and I refer to the Sunday Mail of 21 August and an article headed `We say ``No'' ', as follows: The constitutional structure of Australia, and its demography, require that the States remain the principal mode of government. Concentrating further decision-making in Canberra would simply feed the overblown Federal bureaucracy. The list of quotations is endless and I do not intend to use all my time telling the Government what it already knows. The question has blown up in the Government's face. The ratepayers of Australia are aware of the duplicity. The Constitution does not recognise the position of Prime Minister, yet we seem to have been able to get along well with quite a few Prime Ministers with only a few minor hiccups over the past 87 years. There is not a ratepayer in this country who does not already know that local government exists. So much for all the grandstanding! What is local government really looking for? I have questioned several of my former local government colleagues on what this question will do for them. I also asked: `What is in it for you?'. In most cases, if I received an answer at all, it seemed to be more influenced by ego rather than an underlying belief that this process was all that was necessary. Answers largely took the form of: `It will give us more status' or `It is a sign of our importance in the overall system of government'. Of course, some raised the furphy that they will be able to deal with the Federal Government without having to go through a State government. I will say more about that and the dangers involved later. It is interesting to note that Senator Archer, my colleague from Tasmania, when responding to some 150 councils challenged them to write to him about the advantages that recognition would bring to local government. As far as I know, he did not receive one positive answer. So one is forced to question whether or not there are sections of local government that do not understand the implications themselves. Let us look at what the proposal fails to deliver to local government. One of the principal drawbacks is that it does not mean that local councils need to be democratically elected. I find it amazing, at a time when the Federal Government is making such a big noise about the way that it values local government, that it has not even seen fit to apply the fair elections proposal to local government. Those councils which are subject to gerrymanders will therefore have them permanently entrenched as part of the system. This proposal will not allay the real fears of local government. This is purely a formal and deleterious provision which achieves nothing beyond the recognition of local government in name only. Let us look at a few of the nots. The proposal will not preclude a State from undertaking the compulsory acquisition of local government bodies. It will not preclude the arbitrary dismissal of councils. It will not preclude the appointment of an administrator pending new elections. It will not compel a State to provide for local government recognition in any part of a State. It will not preclude the withdrawal of local government recognition from any existing area. Finally, it will most definitely not guarantee satisfactory funding for local government. Like most thinking people, this coalition has ascertained that this token recognition will do nothing for local government. However, on the other hand, there are a multitude of problems which could manifest themselves. My advice to local government is: Why put your head in a noose when you do not have to? There are so many potholes in this proposition that it could ruin the local government budget. To me, it is a question of responsibility. Why should those people who believe in local government so much-and I refer to the councillors and aldermen themselves-be prepared to leave the whole system of local government as we know it today open to the whims and interpretations of the High Court of Australia? Referendum question No. 3, with respect to local government, seeks the approval of voters for a change to the Constitution by inserting new section 119a, and I will read it out just in case some senators have forgotten what it is all about. Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the States. We all know that the proposal differs from the form of words recommended by the Government's own Constitutional Commission. The Federal Government has not chosen to explain why the words `a system of local government' and the words `the laws of the States' were inserted. The Government's haste will ensure that we cannot be sure of the real meaning of the proposal, even if it is adopted. Firstly, there is the uniqueness of the provision. Put in plain terms, there is simply no similar provision in the Constitution which may be used as an aid to interpretation. Secondly, by not defining what a system of local government actually is, it is inviting the inevitable legal challenge. Can we assume that this proposal applies exclusively to local government, as is perceived in the community? If not, what is to prevent the proposal from applying to electricity councils, marine boards, water boards and others provided that they are constituted pursuant to State laws? In the past the High Court has been able to give meaning to legislation by reference to the words used in that legislation. In the past the High Court has clarified areas of doubt by using provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act to determine the meaning of the ambiguous and badly worded expressions, referring to other materials such as second reading speeches, explanatory memoranda and parliamentary debates. In this case the Acts Interpretation Act does not apply to imperial Acts such as our Constitution, and the High Court, therefore, would not be able to refer to other materials to assist in determining the will of the Parliament. The interpretation of this proposal is a minefield into which I would strongly advise that local governments should not choose to venture. No less a person than a former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs, has given his warning on the problems of interpretation. He said: The history of constitutional interpretation in Australia and the United States shows that it is impossible to predict what meaning will in the future be given to any provision of the Constitution which is expressed in the words of generality. He went on: . . . one cannot . . . assume that any general provision . . . will have no more than a symbolic effect. One can understand how some may feel that a constitutional provision recognising the existence of local government may in time prove to be the nether millstone on which the power of the States will be ground exceedingly small; the upper stone, the Commonwealth power, being held firmly in place. Those areas of local government which are presently being starved of funds by this Government may feel that Canberra will be more generous if it gets its way. I really think that is what is behind it all, why local governments are pushing it. I should like to issue a timely warning to all those who feel that such an option will be of benefit: such funding would bring local government under Canberra control. It is a truism that he who pays the piper most definitely calls the tune, and therein I believe lies the hidden meaning behind Labor's plans. It has long been the intention of the Australian Labor Party to centralise power in Canberra. Mr Hawke, in his 1979 Boyer lecture on ABC radio proudly espoused that intention: We must have one government with unquestioned powers. I guess that is the reason why we heard the hysterical outburst in the other place today when the Prime Minister attacked Peter Reith on so-called misquotes he is alleged to have made. I suspect that the Prime Minister's hysteria stems from the fact that he can see his dream of one government slipping away. Before that, in 1978 Neal Blewett of identity card fame, when speaking of Labor's plans for regionalisation, said that they should not be encumbered with `nonsense about local sovereignty'. Senator Burns has made it quite clear that the prospect of encouraging local government as a means of undermining the authority of State governments was still being widely canvassed in government circles. On 23 May this year, during the debate on local government, Senator Burns said: I am very much inclined to the idea of giving local councils more authority and having the Federal government looking after the rest, thereby getting rid of the State governments. That seems to me to be a good idea. If the proposal is approved, then I am convinced that the Labor Government's trend of funding local government into programs in the first year and then withdrawing and leaving local government to carry the can will continue. I am sure that every member on this side of the House, and perhaps on the other side of the House, who has ever been involved in local government would know the feeling of the great expectation that one gets from this Government when it comes along and promises-- Senator Powell —Or any government. Senator CALVERT —Well, fair enough-any government. Local Government always ends up carrying the can. Local government must be made aware that by paving the way for Labor to reincarnate Whitlam's dream of bypassing the States through powerful regional bodies controlled from Canberra they are selling themselves out, giving the green light for this and future Federal governments to have unparalleled rights to intervene in local affairs. The Hawke Government is once again guilty of the worst kind of hypocrisy in its treatment of local government. Let the record speak for itself, and I know that my colleagues will be elaborating more on this. The last Liberal-National Party Government gave local government a fixed funding arrangement through personal income tax sharing. It provided for local government representation on the State Grants Commission and provided for the distribution of tax revenue. It maintained the bicentennial road funding levy of 2c per litre to provide more road funding. It established a very honourable forum for local government in the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations (ACIR). In contrast, this Government's real record is abysmal. It is obvious to me that there are many on the other side of the chamber who speak with forked tongues. Why else, I ask myself, would they be prepared to sit idly by and watch the ACIR be dismantled, and federal road funding cut by 35 per cent in real terms over the past four years, including a massive $35m in the May economic statement? Coincidentally, that happens to be the same amount of money that this Government has spent on this useless campaign. In addition to introducing quarterly payment grants as a cost saving measure for itself, it has pegged back the 2 per cent of personal income tax and introduced a much less favourable formula for local government. What should local government think of a Federal government which says, `We will allow you to rate our Commonwealth properties'-this is very recent-and in the next breath says that it will reduce local government grants accordingly? That is how committed this Government is to local government. What right has local government and its organisations to levy ratepayers all over Australia to promote its so-called case? What right has the Australian Local Government Association and other like bodies to place at risk local government, the oldest system of government in Australia, and to take it within the State system and leave it open to the power grabbers in Canberra. In Tasmania, I am very proud to say, we have the oldest area of local government in Australia, the Glamorgan Council. It was there before any other council was established in this land. It is a very good council and it has always been a very good council, so why change it? Why put it at risk of being replaced by a regional local government? There is every chance that could happen. Finally, if we ever needed any proof of how this Government has hoodwinked local government into believing all sorts of things, we only have to look at the Australian newspaper today. An open letter from local government to Australian voters on this issue of the referendum, no doubt paid for by a levy placed on ratepayers, says: If approved the provision will guarantee-- How can anybody guarantee what this Government or any future government will do? How can anybody guarantee what the decision of the High Court will be? We in Tasmania have seen what High Courts do. The letter says that `a yes vote will not give any extra power to Canberra or give the Commonwealth power to impose a system of regional government'. How does that line up with what we know about the external affairs power that this Government has used so effectively against Tasmania. It is no coincidence that local government has entered into an international compact which lays open the possibility of future Commonwealth governments using the external affairs power to interfere and meddle in the affairs of the States. Madam Acting-Mr Acting Deputy President- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —I take no offence. Senator CALVERT —You may take no offence, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I take offence at this misleading advertising, with the Local Government Association saying that it will give a guarantee. No-one can guarantee anything. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(3.40) —I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I note the commitment of Opposition senators to local government as they all leave the chamber. I am sorry that they are so disinterested that they are not prepared to wait and listen to the facts. Even Senator Boswell is leaving. I would have thought that, given his comments, he at least would have been interested in hearing what I had to say. I have some difficulty with the wording of the matter of public importance. On the one hand it describes the third question as being `empty'-if it is empty, why are we bothering to debate it this afternoon?-and on the other hand describes it as dangerous. Senator Chaney —Right. Senator REYNOLDS —I have always thought of Senator Chaney as a logical debater. I defy him to debate logically how something can be both empty and dangerous. The final words of the matter of public importance say something about voting no to the `third referendum'. For the information of voters, I remind them that they are being asked to vote in one referendum for four questions. The matter of public importance this afternoon relates to the third question. I am rather disappointed in Senator Calvert. I think he is genuine in his commitment to local government. He has experience. I have visited the council he used to represent. I am surprised that he would exhibit such paternalistic, arrogant attitudes to local government. In speaking in this debate today he as good as said that local government all over Australia does not know what it is talking about-that more than 8,000 elected representatives and over 130,000 employees in local government do not know their own minds. I find that paternalistic. I find it arrogant. It is consistent with the attitude of the Victorian Liberal Party which, apparently, exhibited the same fundamental distrust of local government during the debate last year on the local government Bill that was then before the Parliament. The Opposition signalled that it would not agree to councils being given wider powers in the rating area; that it could not be trusted. In voicing its opposition to differential rating, the Liberal Party said that those councils on the other side of politics might use the increased flexibility as a means of redistributing wealth. The proposal, apart from anything else, indicates to me that the Liberal Party does not trust local government. I find that distasteful. We can have all kinds of debate in this chamber about resources and priorities, which I will move on to in a short time. But I would have thought that the Liberal Party, even if it is not prepared to support this referendum question, would recognise the fundamental worth and value of local government as the third sphere of government in this country. The terms of the matter of public importance talk about the third referendum question being a dangerous proposal. I defy Senator Calvert, as I did Senator Chaney as he left the chamber, to argue how this proposal can be both empty and dangerous. What is dangerous-an example of which I would like to table today-is the advertising strategy of the Liberal Party's coalition partner in Queensland. The Queensland Government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on misleading advertising. Not only is it misleading, it is also offensive because it uses a very violent symbol. I display it now for those Opposition senators who have not yet seen it. The wording is, `You are looking down the barrel at propositions to change Australia forever-Vote No . . .'. This is the first time in the history of the Westminster system that such a symbol of violence, a gun pointed directly at the reader, has been used in trying to persuade voters to vote in a certain way, as the people of Queensland are being persuaded to vote in the way the National Party Government wishes. I think that Senator Calvert, as a reasonable individual, would not condone this kind of advertising. It is not really necessary in this debate for me to speak on behalf of the Government because I have so much material with which to speak on behalf of local government. Honourable senators can take their choice. I can speak on behalf of the Government, but most of my material comes directly from local government. I start with a letter from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) dated 25 August, addressed to the Hon. J. W. Howard, M.P. It states: Dear Mr Howard I am writing to appeal to your sense of fair play. On the 7.30 Report on 22 August the Shadow Attorney General said that many Local Governments across Australia were defecting from the official Local Government position in support of referendum Question 3. This morning on the Mike Carlton radio show Mr Reith stated that Local Government Associations around the country are dumping the Yes Case. Nothing could be further from the truth, and Mr Reith knows that full well. He has deliberately misrepresented the facts. He obviously is concerned that he cannot justify the No vote in regard to the local government question so he has to misrepresent his case. The letter from the Local Government Association to John Howard went on: These are blatant lies which will do an enormous amount of damage to the Liberal Party's credibility with Local Government both in the short and long term. Let me assure members of the Opposition, and particularly members of the Liberal Party-because I think many members of the Liberal Party are quite genuine in their commitment to the recognition of local government; it is just that their Party has made a foolish decision, having been knocked into submission by the National Party-that they will receive an enormous backlash all around the country because of the totally illogical stance they have taken. The Local Government Association went on to say: ALGA is extremely concerned at the extent to which actions such as this are souring our relationship with the Opposition. The facts are as follows. The ALGA and eight of our nine constituent State-based member associations are actively promoting the Yes Case for Question 3. The Western Australian Country Shire Councils Association, whose members represent 20 per cent of that State's population, agreed at their Annual Conference on 28 August to take no public position on the referendum by virtue of the Conference's defeating the following two motions: `That this Conference fully supports the referendum proposal to alter the Federal Constitution to recognise Local Government, and calls on the people of Western Australia to register a `yes' vote on this question'. We acknowledge that that Association has agreed to that position. We state that as a fact. But to say that all over the country local government is changing its mind is absolute rot and is absolutely incorrect. The letter continues: I enclose for your information a copy of our media release issued yesterday concerning the comments by Mr Reith on the 7.30 Report. That letter is just the first indication of the support this question has in the community. Let us consider the kinds of statements that are being made about this question. It is interesting to note that three people who have had a very high profile in campaigning for the Yes vote are members of the Liberal Party. The first is Mr Peter Kyle, who is also Chairperson of the Local Government Association. Senator Knowles —He is the Chairman, actually, not Chairperson. Senator REYNOLDS —In my language he is the Chairperson. He says: Since the Constitution was framed 90 years ago the role of Local Government has been transformed. It now has the responsibility to provide a tremendous range of services to the people and community facilities which I suspect most of us often simply take for granted. Local Government is an increasingly important part of the structure of government in Australia but it is still the level of government most in touch with the people. Australian Local Government deserves the recognition and protection of the Australian Constitution. The President of the Municipal Association of Tasmania, Councillor Jim Mooney, has also had links with the Liberal Party, at least in the past-I am not quite sure how he feels about that Party at the moment. Jim Mooney says: Local Government has always been of special importance to Tasmania. Local Government is small government. It is government working with the community and serving people's needs. It is independent of the big governments that operate far from where most of us live. The big breakthrough for my council and my community will come when Local Government has gained recognition-long overdue recognition-in the Australian Constitution. I just add, as an aside, that a number of members of the Opposition have behaved in this debate as if the question of constitutional recognition is something new, something dreamed up by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or by me, the present Minister for Local Government. Local government in Australia has been campaigning for 40 years for constitutional recognition. This is a fact. There has been a long-standing debate within local governments. They object to not being recognised in the Constitution. I move on to another very prominent member of the Liberal Party, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, who, I understand, is to be invited into Federal Parliament because it is believed that she has a very influential profile and commitment to Liberal Party values. She is seen as a future leader of the Liberal Party. I note that Senator Calvert is nodding. He obviously agrees with me. Senator Calvert —She would make a good Minister for Local Government. Senator REYNOLDS —She would make an excellent leader of the Liberal Party and certainly will always speak out in support of local government. She says: Brisbane City Council administers an annual budget of- many millions of dollars- and we provide a wide range of community service to three-quarters of a million people. Our responsibilities increase year by year. Today's system of government in Australia is a partnership between federal, State and Local Governments. It is a partnership which has made Expo such a triumph. That partnership between our governments should be recognised in the Australian Constitution. When it is recognised, Local Government will be in a much stronger position to help the other governments eliminate waste and duplication and we will all be better off for that. I think it would be appropriate at this stage in the debate to go through a number of significant councils. I will start with a letter from Senator Calvert's home State. The following letter comes from the Municipality of Kingborough. The honourable senator will be aware that the Municipality of Kingborough has taken a very firm stance on this matter. It says: The Kingborough Council firmly supports the Municipal Association of Tasmania's view that the amendment is a realistic and appropriate recognition of the role of Local Government as the third sphere of government in Australia. Council believes that there should be non-partisan support for the inclusion of this item in the referendum and in fact should be active support from both sides of Parliament for the `Yes' vote. It is disappointing that to date so few politicians have come out in support of recognition. The arguments against the proposed referendum question were recently put to the Annual Conference of the Municipal Association of Tasmania by Senator Shirley Walters. The delegates present, who were representative of over 90 per cent of the Councils in the State, soundly rejected the arguments. In other words, Senator Walters, despite her very vociferous and, I am sure, well-prepared arguments, could not persuade the Municipal Association of Tasmania. At that conference, the Association was representative of over 90 per cent of Tasmanian councils. The letter continues: As the President of the Australian Local Government Association, Mr Peter Kyle, said at the Annual Conference, Local Government has been doggedly pursuing Constitutional Recognition for over 20 years and this will be the last opportunity for many years to achieve that aim-46.9 per cent of the electorate supported the amendment proposed in 1984 and over 66 per cent of the electorate supported Constitutional Recognition of Local Government in May this year according to the poll published in `The Australian', with Tasmania polling highest of all the States. This Council therefore gives its overwhelming support for the inclusion of the Local Government Recognition question in the September referendum and will strongly urge the Opposition to seriously review its position on this subject. I know that honourable senators would be most interested to hear me read from dozens and dozens of similar letters, but I will not take the time to go any further in that regard. Senator Panizza —What about the average voter? Senator REYNOLDS —What I would like to quote from, for the benefit of Senator Panizza, is a pamphlet that has been put out by the local government association in his State, because it goes through precisely the furphies, red herrings and completely illogical arguments that Opposition members have tried to put across to the electorate. It puts them in perspective because local government in Western Australia, and indeed around the country, knows that there is no risk, no danger and no threat. Senator Knowles —You are a joke! Senator REYNOLDS —If it is a joke, I am not the joke. Senator Knowles is saying that local government throughout Australia is a joke. Senator Knowles —Don't misrepresent me. I said that you are the joke. Senator REYNOLDS —I am quoting all my material from local government. It is not material that I or my Department have dreamed up. It is not material that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has dreamed up. Everything I have in front of me at the moment comes from local government. The referendum question is about local government, and local government is entitled to have its views put-and that is what I will try to do in the last few minutes. Some of the statements and questions asked in the pamphlet are as follows: What it will do for local communities and residents. Senator Calvert said that he had not been able to get a satisfactory answer to this. The answer is under the heading `Protection': Local government does exist and should exist. Constitutional recognition will guarantee that it continues to exist thereby ensuring that citizens have the right to determine how their local community is run. Although the State Government will still have the power to sack councils, the Constitution will demand that democratically elected local government is returned to the community. However, a community whose council has been sacked and new elections are not called within a reasonable time, could take the matter to the High Court. Constitutional recognition will guarantee that councils are elected rather than appointed. What about the question of money, finances? Of course we would all like to see more money available for local government and other sectors of the community. The answer is: In itself, constitutional recognition will not automatically bring more taxes back to local communities, but with enhanced legitimacy, local government can negotiate with other spheres of government as a partner . . . A legitimate three-way partnership will help to ensure that proper agreements are reached to avoid duplication or overlap of government services . . . To the question, `But isn't this an attack on state's rights?' the reply is: The Federal Coalition has claimed so, but have you heard any of the State Governments say this. The exception, of course, is Queensland. The reply continues: If there was the slightest hint of an attack on state's rights wouldn't you expect the states to defend themselves? Even with constitutional recognition, the structure and functions of local government will still be prescribed by state legislation. I am certainly very disappointed in the Opposition. It has lost an enormous amount of credibility. It has lost an enormous opportunity to enter this debate with the Government on a genuine bipartisan basis. On Sunday it will see that the proposal has the community's support. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.01) —It is with pleasure, at least in one respect, that I engage in this discussion of matter of public importance, the terms of which read: The need to oppose Labor's empty but dangerous proposal for local government by voting no to the third referendum. I echo the comments of the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) in that I have great difficulty in understanding how something which is empty can be dangerous. We all know, however, that empty vessels make the most noise. It is not surprising that we should be faced, so close to the actual referendum date, with a proposal for discussion which is so difficult to understand. The whole argument of the No case for the third referendum question has been difficult to understand all along. That will become evident during the time that is at my disposal in this debate and no doubt during the rest of the debate as members of the Opposition attempt to make some sort of coherent contribution. I should point out, as the Minister did, that we do not have three referendums; we have only one. We do, however, have four questions. The proposition that is before us would be laughable if it was not so tragic, at least from the point of view of local government. I would like to make a general comment on the way in which the referendum debate seems to have unfolded during the past many weeks. It seems to me that, on the one hand, people who support the Yes case seem to need sworn affidavits, High Court judgments, almost tablets from on high, in order to be able to convince some people of the value of these changes to the Constitution. On the other hand, people who support the No case seem to need not one shred of real evidence in putting their case. This will become clearly evident, if it has not already done so, to anyone who reads the transcript of the debates or who listens to the debates. I should make it clear at this point that the Australian Democrats are very strongly in favour of constitutional recognition of local government. It has been a matter of policy for us for the entire period of our party's existence during the past 11 years. It used to be a matter of policy for the Liberal Party, of course-and still is, for some pretty prominent members of the Liberal Party. I begin my substantive comments on this question by quoting the former Liberal leader in the Victorian Legislative Council, the Honourable Alan Hunt. On 17 June this year he said: The arguments against recognition are the arguments of the seventies, not the eighties. I would have thought that that was quite complimentary to the people who are putting the No case. I have never heard such a bunch of troglodytes in my life as I heard last night in Cooma when I had the pleasure of being engaged in a debate on this matter. I congratulate the Farmers Association of New South Wales for organising it. The arguments of the troglodytes were that the Founding Fathers-I remind the Senate that they were all `fathers'-had a set of ideas and we should be in fear and trepidation of changing anything that they put in place at that time. That is the attitude of people whose vision looks backwards and who wish to remain in the past. That is certainly not the sort of approach that the Democrats would take. I think that Alan Hunt was actually being complimentary by saying that the Liberal and National parties have taken a position that belongs in the seventies. Maybe he meant the 1870s. I would like to refer briefly to the purpose of the referendum. As has already been said in this debate-and it will be said again-local government, the oldest form of representative government in Australia, is not mentioned in the Commonwealth Constitution. That is a fact. Recognition of local government is about being fair to the level of government which-and I will say a few things about what local government does-looks after $40 billion worth of roads, buildings and public property; found jobs for a quarter of those unemployed people who were given work in the public sector during the last five years; is involved in providing most of the family welfare programs and most of the services for children, the disabled and the aged; and employs more than 160,000 people around Australia. Those are just a few of the contributions by local government in our society. Local government has come a long way since it was first established as a road-making authority. In many areas local authorities were called road boards during the last century and early this century. In 1900 when those Founding Fathers were writing our Constitution they could perhaps have been forgiven for not mentioning local government, but today we are the people charged with overseeing the Constitution and putting propositions before the people. The Australian Democrats are strongly in support of a range of propositions being put before the people of this country. We have faith in the ability of people, given information and not garbage, to make decisions. The Australian Democrats would do so on a range of matters beyond constitutional matters. In contrast to the situation in the early 1900s, we believe that there is no reason why we should not accept that local government plea of 40 years standing that such recognition be given. Local government's request for constitutional recognition is, I think the Senate needs to be reminded, supported by the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, the Constitutional Convention and, until recently, the Liberal Party of Australia, not to mention all the local government organisations around this country. As the Minister has said, significant Liberal Party figures are still on record as supporting this proposition. They include the Lord Mayor of the great city of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, who has, on platforms with my colleague Senator Macklin from Queensland, strongly supported this case. I think it would be a great enhancement to this Parliament if she were to accept an invitation which I am sure, particularly this week, must be handed out by her Liberal Party colleagues to come down here to try to knock a bit of sense into this lot. The Leader of the Opposition in my State of Victoria might, were he to look at Hansard, be quite surprised to see me making some positive comments about a contribution that he has made recently in any political debate, but he has come out strongly against the No case and in favour of the Yes case. If there is one thing that can be said about Jeff Kennett it is that from time to time he does see where political advantage lies. In this case he has decided to add his voice against the voices of his Federal colleagues in support of constitutional recognition of local government. I have mentioned Alan Hunt. The list goes on, right down to local government level. In my travels not only around my State of Victoria, in discussions I have had with individual councils and local government organisations, but also in discussions with city and shire councils and local government organisations in a number of other States, particularly in the cities of Hobart and Perth in recent weeks, I have found members of the Liberal Party and National Party who are elected members of local government bodies who are somewhat astonished to be talking to a member of the Australian Democrats who is pleading for support for an Australian Labor Party Government proposition for constitutional change. These people seem somewhat bemused, demoralised and, in fact, angry at the position that is being taken by the Opposition. These people are disappointed with the political parties which have had in their policies until now strong support for constitutional recognition of local government. Of course, we are seeing in a number of other policy areas how quickly and expeditiously-though not without blood on the floor-those parties can change their policies in some cases for disgraceful political reasons in accordance with what is imposed from the top. Constitutional recognition will add to the status of local government in its dealings with politicians and bureaucrats. Unfortunately, this is needed today because we have politicians, especially here in Canberra, who think they know what is best for local government. They think they know better than the elected councillors. (Quorum formed) Some fairly extraordinary claims were made by Senator Calvert in his contribution to this debate and, in the time remaining to me, I would like to address a couple of them. He asked, for instance `What is local government looking for?' It is a simple matter of looking at the evidence to see what local government has said it is looking for. He obviously does not want to do that any more. I think it is a shame that former local government members come into this place and suddenly their ears get blocked with the wax of Federal parliamentary ego. To make matters worse, Senator Calvert accused local government of operating on an ego base for status and importance. Certainly local government deserves status but it is not the ego of local government councillors that is pursuing this. Senator Calvert then said that perhaps they do not understand. On both counts I think those are insults to his former local government colleagues. He complained that the Federal Government, through this proposal, would not be imposing a particular electoral system. But that would be interfering with State powers. He has also complained about the Government doing that, which it does not, because this proposition would insert something into the Constitution which would guarantee the current position of the States with relation to local government. Another accusation that is made concerning the No case is that this is merely tokenism. I will not respond to that because Opposition senators might get oversensitive and call a quorum again but I will let the local government bodies themselves respond to that. The Municipal Association of Victoria issued a Press statement in May, after some discussions at a conference, in which it said: Some Liberals have told us privately that they support the notion of constitutional recognition for local government but they think people will be confused if they advocate a `no' vote for some questions and a `yes' vote for others. Now that's real tokenism. And its an insult to the collective intelligence of local communities. A bit of respect for the rights of local communities is not too much to expect and I would urge the Opposition to change its stance on this issue. I echo that urging of the Municipal Association of Victoria and municipal associations all round Australia who are not being listened to by the arrogant Federal politicians on the Opposition side. They ought to be listened to. They are the oldest form of representational government in this nation. The whole of the No case has been an insult to them in particular and to the community in general. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(4.16) —Before Senator Powell leaves the chamber-which, no doubt, she will do along with her supporters-I would just like to shoot down in flames her ridicule of the words `empty but dangerous' in the Opposition's matter of public importance. Has a woman such as Senator Powell, who represents the whole of Victoria and who talks on agriculture and everything that may be going, not heard of anything being empty but dangerous? Mr Acting Deputy President, even you as a former metal worker, or whatever you were, would know what that means. Senator Richardson —I would not call you empty and dangerous; just empty. Senator PANIZZA —Okay. Honourable senators know how dangerous a full 200-litre petrol drum is. There are different degrees of danger. If it is emptied it is 10 times more dangerous. So much for Senator Powell ridiculing the statement in our matter of public importance, and so much for the statement of the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds). Let me carry on further. Senator Schacht —You are carrying on all right. Senator PANIZZA —I can carry on all right. It has been argued that Opposition senators do not recognise the work of local government. I am the biggest expounder of the work of local government. In Western Australia the theme at government conferences used to be the three tiers of government-Federal, State and local. We tried to reverse that to make it local, State and Federal. The present Minister for Local Government then agreed that the three tiers of government were equally important. I have always reckoned that local government is the most important sort of government as it is nearest the people. I recognise the work that local government does. As I have pointed out, I was in local government for 13 years and I was president of a shire council for three years. I know what local government does. It is the government that is nearest to the people, it listens to the people more and it spends its dollars far more wisely than any other government or any parliament, including this Parliament. Senator Childs —You are denying them their rights under the Constitution. Senator PANIZZA —No, I am not. Let us forget those bunkum stories that we on this side of the chamber are not interested in what local government is doing. We recognise local government and I will continue to recognise it time and again. If I were not in this place I would still be in local government. As I have said, before I came to this place, when I was part of local government, I tended to agree with that idea of recognition and so did the local government association that I belonged to-the Country Shire Councils Association of Western Australia. The Minister for Local Government said that that association represents only 30 per cent of local government electors in Western Australia. That may be so, but it represents 115 local governments out of a total of 139. The association that Peter Kyle belongs to represents about 15 local governments. Another association, the Urban Shire Councils Association, represents the other four or five. The platform of that association has been more or less the recognition of local government over the years-certainly over the years that I was a member of local government and a delegate at meetings of the Country Shire Council Association. This is a situation like the Australia Card, and I think even Senator Powell disagreed with that. When the full facts of that matter were brought to the attention of that association it gradually lost support. Last weekend the association of about 115 shire councils failed to pass a motion to support the Yes case. Senator Powell —It did not pass the motion. Senator PANIZZA —Yes, I know it did not, so their Yes case has gone down. As far as I am concerned and as far as it is concerned the Country Shire Councils Association of Western Australia is definitely not supporting the yes vote. I will go back to the empty 200 litre drum of petrol illustration: it is dangerous because we do not know what is in it. This proposal for the recognition of local government is dangerous because we do not know what is in it. It is as simple as all that. Senator Reynolds, when reading the local government association pamphlet of Peter Kyle from Perth, pointed out what it would have to gain. Peter Kyle is a fellow whom I respect very much in his profession and in local government. All of those things she read out are not in the legislation. So what do we know? I know that all the questions in this referendum are put up as an empty sort of thing; misleading, just motherhood questions. But it does not tell us what is in the proposal. Having looked at what is in it I consider it is dangerous. Senator Powell —And you know what is in it? Senator PANIZZA —I know what? I do not know what is in it; that is why I am against it. That is what I am coming to. What does the proposal give to local government and what has local government got to gain? After all if Canberra wants any more power it is like my wanting a favour out of someone or wanting something in a business deal. There has to be something in it for me; otherwise I will not get into it and nor would this Government get into it. Senator Richardson —We are not like that. Senator PANIZZA —The Government is not like that? It would be making a big turnaround if it were not like that. Senator Powell —Do not judge everybody by yourself. Senator PANIZZA —Yes, all right but I like to know what I am being let in for. There is nothing in it whatsoever. It is an empty show to placate local government officers. When talking about local government councillors and all local government it turns out that most of the local governments do not want this proposition. Do not let us forget that beyond local government we have the ratepayers who as electors will be voting next Saturday. So exactly what local government wants and what the ratepayers want could quite easily be two different things. Certainly in different publications in Western Australia it has been pointed out that local government has enough power as it is. I shall quote an article from the Australian Financial Review of 25 August 1988 by Padraic McGuinness. Incidentally, I believe he was an adviser to Bill Hayden, so he is hardly likely to be a great supporter of our side. He said: Again, the biggest problem with the third referendum question is, what on earth is the point of it? Why is it important that the existence of local government should be explicitly recognised in the Constitution? The question which will be put to the electors begins to answer these questions. Like all the other questions, it is dishonestly and misleadingly framed. The electorate will be asked whether it approves of a proposed law `to alter the Constitution to recognise local government'. In itself, this is totally meaningless and anodyne, and it would seem to have no other function but to cater to the vanity of local government representatives and officials. This is not my quote, but the quote of Mr McGuinness. He continues: But the actual amendment proposed to the Constitution says rather more. The new section 119A to be added reads: `Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State'. The first thing we notice about this that it is far more than simple `recognition' of local government. It will if this proposal is passed- which is unlikely- be mandatory for the State to set up systems of elected local government bodies regardless of their own wishes. I emphasise: regardless of their own wishes. Of course while the Government is placating local government with this sort of question it is taking away other benefits. It does not mean that there even will be local government; it does not say what sort of local government there will be. Senator Powell —Rubbish. Senator PANIZZA —Yes, rubbish. We will have rubbish. Seeing that the honourable senator has called it rubbish I will quote from the Australian newspaper of 2 August 1988. It states: The proposed amendment provides no definition of local government or local government bodies, which means that, if there is litigation, definitions will have to be constructed by the courts. And it fails to provide machinery for the enforcement of the new section of the Constitution if a State ignores it or appears to ignore it. Professor Winterton carries on to something else. So if it is rubbish that is Professor Winterton saying that it is rubbish. Getting back to the government, it could be government by an administrator or by a government dominated board. It could be local government by an amalgamation of several shires with no common interest. Amalgamating small shires with a common interest can be an advantage. An amalgamation of a lot of shires with no common interests is a great disadvantage. If Senator Powell has ever been in local government she should know that. This could reach such proportions that it will achieve the region proportions Prime Minister Whitlam was looking for many years ago. It could lead to the eventual elimination of State governments. If the honourable senator does not agree with this she should show me where the protection is indicated. It could result in the same situation as the Minister for Local Government in Western Australia found himself in. He had put a few worthwhile amendments in the local government Bill, but it interfered with boundaries and interfered with ward representation within the boundaries. It does not give protection against dismissal as has happened under Labor governments in New South Wales; in Melbourne, I believe; and, as I have already said, in Western Australia. There is no guarantee of funding. This so-called recognition will open the way for local government control from Canberra. Senator Tate conceded that in the Senate, if I remember rightly. What a situation: being controlled from Canberra rather than from one's own capital city and I already prefer not to be controlled from my own State capital city. Local government is already recognised in most State constitutions. Having been told that our side of politics does not care for local government, honourable senators will remember that the Fraser Government gave local government 2 per cent of personal income tax revenue. This was wrecked by this Government. It set up the Australian bicentennial road development program but this Government interfered with this when it indexed the 2c per litre on fuel and then kept the rest for itself. We formed an advisory council but this Government did away with it. What else did it do? In the last four years it has reduced local government road funding by 40 per cent and so it goes on. The way the Government carries on one may be excused for thinking that it owns the money in Treasury, just like some banks. Under a Labor Government proposal Canberra will dictate to remote areas how they spend their money-that is, if they have any. So with recognition, if there should be such an unlikely result, where will we stand? As I have said before, we do not know where we will stand. I have already told honourable senators that local government councils do not speak for all ratepayers and all electors. I have already mentioned Peter Kyle and the work he has done but, as I say, he represents only 20 local government councils out of 139 in Western Australia. One can hardly claim that a certain number of councils amongst that small 20 represent the thinking of local government in Western Australia. I conclude with a quotation from the Perth Sunday Times of 28 August 1988. Under the headline `The answers: no, no, no-and why?', the article stated: Like the road to hell, the path to constitutional reform in Australia is paved with good intentions. This proposal probably has good intentions. The article continued: If politicians would say what they mean and mean what they say, the journey would be a lot easier than it has proved over the years. Sadly, that is not the case. There has been a lot of double-talk about the propositions in next Saturday's referendums, and some of them are more notable for what they omit than for what they state. Senator DEVEREUX(Tasmania)(4.31) —The Senate has heard two Opposition senators speak on this matter. To take up the point that was raised first by the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds), certainly those Opposition members have failed to convince me that the matter of public importance is logical when it speaks of an empty but dangerous proposal for local government. What Opposition arguments have convinced me about is the old saying that an empty vessel makes most noise. That certainly has been true of the two Opposition speakers we have heard so far in this debate. One or two of the comments made so far in the debate should be noted. Senator Panizza asked Senator Reynolds about the standing of the Liberal representatives she quoted. It will interest the Senate to note that Jim Mooney, President of the Municipal Association in Tasmania, was a former frontbench Liberal member of Parliament in Tasmania. At the time he was in Parliament under Max Bingham's leadership he was regarded as the third-ranking Liberal Party frontbencher. Therefore, to say that he has no great standing in the Liberal Party is stretching it a little. Both Opposition speakers spent the first four or five minutes of their speeches telling the Senate about their wonderful exploits and all they had done for local government. In view of some of their comments in this place, they ought not seek re-election. They went in for a fair amount of breast beating about their exploits, but clearly they have forgotten how they reached this place and the people who supported them. Judging by the nonsense we have heard in this debate so far, they are no longer looking to the interests of local government. It is significant to note that-no matter how many interjections asked for it-not once was a local government authority quoted by either of those two speakers. They quoted the views of journalists and pulled various furphies out of the woodwork, but not once did we hear a quotation from anyone in local government. I suggest that those honourable senators should go back and talk to people in local government again instead of talking to themselves. We have heard a good deal of scaremongering about possible legal action. That falls into the same category as all the scaremongering on the other three referendum questions. What takes the cake in this debate-it falls into the same category as the matter of public importance and has certainly caused great confusion-is Senator Calvert's statement, quoting a number of authorities, that if this referendum is passed State governments will lose their power. He made that point on a couple of occasions during his speech. I admit to being a little confused about that. On 31 May 1988 in the Senate, Senator Calvert when speaking to the Bill accused the Government of changing certain words in the Constitution Commission's recommendations. He went on to say that enshrinement of local government in the Constitution would only make the powers of the States stronger. I do not understand that argument and I am sure that at some stage Senator Calvert will be able to explain what he means. Perhaps I will be more confused if he does. The Opposition has been putting forward a convoluted and hopeless argument on this matter which is no more than simple scaremongering. Coming from the area I do, which is very close to the area from which Senator Calvert comes, I found it extraordinary to read the wording of his matter of public importance. It is true, as Senator Calvert said, that he is an ex-warden of Clarence and for some 12 years served on the Clarence Council. With that sort of record, he must now be regarded as the great deserter. The Clarence Council decided to support the Yes proposition. The area from which Senator Calvert comes takes in the city of Hobart, Glenorchy and Kingborough-some of the major local council areas in Tasmania. The Lord Mayor of Hobart, Alderman Doone Kennedy, is on public record as saying that her council supports the Yes case unequivocally, as is the Mayor of Glenorchy, David Shields. Yet in this Senate an ex-warden of Clarence, Senator Calvert, now that he is outside the council, seeks to put forward matters which take the opposite direction to the wishes of people in local government in the area that he comes from. Senator Reynolds has already quoted from a letter from the Kingborough Council. I remind honourable senators of some parts of that letter from the Council Clerk, Mr Doyle. In that letter of 6 June, Mr Doyle said: The Kingborough Council firmly supports the Municipal Association of Tasmania's view that the amendment is a realistic and appropriate recognition of the role of local government as the third sphere of government in Australia. Council believes that there should be non-partisan support for the inclusion of this item in the referendum and in fact should be active support from both sides of Parliament for the `Yes' vote. It is disappointing that to date so few politicians have come out in support of recognition. The arguments against the proposed referendum question were recently put to the annual conference of the Municipal Association of Tasmania by Senator Shirley Walters. The delegates present, who were representative of over 90 per cent of the councils in the State, soundly rejected the arguments. One need say no more about the position put forward by Senator Calvert and whether he can claim any support at all from local government in Tasmania. One can go a little further in considering where Senator Calvert gets his support for this matter. In the debate that has taken place on this matter in Tasmania one may well ask, `Where have Senator Calvert's Liberal colleagues and his State colleagues gone?' The only one I have noticed running around the countryside with any fervour on this question is Senator Shirley Walters. I give her credit for that for she has been out campaigning strongly. The only other Liberal member who has been game to admit that he does not support the decision of the coalition has been Bruce Goodluck. Bruce Goodluck was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 May 1988 as follows: I was just being consistent with local government. I was a former warden of a municipality, and I pledged my support. I remind honourable senators that he was a former warden of Clarence, the same municipality of which Senator Calvert claims, with some pride, to be the former warden. At least Bruce Goodluck, to give him his due, is prepared to stand up and not be stood over by the hit men in the National Party. We wonder what the real reasons are for the attitude that is being displayed by Senator Calvert. He admitted earlier that he did not have much experience in politics. Perhaps he looked at the numbers and thought, `Maybe in another 20 years we may be in government. If I am prepared to speak up on these matters and be seen to be supporting people, maybe I'll get a ministry'. The reason the conservative parties are supporting a No vote on this proposal is very simple. Everybody who has spoken to reasonable people in the Liberal Party knows that the Party made a decision to support a Yes vote-and the reasonable Liberals made no secret of this fact-but when the coalition parties met, the Liberal Party was clearly told by the National Party once again that if it did not support the No vote-(Quorum formed) Let us have a closer look at the support in Tasmania for the coalition position on this referendum question. Of the 19 lower House members and eight or nine upper House members who are on the Liberal Party secret list, only the Premier has indicated some support for it. We ought to analyse the Premier's support. He has suddenly discovered that the recognition of local government should be included in the State Constitution. He is a nice sort of a bloke to trust to do that. We know that he spent between $30,000 and $70,000 of Tasmanian taxpayers' money supporting the No campaign when the Liberals were running around the country complaining about the fact that people in the Labor Party might be spending money on a campaign. Let us examine further what the Premier did-that great protector of the rights of local government. If people have been to Tasmania recently they may have seen that abomination the Sheraton Hotel, which was built on the waterfront. In April 1985 the Premier rushed legislation through parliament. Section 6 of that legislation removed the right in the by-laws of the Hobart City Council for that Council to have any say at all about the siting of that hotel. Section 9 of that legislation required the licensing board to license that hotel, regardless of whether it complied with the Licensing Act. that is the sort of support we have from the Premier of Tasmania and the Liberal Party in Tasmania for local government. Senator Calvert purports to represent the views of people in local government and the Liberal Party in Tasmania. It is just a joke! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(4.46) —I am very pleased to be able to follow Senator Devereux. He has actually found the energy to speak out on the local government issue. He has not been sighted in Tasmania speaking on this issue at all. He has left it all up to Senator Tate. It is a measure of the importance of this Government's retreat on this issue that it has had to stir Senator Devereux to talk about this issue. Senator Devereux's argument fell flat, as the argument will fall flat on Saturday. Senator Devereux should not talk about the National Party rolling people; he is a living monument to the National Party rolling people. With his stupidity and judgment he has led his unionists down the wrong path. I wish to refer to a couple of comments made by Senator Reynolds. She, of course, spoke with her usual platitudes and rhetoric. It is always pleasing to hear Senator Reynolds, but she was too embarrassed to tackle the real issue-the financing of local government. That is the substance of the issue and that is what the Government is really concerned about. I am pleased to support my colleagues Senator Panizza and Senator Calvert in the debate on the matter of public importance, which reads: The need to oppose Labor's empty but dangerous proposal for local government by voting no to the third referendum. The third referendum question that will be put to the people on Saturday is like the other three questions. The propositions read quite well and, on first impression, a voter may wonder why anyone should take a No stance on the matter. That is the extent of the very fraudulent wording of the referendum questions. It is one that has, no doubt, hoodwinked many councils. All four propositions have been fraudulently put to the people. Paddy McGuinness, a reporter for the Sun-Herald, could hardly be described as one who writes in favour of any of the strong stances the Liberal and National parties have taken in the past. But this may be the only case in which I could quote him supporting our stance. He said: The more I have studied and analysed the referendum proposals over the past couple of months, the more appalled I have become at the sheer dishonesty of them. I really wonder about the Government's intentions-they are either stupid or deeply cynical and contemptuous of the Australian people. I would say to Mr McGuinness that it is the latter: the Government is cynical and contemptuous of the Australian people. I do not think it is stupid; it is contemptuous. The Government has not placed before the people its full and true intentions on this matter. It has not spelt out that there will be 33 changes. Senator Boswell —There is a hidden agenda. Senator McGAURAN —There is a hidden agenda. There will be 33 changes to the Constitution-nine deletions, 20 new clauses, and four clauses will be tampered with to effectively change them. It is not just four motherhood questions; it is 33 changes to our Constitution. Like all the other questions, question 3, concerning the so-called recognition of local government, is a plan to fundamentally change the Federal system of government that is upheld in our Constitution. There is no doubt that when the Opposition first took its stance and recommended a No vote on this matter the tide was against us, but we have been proven now to be correct. We have been able to sell our case with great confidence. I have every confidence that this Saturday there will be a majority No vote for question No. 3 and in a majority of the States. That is because we have been able to go out and openly, honestly and effectively campaign on this matter. So for this Government's information, if it cares to listen, the reason is that the majority of Australians believe in our federal system as laid down in our 1901 Constitution. The Government will get that message clearly this Saturday. It should be noted that a large number of councils now oppose question No. 3. Certainly a greater number of councils which may have originally supported question No. 3 have now gone into a neutral mode and are now saying nothing. There is now a deathly silence with respect to question No. 3 because many of those councils have finally woken up to what this question really means. They see it for what it means. Senator Boswell —She ought to resign. Senator McGAURAN —If she does not resign after Saturday, I am quite sure that she will be given the big shove. That has been well reported already. At best, question No. 3 is a self-indulgent exercise by some town clerks and council officers; at worst, it is a legal nightmare that is bound to lead councils into an array of High Court challenges over what is the definition of `a system of local government'. The legal bill for those challenges will be completely funded by the ratepayers. The words of former Chief Justice Sir Henry Gibbs are a guide to the legal minefield that really does lie ahead if the Yes case is successful. Sir Henry Gibbs has said: . . . one cannot safely assume that any general provision will have no more than a symbolic effect. One can understand how some may feel that a constitutional provision recognising the existence of local government may in time prove to be the nether millstone on which the power of the States will be ground exceedingly small; the upper stone, the Commonwealth power, being held firmly in place. There is no doubt that there are many constitutional lawyers in this country who are rubbing their hands with glee, hoping that the Yes case will succeed. However, it will be the ratepayers who will ultimately pay for any High Court challenges that local government may take up on this matter, and it will be our federal system that will suffer. It should be said that in my own State of Victoria the only council, initially, that really wanted this question to succeed was the Melbourne City Council, the council on which I served as a councillor until only three weeks ago. It really was the Melbourne City Council that ultimately spent the time and the money on reports and lobbied the Minister to include this question in the referendum. It was the Melbourne City Council that convinced the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) to support its claim. In fact, the MAV really only supported the Melbourne City Council on this matter because it was trying to keep the Melbourne City Council in the fold. At that time the Melbourne City Council was very disgruntled with the MAV, and at the time it seemed like a way of pleasing the Melbourne City Council and keeping it in the fold. That is the case in Victoria, but I have absolutely no doubt that there is a similar situation in other States. Referendum question No. 3 has been nothing more than a capital city push for so-called constitutional recognition. Many of the MAV members now openly reject the original stance of the organisation that was in favour of question No. 3. Certainly, most of them have not attempted to levy their ratepayers to pay for the Yes vote fighting fund. Of course, the capital city councils have a self-interest in this matter. Their interest relates to the sacking of councils by State governments. That is quite clear, and I do not think that they even hide that fact. The capital city councils see this referendum question as nothing more than an attempt to challenge the power of the State governments to dismiss a city council. They really only wish to gain stronger ground with respect to their old sparring partners, the State governments. So those councils are willing to tinker with the Federal Constitution and change its fundamental purpose, and commit ratepayers' funds to achieve this political end. Rather, it should be noted that the way a council can show its strength is through the ballot box. History shows that this is a very potent check on any State government that may choose to dismiss a city council unjustly. The sacking of the Melbourne City Council in 1982, just prior to a State election, became an election issue and I have no doubt that it added to the defeat of the then State government. Similarly, the 1987 sacking of the Sydney City Council, which occurred just prior to an election, became an election issue. I have no doubt that that sacking added to the reasons for the defeat of the then Unsworth Government. There are many other examples where a State government has attempted to ride roughshod over a council and has been turned back by an electoral backlash. In my own State of Victoria the most celebrated case was when John Cain attempted to enforce amalgamations in 1986. As I travel around Victoria I increasingly see the low priority that Labor governments, both State and Federal, place on local government. No form of words set down in this referendum question will cover up that fact. That is the particular area that Senator Reynolds never bothered to tackle at all. I particularly refer to the shire of Kowree, which happens to be in western Victoria. Its main township of Edenhope has a population of 800. I had the privilege of visiting Edenhope earlier this year and I found a township and district that had been absolutely sold out by the Cain Government. The new system of State grants introduced by the Cain Government left the Kowree shire with at least a 60 per cent cut in funds. There are no prizes for guessing that those funds will be directed back into the city councils from which the State Labor Government wishes to win favour in the forthcoming State election. The tragedy of the Kowree shire and the people of Edenhope is that they are in an isolated area of Victoria and there is no other option for the shire but for it to raise its rates. It cannot amalgamate; that is not a feasible option. Therefore, the shire has had to raise its rates this year and every year, just to survive, by a figure of 14 per cent-double the inflation rate. If that is an example of the State Government's priority for councils, then the Federal Government's is no different. The May mini-Budget and subsequently the August Budget really showed perverse spending priorities towards local government. Road funding was cut by $50m, and since the Hawke Government was first elected road funding has been cut by 28 per cent in real terms. Overall funds to local government have been reduced from a 2 per cent share of income tax revenue to a 1.6 per cent share. The Government has now decided that it will even stop listening and talking to local government because it has abolished the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. So the Federal Government has failed local government in all areas of substance-in basic services like roads, in overall support funding, and in open communication with the Commonwealth. However, that is not just my opinion but also the opinion of the honourable member for Reid, Mr Tom Uren. An article in a local government magazine states: Former Federal Minister for Local Government, Tom Uren, says he was concerned at the arrogance of the Executive Government for cutting funds to Local Government. Mr Uren, commenting on the May Economic Statement, said in a press release that the Federal Government's cut to local government came at a time when substantial hardships were occurring in that sphere of Government. The article also states: He said he regretted making such a statement in public during the last days of the old Parliament House, but the arrogance of the Executive had left him no alternative. It goes on: Mr Uren said the bills would be guillotined within a strict timetable and would not give elected members time or the right to debate the merits or otherwise of the economic program. It then states: The Government has cut Local Government funding under the Act by 4.5 per cent in real terms this year. And so it goes on. He had a lot to say. I say to Tom Uren about his concerns that the executive government, the Cabinet, has never consulted him, a man of great experience in local government. Why should it, when it is not even listening to local government? It has abolished the Local Government Advisory Council, so why would it listen to an old hack like him? No-one can deny that the belief of any Labor government is that local government should not exist in its current form. We are all aware that that is the philosophy of the Labor Government; let us not kid ourselves. The Government is not interested in local government as it stands today. Rather, the Government's view is towards regionalism. If the Government were honest enough the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) would have said that during the debate. This regionalism is a form of local government attempted by Gough Whitlam and rejected by the people. It is a form of local government attempted by the Cain Government when it set the wheels in motion in attempting forced amalgamation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(5.02) —The Opposition has put forward this motion today. The key part of its proposal is that the question to be put before the people is empty and at the same time dangerous. That would seem to be a strange contradiction. How can something be dangerous but at the same time empty? Well, there is much more to this proposal than poor use of language. Firstly, why does the Opposition claim that the proposal is empty? It claims that constitutional recognition of local government is meaningless. This shows just what a sham the Opposition is. After 200 years of European settlement, 1988 is indeed a year in which some reflection needs to be made about where we have come from as a society and where we are going. As a consequence the Government has put to the people some suggestions which indeed should be seriously considered for constitutional inclusion. Local government, I believe, is one such item. The role of local government in Australia is of paramount importance. The Australian public has been well served by local government in all parts of Australia and has come to recognise local government as an integral part of the community. Much that goes on in a community revolves around local government and it is seen as a focal point in a particular community. Of course, the delivery of vital and essential services is carried out at the local government level. It must not be forgotten that services to the public such as road infrastructure, waste removal, all levels of building surveying, planning and health services are tailored to suit particular communities and are carried out by that arm of government best able to deliver local services-local government. In our bicentennial year it is most appropriate that this essential role be recognised. Suitable recognition for the meaningful and real role that local government plays should be made constitutionally. Our Constitution is a priceless document which encapsulates the rules by which we are governed. It therefore is obvious that in our Constitution the role of local government needs to be clearly recognised. However, what the Opposition tells us is that such recognition is empty, that local government is not worthy of constitutional recognition. This Government believes that it is essential that people vote yes on Saturday for question three. Such a vote will mean, firstly, that a system of local government elected and accountable to the people will be guaranteed in each State; and secondly, that no local council can be permanently replaced by State-appointed administrators who are not chosen by the local citizens and ratepayers. Thirdly, recognising local authorities in the Constitution will guarantee a decentralised system of government. What the Opposition has been saying during this referenda campaign is that it is good enough for the States, but not the Commonwealth, to grant the recognition local government deserves. The Government does not believe that this is sufficient. State constitutions can be altered simply by an Act of Parliament, so what guarantees can the Opposition offer local government that it will not be abolished? The answer: none at all. It is the Opposition's approach to this question which is empty. It believes that local government can be denied rightful recognition in our Constitution and that local government will lie down and not complain. Not all Liberals, though, feel so strongly about denying recognition of local government. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) appears to have changed some of his views in the course of the year. He has not changed his attitude just to immigration but also to the recognition of local government. In a letter to the Ryde Municipal Council on 10 February this year Mr Howard stated: I fully support Council's request that a chapter should be inserted in the Constitution dealing with local government. It is important to stress that passage. It appears that something has happened since February this year because Mr Howard obviously does not fully support the Council's request any more. What has happened? Councillor Peter Kyle, President of the Australian Local Government Association, has shed some light on this question: Although there was strong support within the Coalition parties for the local government question, it appears that a deliberate strategy has been adopted to oppose the package of four questions, regardless of their individual merits. This attitude is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian public. I must confess that I see some merit in the opinion of Mr Kyle. It would appear that the coalition has developed a deliberate strategy to oppose all referenda questions regardless of merit. (Quorum formed) It also appears that the coalition is prepared to insult the intelligence of the Australian public by the mixture of scare tactics and rubbish which it offers as justification for its actions. Sallyanne Atkinson, Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, stated on 26 May: I know constitutional recognition is not supported by my Federal colleagues but I represent the people of Brisbane and local government and I will continue to do so. So, there we have it clearly stated-Ms Atkinson will continue to represent the people of Brisbane and local government and support constitutional recognition of local government. Other Liberals also have called into question the curious way in which the Opposition appears to be handling this issue. Mr Ian Wilson, MHR, member for Sturt in my home State of South Australia, abstained from voting on two of the referenda Bills when they came before the other place. He made his position clear, and that of many other members of the Opposition. In an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM, Mr Wilson was asked why he abstained. I quote from a transcript of that program: Wilson: Because I support giving constitutional recognition to local government and I was not prepared to vote against giving of the people the opportunity to vote on that question. Stuart Heather: Even though your leader, Mr Howard says that, that particular proposal was totally meaningless. Wilson: I don't believe it is totally meaningless. It's suggested that it's a token. Well tokens can be real tokens and have great significance. In that interview Mr Wilson went on to make some more telling points. On the referenda questions as a whole, the transcript states: Wilson: Well, you have to remember that in the first instance, the shadow ministry recommended a no-no, yes-yes vote on the four referenda. In other words the shadow ministry was advocating in the first instance that we support the rights referendum. Heather: Are you disappointed that others didn't join you, didn't put what you're saying were their principles, didn't put those first. Wilson: Yes I am. I must say that I agree with Mr Wilson that it is a pity that principles did not come first in Opposition ranks. However, if we look at the contemporary immigration debate we see that many Liberals are becoming restive on that issue, too. It appears that the temporary leader of the coalition forces will do almost anything so as not to upset his National Party mates. On the referenda question it is the same. The National Party is consistently paranoid about hidden agendas and some of its debates on this and on the other matters obviously reflect some strange views of the world. Mr Howard, it appears, is much happier appeasing the Nationals than his own. Well, that is for him and the Liberals to work out. But the problem in the meantime is that an issue as important as constitutional recognition of local government may be sacrificed at the altar of incompetent leadership. Mr Wilson again shows us the problem. I quote again from the same interview on why other members of the coalition did not follow his lead: Heather: Why didn't they? Wilson: Well that's a matter for them to decide but I think on matters of constitutional reform people should be looking at the issues on their merits and as matters of principle in the interests of the Australian people for the present and for the future and that they should be influenced by the more simplistic approach of contemporary party politics. And there was a view amongst some of my colleagues that it's easier to defeat the most objectionable of the referendum proposals, mainly the first one that would reduce the terms of the Senate to a single term rather than two terms of the House of Representatives by having a no vote on all proposals. Heather: So as far as the Opposition's policies are concerned, have the last 2 referendum questions been sacrificed to make sure that the first 2 are defeated? Wilson: That is an interpretation that can be placed on the action taken . . . Heather: Is that your interpretation? Wilson: Yes in a way, because it has been our policy to give political guarantees, constitutional guarantees for trial by jury, political guarantees for freedom of religion and political guarantees in respect of acquisition only on just and fair terms. Heather: So is now the Liberal Party going back on its own principles. Wilson: It's certainly going back on the policies announced at the previous election in the eyes of some of trying to defeat the first referendum proposal about the 4 year terms for the Senate. Of course, the Opposition is desperate to get some credibility for its stand. Of the many letters that have come into my office on this question from local government, all have asked for my support to see that this referendum question is passed next Saturday. I noticed that Joy Baluch, Mayor of Port Augusta-a previous coalition candidate-in my home State of South Australia, has objected to Opposition claims that the Port Augusta council supports its stand. Quite clearly, local government is enraged at the opportunistic way in which the coalition has gone about this question. The Opposition stands simply for cheap political capital, and I am sure that the Australian public will see through it. In the meantime, it is the Opposition which is empty and it is the policies of John Howard whilst clutching the straws that are dangerous. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance is concluded. Senator DEVEREUX(Tasmania) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the following reports: Redevelopment of HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin, Northern Territory, and Development of new utility helicopter facilities, phase 2 RAAF Base, Townsville and Oakey Army Airfield, Queensland. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —This is a statement to which all the very eminent members of the Committee have agreed, including my doughty deputy, Senator Hill, Senator Giles, who sits on my left here, Senator Stone, Senator Powell, Senator Alston, Senator Collins and Senator Schacht. I do not list them in order of eminence: they are all very eminent. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs notes recent reports of statements made by some of its members. These may have been interpreted as indicating that the Committee has reached conclusions in relation to the inquiries which it currently has on foot; namely, the feasibility of a national ID scheme and the proposed tax file numbering scheme, and the social and fiduciary duties and responsibilities of company directors. The Committee makes it quite clear it has not prejudged any issue which has arisen in the course of its ID scheme-tax file number inquiry. The Committee is part way through its public hearings and is yet to hear from several significant witnesses. The Committee will not take any decision on the issues raised by the inquiry until it is in a position to consider all the evidence. The Committee has not yet determined the process it will employ in dealing with the reference on company directors' duties and responsibilities. The Committee is still receiving written submissions. The Committee regrets any misunderstandings that may have arisen from reports in the media. The Committee is conscious of the high regard in which the Senate committee system is held as a mechanism for bipartisan investigative and deliberative inquiries and is keen to maintain this high regard. Members of parliament have the right and responsibility to express their views on public issues. However, if they are Committee members, they need to be careful not to afford the media the opportunity of attributing those views to the Committee itself when the Committee has not endorsed them. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government) —I table the explanatory notes of certain departments and authorities relating to the Estimates of proposed expenditure for 1988-89. Arrangements have been made to make copies of these explanatory notes available to honourable senators. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating senators for membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Motion (by Senator Reynolds)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, Senators Durack, Macklin and Morris be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. 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)(5.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator REYNOLDS —The purpose of this Bill is to reduce the quorum of the House of Representatives from one-third to one-fifth. On 9 December 1987 the House of Representatives resolved to endorse the principle of a reduction in the quorum for that House from one-third to one-fifth as recommended by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure in its report Days and hours of sitting and the effective use of the time of the House. Until now, the quorum of the House of Representatives has been laid down by section 39 of the Constitution which states: Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least one-third of the whole number of the members of the House of Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers. The object of this Bill is to provide otherwise. The effect of the Bill is to reduce the quorum to 30 members or 20 per cent of the membership of the House of Representatives. Members have many demands on their time-as Senator Vanstone obviously has if she is leaving the chamber and is not interested in this speech-and it is generally accepted that they need to spend more time on electorate and family responsibilities. That objective can be achieved only if the time of the House, when it is sitting, is used effectively. While the House is sitting, members have many calls on their time in addition to chamber responsibilities. These include Cabinet and Cabinet committee work for Ministers, parliamentary and party committee work for all members, correspondence and visitors. The need for one-third of members to answer quorum calls is an harassment of members discharging legitimate duties outside the chamber. The quorum requirement cannot of itself affect the number of members who remain in the chamber during a debate. This is determined by the nature and quality of the debate. Lowering the quorum will not affect overall attendance in the chamber. Reducing the size of the quorum and perhaps consequentially the number of quorum calls members feel it necessary to make, will allow more members effective use of their time outside the chamber. Although quorum calls do not take up a great amount of time in total, they may take up critical time and there is additional time lost through the disruption of activities which must be resumed after the quorum call. The Bill is a significant step towards ensuring that the time of the House is not taken up with procedural trivia when it should be directed towards consideration of the major issues affecting the nation. As the Committee noted in its report, the rationale behind the quorum requirement is to ensure that the number of members present in the House and voting on any decision is reasonably substantial. A 20 per cent requirement is substantial. It was so considered by the previous Government when it introduced Bills in 1970 and 1971 to reduce the quorum to one-fifth. To be consistent with the intent of the Bill, I commend it to the chamber. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Reid)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Walters for the period from 22 August 1988 to 1 September 1988, inclusive, on account of her absence overseas on business connected with her parliamentary duties. Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(5.25) —To continue my contribution on the Industrial Relations Bill, I was talking about the Menzies years and the way people who found themselves in front of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, when in dispute, were not asked why they were there or about the issue, the merit of any dispute or the cause-that was never considered. There was a rigid question, `Were you in dispute?'-regardless of the provocation. If it were so, people were in breach of the Act and could be fined-at that time $500-and each day was a separate breach. In some of those cases it was a question of industrial health and safety, when people's lives were at stake. That sort of situation is long gone-and so it should be. It is interesting to note the legal action that was taken in the late 1950s by the boilermakers union, which questioned the constitutional right of the Commission to make awards and then penalise people if those awards were breached. The High Court of Australia found in favour of the boilermakers and said that constitutionally that should not have been done. All of the thousands of pounds in fines that were paid over that time were never refunded. The Commission and the Court were reconstituted under new legislation that enabled them to use those penalties. The development took place in the trade union movement generally and amongst workers who were not trade unionists, in opposition and objection to the harsh way the penalties were used. They were used to prevent people from taking part in legitimate struggles, at a time when many employers did not want to negotiate because all they needed to do was run to the court and get penalties against unions. They felt negotiations were unnecessary. The struggle built up until there was a 24-hour stoppage throughout the nation and the name Clarrie O'Shea was written into the history of this country. That did not happen overnight; it happened because of the way people felt they were denied their rights by use of that legislation. I say to this chamber and to anybody who wants to consider this matter that the trade union movement is not there to aggrandise any person but is there because of a real need and real reason for workers and labour to be represented. No force in this country, legal or otherwise, will create a position where workers will not be able to struggle. If a confrontation develops it will not be the workers who will lose. I do not say that to be confrontationist or provocative; I say it in a very definite way about how people feel. People in the Opposition and those amongst employer groups talk about personal contracts. I want to go back to the situation we had probably 100 years ago. I would like to quote to the Senate what a person named Keir Hardie, the first Labour member of the House of Commons in Great Britain, said when he remembered his days as a young person. I will quote from a book about his life: Those were the days of unemployment and no insurance pay for the out-of-work, and at the age of eight years and nine months, young Keir Hardie was sent out as a baker's boy to add to the family income. He was keenly sensitive and the memories of the baker's shop remained with him for life. Fifty years after, he described how he was sacked: ``I sometimes think if the ministers of our churches and those who profess to be workers of Christ only realised all that it meant to be poor under our present system, they would bestir themselves to find out and remove the cause. Without any egotism, let me recall this incident from my own boyhood. `The year 1866 was nearing its close. Owing to a lock-out in the shipbuilding yards on the Clyde, my father had been out of employment for nearly six months. The funds of the Union were so exhausted that the benefits were reduced to 1/6 and 2/- a week. I was the only breadwinner, being employed by a high-class baker in Lancefield Street, Glasgow, for 3/6 a week. My hours were from 7 a.m. to 7.30 p.m., 12 1/2 hours each day. I was the eldest of a family of three, and the brother next to me was down with fever, from which he never recovered, though his life dragged on for two years thereafter. As most of the neighbourhood had children, they feared coming into the house because of the danger of contagion, and my mother, who was very near her confinement, was in delicate health. It was the last week in the year. Obviously, Christmas. Father had been away for two or three days in search of work. Towards the end of the week, having been up most of the night, I got to the shop fifteen minutes late, and was told by the young lady in charge that if that occurred again I would be punished. I made no reply. I couldn't. I felt like crying. Next morning the same thing happened. I could tell why, but that was neither here nor there. It was a very wet morning, and when I reached the shop I was drenched to the skin, barefooted and hungry. There had not been a crust of bread in the house that morning. But that was pay-day, and I was filled with hope. ``You are wanted upstairs by the master,'' said the girl behind the counter, and my heart almost stopped beating. Outside the dining-room door a servant bade me wait till `master had finished prayers.' (He was noted for his piety.) At length the girl opened the door, and the sight of that room is fresh in my memory even as I write, nearly fifty years after. Round the great mahogany table sat the members of the family, with the father at the top. In front of him was a very wonderful-looking coffee boiler, in the great glass bowl of which the coffee was bubbling. The table was loaded with dainties. My master looked at me over his glasses, and said in quite a pleasant tone of voice: ``Boy, this is the second morning you have been late, and my customers leave me if they are kept waiting for their hot breakfast rolls. I therefore dismiss you, and, to make you more careful in the future, I have decided to fine you a week's wages. And now you may go!'' ' Some people want us to return to that situation. I do not accuse all employers of being capable of that sort of treatment, but I certainly accuse some of them of wanting to return to those days when they had total control. A book has been written which puts in perspective in general terms the way in which many employers look at people as workers. That book is entitled Worker's Control and was edited by Ken Coates and Tony Topham. Its cover reads: Know thy enemy. He does not care what colour you are provided you work for him; he does not care how much you earn provided you earn more for him; he does not care who lives in the room at the top provided he owns the building; he will let you say what you like against him provided you do not act against him; he sings the praises of humanity but knows machines cost more than men; bargain with him he laughs and beats you at it; challenge him and he kills; sooner than lose the things he owns he will destroy the world. Those are just a couple of messages that I give honourable senators who think that trade unions are built on what happens today, who do not have an understanding of the past and who would like to return to the master and servant situation. If we look at what has happened in recent times, there has been the experience of the metal workers unions which sought a supplementary payment to enable people on lower wages to receive an amount nearer to the going rate in the industry. Employers opposed the idea of a supplementary payment and said that they could not afford it. The Commission at the time said, `Those people who say they can't afford it will be given exemptions and they will be given an opportunity to show the Commission why they can't afford to pay it'. In the final wash-up, not one of them was prepared to argue that they were not able to pay it. Again, this was a situation in which people were not fair dinkum. They were trying to maximise their profits and had no concern for their workers. Let us look at the current attitude of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to the restructuring of awards and the way in which labour relations are operating at present. The metal trades industry award is a very fine example. Hundreds of classifications are being reduced to a very small number of about 10 or 15. Ralph Willis, in his speech, stated: More importantly perhaps than either of these changes has been the attitudinal change of the parties. Although there are some spectacular exceptions on both sides, there is now, in general, a much more constructive, cooperative attitude by the parties than previously prevailed. I believe that attitudes are tremendously important. We can do what we like about upgrading technology, but attitudes are tremendously important because life is about people, not machines. Senator Hill talked about flexibility and multiskilling. I agree with that point. Indeed, it was the trade unions which introduced into the debate in recent times the idea of multiskilling, of skilling vertically and horizontally, in order to make work more interesting for people and make them more valuable as a labour resource for the employer. They also talked about career paths so that people do not remain in one job all their lives, without the opportunity to be given credit for skills that they have developed and qualifications that they have, so that they can move upwards into areas of higher technical skill, for which they would be paid additional rates, which would enhance their feeling of being useful human beings and, obviously, make them more attractive as employees. People talk about productivity bargaining and the need to bargain at the enterprise level. In fact, the metal unions first introduced the idea of productivity bargaining in the 4 per cent second tier wage increase case, which involved an increase of 4 per cent to employees who were prepared to, and could, bring about improvements in productivity within the enterprise, whether it be by way of better management or changed work practices at the workplace. In many cases that was done fairly quickly and effectively. However, employers were much slower off the mark in understanding what this offered them and what gains could be made collectively by both labour and capital. When some of them realised what opportunities were available, of course, they got greedy and grasping, and some friction developed. But in the main the bargains were made and kept. There is also this attitude by members of the Opposition and those whom they represent: `Let's get away from the big unions'. One of the obvious difficulties for trade union members in having direct negotiations with management without the assistance of the unions-negotiation at the plant level-is the possible inequity in that management can afford professional advice and has access to advice through its business associations while members of the work force may not be able to draw on the same sort of expertise. Laurie Carmichael, the Assistant Secretary of the ACTU, put it as follows: The trade unions represent that professional advice to the workforce and to deny the workforce the right to that trade union representation is to deny equity and to confirm the inequality of power in the workplace. Senator Knowles referred to Australia Reconstructed and was very disparaging about it. She said that it should be entitled `Australia Unconstructed'-I think that was the term that she used. Of course, she is very careful not to read the report. It is a worthwhile document and it makes some very important points. Recommendation 2.3 shows even-handedness, and an effort to get to a proper basis for discussion, at least where one has an agreed position. It states: The Government, ACTU, BCA and CAI should liaise to build a common data base to facilitate wage negotiations, particularly with respect to non-national adjustments. That means that participants work out what the figures are and reach some agreement as to fact so that they are not talking about two different sets of figures. The recommendation continues: The make-up of such a data base would need to be both comprehensive and acceptable to all parties. This would involve: (a) extensive tripartite discussion with respect to the composition and timing of Australian Bureau of Statistics' surveys; and (b) the establishment of agreed procedures on collection and compilation, by one or other of the parties, of individual sets of statistics relevant to industry and enterprise level wage negotiations. That is an even-handed approach; it is tripartite; and it is an attempt to reach a proper basis for understanding by people. Senator Hill talked about getting away from conflict. That is what the trade unions are all about these days. However, I must say that I cannot stand here and suggest that all in the trade union movement are perfect; that they are all totally honest; that they all understand the complicated questions that have to be answered and are prepared to make the changes necessary not only on behalf of their members but on behalf of the community as a whole. Many people within the trade union movement-and more and more people are joining this group-are beginning to understand that we have to look at the common good but on the basis of equality in negotiation and on the basis that, if one agrees to changes and one agrees to contribute to the betterment of everyone, one has to get some guarantees from the other side that people will not be exploited and robbed. Senator Boswell, bless his heart, was involved in a little exercise some time ago-I did not think he was capable of playing the role of a conciliator, but more strength to him; I hope that he does it again-being instrumental in getting the waterside workers in Mackay and one of the stevedoring people together. They now have a joint company in which the waterside workers operate without supervision; it is totally worker controlled. They have reduced the cost of freight and increased the volume of freight across the wharf, and the stevedoring company and the Mackay branch of the waterside workers are making a reasonable profit. We have always talked about the need to look after people in retirement, and the unions have been responsible for bringing that about. In closing, one of the most important aspects of this legislation concerns amalgamations. If unions go about amalgamations in a proper way, if they create a structure within each union that guarantees involvement and proper democracy at all levels of membership, the allegation that because they are large and bureaucratic they would not be able to look after their membership in that way would not arise. Enterprise unions would be a total failure but there is nothing wrong with enterprise negotiations that take into account the overall role of a union on behalf of its members. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.43) —I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to participate in this cognate debate on the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 and the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988. It is likely to be a long debate. Senator Chaney, in his opening remarks, made the comment that the House of Representatives had devoted a mere 3 1/2 hours to this vitally important question. Judging by the speakers list for the second reading debate and the more than 50 amendments of which we have been advised so far, this chamber is likely to debate these Bills for several days. The Australian Democrats acknowledge this legislation as the beginning of a new era in industrial relations. Industrial relations will always be contentious. It is an area where, even though the two principal sides, the employers and the employees, are likely to have widely divergent views at their extremes-and we certainly hear the extreme position often in this place-most participants in the system must realise that eventually the economy cannot function without essential compromise in this critical area. Industrial relations is a business of compromise and I sense that we will have to be involved in a great deal of compromise in the passage of this legislation as well. As a document outlining the intended parameters of industrial relations in this new era in Australia, this legislation could not possibly please all unions or all employers. Few things in life are perfect-especially legislation, I think we would agree-so we in the Australian Democrats do not expect this legislation to be perfect at this stage, or probably at any stage. We expect that it will evolve over time just as the 1904 Act that it is to replace evolved over time and after some 80-odd amendments. The Opposition has decided to move a plethora of amendments, only some of which, up until a few moments ago, we have seen. If accepted, these amendments would amount to a radical overhaul of industrial relations in this country towards a deregulated system in which sanctions and penalties would substantially increase the power of employers at the expense of unions. I think Senator Chaney and the Opposition would not contest that the effect of those 50 amendments would be to reverse dramatically the nature of the legislation. Apart from the industrial chaos into which Australia would be plunged, I believe that Senator Chaney would accept that it is quite unrealistic to expect that the Opposition's blueprint for industrial relations should pass into legislation while a Labor government is in power. So we in the Democrats simply see the proposing of 50 amendments as being a fairly opportunistic exercise whereby Senator Chaney and the Opposition will roll by this chamber and the Australian public what they see as the alternative blueprint-the other legislation. Perhaps Senator Chaney, as an industrial relations Minister or perhaps even as a Prime Minister, will be given the opportunity to introduce this legislation at some time in the future. We do not consider this to be the appropriate time. Senator McKiernan —He has not won a seat yet. Senator McLEAN —That is true. I said at some time in the future. I did not suggest the near future. Senator McKiernan —I think it is a very distant future, Senator. Senator McLEAN —It could be a distant future, yes. There are those in the Liberal Party of Australia who are still prepared to speak against the ideologically driven extremism that members of the Opposition are continually espousing in more and more areas. On 26 April this year, in an article in the Melbourne Herald, the member for Goldstein, the Hon. Ian Macphee, who is a former coalition industrial relations Minister, contrasted the difference between the coalition and the Australian Labor Party in the industrial relations area in the following way: I frankly am in no doubt that the wages outcome which has been delivered so far by the Government could not have been achieved by a Coalition Government. In that interview Mr Macphee praised the union movement for developing a more enlightened approach to wages growth through its participation in government consultative forums, and he argued that `you cannot suddenly change by slogan'. The Opposition's amendments are essentially based on its slogans, which we have heard for so long. They have some value as possible goals towards which we might move, but they do nothing to sustain the admirable industrial relations record achieved by this Government and acknowledged by Mr Macphee in that article. John Beggs and Bruce Chapman of the Centre for Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University recently published a paper entitled `Industrial strikes still down 5 years later'. They found that, including the 1986 and 1987 data, the estimated reduction in strike activity during the accord period improved from a reduction of 62 per cent to a reduction of 82 per cent. They concluded: The industrial relations improvements achieved between 1983 and 1985 have strengthened during 1986 and 1987. It seems that the previously seemingly inevitable structural trend increases in disputation over the period between 1964 and 1982 have been brought under control. It is important to recognize the extent of the improvement in the post-1983 era; yet still be mindful of the potential policies which further reduce strike levels. The Opposition's amendments-I have said that there are in the vicinity of 50-are a prescription for increased industrial disputation and are in direct contrast to the extra object which the Opposition seeks to add to the objects of the Act; that is, `to encourage the growth, development, productivity and international competitiveness of Australian industry'. We must accept the fact that this Government has managed to achieve simultaneously a reduction in real wages and a reduction in industrial disputation. This contributes to our growth, development, productivity and international competitiveness. The thrust of most of the Opposition's amendments would be potentially to destroy this considerable achievement. I am sure that Senator Chaney will not be surprised that the Australian Democrats will therefore, in essence, be supporting the legislation as an adequate and responsible beginning to a new industrial relations system. I am also sure that many employers who have benefited from this era of falling real wages and lower levels of industrial disputation will welcome our decision to do so. Honourable senators will remember that in July 1983 the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, having taken the advice of the National Labour Consultative Council, set up a committee comprising three distinguished Australians: one, an academic economist, Keith Hancock; another a prominent trade union leader, whose views have been lauded by the present Opposition leader, namely Charles Fitzgibbon; and third, a leading employers advocate of the current era, George Polites. This Committee was asked to conduct the first comprehensive review of the Federal system of industrial relations under the present Act. This Act was piloted through the Parliament by Alfred Deakin, of the old and genuine liberals, in 1904. So between 1904 and 1985 there had not been a serious comprehensive review of the principal Act under which we resolved industrial disputation in this nation. Throughout the period between 1904 and 1983, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act-the Act this Bill seeks to replace-has been the subject of an almost unending series of amendments which, to quote His Honour Mr Justice Deane of the High Court of Australia, has reduced the present Act to `an outmoded patchwork'. The legislation introduced into the Parliament in May 1987 and reintroduced in its current amended form in May 1988 has the basic support of the Australian Democrats for several reasons. First of all, it provides the scope for a further managed and measured freeing up of the industrial relations system which is not provided for by the extreme and confrontationist policies advocated by the coalition in its present Thatcherite mode. The second reason the Australian Democrats support in essence this legislation is that it retains the best features of the system of conciliation and arbitration which was developed back in 1904 and which initially served us well but increasingly has posed difficulties as it increasingly became the patchwork of amendments to which I referred earlier. The third reason we support it in essence is that it has been developed in consultation with the relevant industrial organisations. There has been considerable consultation in the process leading up to the tabling of this legislation in its present form in May of this year. It also reflects the advice of the Committee known as the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems to which I have just referred. It was a committee of experts appointed by the Government to review the Act. We consider it a reasonable and legitimate position for the Government to take in having formulated this legislation, to base the legislation essentially upon the recommendations of that eminent Committee. It returns the law to a state of cohesion although it does have some inherent complexities. In that process of 80-odd amendments the law governing industrial relations in this country had lacked cohesion, had gradually spread and lacked an essential logic. One of the intentions of this Bill is to draw it back into a state of cohesion and indeed the intention of the second of the Bills which we are debating, namely the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988, is to transmit that new cohesiveness and to put it in place. Firstly, while expressing basic support for both pieces of legislation, we acknowledge that much of what was controversial in the Bill of 1987, as well as some which ought not to have been, has been removed in the transition between the Bill of 1987 and the Bill of 1988 which we now have before us. Secondly, that the controversial material which remains was given an ample and prominent public hearing during the last Federal election campaign and has been the subject of further consultation with the industrial parties concerned. It was a healthy process that occurred during the campaign. There was the opportunity for the Opposition to take the more controversial aspects of the Bill, for the people to react and for that reaction to be taken into account by the Minister in redrafting the present Bill. We do not say that that process has totally been taken account of, but the opportunity did exist and the process did occur and that has been a healthy process. The Australian Democrats will be moving some amendments, five in fact, around three essential principles. We will be moving some amendments of our own in areas in which we feel the Government has missed important opportunities for change such as to the collegiate system and to secret ballots; in which we have been heavily lobbied by responsible elements of the union movement in relation to these aspects of the Bill; and in which we believe the Government and the Opposition have both, not unexpectedly, taken extreme positions such as those in relation to amalgamations. The Australian Democrats have held discussions with all of the major players in the industrial relations arena: the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU); the employer groups such as the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Chambers of Commerce and Manufacturing; and major employers such as Westpac Banking Corporations and Unilever Australia Ltd. The Opposition spokesperson on industrial relations, Senator Chaney, has consulted us about his amendments; we have had discussions with him progressively and of course with the Minister and his advisers. It is clear to us from these discussions that there is no agreement between these divergent groups on some of the major and most controversial aspects of the legislation and that no agreement is indeed possible under the present circumstances. The objective of the Australian Democrats is to get into place the best legislation that we can get there under the present circumstances. We see it as a starting point, we see it as a process of evolution and a process by which we move into the second era of industrial relations. As I said earlier, we do not expect perfection now-we probably do not expect perfection ever-but we see this as being a responsible and constructive start to this second era of industrial relations. That is why it is important to see this legislation and the recent national wage decisions of the Commission as part of an evolutionary process towards improving Australia's industrial relations. There are several structural problems in the legislation. Union amalgamations are favoured by those who believe that there are too many unions in Australia-somewhere in the vicinity of 160 registered Federal unions. When we consider those registered under State jurisdiction the number rises to 300 or thereabouts. I am told that in Germany, for instance, there are 25 unions. Certainly 300 by any standard is an extraordinary number of unions and it creates difficulties. Some experts and participants view amalgamations as a way of reducing demarcation disputes and by reducing the number of registered unions. Their arguments point to fewer and bigger unions in the future. The formula that is inherent in this legislation of 3,000-the 3,000 figure which I will return to in detail in the committee stage-is aimed at reducing the number of unions at the Federal level to in the vicinity of 20. Against this we have the leaders of the small unions who have approached us in strength. They claim to represent their members' interests better now than would be the case if they merged with bigger unions and so became bigger unions. They also argue that enforced amalgamations threaten the International Labour Organisation convention's guarantee of freedom of association. We in the Democrats have not heard anyone arguing for the registration of associations with one, two or three members: so all participants tend to agree that some figure has to be arrived at. At present the figure is 100, this legislation suggests 3,000, and the suggested figure in the 1987 Bill was 1,000. It is agreed that a cut-off figure has to be decided, and it is a question of where one draws the line. Obviously there will be argument on that topic and no doubt that argument will proceed in the next few days. Some employers also argue against the amalgamation proposals because they support enterprise as opposed to industry based unions. It is our belief that the choice of either enterprise or industry based unions will evolve. It has been suggested to us by the Minister's advisers, and it strikes us as logical, that if we move towards, as this legislation hopes, a vertical union structure-in other words, an industrial structure-within that context we shall see signs, as we are already seeing signs, of enterprise agreements arrived at within the industry based, vertical structure. The transition from our present craft or horizontal structure to the vertical will not be easy. It may falter. It will have its problems. But we suggest that it is rational, it makes sense, and sooner or later within that context it will provide-we accept the Minister's advisers' argument-an opportunity for a context within which enterprise agreements may even flourish. We do not see the industry vertical structure as being in any way contrary to the needs of those who pursue the alternative model. Another contentious issue is the extent of the powers of the new commission. Some employers have argued that the powers of the commission are too expansive and that trouble will flow from too broad a definition of the commission's powers. Employers complain that the commission that is born out of this legislation will be an even more all-embracing institution than the one that it is replacing and that the Bill undermines the possibility of a shift to the enterprise level. We are not convinced by that argument. It is interesting to note that in this context the two recent national wage case decisions have thrown wage increases back to a direct negotiation between employers and employees to implement productivity and restructuring trade-offs. It is that rationale that the recent wage judgment pursued: it was passed back and it was said `We trust you to negotiate and to talk'-in other words, to do precisely what this proposed legislation intends. We also argue that this is likely to be the future path of the industrial relations scene. It is working at the moment because it has the imprimatur of the Commission. To reduce the powers of the Commission now and to throw all negotiations onto the employer and employee at the enterprise level would be a radical lurch away from the path that we have already travelled with some success recently. Such a radical move would endanger this success. It would destroy the current conciliatory attitude of the ACTU leadership and create industrial chaos which would undermine our international trading position. Surely an evolutionary process that is working is preferable to that. It is also useful to remember that many who now complain that the Commission's foreseen powers will be too great have complained in the past that the Commission had had no teeth. In fact, they would seek to give the Commission more teeth by increasing the compliance provisions of the Act. This is another problem area to which we shall return in later stages of the debate. We detect an inconsistency in the arguments advanced to us by Opposition members. It is not surprising that employers tend to regard existing compliance provisions as not good enough. It is similarly not surprising that unions regard the existing compliance procedures as too tough on unions. It is not surprising that compliance was a controversial area of the 1987 Bill. It is not surprising that the Government probably took the easy way out, whipped out the provisions and left the status quo. So far as we are concerned that is probably a reasonable starting point. Because we are evolutionists, we consider that we are moving forward into the second phase of industrial relations and, it is hoped, by a process of evolution rather than confrontation. In the 1987 Industrial Relations Bill, to satisfy employers' demands, the Government proposed a new directions and injunctions process with higher monetary penalties for non-compliance. It also introduced a more efficient process for resolving secondary boycotts before sanctions were necessary. Potentially, that was the most controversial aspect of the 1987 legislation. I do not think it is irresponsible for the Government to have avoided that controversy at the beginning of the new stage. In fact, I think that it probably is quite responsible to say that if there are highly contentious issues, let us start in the best way we can, capitalise on the gains made, and take advantage of the goodwill that exists, because one does not see much goodwill in this arena. The Government can proceed from there to address the more controversial issues as we move down the line. The option of constant amendment, if the Opposition assumes government, is exactly the same option that has existed throughout the last 70 to 80 years of the previous legislation. That is the nature of the process. We are simply acknowledging the responsibility and positive potential of this legislation. Some of the Opposition amendments-and there are approaching 50 amendments before us-are designed to introduce a compliance system which is heavily weighted towards employers. We do not believe that all employers would welcome this as the reaction of unions would create industrial chaos. Frankly, we believe that employers are among the greatest beneficiaries of what has been achieved in the last four to five years. It is the employers who have reaped the benefits of the period of relative industrial calm. I understand that the Opposition must attempt to woo back to its fold business people who increasingly prefer a Labor government to the ideology of the new Rightists who seem to have hijacked the Liberal and National leadership. Their amendments cannot be seen as a constructive addition, however, to a sensible industrial relations policy in the late 1980s with our economy under stress. I suppose they could be viewed, in the worst light, as a play to the whims of the business community, but I prefer to see the many Opposition amendments as a genuine attempt to ensure that, at least in this forum, both sides of the argument are extensively aired and considered. We endorse that motive, even though we may not eventually endorse many of the amendments themselves. In summary, the Australian Democrats identify with this legislation, not because we consider it to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It contains controversial aspects. We hope to address those in some of our amendments. We hope that some of the Opposition amendments will also address them. We see the legislation as being a positive and constructive attempt by the Government to capitalise on what has occurred and the advantages that have been gained in our economy in recent years to put in place a sensible, workable foundation for the second era of industrial relations. It is a foundation which this Government, the Democrats, the Opposition and subsequent governments can address positively to the advantage of Australians generally, and Australian industry in particular. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(6.10) —I rise to speak on the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 because I believe it is a matter of great significance to the Parliament and it is an area that the media would say must remain contentious. It is regrettable that there are those, even in this Parliament, who seem to think that somehow industrial relations has to be seen as a zero sum game, that somehow there are winners and losers. Even the Australian Democrats talk in terms of this perhaps benefiting employers more than employees, as though somehow this is just a naked contest. That was certainly the line that used to be pushed by lecturers at Melbourne University when I studied industrial relations; if one were to have any sensible understanding of industrial relations one had to understand that effectively it was a class struggle and that there would always be those who would be pressing for more and more and those who would be wanting to give them as little as possible. Senator Button —It was in those days. Senator ALSTON —I doubt that the views of academics have changed greatly. Senator Button —Or Liberal senators. Senator ALSTON —There has been a measure of enlightenment on all sides in this area in recent years. There are those in the trade union movement who understand the notions of productivity and mutual benefit and who see this as an area in which Australia can be the winner. Certainly workers as well as corporations can prosper. Unfortunately, those people are not necessarily the ones who drive the ultimate form of legislation. That is really our concern with this Bill; it does not address, or it deliberately chooses to avoid, some of the most obvious areas that would appeal in any other arena. The principle here, as to the rule of law, is accepted as trite in any other area. But somehow in industrial relations we are constantly told that we have to make special arrangements, that we have to concede the game that if there are those who feel so strongly about the matter or, as the Democrats would say, it is sufficiently contentious that we have to take the least controversial path. Senator Stone —We even had the Hancock Committee saying that the rule of law could not obtain in this area. Senator ALSTON —Indeed. The end result was that the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, loaded as it was from the outset, took the line of least resistance and favoured the maintenance of the present system. One can understand why it took that view because it comprised those who had been steeped in the culture of industrial relations, who understood that it would be all too difficult to predict the outcome if one were to allow competitive forces to reign, and that implicit-- Senator Stone —Including, not the least, the so-called employer representatives. Senator ALSTON —That is possibly true, too. The end result certainly suggests that. It is regrettable if we have to see the game in that light. But that is undoubtedly the way in which those who ultimately make the decisions in the trade union movement still approach the game, or else they could not have objected to notions which in themselves amount to an attempt simply to treat trade unions in the same way as any other group in society. Nonetheless, we have the determined refusal to allow persons not to join trade unions. We still have this charade of conscientious objection that is so loaded it is almost impossible to succeed. One has to show a deep and bitter resentment to belonging to any form of trade union, not just to a particular trade union that might have given offence. One can see time and again that this is simply the result of pressure from those who want to keep the game to themselves. I remember that years ago when I tried to get a job on a building site I was told not to bother coming because I did not have a union card. Senator Aulich —Because you were so lazy. Senator ALSTON —I was not. I was there at 7 o'clock in the morning, and there was a substantial queue even at that time. I was told that if I was really determined to get a guernsey I should come back after lunch. I discovered the reason for that was that if one worked half a day one got a full day's pay. A lot of the chaps went to the pub at lunch time and did not return; they had enough to keep them going. I was able to get a job but, of course, I was forced to join the Builders Labourers Federation. I laboured very hard and long at Scotch College building the swimming pool for about three months. I will always remember that a couple of years after that when I went back to university I received a notice of intention to prosecute from Paddy Malone, the then secretary of the union. I rang him and asked, `What's this all about?' He said, `Don't take it to heart, Tony, this is just our way of catching up with people. We want to know whether they are still on the books. We are not going to chase you for your back dues, but thanks for telling us.' I thought that was probably one of the more moderate approaches to try to keep the forces in line. Senator Button —What is the relevance of this anecdotal material? The union no longer exists. Senator ALSTON —I suppose its ghost is still with us. It seems to have infiltrated into other areas. Senator Button —The union no longer exists. Senator ALSTON —Indeed, but I would not have thought that it was wholly unrepresentative of the Building Workers Industrial Union. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! Senator ALSTON —I am glad that the Acting Deputy President is impartial in a debate such as this. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In all debates, senator. Senator ALSTON —Particularly this one. I recall your vigorous questioning, Mr Acting Deputy President, of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) who is at the table in Estimates Committee A on matters relating to union powers. This is highly relevant because of the deliberate refusal to recognise the right of persons not to join trade unions. It seems, in this day and age, an extraordinary proposition that somehow people have to be coerced, that the virtues are not sufficiently apparent. People have to be told, `No card, no pay' and they are not given the opportunity to decide whether they want to join. The right to join or not to join can have tremendously competitive effects. We wax lyrical about the virtues of competition, but the level at which union membership is set may well be a deterrent factor if one has a free and voluntary choice in the matter. If one is effectively told, `You have to work in a closed shop', what is the incentive for a union to keep the rates down? Senator McKiernan —Like in here. This is a closed shop. Were you a member of the Liberal Party when you contested pre-selection? Senator ALSTON —I certainly was, but I chose to join. I got appointed to this place on the recommendation of the Labor Premier of Victoria. My colleagues were very concerned at some of the things that Mr Cain had to say about me. He made very uncharitable and unfair comments about me at the time. I did not have any choice about that. Perhaps I should also deal with some of the other controversial aspects which I do not think are sufficient to deflect us from what are very important deficiencies in the legislation. The compliance provisions are obviously crucial in that area. It was catalogued very well by my colleague Mr Shack in the House of Representatives on 23 May when he went through the gymnastics that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) went through. I suppose that he is grateful that he is now moving on to more placid waters. It is stark when one looks at the comments of the Minister that the system of compliance was substantially moribund, that the bans clause procedure had long since fallen into disrepute. I would have thought that in the normal course of events, despite the passing of Clarrie O'Shea, there is a great majority in the community who believe that there should be the ability for a court to enforce its orders, that if one loses one pays costs, if one fails to comply with an order sanctions will be imposed. But somehow in this area everything is different. That was not even the view of the Minister at the time. I thought he made it fairly plain to all that he believed that there was a case for an array of penalties for non-compliance with Commission decisions and orders. Yet he retained that view only so long as the trade union movement was prepared to wear it. On 17 August Simon Crean said: Our position is that if the Bill does not touch common law or the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act then it must not increase or strengthen sanctions. That meant that there shall be none. He continued: They can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. Of course, that was game, set and match. From then on the Minister for Industrial Relations threw in the towel and shortly afterwards he said: `We do not believe it is appropriate to be amending the provisions within the arbitration system now.' Senator Button —A very unfair characterisation, and you know it. Senator ALSTON —I would be delighted to hear the way in which the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) would explain it, even with his great ability in this area. I would have thought that the facts speak for themselves. One simply cannot move-- Senator Button —Don't hold your breath. Senator ALSTON —I would have thought that it was a great challenge to be able to explain how one can go through these contortions in such a short period. We do not need to look at the way the Minister is left swinging in the wind with respect to this issue. We need look only at the simple proposition that sanctions are the obvious other side of the coin. If one is going to put in certain requirements that one expects people to adhere to, one obviously expects to induce them to comply by providing penalties if they do not. It is a fairly straightforward proposition in any other area. For some reason the Government is not prepared to accept that in this area. The reason is that members of the trade union movement, many of whom I suppose are the real conservatives in society these days, do not think that the risk is worth taking; that somehow, if one opens the system to competition, removes many of the protective barriers and takes them out of the sheltered work shops, they might not be able to survive. With respect to the telecommunications industry, something like 10,000 people might be at risk according to the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association (ATEA) if we removed the first telephone monopoly. It is demonstrably untrue that those persons would be placed on the scrap heap-they would probably receive fairly generous redundancy payments. More importantly, more business would be generated in the private sector. They would all find work and would probably be better off than they are now. Senator Stone —They would not have to belong to the union, either. Senator ALSTON —Indeed, so they would save money in that area, as well. The fact is that they are simply afraid to take the plunge. That is what I think is so tragic about the attitude of some of the neanderthals who obviously have been able to prevail upon the Minister for Industrial Relations in this very important area. So, if we look at the fact that the Government will not outlaw closed shops-and despite the semantics that are engaged in by some from time to time, it is quite clear that we still have forms of compulsory unionism in Australia, that there are a number of areas where it is effectively impossible to get a guernsey unless you already have a guernsey-while that sort of approach prevails, while there are these ineffective or non-existent compliance provisions and there is no attempt to restructure the movement in such a way that there is a concentration on productivity gains and effective bargaining units, I would have thought that there are some very real deficiencies in the system. I am interested in the area of union amalgamations because I seem to recall that some years ago Mr Fraser thought that it was not a bad idea to shrink the number of unions. It is interesting, because I think probably in good faith at the time he thought that it was simply a matter of reducing the number of unions because somehow 300 must be inefficient. We know that in West Germany there are only 16 or 17 unions. All this was a plausible reason why there were so many disputes: They were running off in different directions and having demarcation disputes. Senator Stone —That is the kind of proposition that I think would appeal to Mr Fraser. Senator ALSTON —I will not go into that area. I think closer examination reveals a different picture. What we now find is that it is really the larger unions which are most inclined to indulge in demarcation disputes and body snatching arrangements, and it is they who are the most militant. On the other hand, it is the little fellows that play their own games and do not cost much money in terms of the overall industrial relations environment, and I would have thought that if they want to play their games, as they do-and generally it is in a fairly moderate way because they do not have a great deal of industrial muscle-that is ultimately their decision. Senator Aulich —You have been on the waterfront over the past decade and yet you still stand there and say that. Senator ALSTON —One does not have to be, I would have thought; but I will come to the waterfront and the rorts there in a moment. My concern is that there are quite a large number of small unions about which conventional wisdom used to be that in their own interest they should be forced to join in with larger unions with the result that there would be a smaller number of larger outfits. Unless we ensure that somehow there is not just this community of interest phrase that is loosely bandied around by the Arbitration Commission but a genuine unity of purpose and relationship to an enterprise unit, we will not achieve much more, I would have thought. We still end up with-- Senator Stone —You are putting a bit more power in the hands of the union boss concerned. Senator ALSTON —It is still a very heterogeneous outfit. It might be comprehensively embraced under the umbrella of one union, but the parts are still going in a number of different directions and they are still competing across a number of industry areas. The net result is that the forces will probably be mobilised when many of them do not want that. I do not understand how one can say that a simple reduction in the number of unions will deliver the goods in this area. One can look around the world and find examples of countries that still have a very large number of unions. I think that Japan is probably the best example of where these problems do not exist. That has a lot more to do with the culture of Japan and the way that people approach their work there than it has to do with simple union numbers and their size and shape. Senator Aulich —Both Germany and Japan were occupied countries that had their industrial systems forced on them, particularly their arrangement of unions. That is why it looks like that. It is not comparable. Senator ALSTON —It has been 40 years since then. They could have done whatever they wanted to do about it, but chose not to. Generally it is a pretty productive result, I would have thought. I will now turn to some of the industries that still have a long way to go and I will discuss some of the ways that this Bill does not address the problems confronting those industries. I think that the coal industry is a very good starting point. I note that the mine workers have just resolved to leave the Australian Labor Party (ALP). I do not think that that says much for their intelligence. It probably means that they are lemmings who cannot even recognise a good clip when they see one. Senator Stone —You have to give them one mark at least. Senator ALSTON —I do not think that they are showing too many signs of enlightenment. Perhaps leaving the ALP is a last desperate ploy, but I do not think that it will deliver much to them. Until they come to recognise the need for more productive enterprise, their chances of surviving ultimately and our chances of maintaining a very large export industry will be put very much at risk. I note that weekly wages and bonuses for most coal workers approach $1,000, while average weekly pay exceeds $800. They are very large sums of money in an industry that is supposedly not protected and in a market which is highly competitive. Certainly we are very familiar, I think, with the Japanese practice of playing us off against others and deliberately seeking alternative sources of supply. One can understand why they do that. I think perhaps there are times when they overstate the degree of industrial disputation in this country which they say entitles them to bargain as hard as they do. The fact of the matter is that we do not have any right to demand that people buy our output. While we are having these very high and uncompetitive wage structures and given our industrial record of recent years, it is an absolute certainty that this industry will continue to decline and that Australia will be the loser. Senator Button —Do you think that they are threatened by superconductivity? Senator ALSTON —I do not know. I do not think that they have touched anything that has given them much of a shock in recent times. Maybe they could do with a bit of hardening up intellectually. To the extent that that might help, they could benefit from talking to the Minister. Australia's industrial record over the past four years shows that in 1987 the number of working days lost per 1,000 employees in the coal industry was 40 times the national average; and it has not been much better since then; in 1986 it was 45 times the national average; and in the 12 months to March this year it was even higher. So one can say that here is an industry that really does have its head in the sand, or its body in the coalmine, in that it is not prepared to face up to the need for change, which I think in a number of other industries is increasingly being recognised. Other workers are prepared to at least talk in terms of trading off restrictive work practices, albeit for higher wages as much as for increased productivity gains. At least they recognise the need to change; but in this area there has been a fixed determination not to. Senate suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator ALSTON —Before the suspension of the sitting I was speaking about the conditions that pertain in the coal industry as an example of how some unions have still not dragged themselves into the twentieth century. Despite the best efforts of a number of people in positions of influence, they have nonetheless decided to keep their heads in the sand collectively and are now pushing for a national marketing strategy which would see efficient mines, particularly open cut mines in Queensland, subsidising inefficient operations in New South Wales. It is another example of cross-subsidies, I suppose it really is not in any way adequate if we are talking about driving out inefficient work practices and becoming much more productivity oriented. The coalition policy calls for the Coal Industry Tribunal to be scrapped and the coal industry brought within the ambit of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We believe that that Tribunal has encouraged the club mentality for too long and has simply allowed employers to take the line of least resistance, to allow for a perpetuation of those cosy arrangements that do nothing to drive out inefficiences from the system and provide incentives and rewards for those who are prepared to be more productive. Certainly, the so-called national marketing strategy will do nothing to improve productivity or indeed industrial relations in the industry. It is quite clear that employers will continue to insist not only on effective compliance provisions but also on reforms which will generate a great deal of cost saving. Whilst I think it is inevitable that there will be reductions in employment in the industry, it will simply exacerbate the problem if these reforms are not achieved. Amongst the most important of these reforms is the introduction of a seven-day mining operation to replace the existing wasteful weekend shutdown. It is regrettable that to date there has not been enthusiasm for that proposition. It is akin to the idea that one can pretend that if someone works after 5 o'clock at night somehow that is fundamentally different and therefore deserving of a much higher wage remuneration than is given to those who work before 5 o'clock. The whole notion of penalties and weekend remuneration is very much in need of review. There are other areas about which we have a great deal of concern and disappointment, especially if one takes account of the scathing attack of Senator Robert Ray, who normally is able to bring a degree of enlightenment to debates in this chamber. I can recall his being very quick off the mark in kicking to death the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) recommendations, making it very clear that he was not prepared to allow any more competitive pressures or better work practices to be introduced onto the waterfront. That was a very disappointing response. Through our rorts committee we have identified a number of the more extravagant methods of work without pay-or rather, pay without work. Senator Aulich —Work without pay is what you stand for. Senator ALSTON —I suppose we are all in the same boat. There are no incentives in this game in terms of remuneration. Senator McKiernan —Look at the overtime for last week. We sat right through until Friday morning. Senator ALSTON —I have not got my cheque yet. I will be delighted if there is something extra for all of that toil. Senator Aulich —It is on merit. Senator ALSTON —Well, that would cut out the honourable senator. I am sure we would be prepared to help the honourable senator if need be. The IAC draft report on the waterfront recommended that there should be a series of measures which would at least try to come to grips with some of the excessive coastal shipping freight rates, which it estimated wiped out between $300m and $700m from Australian gross domestic product on an annual basis. It is entirely regrettable, and almost unbelievable, that the unions refused to take any part in the IAC inquiry. The fact that the Government could be so dismissive of the recommendations of the IAC, simply because they did not suit sections of the trade union movement, is a reflection of the fact that when the heat gets turned up a little too high the Government is not prepared to endure the short term pain. There was, indeed, a classic example of that with the bounty ship repair scheme. After a prolonged campaign by waterside workers involving the hijacking of foreign vessels for unnecessary repair work the scheme was introduced to encourage-or in effect bribe-workers into taking a more rational approach. Nonetheless, it was symptomatic of adopting shortsighted and short term solutions rather than addressing the need for introducing real competitive pressures. Given that, once again, shipping costs cannot be insulated from export costs and the competitive structures we face in shipping around the world, it is a matter for concern that this area was once again put in the too hard basket. Grain handling and storage again are examples of matters that have been identified by the recent royal commission as areas where there would be considerable cost savings if a competitive environment could be introduced. To date, there has not been a great deal of encouragement in that area either. The royal commission identified overmanning on the waterfront and railways, unnecessary interruptions to ship loading operations, and significant industrial disruption and high absenteeism in some ports as the major causes of inefficiency. Boiling it down, it is once again a problem of the lack of competitive pressure coupled with the pursuit of the path of least resistance by authorities when dealing with unions, no doubt aided and abetted by the cosy arrangements that continue to persist in that area as well. If we are serious about making Australia more competitive and providing rewards for workers as well as benefits to the community at large, then we have to do away with the division mentality-dividing workers from employers, regarding this as somehow a zero sum game when it is not and embrace the notion that cooperation can achieve very significant productivity gains on all fronts. I regret that this Industrial Relations Bill does not tackle the fundamental issues. The Government has not been prepared to grapple with some of the very real concerns which the more enlightened members of the Government recognise but are afraid to tackle in the face of some fairly high levels of intransigence in certain sections of the union movement. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(8.08) —Before I begin the substance of my speech, I certainly agree with Senator Alston in one sense: the Industrial Relations Bill is a compromise. The problem is that many of the Opposition's speakers view a compromise as something rather distasteful. Yet we are dealing with the very area, that is, industrial relations, where compromise, negotiation and consensus are very much an end result of most activities. Industrial relations is not a matter of people being totally right or totally wrong on one issue. It may well be that, on balance, when there are competing interests between various groups, one group tends to be slightly more moral than another, that its cases are more often than not justified, that sometimes it is more reasonable than the other side. On the whole the industrial relations system tries to take that into account, but inevitably one ends up with some form of compromise. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act at its inception was a world leader in terms of the type of legislation that existed then, and even the legislation that now exists. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act was a genuine attempt by a pioneering country to establish a new structure for wage and condition fixing for all people throughout the nation. It has given Australia a unique system which did not just grow up like Topsy; it grew up with a certain principle, a certain morality, a certain community respect behind it. It has been altered from time to time. That system has grown up in accordance with the wishes of those people who are the major players in the game and, I dare say, the community of all Australians. To come forward with totally radical proposals, whether they be proposals from either the Left or the extreme Right, to propose changes to this system as if those structural changes alone were going to change the nature of industrial relations in this country, the nature, scope and efficiency of our economic activity, is to kid oneself. We have a system that is a product of compromise, of community respect. We have some of the most eminent people in our community on the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They are not all perfect by any means but they are, on the whole, people who have shown respect and responsibility for the total community interest and not just concern for the specific interests of specific interest groups that come before them. So when we talk about changing this system, overhauling it-and it is time for a certain overhaul-we are not talking about throwing everything out, the baby with the bath water. We are talking about something that has had community acceptance for a long period, and that in many ways has worked over the years, not just in pounds, shillings and pence, or in dollars and cents, but that has worked to preserve a relationship between labour and capital in this country that in many cases has not existed for consistent periods in most other developed countries. Through our history there has been genuine respect between capital and labour in a way that, as I said, has not been found for as long and as consistently in many other countries. There are people who will test the system. There are those on the Right, whether they call themselves the New Right or whatever, who are challenging the system. In some cases there is a seed of correctness in their viewpoint. Sometimes there has to be an opening up to the market-place of these structures. There has to be a breath of fresh air coming through. Certain pressure has to be accepted. On the Left, for example, there has been a view that the whole thing should be restructured very tightly to guarantee all workers, regardless of how they work, think or put into their enterprise, a basic and in some cases reasonably prosperous life without effort. We can disparage both viewpoints because they do not fit into the central vision of what the arbitration system in this country is all about. But from time to time their views have to be taken on board. What we cannot afford to do is let either of the extremes hijack the system we have now. It is incumbent upon us-all the practitioners in the industrial relations system and us as legislators-to ensure that our system is renewed from time to time through consultation and consensus. That does not mean to say that governments should sit back and say, `You lot out there oppose this, therefore we are not going to move'. It means that if a government moves in terms of changing the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, if it moves in terms of restructuring industrial relations in this country, it must do so following proper consultation with the practitioners, with the unions, with management, with those who are going to be affected by that restructuring. Unfortunately, changes to the Arbitration Act have not always been made with that philosophy in mind. Time after time-for example, during the Fraser period-there was intervention in industrial relations, in many cases philosophically motivated but in many other cases motivated by nothing but a political view in mind, particularly a view to succeeding at the next election. I will give Malcolm Fraser his due. In many ways he was a very good Prime Minister for the Liberal Party. He taught it how to win. He taught it how to win elections over and over again, sometimes in reasonably difficult circumstances. He has been regarded as a fairly weak man in some ways in terms of the carrying forth of a dry Liberal approach. But in industrial relations he was a congenital intervener. He was the fifth industrial relations Minister the Liberals had. The Fraser Government had four, at least in the time when I was a State industrial relations Minister: Tony Street, Andrew Peacock, Ian Macphee and Ian Viner. Then there was Malcolm Fraser, who was a de facto Minister for Industrial Relations. The history of that period, from 1975 to 1983, is a history of interventions by the Prime Minister of the day, in many cases without consultation with the interested groups. That applied not just to the union movement, with whom Malcolm Fraser shared very few sympathies, but also to employers throughout Australia. I remember being at a significant number of meetings during those days. We had a lot of them in the last few years of the Fraser Government, usually in response to his call to change legislation, to move in a particular area, to create initiatives. At those meetings I remember a significant number of employers, important people in this country who have to make major managerial decisions that affect this economy, saying, `Where the hell is this man going?'. I am making this point not necessarily in order to attack the Liberal Government of the day; it is an attack upon an interventionist style which is based upon ad hoc principles, regardless of whether those ad hoc principles are put into effect to amend legislation or to bear upon government activity. It was a very sad period. The reason I am mentioning it now, at the outset of my speech, is that I believe that that period, and the Whitlam period in terms of industrial relations, should stand as historical contrasts to what has been achieved under this Government. I will start with the Whitlam Government. I think we ought to be honest in this chamber. The Whitlam Government's industrial policies, as opposed to some of its other policies, like Medibank and so on, were fairly dreadful. We had Public Service wage increases-massive increases in the Public Service sector-firing and fuelling wage increases in the private sector that this community could not afford. Consultation was fairly negligible. On the whole, the record was not a happy one. We thought that was bad enough, in a sense, and a lot of people in the Labor Party learned from the mistakes of that period, including the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). But the record of the Fraser period was even worse. I quote the words of Charles Dickens at the beginning of A Tale of Two Cities: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness . . . One could talk about the Fraser period as encompassing that description-certainly the foolishness and the difficulties. As the Fraser Government neared the end of its time in office one could see that the writing was on the wall. It had failed in industrial relations, one of the key components of strategies for managing an economy. The $39 a week pay increase in the metal trades industry was flowing through to other industries, especially the transport industry. The record of strikes then has been unparalleled over the last decade, standing at about 3 1/2 times the number of working days lost compared with the situation last year under this Government. Inflation was out of hand. Unemployment was going through the roof and standing at historic levels. Ministers bumbled from pillar to post. A couple of incidents demonstrate that point pretty clearly. The industrial relations Minister Mr Viner, the second last industrial relations Minister of the Fraser era, towards the end of his time in 1981-82 made some terrible blunders. All Ministers make mistakes, but these mistakes were made because he was bringing aggression into the management of industrial relations. He was bringing confrontation into industrial relations as a major principle of Government activity. Honourable senators will recall that it was the Liberal Government that set out to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF), but totally fouled up that activity. The deregistration finally occurred when the Hawke Government decided to do it properly. Let us recall the case of Costain Australia Ltd, the company whose title and name was tabled in the Parliament by Ian Viner, after he had given an absolute promise to all employer groups that if they cooperated with the Government in providing information about breaches of the Act and other illegalities on the part of the BLF their names would be kept secret. Yet Minister Viner tabled in the House the name of a company, which was then subjected to some of the grossest behaviour on the part of the Builders Labourers Federation. He set it up; and the BLF knocked it down. Similarly, in a desperate attempt to bring in legislation aimed at destroying the union movement's power, or its place in the industrial relations framework, Minister Viner caused to be leaked-I could use the words strategically leaked-details of the Government's new tough anti-union legislation. But that just happened to be done on the eve of the meeting of the National Labour Consultative Council, the body established to look at industrial relations. It represented employers, government and employees and it was expected to try to make the system work, to advise the Government and discuss with the Government how the system ought to work. It was a total slap in the face to that very important and influential body, all in the interests of winning against the unions. One can imagine the effect that had on the industrial relations climate of the day. It was totally unworkable. There could have been eight Ministers rather than four and the situation would have been the same. I must say that there was some hope on the horizon. This relates to the theme of what this Government is trying to do in this Bill. Ian Macphee became Minister for Industrial Relations when the hapless and, I must say, deceitful Ian Viner finally left office. Ian Macphee made one particular statement when he came to office which I thought was interesting in terms of its approach. I will read it because it stands as a monument to someone who at least tried, and who is still trying, to impose on his fellow Liberals a view about the way industrial relations should work, a realistic and commonsense view. I quote what he said a day or so after he became Minister: I have never been a confrontationist and I am a great believer in the power of reason. I believe that the only way to have sensible industrial relations is to have a legislative framework which provides means of people getting together and talking through their problems. Then it rests on the calibre of leadership on both sides of the industrial fence and in the tribunals to bring about a common solution. That commonsense result will be produced by the commonsense of people, and not by legislative provisions. That is the reason why this Government decided to amend the Act in a significant way only when it came to an understanding of what was the commonsense ground to take in industrial relations. We have been in office for nearly five years. This Bill is coming before the Senate five years after our election to office because we wanted to ensure that there was significant agreement about the restructuring of the whole system. Some of the disagreement has been expressed in strong tones, from both the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and employer organisations. But on the whole they have accepted that this is the most workable rearrangement of the current Act that is possible. A number of people have talked in this debate, most of them from the other side, representing the Nationals and the Liberals. A number of them are new people to this chamber without industrial relations experience. They have never had the job of sitting down in a meeting and saying, `How do we sort this out so that the ships sail, the planes fly, goods end up in factories and shops are not black-banned?'. They have not had to work out, for example, how people who are unfairly dismissed can be protected and how a union can represent its workers in the most effective and reasonable way. The majority of people on the other side have had no practical experience in that area. Most of them have never had the spotlight descend on their head and seen the message on the wall, `What are you going to do about getting this problem solved?'. It is only in those sorts of situations, where there is a clash of interests, that one gets the practical experience and the philosophical viewpoint which teaches about the rights of other people and that no-one is totally right or wrong in the industrial relations arena. Knowing that, one starts to restructure what has to be restructured and the rest of it one tries to change, as a government, through the creation of a climate of consideration and understanding. That is a realistic way to get over confrontation and, when there is confrontation, a workable way of resolving it. Central to the philosophy of this Government is the prices and incomes accord, which is embodied in this Bill and the way we work. The accord was negotiated between the ACTU and significant people in the Australian Labor Party prior to the Labor Party being elected. It was a response to Australia's industrial relations difficulties. It was a response by many people in the Labor Party to the ineffective way industrial relations was run in the Whitlam period and the confrontationist way it was run during the Fraser period. It was an attempt to say, `Industrial relations is an essential part of the management of an economy'. If there is no wages and conditions policy for workers, this country will go down the banana republic road-and we were close to it. Everyone in this chamber knows that Australia's competitiveness and standard of living relative to other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries were declining-and had declined from the time when I was a teenager. We remember the relative affluence of the community, not in terms of what we have on hire purchase but in the way, for example, Australia had the capacity to pay its bills and to be competitive. So the union movement and the Labor Party that was to become the Government agreed on the prices and incomes accord-an historic document, historic in the first place in the sense that an agreement was reached and, in the second place, because it did provide a workable blueprint for this country to remain competitive through extremely difficult times: for example, through the commodity price disaster in 1984-85. It also provided a breathing space for the economy, where wages were not chasing prices and prices were not chasing wages, and where strikes were reduced to one-third of the figure in the Fraser period. Unions, for example, said, `Chasing wages is not our single concern any more. Our concern is to ensure that, through cooperation with employers but, on the whole, with government as well, we are able to get trade-offs by way of tax trade-offs, through government expenditure on health, education and social welfare areas'. Unions could start to look to the overall management of the economy, the overall interests of the community, rather than to the question of whether they got another $5 a week in the pockets of their members, much of which would be swallowed up by taxation and increased inflation anyway. So the union movement benefited from the accord because it learnt to look beyond its own immediate interests. It started to see itself in a new role. Despite the factual results, the statistics that show that industrial relations improved, despite the dramatic improvement in the economy and our competitiveness, our ability to restructure the economy to be competitive overseas, there are those among the Nationals and Liberals on the other side of the chamber who say that it is wrong to give the union movement access to the Government in terms of consultation and discussion. There are simple phrases for that view. One can call it right wing ideology, the New Right, the ginger group or the dries-whatever name one prefers to call it. Those people who say that the union movement has no right to be involved in intimate discussions with the Government about the role that it can play in helping to shape this economy are snobs. Basically, their view stems from the fact that, on the whole, union members are less well paid and may be socially inferior, in their terms, to them. If honourable senators opposite personally do not believe that, by accepting right wing ideology in this area they are certainly accepting it de facto. One has only to look, for example, at the attempts by the union movement to gain superannuation for women in the work force, most of whom have never been adequately covered. I have had members of management tell me that the opposition to superannuation is basically a question of prestige. They say, `What is the value of giving a superannuation package, no matter how generous, to a manager if he knows that a superannuation package is being handed to the lowest employee in the company?' Some have admitted that it is based on snobbery. It is all very well to talk about some of the other parts of the Opposition's package, such as enterprise bargaining and that type of thing. But at the heart of it all is the question of where it wants to strike the balance between the roles and rights of employers and the roles, rights and relative power of employees and the organisations that represent them. Quite simply, one cannot tip that balance too far either way. If that happens, one loses that sense of consensus that is such a vital part of the Australian economic and political system. We take it for granted that that consensus will be here forever. The events of 1975 showed that consensus is a very delicate thing. If one cuts out people forever from having a role to play, they will simply not accept it. Their actions, the approach that they take, for example, to industrial relations, will become more irresponsible year by year. The Bill that is before the Senate has been explained by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech. The provisions that it contains have been detailed for some time. I shall comment on those in the committee stage. I conclude my remarks by making the following point: one of the major considerations of this Bill is the question of amalgamations. Some time ago Senator Alston opposed the idea of amalgamations on the basis that, inevitably, it is the big unions that will get bigger as a result of amalgamation, that they are the ones which are irresponsible and which have the clout. The small unions, on the whole, do not do any harm to the economy; they really go along with things as they are. I said to Senator Alston by way of interjection, `Where have you been in the last decade as far as the waterfront or the maritime industry are concerned?' Let us look at the maritime industry: seven unions and, in the last 20 years, strike after strike and delay after delay. On the whole, those unions have a very poor industrial relations record. It has been incredibly difficult for a Minister or a government to deal with them. How does one even contact the secretary of a union who is part time and who puts his phone on an answering device for most of the week? I have experienced that difficulty. How does one discipline or contact a union that allows its shop steward on board a ship to decide whether a whole port stands idle? The answer is that one cannot, because the unions are too small. There must be a minimum size and there must be amalgamation. The maritime industry was covered by about seven unions. They wished to amalgamate because they knew that their behaviour was being affected by the fact that they were small, piddling unions that did not count for two bob in the overall scheme of things, but who could be a nuisance to each other, and who knew that their structure was impossible. Yet under amendments brought in by the Liberals to the previous Act, it took them three years to amalgamate, despite the fact that not one of those unions opposed the amalgamation. These key provisions in the legislation seek to reduce the number of unions in Australia through amalgamation into bigger unions and through the elimination of unions whose membership is below a certain number-a key component. Yet even that sensible view which is embodied in this Bill is opposed by the Opposition. I cannot understand that that could be opposed, yet that is the case. And for what reasons? It is for reasons akin to the Bill of Rights I guess; an act of faith on the part of the Right, which is now dominating the industrial relations viewpoints of the Liberal Party and the Nationals. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(8.38) —What sort of industrial relations Bill would one expect from a government that cannot even solve a demarcation dispute between Bob and Paul as to who gets the Prime Minister's job? It is no wonder that we find ourselves debating a new industrial relations Bill for a second year in a row. That fact alone is an acknowledgment by the Labor Government of the failures and inadequacies of the present legislation. Last year's Bill was withdrawn after enormous public outcry, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) opportunistically called yet another early election. Now, with the election safely out of the way, we find that a new Bill has been introduced which is only slightly different from last year's, which correctly drew such public outrage. Earlier in this debate Senator Burns claimed that the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 is a result of `cooperation and consultation' between the Government, the trade union movement and employer organisations, and that it embodies many of the recommendations of the report of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. Let us remember that the Hancock report is widely regarded as the last hurrah of the industrial relations club rather than being a blueprint for the future. The fact is that, contrary to Senator Burns's claims, organisations such as the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce are highly critical of both the Hancock report and this Bill. Senator Burns demonstrated the incapacity of the Australian Labor Party and of many trade union leaders to extract themselves from the nineteenth century. He quoted Keir Hardie in relation to industrial conditions in Britain of long ago. Those conditions have never been relevant to Australia and they are certainly not applicable as we head towards the twenty-first century. But this legislation reflects that sort of out of date, unAustralian, nineteenth century thinking exemplified by Senator Burns. This is nineteenth century legislation, not twentieth or twenty-first century legislation. This new Bill fails to implement the reforms that industrial relations experts, economists and many unionists and employers agree are so necessary to remedy the problems that are inherent in the current system. This Bill is a classic case of a grossly mismanaged opportunity for real reform at a time when industrial relations all over the world are taking on a more flexible, non-confrontationist approach. Economic analysis shows conclusively that the future prosperity of Australia's economy is dependent on the introduction of a flexible enterprise-oriented industrial relations system. Even the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has acknowledged the need for reform. In an address to the National Press Club after the Budget statement last May, Mr Keating said that labour market reform is `the last great area of change to be overcome'. But instead of grasping the opportunity to revamp the whole system towards a more equitable and flexible arrangement, the Labor Government has put forward a piece of legislation that will further reinforce the existing centralised control system and inflexible labour market. Government senators who have already spoken in this debate have claimed that the legislation is far reaching and constructive and will make great changes to the face of industrial relations in Australia. It will do nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it will further entrench excessive union power. It is obvious by now that the scope for criticism of this Bill is enormous. In fact, I would suggest that it is the second worst Bill the Hawke Government has ever tried to send to Yarralumla-and I am not referring to the Governor-General designate. If there were unlimited time in this debate, one could speak at length on the whole spectrum of adverse implications of this proposed legislation, but I shall limit myself to those areas which I believe are the most severely detrimental. These are: firstly, the amalgamation of unions; secondly, the support given to compulsory unionism; thirdly, the unequal and ineffective compliance provision; fourthly, the sanctioning of strike pay; and, finally, the issue of secret ballots. Statistics show that the majority of demarcation disputes involve unions with more than 3,000 members, such as the metal workers, the storemen and packers and the building and transport workers unions. In a survey of 32 recent demarcation disputes it was found that only one involved a union with a membership of less than 3,000 members. Senator McKiernan —Why 32? Why not 35? Why not 40? Senator CHAPMAN —Because they were the most recent. This indicates that the provisions of this Bill, which would create bigger unions, will only increase the likelihood of these costly and destructive disputes. With a larger membership spread over a wider range of industries, it is inevitable that demarcation disputes will spread out throughout the workplace in a ripple effect, eventually crippling many industries, many of which will not be involved in the original dispute. We have already seen this occur in the past in the car industry, where production lines are frequently brought to a halt and thousands of workers are stood down because of the actions of one union operating in one small area of the production line. Senator Gietzelt, in advocating union amalgamations, referred to the small number of unions in countries such as West Germany which have good industrial relations records. He has completely ignored the fact that those unions are industry based and enterprise-oriented rather than craft based super unions as envisaged by this legislation. The Liberal Party of Australia advocates industry or enterprise unions as a better structure for good industrial relations. Some Australian companies have as many as 20 or 30 unions with which to contend. It is no wonder that inter-union disputes are so rife in this country. We should be aiming for a single union at each work place through the creation of either enterprise or industry based unions rather than legislating to create huge, unwieldy craft-based unions that stretch across a multitude of enterprises. To cap it all off, this Government has the arrogance to proclaim that the Australian taxpayer will foot the bill for retirement pay for trade union leaders and officials who lose their jobs through union amalgamations. It is a travesty and an outrage that public money should be used for what amounts to bribes to unions to ensure that they offer no resistance to this Government's plans for union amalgamation. Why not go all the way and build them a beach house? Another aspect of the creation of fewer and larger unions is the complete disregard for the principle of freedom of association. Australia, as we all know, is a member of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). For the past 70-odd years the ILO has been adopting conventions and recommendations on labour and welfare issues. These conventions, when ratified by member states, are intended to create binding legal obligations on those member states to implement their terms. A member state which ratifies such conventions binds itself to apply the provisions of the convention within its territory and accepts international supervision in relation to its efforts to do so. Although the Hawke Labor Government has ratified a number of these conventions and has done more than is required to maintain minimum ILO convention standards, it appears to have done so on a selective basis. Shipping, for example, has received a lot of attention from the ILO and this Government has been scrupulous about enforcing the terms of the convention which happen to suit local vested interests with much to gain from uncompetitive work and management practices. However, when it comes to ILO convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, which provides that workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and join organisations of their choosing, the Government has done nothing. Australian workers do not have the right to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing, or at least they do not have the ability freely to establish and join organisations that can be registered to operate within the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The current Act prevents employees from forming or joining enterprise or multi-skilled unions and forces them into big trade unions already established and registered in respect of their particular trade. The new Industrial Relations Bill before us restricts this freedom to establish and join a registered union even further. Clause 189 of this Bill prohibits the registration of a new union, except in very special circumstances: unless it has more than 3,000 members, it is industry-based and there is no existing union to which the members might conveniently belong. So the `conveniently belong' clause of the old Act, which protected vested interests of existing unions and which has been the subject of much industrial litigation, is more strongly entrenched in this legislation. Thus clause 189 also prevents registration of unions for those sharing particular religious or political beliefs not already adequately catered for by existing unions. Clause 261 denies union members the right to decide who should and who should not join the union by requiring the union to enrol anyone who applies and is eligible for membership, unless they are of a general bad character. The amalgamation provision is also a matter of major concern to smaller unions, many of which have already approached the Opposition to voice their fears of being swallowed up by large, impersonal unions whose management has little regard for the interests and concerns of the individual worker. Article 4 of the ILO convention provides that workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. But clause 193 of this Bill requires the Commission to deregister small unions after three years unless there are special circumstances which make continuance of registration in the public interest. `Small' in these terms means less than 3,000 members. Registration is essential for a union to be able to represent its members before the Commission, so deregistration is equivalent to dissolution or suspension. The question is whether the Commissioner who decides whether special circumstances exist is exercising administrative authority. In the context of an international convention, the Australian distinctions between executive and judicial power are not relevant and the decision counts as an exercise of administrative authority which here almost means government power. Consequently, the Bill violates article 4 of the convention. That is not merely my opinion; I am reliably informed that the Treasurer is so concerned he cannot wait for Hawkie to start his new job at the ILO and sort it all out. Furthermore, the creation of larger unions is a move towards increased centralised control rather than a more flexible system which would be more responsive to local enterprise and industry needs. We should not be aiming for bigger unions and uniformity. It puts more power into the hands of fewer union officials who will be less inclined to look after their member's interests than they will be in entrenching their own positions. This whole matter of union leadership leads me to another important area of civil liberties; that of de facto compulsory union membership which of course means compulsory donations for the Labor Party. Earlier in this debate Senator Cooney was quite correct when he said: It would be wrong to regard labour and workers simply as commodities. He is quite right to intimate that workers must be regarded as individual human beings, yet this Government totally ignores this basic respect for human dignity by its failure in this legislation to protect the rights of the individual worker to either join a union or not to join as he sees fit. It is a direct contravention of article 20 item 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: . . . no one may be compelled to belong to an association. Although there is no legislation enforcing compulsory union membership, union pressure and closed shops make it a practical reality in many industries in this country. For the Prime Minister and others in his Government to state, as they have on many occasions, that there is no such thing as compulsory unionism in this country is a total fallacy. The building industry is a prime example of this where the general rule rigidly enforced by unions and employers is, no ticket no work. One has only to look at the notices posted on all major building sites to see the truth of this. You can get into Japan without a passport but you cannot get on to a building site without a union ticket. This practice is a gross violation of civil liberties both for the employee and the employer who is forced by the threat of intimidation and industrial action to hire only union members. The right not to belong to a trade union should be protected just as much as the right to belong. Another argument for voluntary unionism is that it makes union officials far more accountable to their members than they are at present. If unions had to work to really provide service to attract members, they would be far more inclined to listen to their members and their concerns. It is this fundamental belief in individual rights that prompts the Opposition to put forward an amendment to this Bill that seeks to preserve those rights. It is not acceptable that a government that professes concern about human rights in other countries and that wants selected rights entrenched in our Australian Constitution should put up legislation that ignores human rights and international conventions as this Bill does. The Industrial Relations Bill 1988 should be opposed for this reason. This Bill does nothing to remedy the impotence of the Arbitration Commission to enforce its decisions. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his second reading speech of the first version of this Bill on 14 May 1987, described compliance provisions as an essential element of the industrial relations system. He went on to point out that the current bans clause procedure was `disreputable' and `substantially moribund'. In the original Bill of 1987 a range of penalties to be imposed were to be tougher than those under the existing Act. They were to include fines, alterations to an organisation's eligibility rules to exclude specified groups from membership, and the imposition of conditions as to future industrial conduct. A serious continuing breach of direction by an organisation or its members would lead to deregulation. However, when this Government shelved that Bill for its own electoral convenience, it also dropped these tougher compliance provisions. The Government is now blaming the employers for this, but it is quite obvious that it was pressure from the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) which forced the Government to back down on this question. The President of the ACTU, Mr Simon Crean, is quoted in the Australian Financial Review of 17 August 1987 as saying: They can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. In the same month the ACTU assistant secretary, Mr Garry Weaven, claimed that the shelved Bill should be scrapped because it held `little comfort for unions'. If this does not spell out the intentions of the ACTU, then I do not know what does. Moreover, many employer groups including the Confederation of Australian Industry expressed opposition to the original Bill on the grounds, among others, that it did not do enough to strengthen enforcement provisions. The end result is that we are now faced with a piece of legislation which nominally gives the Commission a great number of powers but which does not back those powers up with effective enforcement mechanisms-except oddly enough against unions which decline to amalgamate. The Opposition's policy is that employers and employees should be free to make their own agreements on employment conditions and wages. Nevertheless, while we have a system of conciliation and arbitration, there must be some provisions to ensure that its parties, subject to Commission rulings, comply with its directions. When the Liberal-National Party coalition wins government at the next election it will enact legislation already introduced in the Senate to ensure that there are effective sanctions for those who fail to comply with the decisions and orders of the Commission. This will enable the Commission to issue directions to stop or prevent industrial action. Such directions would be enforceable by injunctions issued by the Federal Court of Australia. Failure to comply with injunctions will constitute contempt of court. In addition, any person who suffers loss or damage as a result of industrial action in breach of a direction would be able to sue the responsible organisation for damages in the Federal Court. We will also review all penalties under the Act to ensure that they are appropriate and effective. Under the current legislation, unions or employers for that matter are free to flout those decisions with impunity. Only with enforceable and equitable compliance provisions can an industrial relations system involving arbitration operate fairly and effectively. The provision of this Bill which gives support to strike pay is a backward step from the present Act. It proposes to allow the Commission to award strike pay in disputes where it is: . . . satisfied that the industrial action was justified by a concern on the part of the employees (a) that was reasonable; (b) that was about their health and safety; and (c) that arose in relation to matters within the reasonable responsibility of the employer concerned. These guidelines are open to wide interpretation and in practice it will be very difficult for the Commission to restrict the awarding of strike pay to disputes concerned solely or primarily with these criteria. This is already exemplified in the building industry where this principle is widely accepted and is a matter of major concern. But of course, the concept of strike pay represents perfect Labor logic. After all, if one can pick up a travel allowance for not travelling, why not a working wage for not working? What next? I predict an extension of the 17 1/2 per cent leave loading, namely strike pay for workers on holidays who do not have the opportunity of going on strike. Liberal-National Party policy on this question is that health and safety issues should be resolved by appropriate inspection and mediation, not by unilateral industrial action. Yet there are any number of cases in the building industry where stop-work action has been taken in the name of health and safety or employer negligence but which was, in fact, little more than an excuse to have a paid day off work. For example, there have been instances of workers refusing to walk even short distances to building work areas in the rain, or to take alternative, drier routes. There have been other cases where if two or three people could not work in a certain area because of adverse weather conditions everyone on the site has walked off, even though the alleged safety issue did not affect the majority. Even very minor or irrelevant issues are often used as an excuse to pull everyone off the job-a temporary loss of power to a first aid shed or a lunch area, or the fact that a qualified first aid person on the site is not a union member, for example; hardly issues which qualify as a big enough threat to health and safety to justify the total closure of a large building project with all the attendant costs involved. These and other examples I could cite are the cause of major concern among employer groups and indeed among many others in the community who are growing increasingly tired of being held to ransom by large union groups for no apparent worthwhile reason. It is because this Bill offers what amounts to a virtual open invitation to unions to go on strike that the Opposition opposes this provision to give the Commission the power to fund strikes. The Liberal and National parties take the issue of strike pay very seriously. Our policy is to make it an offence for any employer to pay, or any employee to accept, strike pay and we would amend the Act to prohibit a union from taking industrial action in pursuit of a demand for strike pay. In our view, the granting of power to the Commission to award strike pay is immoral and unacceptable and will only lead to an unprecedented wave of strikes across the nation. In Britain, where the Thatcher Government has since the early 1980s introduced a series of legislation which has deregulated the labour market, a new trade unionism is rapidly emerging, bringing with it a degree of cooperation and good employer-employee relations not seen before in industrial times. Many workers, such as electricians and engineers, are forming themselves into single-industry organisations rather than craft-based unions spread over a wide range of industries. These new unions favour privatisation and a strong free market economy and worker profit-sharing. Many are making no-strike agreements and the number of industrial disputes is at its lowest level in Britain since 1936. The remarkable growth in the British economy has been well documented in recent months. Much of the credit for this economic turnaround has been attributed to the new unionism and changed attitudes in industrial relations which have laid the foundations for increased productivity and other economic reforms. This is all a lot easier in the United Kingdom, where the elected government runs the country, not the trade union apparatchiks. What a revelation it was to see Prime Minister Thatcher here recently. She not only towered over our Prime Minister both literally and metaphorically, she even had a deeper voice. The point I am making here in talking about British trade unionism and the British economy is that it is indicative of the direction in which we in Australia should be heading. Of course, conditions are somewhat different in Australia and we should not be seeking blindly to follow the British model. But we should be looking at what will work for us, and use selective judgment in adopting what we consider appropriate. Much of what the Opposition has put forward in its industrial relations policy, and some of the amendments we propose for this Bill, have already been implemented with great effect in Britain. I cite as one example the question of secret ballots before strikes. In Britain in 1984, the Thatcher Government made it illegal for unions to call a strike without consulting their members by ballot. It is this piece of legislation which has been attributed as a major factor behind the dramatic decrease in the number of strikes in Britain, and was partly responsible for the large number of miners who kept working through the disastrous miners' strike of 1984 and 1985. Liberal-National Party coalition industrial relations policy is that it should be compulsory to hold secret ballots before industrial action is undertaken. Under current legislation there are no such provisions, and many workers are forced to go on strike unwillingly in Australia either without consultation or because they have to vote on a show of hands, which leaves them open to intimidation if they disagree with union officials. I urge honourable senators to consider carefully the implications of this Bill if it is passed without the amendments proposed by the Opposition. If it is, we shall end up with an industrial relations Act as moribund and as ineffective as the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has said the present one is. The Minister has been quoted as saying that Australia `should develop over the next few years a more skilled, flexible and productive work force'. The Bill he is introducing here will do nothing of the sort. One has only to look at the recent wages decision to realise the extent of the effects that such a piece of legislation will have on the economy. The new wages accord is a good example of the way the present system is weighted in favour of the trade union movement and its capacity to apply pressure through union strength. The wages decision has given in to the ACTU and fails to deliver what it promised-that is, it fails to trade off productivity for wages; it does nothing to contain inflation, and in fact it is based on the extraordinary premise of expected inflation. According to the Confederation of Australian Industry report, this wages system which was preferred by the ACTU is remarkably similar to the wages system in place in two of the poorest economies in Europe-Spain and Portugal. The Government claims that this new wages decision paves the way for a more flexible wages structure and better employee-employer relations. Yet it does nothing of the sort, and even if it did this Bill before us would undermine any gains in that direction, anyway. I reiterate that the Opposition is opposed to so many of the aspects of this Industrial Relations Bill that we consider it necessary to introduce some 39 amendments. Many provisions of the new Bill contravene the terms of the International Labour Organisation convention concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, among others. The current industrial relations system does not comply with the convention and the Bill would make things a good deal worse. Even if they disagree on the economic effects of the Bill's becoming law, or on whether or not industrial relations should be managed through an arbitration system, all civil libertarians can and should unite to oppose this freedom-reducing legislation. The Liberal-National Party coalition is opposed to the aspects of this Bill which do nothing to curb union power to coerce and intimidate both employers and union members; which give power to the Commission to award strike pay while doing nothing to increase compliance provisions; which give more power to fewer and bigger unions; and which, in essence, are a violation of fundamental rights to freedom of association and choice. I hear the term `super unions' being bandied about by the Government. Why not come clean and call them what they are really meant to be `soviets', the cornerstone of the socialist corporate state? Earlier in the debate Senator Aulich said that in the interests of good industrial relations, the balance of industrial power must not move too far either way-too far towards employers or too far towards trade unions. The fact is in our current circumstances industrial power has moved much too far towards trade unions and they can hold the community and employers to ransom. We need to restore the balance of power between those two groups. This Bill will not achieve that desirable goal, whereas the Opposition policy, which has been announced and well received in the community, will do exactly that. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this Bill is a tragically missed opportunity to bring real and much needed reform to our industrial relations arbitration system. Let us do more than just change the name of the Arbitration Commission. Let us have a complete rethink on the whole question of industrial relations and let us restructure a more flexible and more equitable system that will lead Australia into the modern industrialised world. It seems beyond hope that this Government is capable of achieving that if this legislation is any example of its approach to industrial relations. Therefore, it seems that we must await the election of the next Liberal-National Party Government to achieve real industrial relations reform which will provide the basis for effective economic growth in Australia. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(9.09) —Tonight the Senate continues its debate on the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 and associated legislation. It is a lengthy and worthwhile debate. Unfortunately, it is one-sided. I say unfortunately because all sides of Australian society today need to get involved in this matter. One thing that the Hawke Labor Government has proved in its 5 1/2 years in office is that we need the involvement of as many people and as many groups and associations as possible in order to reach a resolution of difficulties and conflicts. It is regrettable that it is a one-sided debate-regrettable because the Opposition in its 5 1/2 years on the opposition benches has proved yet again that it has learned absolutely nothing about industrial relations. I shall refrain from taking up some of the comments made by Senator Chapman, who preceded me in the debate. I will emphasise one instance of the measurement of industrial relations in this country. I will use one set of statistics in order to measure the conflict and how things have improved since we came to office. During the life of the previous conservative coalition Government, under the prime ministership of Malcolm Fraser, from January 1976 to February 1983 there were 249,200 working days lost on average per month-almost a quarter of a million. Over a similar timeframe, from March 1983 to April 1988, under the Hawke Government there were 112,100 working days lost on average per month. It is still far too many, but it is representative of a 55 per cent reduction in the instances of industrial strikes on the job. That has to be regarded as good by anybody's standards. It has to be considered good as a measure of this Government's achievements. I emphasise the relations aspect of industrial relations. Strike activity results from a breakdown in relationships. We all realise how delicate relationships can be from time to time, whether they be relationships with our parents, with our offspring, with our spouses, or with less immediate family-our uncles and aunts. All these relationships have to be handled separately, delicately and sensitively. That is how the Minister, Ralph Willis, and the Government have handled industrial relations. There is no one single broad brush solution to the conflicts that occur between workers and management. There cannot be, because in some instances when a strike occurs it is the worker that is at fault; in other instances it is the management that is at fault. In 1976 the Federal Government was at fault. In my State of Western Australia in 1979 the State Government was at fault. So how can we bring down one single solution to deal with each and every problem that arises in industrial relations? We cannot. We have been able to address a whole host of problems that arise in industry, not only through the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), not only through the State branches of the labour councils throughout Australia but also through the trade union movement as individuals and as groups of individuals. We have gone out and consulted and brought them in and consulted. In some instances the achievements came very fast. In some cases no industrial disputation occurred; in others, unfortunately, it was not possible to achieve that end immediately. The statistics to which I referred earlier, the 55 per cent reduction in the rate of industrial disputes over the time the Hawke Government has been in office compared with that which occurred when the Fraser Government was in office, speak for themselves. In this one-sided debate there has not been a tremendous amount of attention given to the resolution of disputes. I cannot recall one person from the Opposition benches mentioning in this debate that the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 is actually a replacement of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Act which went through the Commonwealth Parliament in 1904-84 years ago. It took the Hawke Labor Government to address the problems. We have had many conservative governments, coalition and otherwise, in office in that time, but it is a Labor government that seeks to address the problems. This is not a perfect Bill. I worked long and hard with many of my colleagues in the Caucus committee system on the previous Bill that was dropped prior to the last election. That went a lot closer to meeting the needs of the trade union movement, industry and the employers than does this piece of legislation. Whilst this Bill does not go as far as I would like it to, I accept it because it is not just the subject of a one-sided set of consultations between the Government and the ACTU; many employer organisations have also been consulted. Not all of those people who have been consulted have had their wish list met. It is just not the name of the game. We know that from our own party rooms. Opposition members have probably experienced this better than we have in the last week, although from time to time we have our difficulties as well. The Bill has been drafted after very extensive consultation with the union movement and with employer groups, with the aim to produce more coherent Federal industrial legislation which will meet current and future demands in society. Not only are we looking to address the difficulties and problems that we have at the moment but also we are seeking to look ahead. Our major objective is the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes within the Federal conciliation and arbitration jurisdiction. In my opening remarks I stressed the problem of strikes. There are many people within the union movement-which I am proud to have come from and proud to be still a paid up member of-who, like the fighter pilots in the world wars who chalked up their number of hits, mark up the winning of disputes as though they record some form of advancement. But this Government is not about that, we are about the prevention of disputes in the first instance. If we cannot prevent them we want to bring about as speedy as possible a resolution of the conflicts that occur. We will follow through with what the old Act said about the registration and regulations of organisations not only of unions but also of employers. We will institute the protection of individuals' rights under the Federal system. The Bill provides for a replacement of the current Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission which will have an enhanced role in dispute settlement by conciliation. The Industrial Relations Bill 1988 emphasises the need for non-legalistic dispute settlement procedures, particularly at the workplace level-not necessarily in front of the Commission, not necessarily in the boardrooms of the head offices in Melbourne, Sydney or Perth, but at the work place. Rather than develop that point I will digress because there are a few other remarks I want to make after I conclude my remarks on the Bill itself. There are a number of functions that the new Commission will take over also which are now separate from the conciliation and arbitration process such as the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal, the Academic Salaries Tribunal, and the Australian Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal. We are still negotiating with the New South Wales Government about the possible abolition of the Coal Industry Tribunal. The industrial division of the Federal Court will continue to deal with industrial matters arising under the Industrial Relations Bill, including matters such as election inquiries, membership entitlements and the enforcement of rules. Perhaps that is one of the areas with which I have some difficulty in this Bill. I did favour the establishment of a labour court. I recognise that there have been problems in the past, from the union and from the employer point of view, with the handling of these matters through the Federal Court. A lot is to be said for giving the resolution and settlement of industrial disputes to experienced practitioners in the field rather than to judges who may be well versed in other spheres of law. So be it. That is how the negotiations and consultations have worked out, and I think we accept that. There will be a wider jurisdiction than that which we have experienced before. The new Commission will deal with all industrial disputes arising from relationships between employers and employees, including the reinstatement of dismissed employees. The wider jurisdiction reflects recent High Court interpretations of the jurisdiction of Federal industrial tribunals. I dare say that there are not too many on the Opposition benches who would know first hand what that particular clause is all about. As an individual-and I suppose in those days one could have called me a militant shop steward in a militant union-I knew about it on three occasions, even though on each occasion proceedings did not actually reach the Commission for settlement. One of the very important-and for an isolated State like Western Australia it is of crucial importance-provisions in the legislation is the improved interaction between the Federal and State industrial relations systems. In an isolated State like Western Australia there is a tendency to feel locked off and remote from things, as indeed we do from time to time, particularly when one is delayed on an aircraft going either one way or the other. Senator Tambling —And the Northern Territory. Senator McKIERNAN —And the Northern Territory, as well. So it will also be of advantage to Senator Tambling and to the workers and employers in the Northern Territory. It will improve interaction in the settlement and resolution of industrial conflict and dispute. The Bill will enable a member of the Commission to hold a concurrent appointment on a State tribunal, and vice-versa, allowing for greater consistency in formulating and amending awards. A majority of States have given in principle agreement to the concept of dual appointments and intend to pass complementary legislation to give effect to the proposal. The Bill will also provide for increased emphasis on public interest and economic factors. The Commission will have to demonstrate that it has taken account of the public interest-including the state of the economy-when carrying out its functions. It must also show that it has considered the effect of any proposed awards on employment and inflation. The Bill will also encourage the use of grievance procedures and give formal recognition to grievance procedures as a form of dispute settlement at the workplace level. The Commission will also encourage the insertion of such procedures into awards or, where such procedures already form part of an award, the Commission will be required to ensure that they are being followed before it becomes involved in a dispute. The emphasis here is on resolution in the workplace, on the shop floor. Of course, that seems to have gone over the head of so many senators opposite who have already spoken. We have heard a lot from the other side about demarcation disputes and, in fact, mention was made of 32 recent disputes. However, no explanation has been given of this magic figure of 32 demarcation disputes. We could be talking about the past 32 demarcation disputes, but what about doing an analysis of the number of demarcation disputes that have arisen under the life of the Hawke Government compared with those that occurred during the term of the Fraser Government, and it could be done on either a monthly or annual basis. That is when statistics of that nature will be of use. We would need to examine and detail the 32 disputes to see whether or not they have any meaning with respect to this legislation. The Government has looked at this matter with respect to the expanded role of the Commission and when dealing with demarcation disputes the Commission will be able to change union rules permanently to give effect to its decisions. It will also have the discretion to allow the Australian Council of Trade Unions to settle a demarcation dispute before using its own powers. A previous speaker in this debate talked about demarcation disputes, instancing something in the motor vehicle industry. In doing so he proved to all and sundry that he just does not know what a demarcation dispute is about. He probably would not recognise that the vast majority-and I hazard a guess that it would be 90 per cent to 95 per cent-of demarcation problems are actually resolved before they earn the title of dispute with time being lost from work. The Government has thought ahead about that and has taken it into account in framing this Bill. A lot of emphasis has been given to what the Government has done with respect to giving the Commission the ability to deal with claims for payment when employees have taken industrial action because of a justifiable concern about their health and safety, which is the responsibility of their employer. We have not said that in every instance when a claim for lost wages is made following strike activity there will be payment. Indeed, it would be irresponsible to do so. There are not too many union officials-and I know quite a few-who would actually follow through and say that we should do that in this legislation. The Government has taken the responsible attitude on this matter and has given the Commission the ability to examine the claims that are made. If it considers that a claim is fair, it can offer to make payment-it can order that payment be made for the time lost with respect to a dispute. Industry, including the building industry, is still a very hazardous area in which some people spend a great deal of their lives. In fact, about one-third of their lives is spent working in industry. There are many hazards, and anyone who has spent time in industry has the scars to prove it. The Bill also deals with the question of amalgamation and, in fact, makes it easier to amalgamate. It sets a limit on the number of members who can be in a union registered by the Commission. Initially, the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems recommended-and indeed this was provided in the first Bill-a minimum level of 1,000 members. This Bill raises that level to 3,000 members apart from exceptional or special circumstances. In taking this action we are addressing a problem that has been vocalised to the Government and to the community continuously by employers, employees, employee organisations, Opposition spokespersons and by all and sundry including the trade union movement. There are far too many unions in Australia. By undertaking this action we are allowing smaller organisations-in many cases they do not have the ability or the assets to look after themselves or service the needs of members-to come together and service the needs of the membership. There will be an easing of the restrictions on the amalgamation of unions and on how the voting on amalgamations will occur. The requirement for amalgamation ballots will also be eased where a community of interest has been declared. While at present 50 per cent of the members of each of the relevant unions are required to vote in order for the ballot to be valid in such a circumstance, in future only 25 per cent of members will be required to vote. Those who know anything about trade unions would recognise that 25 per cent is still a difficult target to achieve. Those of us who have played a role in union elections from time to time would know how difficult that is. There is also very specific reference in the Bill to the rules of organisations. There have been abuses previously by some not too reputable unions and mistakes have been made by reputable unions. The Government is addressing this under the clauses dealing with the rules of an organisation. The compliance provisions, which are continually raised by senators opposite, are retained in this Bill even though there are some people in this Parliament and in the trade union movement who wish perhaps that we could have addressed this matter in another way; in fact, who wish that we could have removed the provision which makes clear the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act-that is, they believe that the infamous sections 45d and 45e and the associated enforcement provisions should not override what is contained in the Bill. We say that they would be better served under the labour court, but unfortunately that is not to be the case and we accept that. I want to address some of the points that Senator Chaney, the Opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations, emphasised in his speech. He made a comparison of statistics on industrial disputes in Australia with those from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) year book of 1987. He put great emphasis on those statistics. The implication was that Australia, in international terms, is pretty bloody-minded when it comes to industrial activity. On the bland figures that Senator Chaney recited in this chamber and on the document he had incorporated in Hansard, it does look pretty bad. It looks very sick indeed. But Senator Chaney failed to tell us about the different methods of collecting statistics in the countries that supplied them to the International Labour Organisation. Many different methods are used. There are no consistent criteria in those countries for the collection of the statistics. Merely comparing the strike data is an inadequate method of determining whether a country has a high incidence of industrial disputation. What is counted as a strike in Australia is not necessarily counted as a strike in Japan. Let me enlarge on that. In France, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, about which we have heard something, and the United States of America a political stoppage is not included. A political stoppage such as the one related to the late Clarrie O'Shea in 1969, the Medibank stoppages in 1976, and the 54b stoppages in Western Australia in 1979 would not be included in those countries but they are in Australia. Canada, France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway and Sweden do not include in their statistics the lay-offs and those workers in the same firm who are indirectly affected. It is quite clear to anybody who wants to follow this through and accurately report on the statistics that the fact that Australia does not include such workers industrial disputes data relatively inflates the dimensions of the stoppages. That makes Australia look particularly bad, of course. The figures I am referring to and the analysis I am putting comes from an excellent discussion paper prepared by John J. Beggs and Bruce J. Chapman from the Australian National University Centre for Economic Policy Research entitled Australia's Strike Activity in International Context: 1964-1985, Discussion Paper No. 159. They reached some conclusions in an in depth analysis of what happened. Because it is a lengthy paper, I shall only quote in part from their conclusions. The major findings are as follows: If the Australian industrial relations system had been hypothetically transposed to other countries the English speaking and Southern European countries in the sample would have experienced fewer working days lost per employee from strikes than was their actual historical record. Conversely, Northern European countries and Japan would have experienced higher levels of industrial disputation with the Australian system than was the case. A lot more needs to be said on this point than has been being said up to this time. I shall cite some more statistics to reinforce my point about the record of the Hawke Government. The annual average of working days lost per thousand employees over the period 1976 to 1982 was 591 under the prime ministership of Malcolm Fraser. Under the Hawke Government the annual average of working days lost per thousand employees from 1983 to 1987 was 238. Even using the inflated system which the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses, that is a 60 per cent change over that period. That proves to one and all that this Government has the runs on the board. It still has a lot to do, but certainly the runs are there. It is something we can rightly be proud of, although there is no question that there is still a lot of work to be done. I opened my contribution tonight with some criticisms of the one-sided debate. I think it is unfortunate that that was the case, but it was not unexpected. I, with a number of others, studied with interest the Liberal Party industrial relations policy which was released just a couple of months ago. The release of the policy document attracted minimal attention from the media outlets in this country; it got a little attention but not a tremendous amount. It was not newsworthy. It did not change a great deal. The Opposition parties, in 5 1/2 years of sitting on the Opposition benches, have really learned nothing. They are hell bent on confrontation. Although it has not been mentioned tonight it does pay us to go back 12 months and recall the words of John Howard, who said that there would be a thousand more Mudginberris. That was not a promise of conflict resolution or of dispute settlement but a promise of confrontation. Unfortunately, that has been reinforced in this very worthwhile but absolutely one-sided debate this evening. I conclude by trying to define the power of union officials. For those who do not know or understand industrial relations or do not know union officials, the Opposition often distorts the power that union officials have. Indeed, very recently in this chamber Senator Stone made some remarks about a comrade and colleague and friend of mine, Jack Marks, who is State secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. Jack has been known from time to time as Back to work Jack. He spends most of his time in the resolution of disputes, in conflict with his membership. What he sees as responsible action in getting a dispute resolved is not always seen that way by the membership, the workers he represents. It is unfortunate that those things get distorted from time to time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.28) —We are debating the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. Perhaps I ought to commence my speech on this legislation with excerpts of comments that were made by Alfred Deakin during the second reading debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1904. He, typical of the optimism that was current at that time, said during his speech: The object of this Bill is to peremptorily forbid strikes and lock-outs. What is the radical reform which this measure, if passed, will effect? There will be no more strikes or lock-outs. The other great proponent of the legislation, H. B. Higgins, also had equal expectations for what he described as the `new province for law and order' that the Bill was supposed to usher in in the field of industrial relations. I wonder what would be the thoughts of those gentlemen if they could be reincarnated in this great country of ours and see the mess, the imbroglio, the confusion that has been wreaked upon the Australian society and the industrial relations system generally as a result of a lack of resolution and commitment by this Government. Senator Cook —He would endorse it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If Senator Cook is telling me that Alfred Deakin would endorse it, his history is very poor. His knowledge of the history of politics is fundamentally skewed. There is no prospect that Alfred Deakin would ever endorse anything this socialist Government has cast upon the community like a scourge, or a black cloud. The chief objectives of the founding fathers have not been achieved. There is no prospect of their being achieved under this Government. The vast majority of Australians-in my view, all responsible Australians-recognise that our conciliation and arbitration system, as instigated in 1904, is in dire need of reform, of rewriting and perhaps of reconstruction. The Industrial Relations Bill 1988, I take it, is the Government's acknowledgment that there is something fundamentally wrong with the industrial relations system. I take it that this legislation is the Government's aborted attempt to reform the mess of our industrial relations system. Anybody who runs a casual eye over the legislation will see that it does little more than tinker with the system. Sadly, for all of us, it represents a failed opportunity to institute the progressive restructuring of the industrial relations system that is required if we are to enter the twenty-first century in a competitive way. This Bill is the epitome of the ultimate capitulation by this Government to its masters, the trade union movement, to wit the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Mr Crean and Mr Kelty being its leading lights. Senator Cook —Crean and Kelty are great Australians. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If Senator Cook can look back upon their performance, their record, the runs they have put on the board for industrial relations over the last decade and tell me that they are great Australians, I would find it difficult to guess how he would judge an ordinary man. This Bill is the result of craven cowering by a weak, pathetic government bending before the demands of the labour movement. I can assume only that this Government is not, through this legislation, writing industrial relations Bills that are designed to provide incentive for the work force, for productivity, for the benefit of the individual, the corporation or the firm. It is not seeking to dismantle the rigidity which presently exists right throughout the industrial relations system. This legislation is a reflection of the obsequious, sycophantic fashion in which this Government bends before the ACTU. The Bill will do two things, if nothing else-perhaps on the part of the ACTU by design rather than by accident. It will certainly guarantee the continuation of the distortions which riddle the industrial relations system and perpetuate the imbalance in responsibilities which, I suspect, is the cause of the cavalier and irresponsible conduct we see in some sections of the union movement, perhaps epitomised by Mudginberri and Dollar Sweets. We are debating this Bill at a time when the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in its recently released economic survey for Australia, has called for greater flexibility in our internal labour market. That need has been recognised by all responsible commentators for a long time. It was initiated and articulated by the Opposition a long time ago. The OECD survey concludes that `Australia's present union structure, management methods, narrow work classifications and restrictive work practices have reduced labour market flexibility within the firm'. I suspect that nobody, including Senator Cook, would dispute that proposition. Senator Cook —That is why we are moving to remedy that. Look at the last couple of national wage case decisions, aimed at remedying that type of problem by allowing direct negotiation at work face level between the unions in the workplace and productivity give-backs for wage increases. You are speaking about a bygone era, not about modern Australia. Hunt the right wing low road if you wish, but it is irrelevant to modern perspectives in industrial relations. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is important that that interjection get in the Hansard. If Senator Cook is calling the certified agreement provisions in the legislation opting out, if he is calling them direct negotiations, if he is telling me that they are in some way deregulating the system-- Senator Cook —Yes. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am absolutely staggered that Senator Cook is putting that proposition to the Australian people. If we look at the table prepared by the Confederation of Australian Industry showing unit labour costs for Australia and other OECD countries from 1975 to 1988, we see that unit labour costs in Australia have increased annually at a far greater rate-in some years by three times as much-than those in other OECD countries. I apologise for not having shown this table to Senator Cook, but I ask for leave to incorporate it in Hansard. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Is leave granted? Senator COOK —If Senator Crichton-Browne will pass it over, I will have a look at it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank Senator Cook. While he is running his eyes over a pedestrian document which is available to everybody from the Parliamentary Library, I will press on in the presumption that commonsense will prevail in due course. The present centralised system of conciliation and arbitration and wage fixing sacrifices the higher productivity which could otherwise be achieved by Australian business enterprises-productivity which is desperately needed, given the size of our current account deficit and external debt. I have some other statistics which I will come to shortly. Perhaps Senator Cook would be kind enough to allow me to have them incorporated in Hansard, too, otherwise I will have to make a mental note about the next time somebody on his side seeks to have something incorporated in Hansard. Our work and management practices must change. This necessarily involves a shift away from the determination of wages and conditions at a national level and an adjustment to negotiation at an enterprise level. I turn to clause 181 of the Bill, the bans clause. Surely nobody would seriously argue that sanctions do not have a role in any conciliation and arbitration system. But for sanctions to be effective, for sanctions to have authority, for the system to be maintained and to continue to receive the support and respect of both sides, those sanctions have to be relevant. To this end, perhaps one of the more positive aspects of the Bill in its 1987 draft -that seems a long time away now-was the proposed new directions and injunctions procedure. It was anticipated-not by us in full but primarily by the Government-that this procedure would remedy the selective compliance with which unions tend to treat directions and orders of the Commission. For a recent example of unwillingness on the part of unions to accept the decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, we need look no further than Mudginberri, the dispute in which the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union refused to accept the initial orders of the Commission. The Dollar Sweets case, which I think Senator Short was the first to raise in the Parliament, was also one in which the union paid absolutely no heed to the recommendations of the Commission to lift the picket lines. The Supreme Court stated in the latter case: Instead they, as it was put, thumbed their noses at the Commission and continued with their picketing and illegal practices, apparently aware that the Commission is powerless to apply any sanction. Despite some very obvious flaws in the proposed directions procedure, for example the delays implicit between the breach of Commission directions and the injunctive relief, the proposal was at least a relatively effective mechanism for the enforcement of the Commission's decisions because there was a substantial penal provision. Senator Chaney previously introduced a Bill into this chamber for the purpose of instituting a more streamlined version of the directions and injunctions process without the perceived defects of the Government's 1987 legislation. I have not seen the amendments but the thrust is apparent to me. The contents of Senator Chaney's Conciliation and Arbitration (Compliance Provisions) Amendment Bill form a substantial part of the coalition's amendments that will be moved in the committee stage. The interesting thing is that the reason for the new directions procedure was outlined by Mr Willis in his second reading speech on the 1987 Bill. He said: The principal initiative is that the present bans clause provisions, which have long since fallen into disrepute and are now substantially moribund, will be replaced by a new direction and injunction process. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Crichton-Browne, you asked previously to have a document incorporated. There is no objection, and it shall be incorporated. The document read as follows- UNIT LABOUR COSTS Growth in labour costs in Australia over and above the growth in labour costs elsewhere puts downward pressure on the exchange rate. It may be impossible to specify with any precision when the exchange rate will fall, but if an economy persistently runs more rapid increases in labour costs, eventually the value of its currency will fall. That is why international comparisons of unit labour costs add an important dimension to an understanding of Australia's economic problems. Such a comparison suggests very strongly that the dollar will remain under pressure because, as the data in Table 1 show, Australia's unit labour costs have been rising more rapidly than those throughout the OECD. Table I UNIT LABOUR COSTS Comparisons with OECD Unit Labour Costs OECD Unit Labour Costs Australia % Increase % Increase 1975 ... 14.0 24.2 1976 ... 7.3 13.6 1977 ... 8.4 10.8 1978 ... 7.0 11.8 1979 ... 8.0 2.9 1980 ... 9.6 9.8 1981 ... 8.3 13.5 1982 ... 0.5 14.0 1983 ... 3.4 10.9 1984 ... 2.2 3.4 1985 ... 3.2 4.7 1986 ... 2.3 7.7 1987(e) ... 1.9 8.5 1988(e) ... 2.8 6.8 Source: OECD - Main Economic Indicators OECD - Economic Outlook IMF - International Financial Statistics ABS - Average Weekly Earnings ABS - Quarterly Estimates of National Income and Expenditure The type of analysis shown in the table is, it needs to be stressed, only a rough estimate of the underlying reality. To begin with it is not the OECD alone that is our major trade partner nor is it our major trade competitor. Even within the OECD, some relatively smaller economies are more important than others to Australia. For example, New Zealand, while small by OECD standards, is a very important trading partner for Australia. There are, moreover, other economies outside the OECD which compete on the same markets as Australia and with which we trade. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. In the 1988 version of the Bill we now see the deletion of that directive process and the retention of the bans clause procedures. One is tempted to ask what has changed. Presumably the bans clause provisions remain in disrepute. The proposition that is put to us by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is that the blame lies with the employers. Only the most obscure logic and the most fertile mind could come up with that proposition. The Minister, in his 1988 second reading speech, states: The Government considered that the employers' intransigent opposition to these provisions- that is, removing access to common law remedies- had the capacity to undermine the parties' commitment to, and the public's confidence in, the new industrial relations system. It therefore decided to remove the proposed compliance package from the legislation and to preserve the system which currently exists. As Senator Chaney quite correctly pointed out in his second reading speech on his compliance provisions Bill, however, the retention of the employers' right to access to common law remedies had already been traded off against removal of the increased monetary penalties against unions for non-compliance. Some months later, Mr Willis continued to stress that a directions process would be maintained in the redrafted Bill. Of course the distinction between the two, even with the penalties removed, is that at least with the directions provision, as distinct from the bans clause, one could expect some quicker action. But the Minister has now changed his mind even on that matter. Once the ACTU applied pressure, that was the end of the matter. The upshot is that our industrial relations system remains afflicted with, to quote the Minister, a `substantially moribund' procedure which is generally in a state of disuse. I note that of the 154 notifications lodged with the Commission under the existing bans clause provisions in the 17 years to June 1987, only 35 were lodged in the last 10 years. What is the message in that? The message is that it is a total waste of time to seek any relief from the bans clause. Despite the attempts made to rationalise the bans clause procedure in division 2 of part VIII of the Bill, it remains hopelessly cumbersome. It in no way overcomes or provides substantial relief for the very considerable delays-notwithstanding the fact that there are no great penalties. One has only to look at the penalties to see how absurd it is-between $500 and $1,000. The provisions contained in clause 181, subclauses 3 and 4, show the whole process that has to be instigated before any relief can ultimately be found under clause 178. Having finally achieved that, the relief is found not to be of any substance. I turn to discuss the procedure contained in clause 115 of the Bill, whereby the parties to a dispute may apply to the Commission for fixed term certified agreements. I think that is what Senator Cook was referring to earlier on when he was talking about some flexibility in the labour market. It is a Clayton's opting out provision. It is a provision, as the Government might call it, for direct negotiations-but it really amounts to nothing. So many caveats are included in the provision that it is almost ineffectual. Under section 45d, when the parties are seeking to make applications for a certificate there is a provision for the unions to be party to the hearing. At any time the conditions are subject to public interest and, presumably, public interest is not looking at the larger macroeconomic considerations but at whether it impinges on the general system of industrial relations and on industrial relations harmony. The Minister may at any time apply to the President for a review by a full bench of the operation of the agreement. The Commission may, on application under a further subsection, being party to the agreement, set the agreement aside. So we have a whole series of processes that, in the end, water down the provision so that ultimately it amounts to absolutely nothing. The policy of the Opposition is to achieve cooperation and a flexible approach with individual enterprises. It is our view that employees and employers should be free as mature people to negotiate directly with each other on wages and conditions which are compatible with the aspirations, views and wishes of both parties. To ensure that there is no exploitation, however that might happen in this modern day and age, of mature men-- Senator Cook —And women. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, and women-there is a proposal in our legislation to provide at least the relevant minimum award wage. It is interesting to note that the coalition policy is supported in this regard by recommendation 21 of the Hancock Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems report, which proposed: . . . parties who wish to make their own arrangements for the prevention and settlement of disputes by conciliation and arbitration may do so, and that the terms and conditions of employment resulting from those agreed arrangements would be able to operate to the exclusion of Federal awards and State prescriptions. The legislation should ensure that parties who choose to follow this approach do so as a basis for the regulation of all industrial matters involved. Of course the Government simply rejected that out of hand because it was incompatible with the wants of the monolithic ACTU. The Minister tried to justify flying in the face of logic and in the face of a recommendation of the Hancock report. Senator Cook —Do you want the whole Hancock report? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I have the whole Hancock report. Senator Cook —Do you want us to adopt the lot? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No. I am saying, Senator Cook, that the Government sought to pick out certain sections that have general direction while removing one which has suddenly become a hurdle or a barrier. The Minister stated: . . . the Government views this recommendation as being totally contrary to the overall direction supported by the Hancock Committee elsewhere in its report. Such `opting out' arrangements would undermine the proposed institutional framework of the new Industrial Relations Commission . . . As far as Hancock was concerned, it would not, but as far as the Government is concerned, of course, it would. It would dismantle this centralised monolithic system. The Minister continued: This would encourage the growth of a `black market' conciliation and arbitration industry which would not be required to pay any attention to the public interest, and would be likely to lead to economically disastrous sweetheart deals for some, and sweatshop deals for others. In other words, the Minister does not trust the market. He does not trust the maturity of employees, individually or collectively, to negotiate with employers. The fact that the Government dismissed that proposal is hardly surprising. The offhand way in which it did so is typically arrogant, and a well-known hallmark of the Government. The Government's rejection ignores the fundamental benefits which could flow from opting out which were identified by Hancock. At page 367 of volume 2 of the report the Committee stated: The industrial relations benefits are seen to be the greater commitment which arises from agreement, whilst the economic benefits are seen to reside in the right of the parties to fix wages and conditions in the light of specific economic capacity. I would have thought that, by any measure, that is the criteria by which negotiations of this nature ought to be taking place. Of course, Hancock also pointed to the provisions of part X of the present Act which already provides for industrial agreements, but which are overriden by Federal awards. His committee made the obvious observation that such provisions have been in the Act since 1904. Accordingly, with a great deal of perception, the Committee noted that it has always been the intention of the Parliament that individuals be entitled to make their own arrangements for conciliation and arbitration without the dead hand of some other overriding group. The use of voluntary agreements, which we propose, has the support of Hancock. I believe it to be a very sensible and responsible step towards decentralised and enterprise oriented industrial relations. I turn to clause 122, which vests power in the Commission to direct that preference be given to union members. This clause is almost, if not entirely, identical to that which presently exists in the legislation. The truth is that in some cases it makes preference clauses compulsory. Clause 122 (2) of the Bill states: Whenever, in the opinion of the Commission, it is necessary- It lists paragraphs (a) to (d) and then states: . . . to direct that preference shall be given to members of organisations as provided by subsection (1), the Commission shall give the direction. So it is not an option; there are certain circumstances in which it is compulsory. Anybody who has a spirit, heart or soul for individual rights and responsibilities would find that to be absolutely anathema. Why should anybody who wishes not to be a member of a union be discriminated against? Despite decisions of the High Court refusing power to the Commission to order compulsory unionism, it is estimated by the Business Council of Australia that one-quarter of all Australia's employees are to be found in closed shops. One has only to walk down St George's Terrace in Senator Cook's home town to see signs which state, `No ticket-no start'. In other words, if a person is not prepared to be compulsorily committed to joining a union, paying his dues to the union and having that union commit his money to a political party that may not be of his choice, he will find himself without a job as a result of this legislation given to us by this Government. I, like all of my colleagues and the vast majority of Australians, am vehemently opposed to compulsory unionism or to compulsory association of any sort. I find it rather cute that this Government has as an intrinsic part of its beliefs the right of all freedoms except when it comes to unionism. Of course, the vast majority of decent Australians endorse the notion that individuals should have a freedom of choice; a freedom that has hitherto been denied in industrial relations, unless that person is prepared to comply with narrow and rigid conscientious objection requirements. I note that there has been a modest change, from my reading of the legislation, to the extent that the employee has to take objection to only the union itself. He can obtain exemption by way of certification, but the certification lasts only for 12 months. He must go back 12 months later and convince the Commission that he still conscientiously objects to being a member of a union. Just in case he has had a change of heart, it keeps him on a string and says, `Come back in 12 months time and tell us whether you still feel the same. If you do, we'll give you relief. If you don't, you'll get no relief'. I ask: Is that fair dinkum Australian? Surely, it is acceptable that if a trade union provides the services, benefits and goods, if it provides the virtues of its being, it will not need compulsorily to acquire members; they will flock to it. They will join it because they want to. Of course, neither the Government nor the unions are game, prepared or even tempted to test themselves in the marketplace. They are determined to ensure that people will compulsorily join unions; otherwise they will not work in Australian society. That is the tragedy of this Government. I see that my time has almost expired. I have many more exciting things to say. I will save them for the committee stage. I say to the Government that it is making a grave mistake with this legislation. It flies in the face of the views of all decent Australians, most of all, the views of all working Australians. Senator DEVEREUX(Tasmania)(10.08) —In debating the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 it is very clear that, no matter how much we have tried to reach some compromise with the Opposition, that has been impossible. Obviously, it still believes that the only way to reach any sort of proper industrial relations agreement is by way of a system of penalties and the big stick. This highlights two things about the Opposition: firstly, it is totally and absolutely devoid of any real ideas or vision and simply wants to turn back the clock to the old, worn out approach to industrial relations and industrial development; and, secondly, it is very clear, having regard to the policies that it is espousing, that it has come completely under the control of the extreme right wing H. R. Nicholls Society. Quite clearly, the motivation for the extreme views of the Opposition is an absolute dislike of workers and a desire to ensure that the people of this country are denied any real say in the use of this country's resources. If we really needed any proof of that all we would need to do would be to recall the opening day of Parliament when the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Fred Chaney, spoke to the motion of thanks for those who worked on the new Parliament House. Even then he could not resist the temptation to attack building workers who had been involved in the construction of this building. When people on the opposite side talk about industrial disputes, they ought to consider that, as has been said before in this debate, many of those disputes are about safety issues. I doubt whether Opposition senators have ever worked in industry, particularly in the construction industry or the mining industry, as those on this side have. None of them has ever experienced a work mate being electrocuted or killed beside him or underground--(Quorum formed) It is interesting to note that when honourable senators opposite are reminded how little they know of what it is actually like to work in industry, they become rather testy about it. The underlying purpose of the legislation which I turn to now is to ensure that the overall package of measures that has been put in place by this Government, by the trade union movement and by employers continues in such a way as to further the progress already made to revitalise Australian industry. I think it is important to note that the people involved in this new positive approach towards the development of industry in Australia are the trade unions, the Federal Government, industry, the Public Service and, in particular, those in the education sector. Sadly, there is an absence of any input from the Opposition. Many of the new initiatives in the industry development arena stem from the proposals of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) in its document entitled Australia Reconstructed. The basis of the new direction for Australian industry is built around a more cooperative approach rather than the previous `them and us' attitude in the development of the industrial relations area. Tonight time will not permit me to detail all the aspects of Australia Reconstructed but at this stage I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that a consolidation of Australia Reconstructed has been produced by the Trade Union Community Research Centre Inc. in Tasmania and, at this stage, I seek leave to have that summary incorporated in Hansard. If that sort of summary were in Hansard it would give people opposite the opportunity to have a look, in some concise way, at what is contained in Australia Reconstructed as, clearly, many of them have never read it. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Is leave granted? Senator Puplick —Not until I have seen it. Not until the document, by courtesy, has been shown to me. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted at this stage. The honourable senator may ask again later. Senator DEVEREUX —Clearly, there is a need for more productive and efficient industries in Australia. That is recognised in Australia Reconstructed and I believe that it is recognised by the great majority of people throughout Australia. Productivity can be improved only if all sectors recognise the need for old divisions between workers and management to be broken down. It is also essential that, in doing that, the rights of workers, through their unions, in the development and implementation of industry policy be recognised and accepted. None of these things can be achieved if community leaders continue to make divisive public comments based simply on blind ideology rather than on solid, well thought out policies designed to benefit industry in this country and to develop industrial relations generally. One of the problems that is always thrown up by people is the problem of restrictive work practices in industry. Of course, none of us could deny that those restrictive work practices exist. I think it must be recognised that they have existed and that they still exist on both sides-workers and management. Of course, many of the more enlightened employers have already recognised that, through old and outdated management policies, they have not been reaching their greatest efficiency. They have looked at the problems that they have had with their middle and lower management systems and there has been an exchange of information with those on the workshop floor and with people at other management levels. In the past in many industries-unfortunately this still exists-the exchange of information has been absolutely nil. Before we really progress in the area of industry development and industry relations there has to be a recognition at the management and community level of the accumulated knowledge and skills of workers on the workshop floor. From that point on if we do that we will then have a natural move towards the breakdown of many of the barriers that have been the problems we have been facing in industry up until this point in time. In bringing together this whole process one of the essential elements is to provide the opportunity for workers at all levels to continually update and increase their skills. Those who have worked in industry would be well aware of the fact that some of those barriers exist for tradespeople who face extreme difficulties in being able to progress up to engineering levels. We have put all sorts of stupid barriers in front of them. People on the workshop floor who may have come in as trade assistants have been barred by the very nature of some of the courses that we run from progressing up to trade level. I think they are questions that we need to address and it has got to be done by all sectors of industry not simply just one. In combination with that we also need to recognise the need to increase our manufacturing capacity by processing much more of our raw materials and reaping some real benefit in this country from them instead of the old method of virtually giving them away to other countries. It is a sad fact that in Australia the only people who seem to fail to recognise these facts are those people in the Opposition who still seem to have the old outdated view that the only wisdom in industry is that contained in the boardrooms of big business. One of the most essential elements of this Bill is the move to make amalgamation of unions easier and it is very clear that we cannot afford, in this country, to continue with the overlap of trade union resources and the hundreds of both federally and State-wide registered unions that currently exist. In the past, it has been extremely difficult under legislation for amalgamation to take place because not only have we had to have 50 per cent of the union membership vote to effect an amalgamation, but also there had to be over 50 per cent in favour of the amalgamation. Anyone who knows anything about trade union affairs and the history of voting at trade union elections would recognise the fact that very rarely in trade union elections does one get any more than about a 45 per cent return in ballots. That in itself was an extremely great barrier to overcome when unions were seeking to amalgamate. In my view we should move to the situation where there are about 40 unions in this country. Of course if we do that it will provide not only much greater services to individual members of unions-many services that are not recognised by the general community such as legal advice from people who are on workers compensation and those sorts of things-but also people will not be required to pay such high union dues. It also will allow for much more efficiency in the way that unions can conduct research and from there provide a much greater input into the industrial development of this country. Let us just look for a second or two at some of the policies espoused by the Opposition in this area. Quite clearly, it will lead to the sort of deregulation that the Opposition is putting forward. Very clearly, instead of some 300 unions in this country, we will probably end up with another couple of hundred. If anyone believes that a move to that sort of situation will solve any industrial problems in this country, well then simply he is quite crazy. If we move in that direction we will simply have workers again paying for the inefficiency of management. We will not be moving down the track that has been put forward by this Government and the ACTU of trying to create much more efficient business and management practices. Again, a proposal that has been put forward in many countries and in many other places in that people in the workplace ought to take out shares or be given shares in companies they are working for. Quite clearly it has failed in other places. In a very short space of time workers are not reaping any benefits at all from those shares because they have got rid of them and such shares are of no long term benefit at all to the workers concerned. The truth is that there is nothing that can substitute for real cooperation and input to industry through a genuine tripartite approach which is the proposition being put forward by this Government by the trade union movement, and by many employers. In the proposal that has been put forward by this Government and the unions, nobody has suggested that they will meet and cure all of the economic ills of this country in one instant. Quite clearly it is a much more appropriate way and has much more of a chance of working than the old outdated methods that we have previously been operating under. As I see that it is almost 10.30, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will simply conclude by quoting a passage out of Australia Reconstructed which I think really sums up the current situation we are in. It states that Australia Reconstructed is not a blueprint or solution to our economic problem but that it is an approach, a process and an opportunity. I simply conclude by saying that if we do not accept that opportunity and if we do not accept that challenge then we will all have failed in the area of industrial development in this country and in the whole area of industrial relations. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.28) —We are discussing the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 which has been brought forward by the Government. Many of my colleagues have already indicated quite strongly the Opposition's objections to the Bill. They have been quite extensive as is seen from the number of amendments which will be put forward, some 50 or more I think from the Opposition, together with a number of amendments from the Australian Democrats, and I think some from the Government itself. In our opinion the Bill is significantly flawed in a number of respects. It does not provide for the enforcement by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of its own rulings. It does nothing to prevent compulsory unionism, it attempts to override State legislation; and it proposes the amalgamation of smaller unions into a small number of super unions which will ultimately give more power in certain hands. I wish to contribute to this debate because, being a representative from the Australian Capital Territory, I can talk of what in fact has occurred in the ACT over the five years that this Government has been in power. It has been five years during which time in the ACT we have also had five separate Ministers. In the ACT the Government has specifically had the power and responsibility to look after industrial relations unfettered by any State legislation. Its failure to do so, in any significant way, I think gives a very good reason for discussing industrial relations as they have occurred in those five years in the ACT and drawing conclusions from those discussions. It highlights also the weaknesses in this Bill when we in fact look at what has occurred in the ACT. Senator Devereux, speaking last for the Government, said in part in his debate that amongst the Opposition senators there showed a dislike of workers. That is not true; that is not the case. We are concerned for workers, for their families, their children, and their ability to get on with their lives, and we are concerned about the Government's attitude to industrial relations. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under Sessional Order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.30) —I take this opportunity tonight to share a few impressions that I have about this place at the end of one and a half weeks and I wish then to make a recommendation that I hope the President will take favourably. It seemed to me, that at the end of my first week here I could categorise my impressions under three headings. First, there is the overall impression of this building, which I find quite marvellous, particularly its height, space and natural light. I also like the way one can turn a corner and suddenly be struck by yet another delightful piece of architecture, whether it be in the shape of the windows or the pattern of glass, construction materials or whatever. I find a lot of the work very exciting indeed. I particularly like the way in which from many angles and places one can see most of Canberra. Furthermore, anyone who wanders around this place will know what a feast of art and craft is set out in this building. As a senator from South Australia, I am particularly delighted at some of the wonderful contributions from that State. I have in mind some of the tapestries and carpets, and in particular the embroidery organised and overseen by Kay Lawrence from South Australia, who is also responsible for the wonderful tapestry in the Prime Minister's suite. I do not want to go into that aspect at great length, but it is a topic we will be able to talk about as we discover more and more features of this building after we occupy it for longer. Secondly, I notice that many of the lifts in this building are still lined with some kind of protective material because much material is being moved in the lifts other than people. I have had occasion to use one lift that is still lined with packing case wood. The lift contains very much evidence of the talents of the construction workers in the way of graffiti, much of which would not bear repeating in this place. But if anybody discovers the same lift as I did, they can no doubt entertain themselves in the way I have. I was particularly struck by one piece of graffiti. Senator Puplick —Is it good enough for an Australia Council grant? Senator CROWLEY —Now, Senator Puplick, just listen! One piece of graffiti in the lift that I found particularly interesting, spread as it was among all the other contributions, read `His dogma ran over my Karma'. I found quite delightful that little piece of graffiti, intelligent as it is, stuck on the wall of a lift and I did not expect to find it in the new Parliament House. Senator Puplick —Don't put down the intellect of the Australian worker. Senator CROWLEY —I was not. In fact, I was just commemorating it. The title for a new book might be `Life behind the fire doors'. No doubt many other people besides myself have rushed up to a fire door and found explicit instructions of what will happen to us if we do the wrong thing with the fire door, but with no understanding that behind the fire door is a committee room, corridor or any of the other facilities we sometimes need. I congratulate all the people around here who have displayed a remarkable tolerance in assisting us-and I suppose some of us have shown great tolerance, too-in getting through the first week, including a considerable number of hiccups involving fallen door handles, failing lights and so on. I wish particularly to acknowledge the patience of our Whip. I suspect similar acknow- ledgment is also due to the staff of the Whips of the other parties, but certainly our Whip's clerk found herself without a clock and lights in easy vision and it put extra strains on her. I wish to commend our Whip's clerk for her tolerance. I want to draw to your attention, Mr President, the main point I wish to make this evening. From the front of this Parliament House we gaze at the War Memorial, and listed there are the names of everybody who gave their lives for peace. I find it impressive on the occasions I visit the War Memorial to walk among those names. Others who have visited the War Memorial feel as I do, and that is that there is something very moving and impressive about that simple, uncluttered list of names. It is in some ways very much a monument to peace. At least, it tries to remind us of the price of peace and records the names of all those who gave their lives for peace. During the opening ceremonies of this Parliament it was said that this place is the symbol of democracy. I would like to see listed in a public place the names of all those who built this symbol of democracy. Not only should we list the names of those who fought for peace, but I should like to see listed the names of those who build democracy, or at least its great symbol. I would like to see listed the names of every one of those people who contributed in any way to the construction of this Parliament House-whether pourers of concrete, runners of electric wire, plumbers, carpenters, gardeners or whatever. I should like to know that all those names were listed in a place that people who visited here could easily see and have access to. It would be splendid if in years to come anybody who had a hand in the construction of this building could bring their families, relatives, sons and daughters and say to them, `Listed there is my name showing that I contributed to the construction of this place'. Often we forget to acknowledge the contribution of those builders-and I include the huge list of workers, which I shall not go through now. I should also like to see listed under the embroidery I mentioned earlier the names of all the embroiderers-I think essentially women, though I am not absolutely sure of that-who placed the stitches on that tapestry and who produced the quite remarkable embroidery that runs along the first floor wall in the Great Hall. Again, I would have thought that any number of people would be pleased and proud to bring their families to Parliament House so that they could say `There is where I sewed the grain of wheat or stitched the house' or whatever. I think that in those ways we could add to the acknowledgment of people who contributed to this place. We have plaques to acknowledge the famous and recognisable artists, artisans and crafts people, but I would like to see the same kind of recognition given to the less famous who contributed so much to the making of the embroidery and also to the building of this place. I would be pleased, Mr President, to hear your consideration of my proposal at some stage. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.37) —I wish briefly to touch on two matters. The first relates to an answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to Senator Beahan, a Labor senator from Western Australia, during Question Time today, given of course that Senator Walsh is also a Western Australian. The question related to some correspondence that took place between myself and the Hon. J. C. Kerin, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, in which I made representations on behalf of a constituent in Western Australia in respect of both drought relief and cyclone assistance. The representation was made on behalf of a gentleman who shares the distinction with eight other pastoralists in the East Gascoyne region of Western Australia, their having been coincidentally affected and afflicted by a number of years of devastating droughts and then a dry cyclone. Senator Walsh thought it very amusing that I should take the trouble to make representations on behalf of these constituents, whom I presumed until today were the joint constituents of Senator Walsh and Senator Beahan and me. Senator Walsh thought it very amusing that these souls should be beseeching me to make representations on their behalf for drought relief and for cyclone assistance at the same time. I can only assume that this was a cheap shot at me or that Senator Walsh was basking in the total ignorance which is enshrined in most of his answers at Question Time. The Agricultural Department of Western Australia and the Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy have made available natural disaster relief for pastoral areas for 1987 and 1988. They make the obvious point, sadly, in the guidelines: Note: Several pastoral properties which were declared both drought affected and cyclone Herbie affected are not eligible for both drought and cyclone transport subsidies, that is the maximum allowable subsidies of $40,000 under Cyclone Herbie will apply. That is true of other relief guidelines. These people have suffered far greater afflictions than those caused by one cyclone or a two- or three-year drought. As a result of the drought there has been an enormous amount of wind erosion which has devastated their feed, devastated their windmills, devastated their wells, devastated their fences and destroyed their stock. The relief conditions mean that they are unable to claim or seek assistance greater than that which would apply to somebody who has one bad drought season. The Department acknowledges that there are people in this circumstance and it includes in its correspondence a list of pastoral leases in arid pastoral zones declared both drought and cyclone Herbie affected. Whilst Senator Walsh may be amused by that, I am sure that these nine people are not, nor are those on the fringe, and nor are those within the immediate region of the eastern Gascoyne. I no longer find it distressing or disappointing nor, if I reflect, surprising, but I find it politically amazing that Senator Walsh would demonstrate mirth when these people's livelihoods, which as I was moved to observe in a personal explanation this afternoon have been created and developed over their lifetime and the lifetime of their parents, can in two short years be absolutely destroyed. Senator Walsh thinks that is very funny; funny enough for a run in the Parliament in Question Time today. He pointed his crooked finger to a provision which says that the relief is not available if the pastoralists have any assets `off farm'. The purists might argue that that is a reasonable proposition but, by way of example, if a pastoralist and his wife own a timber or asbestos home in the Perth metropolitan area so that the wife can live in Perth to mother her children and provide them with an equal opportunity for education, that asset has to be sold, dissolved, liquidated and provided against the property before the loan is made available. There are those who might say that is very reasonable. I have to say that I think it is very unreasonable. I want the record to be clear as to the position of these people and Senator Walsh's position. In Question Time today I was moved by an article from a Sunday paper in Western Australia to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health, the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook), whether it was the Government's intention to reverse its decision to delist 53 drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Senator Cook answered that question with one word. He said, `No', and felt comfortable enough to sit down. I draw to the Senate's attention a rather large and flamboyant headline in a Sunday paper in Western Australia which says, `I'll swing drugs change: Wilson'. That is the Hon. Keith Wilson, the Labor Minister for Health in the Western Australian State Government. Mr Wilson said that he is confident that he can convince the Federal Government to change its mind over the supply of vital drugs for heart, cancer and epilepsy patients. Mr Wilson is moved, I assume, to do this not by political expediency but by compassion. His Government set up a hotline and in the first two hours it received 50 calls. The article quotes Mr Wilson as saying: We are now analysing that information so we can continue to press our arguments on the basis of the problems people are facing. I can draw from that statement one of two conclusions. I can conclude that Senator Cook misled the Senate or that like Senator Walsh he was basking in ignorance, or I can draw the conclusion that Mr Wilson, for quite political reasons, is cruelly, unkindly and not the least unfairly creating a level of expectation in the community by those who suffer from epilepsy, from heart conditions, or from cancer that they will receive relief from the decision that this Government has made. I hope that Mr Wilson would not do that to the people of Western Australia, that he would not, for instance, give hope to the drug users of Western Australia who are dying of cancer when no relief is to be found by this Government, just as I hope Senator Cook would not mislead the Senate. I imagine that if there is a change to the delisting of the 53 drugs it will be not as a result of Mr Wilson or Senator Cook; it will be as a result of a notice of motion for the disallowance of the regulation given by my colleague Senator Puplick and perhaps as a result-common sense prevailing-of the Australian Democrats joining the Opposition to see those drugs reinstated as they properly should be. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.47 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 206. Barley Research Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 215. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance 1988-No. 3-Workers' Compensation (Amendment). Civil Aviation Act-Regulation, Statutory Rules 1988 No. 209. Cotton Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 212. Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 207. Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 204. Excise Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 216. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1988- No. 9-Export Control (Fish) Orders as amended (Amendment). No. 10-Export Control (Fees) Orders as amended (Amendment). No. 11-Export Meat Orders as amended (Amendment). Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules No. 210. Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notice-No. 212-Western Deep-water trawl fishery-Prohibition on Trawling without endorsement. Grain Legumes Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 214. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 208. Postal Services Act-By-Laws 1988-Postal Amendment No. 5. Public Works Committee Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 211. Supply and Development Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 205. Trade Practices Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 203. Wheat Tax Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 213. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 263) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 16 March 1988: (1) (a) What level of Federal Government funding, either direct or through staff support, has been provided to the Canberra Festival Committee for each of the last 3 years; (b) What level of corporate sponsorship has the Canberra Festival Committee attracted in each of the last 3 years; (c) What events apart from the Canberra Festival are organised by the Canberra Festival Committee; (d) What considerations are taken into account when appointing the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Administration representative to the Canberra Festival Committee; (e) Is the ACT Administration representative responsible for ensuring that matters of Government policy, such as restriction on the promotion of tobacco products and sponsorships, are made known to the other members of the Canberra Festival Committee; (f) Does the ACT Administration routinely make any checks that activities organised by the Canberra Festival Committee do not conflict with Government public health initiatives, or with industry codes or marketing or promotional conduct; (g) Are there Government guidelines relating to the form of sponsorship which would be inappropriate for the Canberra Festival Committee to accept, or to attached conditions of sponsorship which would be inappropriate; (h) How regularly is the Canberra Festival Committee required to present public reports on its activities or to otherwise account publicly for its handling of Government funds; (i) What avenues are there for citizens and residents of Canberra to influence the approach to the question of sponsorship taken by the Canberra Festival Committee. (2) (a) Is the Minister aware that the Canberra Festival includes many activities of a family nature; (b) Is the Minister concerned that there is quite blatant promotion of cigarettes at activities which form part of the Canberra Festival, and where large numbers of children are present. (3) (a) Have any tobacco companies provided sponsorship funding for the 1988 Canberra Festival; if so, upon what conditions have these funds been given or accepted, and what is their extent; (b) Which brands of cigarettes are being given prominent public exposure during the Canberra Festival, and what is the nature of that exposure; (c) What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the advertising code for tobacco products will not be breached during any Canberra Festival promotions, in particular, the provisions which forbid promotion to children; (d) What additional tax-deductible expenditure are tobacco companies expected to incur in the course of their Canberra Festival promotions; (e) What is the expected publicity value which will be derived by tobacco companies as a result of their Canberra Festival sponsorship and promotional activities. Senator Richardson —The Minister for the Arts and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) Year...Direct Funding 1985-86...$190,000 1986-87...$178,000 1987-88...$300,000 The ACT Administration provides no direct staff support to the Canberra Festival Committee. However it does assist the Committee to stage the Festival by providing logistical support in a number of areas. (b) 1985-86...$194,000 1986-87...$175,000 1987-88...$328,000 (c) The Committee works with the Executive Director of Australia Day in the National Capital to help organise events on Australia Day. It provides some administrative support on a fee-for-service basis to the Canberra Opera Society. (d) The person occupying the Division Head position with responsibility for community festivals and special events usually has been appointed. Currently, it is the Director, ACT Parks and Conservation. (e) The ACT Administration representative's role is to facilitate successful conduct of the Festival and provide effective liaison with the Festival Committee. He would advise on any Government policies relevant to the Committee's activities. (f) The Committee is not bound by any Government public health initiatives or any industry codes. (g) No. (h) The Committee publishes an Annual Report. It also is required to properly acquit each annual Government grant before receiving any further such grant. (i) Any citizen or resident of Canberra may become a member of Canberra Festival Inc and seek to influence its approach to the question of sponsorship. (2) (a) Yes. (b) I would prefer it if tobacco products were not promoted before children. However, the involvement of tobacco companies with the Canberra Festival is limited. See also the answer to 3 (a) and (b). (3) (a) and (b) The WD & HO Wills company sponsored Jazz during a Mardi Gras at lunchtimes from one stage in Garema Place. A banner with the name of Sterling cigarettes was displayed at the rear of that stage during performances-for a total period during the 10 day Festival of 16 hours. Cigarettes were sold by the company at two events-the Mardi Gras and the Food and Wine Frolic, both of which are principally for adults. The amount of sponsorship monies provided by the company for the 1988 Festival was $10,000. (c) The code has been developed by Industry and adherence to it is not mandatory. I do not have any power in respect of the code and I do not consider it appropriate to seek to direct the Canberra Festival, particularly as sources of sponsorship are limited. (d) WD & HO Wills was not required to incur any additional deductible expenditure. Only the company could advise whether any such expenditure was incurred. (e) This is a matter for the company to determine. (Question No. 284) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 25 March 1988: (1) Does a recent Office of the Supervising Scientist report on Coronation Hill state that there is uranium mineralisation at Coronation Hill. (2) What deposits of uranium exist at Coronation Hill. (3) What are the sources of the Minister's information on uranium mineralisation. (4) Have the Coronation Hill Joint Venturers failed to mention the presence of uranium mineralisation, and the potential radiological hazards associated with it, in any of the documents they have so far produced; if so, why. (5) How does the Government intend to deal with the uranium mineralisation at Coronation Hill in the light of the Government's `no new uranium mines' policy. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Supervising Scientist has advised that his office is aware that there are traces of uranium mineralisation at Coronation Hill. There are no reports by the Office of the Supervising Scientist documenting substantial uranium mineralisation at the site. (2) and (3) Coronation Hill was an operating uranium mine in the 1950s. The Bureau of Mineral Resources has advised that results of intense exploration for uranium in the 1960s and 1970s throughout most of the area now included in the Kakadu Conservation Zone, suggests that there is little likelihood of the existence of additional uranium deposits. BHP Gold Mines Limited personnel have advised my Department and the Office of the Supervising Scientist that the extensive exploration drilling program undertaken at the site in order to define the gold/platinum resource has not identified any significant uranium mineralisation or uranium deposits. I understand that results of analyses of core samples have shown the levels of uranium mineralisation to be low. (4) BHP has been asked by the Government to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Coronation Hill project. A preliminary draft of this document provided recently to my Department, the Office of the Supervising Scientist and other government agencies for discussion purposes, did not provide information on the uranium or other mineral content of the ore body or the overburden, or address the potential radiological hazards of mining at Coronation Hill. I understand that data is still being collected and that these aspects will be addressed in the final draft environmental impact statement to be released for public comment later this year. (5) My Department in discussions and through the environmental impact statement guidelines that it provided to BHP has asked BHP to ensure that any potential radiological hazards, even if they are very low, are addressed fully in the final draft environmental impact statement. I can assure you that, in line with current ALP policy, there will be no uranium mining at Coronation Hill. No significant uranium mineralisation has been identified to date. The exploration authority issued recently to BHP, which removed any doubts as to the legality of its work at Coronation Hill, specifically excludes exploration for uranium. (Question No. 293) Senator McLean asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 18 April 1988: (1) Is the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories in the process of revising the Code of Practice on the management of wastes from the mining and milling of radioactive ores and is it a fact that as long ago as January 1982, the environment group, Friends of the Earth, in a submission to the then Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, concluded that the `waste code' as it is now called, ought to have contained, but did not contain, the following: (a) Maximum permissible transport-rates of contaminants away from the site by wind and water; (b) maximum permissible gamma radiation levels on site, and at specific distances from the site; (c) maximum permissible deposition-rates for the material from the site in surrounding areas at various distances, and various directions; (d) maximum permissible levels for radon and its decay products in air and dust within and outside nearby dwellings; (e) maximum rates of seepage into acquifiers, and rates and directions of movement of contaminated waters; (f) methods of dealing with contaminated groundwater; (g) methods for the construction of tailings dams, ore-piles, waste-rock dumps, etc; and (h) approved materials and depths of coverage for tailings piles, and their effectiveness in cutting down radon emanation. (2) Will the Minister give an undertaking that all of the above matters will be open to public comment during the review process. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) In 1981 the then Minsiter for Home Affairs and Environment arranged for a proposed `Code of Practice on the Management of Radioactive Wastes from the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores' (the Waste Code) to be made available for public comment. In January 1982 Friends of the Earth provided a submission on the proposed Waste Code. Their submission made a number of suggestions in relation to the proposed Code, including those detailed in parts 1 (a) to 1 (h) of the honourable Senator's question. These suggestions, along with submissions by other interested parties, were evaluated in the course of finalising the Waste Code which was approved on 26 August 1982 by the Governor-General under sub-section 9 (1) of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978. My Department has recently asked the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, which chairs the Working Group on this Code, about the possible need for a comprehensive review of the 1982 Waste Code. I expect to be provided with advice about this as soon as the Working Group has been able to consider the matter. (2) The Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 provides for the formulation of proposed codes of practice or of proposed variations of codes of practice and enable me, as the responsible Minister, to make any such code available for public comment if I think it desirable to do so. It has been the general practice to seek public comment on all new and revised codes since 1982. (Question No. 300) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 26 April 1988: (1) What strategies for selected industries and in what sectors, other than the existing 9 in place, are planned for the 1988-89 financial year. (2) Have budgetary restrictions impeded the development of further export strategies; if so, is there facility for private enterprise to be involved in funding these strategies. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) During 1987/88 AUSTRADE had in place the following export development strategies: agricultural systems, fresh fruit and vegetables, railway industry, scientific and medical equipment, aerospace, computer software, communications equipment, education and training services, popular music, and health services. Export strategies had also been developed for air freight/freight forwarding and film/TV industries, but discussions with firms and the Australian Film Commission indicated that only auxiliary export assistance was required from AUSTRADE. It is expected that AUSTRADE will decide to proceed with the following additional export strategies during 1988/89: automotive industry, coal mining systems, ships and boats and marine equipment and services, building materials and equipment, processed foods, cut flowers, defence industry, fashion apparel, bovine tanning, footwear, carpets, textiles, legal services, computer hardware, communications and information services, and power systems and services. (2) If sufficient resources were available, AUSTRADE would develop additional export strategies. AUSTRADE is already involving private enterprise not only in partly funding existing and proposed strategies but also in the preparation of strategies and, where possible, in overviewing the implementation of strategies. These export development strategies represent a coordinated approach between industry and AUSTRADE to the overall international development of those industries. In addition AUSTRADE's normal services are available to prospective companies from any industry sector. (Question No. 379) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) Did the Australian Consumer Association (ACA) report on food irradiation recommend that approval should be granted to irradiate food up to 10kgy. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a statement allegedly made by Ms Phillipa Smith of ACA, where Ms Smith is said to have called for a world-wide moratorium on food irradiation. (3) Would the Minister confirm whether Ms Smith did make such a statement; and if so: (a) does it represent the official policy of ACA; and (b) was it made with the full knowledge and agreement of the scientists who prepared the ACA report. Senator Bolkus —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. There is no recommendation in the ACA Report that ``approval should be granted to irradiated food up to 10kgy''. I am advised that the intent of the ACA's recommendations was that food irradiation may be permitted if, and only if, specified stringent conditions of safety could be met. It was recommended (assuming that the other conditions could be met) that each item of food be approved and justified on an item by item basis prior to any irradiation. Within that context an upper limit of 10 kilograys was set. (2) Yes. (3) I am advised that the statement was made by Ms Smith. I am further advised that (a) The statement does represent the official policy of ACA, and (b) The panel of scientists in the ACA inquiry acted as an advisory committee to ACA for that project only. As such they read and agreed to the Report as printed. All press statements and subsequent policy statements are the responsibility of ACA.