Wednesday, 31 August 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the president and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: 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 Calvert (from 237 citizens), Harradine (from 256 citizens) and Watson (from 177 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs-including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-and place them, for cost saving reasons only, on a special list requiring Authority from a Canberra Bureaucrat, and; that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to waste valuable time referring a case to a person in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senators in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 260 citizens) and Calvert (from 425 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 237 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 158 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers Region. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park and; Prevent proposed mining in Kakadu stages one and two by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas in the National Park and by proclaiming the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator McMullan (from 107 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill of citizen initiated Constitution and legislative referenda, and voters' veto. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will pass said Bill so that a national referendum can be held on this matter simultaneous to the Government's four referenda questions, with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believe: that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear armed warships makes a priority target of the ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that the malfunction of the reactor on board a nuclear powered vessel could irradiate a large area of the surrounding environs. Therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia; and to deny access to Australian ports of vessels which are nuclear powered; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear weapons. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 144 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That it be recognised the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill is a public, legal acknowledgement that Australians who are non-aboriginal do not have sovereignty in their own country. 2. That the Australian people are opposed to the idea of a treaty, compact or makarrata between the Australian people who are non-aboriginal and those who are aboriginal, and the Government has no mandate or authority to pursue it. 3. That the proposed legislation and treaty will damage Australia's position under international law and in any conflict, will cause distrust and conflict between our aboriginal population (1%) and the non-aboriginal population (99%), will extend aboriginal land rights, contrary to the wishes of the Australian people, will not be acceptable to the aboriginal people themselves, will solve none of the problems of aboriginal people who need housing, health services, education and employment. That therefore, the Senate reject absolutely the announced proposals for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill, and the negotiation of a treaty, compact or makarrata between the Commonwealth and aboriginal people. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Crichton-Browne (from 30 citizens), Knowles (from 48 citizens) and Panizza (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: millions of dollars of taxpayers money is spent at each Federal election in Australia in the drafting, production and distribution of How-to-Vote cards which are unnecessary and pollutant and that this waste is not desirable or essential in assisting the electorate to vote informatively for their parliamentarians. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to introduce legislation which requires that the registered How-to-Vote cards of all political parties and candidates for political office must be placed under glass in every polling booth within obvious sight of all voters, thus making it unnecessary for How-to-Vote cards to be distributed at future federal elections. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable President of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, strongly urge that the Australian Government prohibit the entry of nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels into Australian ports or waters during our bicentennial celebrations and at any other time in the future. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Powell (from 200 citizens) and Vallentine (from 1,223 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and members in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: the gold mining industry is a vibrant expanding industry which provides employment for many Australians; the gold mining industry provides valuable export income which contributes to a stronger balance of trade and Australian dollar, and thus a higher standard of living for all Australians; the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining represents a threat to an industry which is vital to Australia's future; and we call on the Federal Government to withdraw its proposal for a tax on gold. As in duty bound, your petitioners, will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 215 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and members in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that Australia is one nation which comprises people from many different racial and cultural backgrounds; that a Treaty with one of these peoples-the Aborigines-would be divisive and would be equivalent to the setting up of a separate nation; that a Treaty could lead to the introduction of a national system of land rights; that we are totally opposed to the signing of a Treaty with the Aboriginal people. As in duty bound, your petitioners, will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strongly oppose the proposed World Heritage listing of the Shark Bay Region in Western Australia, either partially or in its entirety, believing that all conservation values of the Shark Bay Region will be fully protected under the Shark Bay Region Plan, developed over three years by conservation authorities; and we respectfully request the Parliament and Government to remove the threat of World Heritage listing for Shark Bay by making a firm decision not to proceed with any further consideration of it. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the World Heritage listing of either a part or the whole of the Shark Bay Region. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: The Australian Government's proposed War Crimes Amendment Bill is seriously deficient. It is discriminatory. The attention of the Bill is focussed exclusively on political refugees from the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia. It is bound to result in hostile political stereotyping of refugees from Communist countries and will be profoundly destructive of Australia's multi-cultural society. Your petitioners most humbly pray that, if the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled are minded to support the War Crimes Amendment Bill, the following nine provisions be guaranteed: (1) Entitlement to legal assistance for the defendant so that he can conduct a proper defence. (2) Financial compensation to any persons cleared of war crimes allegations, so that innocent people are not financially ruined in the course of establishing their innocence. (3) That Soviet, Yugoslav or other similar evidence should be totally disregarded unless corroborated by independent evidence clearly beyond Soviet (or similar) control. (4) That the defendant should have adequate and equal access to archives and site visits, as well as the right to select and interview witnesses from overseas, in the preparation of his defence. (5) No affidavits, videotapes or audiotapes to be admissible as evidence. Witnesses to appear in person and be cross-examined before an Australian jury. (6) No ex officio indictments. Nobody should be put on trial for any offence under this Act unless there has first been a committal or preliminary hearing. (7) No extradition to occur before trial or after verdict. (8) Any information tending to identify the ethnic origin or nationality of persons charged with war crime should be suppressed until after verdict. (9) The word ``omission'' to be deleted from s.6 (1) (k) (iii) and s.6 (5) (c). And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 674 citizens). To the Honourable President of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled: Noting that nuclear armed warships have been invited to Sydney Harbour in September 1988, we the undersigned citizens of Australia, strongly urge that the Australian Parliament prohibit the entry of nuclear armed vessels into Sydney harbour this year or at any other time in the future. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 822 citizens). Petitions received. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —On behalf of Senator Gareth Evans, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Navigation Act 1912, the Ships (Capital Grants) Act 1987 and various other Acts relating to transport, and for related purposes. (Quorum formed) Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1989 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1989 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1989 be referred forthwith to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1988 be referred to Estimates Committee for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the Committees consider Proposed Expenditure and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in Estimates Committee groupings as follows: Estimates Committee A Parliament Industry, Technology and Commerce Prime Minister and Cabinet Industrial Relations Estimates Committee B Foreign Affairs and Trade Transport and Communications Estimates Committee C Finance Treasury Employment, Education and Training Estimates Committee D Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Defence Estimates Committee E Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Administrative Services Veterans' Affairs Social Security Estimates Committee F Attorney-General's Aboriginal Affairs Primary Industries and Energy Community Services and Health. (4) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Wednesday, 2 November 1988. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) strongly supports the stand of Mr Barry Pawsey and Mr Chris Fenning in exercising their democratic right not to join the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union; (b) condemns the Joint House Department for terminating the services of these 2 men from their positions as casual chefs at Parliament House because of their refusal to submit to pressure to join the union; (c) calls on the President and Speaker and the Joint House Committee to assert the right of individuals to decide whether or not to join unions; (d) condemns the Hawke Government for condoning de facto compulsory unionism in Australia; and (e) urges all Senators to support the Liberal and National Parties' amendments to the Government's industrial relations legislation to ensure genuine freedom of association in Australian workplaces. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting 8 September 1988 as International Literacy Day- (a) recognises that significant numbers of Australian adults have difficulties with everyday reading, writing and numeracy activities; (b) accepts that this causes major problems for the participation of such people in society and for the contribution they can make to a more highly skilled workforce; (c) affirms the initiatives taken by the Federal Government towards the 2-year adult literacy action campaign under the national policy on languages; (d) urges the Government, in its preparation for International Literacy Year in 1990, to support a national charter which endorses the right of all Australians to have the opportunity to acquire literacy and numeracy as part of a lifelong learning process; and (e) requests the Government to co-operate with the non-government sector in planning community participation to meet this need. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) reaffirms that the Australian National Flag is the primary symbol and standard of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Federal Parliament and the Australian people; (b) welcomes the celebrations taking place throughout Australia this forthcoming weekend to commemorate the day on which the Flag was first flown, at the Exhibition Building in Melbourne on 3 September 1901; (c) congratulates the Australian National Flag Association and all other persons and organisations associated with the celebrations; and (d) calls on the Government to officially recognise 3 September as National Flag Day by gazetting such date during this, Australia's Bicentennial Year. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) rebukes the Federal Government for its bungling efforts in handling the whole issue of Constitutional reform, which has seen poorly drafted legislation, successful court challenges to the fairness of advertising campaigns and massive opposition from a wide variety of groups around the country; (b) notes that the result of the Government's attempt to entrench Labor policy platforms on an unwitting electorate has served only to bewilder and confound Australian voters and to intensify irrational conflict; and (c) calls on the Government to adopt a far more professional and fair minded approach in the matter of Constitutional reform. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the arrival of United States (US) nuclear-armed warships in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and the impending arrival of other US and British Royal Navy nuclear-armed warships in Australian ports on their way to the Fleet Review in Sydney Harbour at the end of September 1988; (b) notes, too, that the latest public opinion poll on the visit of nuclear warships to Australian ports indicates that only 24 per cent of Australians are now in favour of such visits; (c) commends the Federal Government for its support of the INF treaty in Europe whereby the United States is removing 560 ground-launched cruise missiles from 5 countries, an equivalent number of Soviet weapons also being removed; (d) condemns the Government for allowing the same nuclear warheads on sea-launched cruise missiles to come on US warships into Australian ports, thus constituting an increase in the number of nuclear weapons now at sea currently totalling 16,000 or a third of the world total; (e) further notes the absolute refusal of the Reagan Administration to allow discussion of naval arms control at the recent United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in New York; and (f) calls on the Government to maintain pressure on the US Government for talks on security and naval arms control in the Pacific and to acknowledge public opinion on the subject of nuclear-armed warships in Australian ports by banning all such future visits. Senator HILL(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) acknowledges the contribution of the Australia-Japan Foundation in promoting the language, culture and traditions of Australia and Japan and to facilitating contacts between the peoples of the 2 countries; (b) notes that its work is aimed at improving the understanding of, and relations with, our principal trading partner, Japan, with which we have an annual trade worth more than $17 billion; and (c) condemns the Hawke Government for its decision to downgrade the Australia-Japan Foundation based on a lack of understanding of the importance of the Australia-Japan relationship and in particular the Government's decisions to: (i) move the Australia-Japan Foundation secretariat from a high profile, high public-access office in the middle of Sydney to an obscure office in Canberra; (ii) downgrade the Director's position from the level of Senior Executive Service level one, to clerical officer class 8; and (iii) slash the Foundation's funding by 35 per cent and reduce staffing level from 10 staff years to 5 staff years, as provided in the Budget handed down on 23 August 1988. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the letter in The Age newspaper, dated 31 August 1988, from Rob Barfus, Secretary of the Municipal Association of Victoria, pointing out the strong support of local government for a `Yes' vote for Referendum Question No. 3 on Saturday, 3 September 1988; (b) further notes that the Australian Local Government Association has complained to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, about `Blatant Lies' in the campaign by the Liberal and National Parties against Constitutional recognition of local government; and (c) condemns the Opposition's arrogant and misleading campaign against the interests and wishes of local government throughout Australia. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that a more honest phraseology for Question No. 4 in the Constitutional Referendum would be do you want the elements of a Bill of Rights written into the Federal Constitution?; (b) recalls the overwhelming opposition of the Australian public to an earlier attempt to impose a Bill of Rights; and (c) condemns the Federal Government for arrogantly dismissing the wishes of the people. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) draws attention to the fact that only one Government member was in the Chamber at the beginning of today's sitting; and (b) calls on the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to ensure that Labor Senators attend the Senate instead of attending Australian Labor Party faction meetings to decide when Mr Hawke is to be sacked and Mr Keating is to take over as Prime Minister. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the $20,000 Defence of Government Schools Group (DOGS) advertisement in The Age newspaper, dated 30 August 1988, gives teeth to the argument that Government aid to private schools is an issue in the 3 September 1988 Constitutional Referendum on freedom of religion; (b) condemns the Federal Government for misleading the Australian public into thinking that their right to freedom of religion will be enhanced by the proposed new wording of section 116 of the Constitution; and (c) challenges the Government to muzzle the DOGS' argument that the Commonwealth cannot support religion in any way whatsoever and that the Commonwealth cannot be concerned with religious teaching, since only this will assure the Australian people that freedom of religion will not become freedom from religion under the proposed Constitution amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, being aware of the harmful effects of side stream tobacco smoke on non-smokers in the community, requests the Presiding Officers to- (a) prohibit smoking in confined working and public places in this new Parliament House; (b) enforce the provision of non-smoking areas in all recreational, retail, restaurant and working areas not covered by (a) above; (c) prohibit the advertising or sale of all tobacco and tobacco smoking products on the premises of the Parliament House; and (d) congratulate the Queensland State Government on its recent decision to immediately ban smoking in public areas of State Government buildings including the Parliament House. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government for the deceitful way in which the September 1988 Referendum questions have been phrased in order to mislead the Australian people into giving a `Yes' vote; (b) condemns, in particular, the Government for the failure to acknowledge in Question No. 1 that the intent of this proposal is to introduce simultaneous elections, thereby attacking the independence and, consequently, the power of the Senate; (c) recognises that it is a primary object of the Australian Labor Party to destroy the Senate as an institution of Australian Government; and therefore (d) acknowledges that the sole reason behind the way in which the 4 questions have been phrased is to put a superficially attractive package of proposals to voters in order to achieve a `Yes' vote for Question No. 1. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the wording of Referendum Question No. 2, purporting to provide for `fair and democratic elections throughout Australia', is blatantly misleading and calculated to deceive and delude Australians into giving a `Yes' vote; (b) recognises that fair and democratic elections cannot be held unless electoral boundaries are drawn impartially, so as to prevent gerrymandering; (c) takes notice of the fact that the `one vote, one value' principle espoused in the Referendum proposal does not, and will not, apply to either House of the Federal Parliament; (d) recognises that the respective parliaments of the States are the best and most appropriate forums to ensure that fair and democratic electoral laws are established for the election of members to those State Parliaments; and therefore (e) condemns the Hawke Government for seeking to impose on State legislation an electoral system which it does not see fit to impose on itself. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the proposal in Referendum Question No. 3, which seeks merely to recognise local government, is a pious and meaningless statement which has no place in the Federal Constitution; (b) recognises that this was the intention of the Hawke Government; (c) takes note, however, of the recent warning issued by the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs, in that, despite the Government's intention, it is impossible to predict what meaning will, in the future, be given to this provision, given that it is expressed in terms of generality; (d) recognises that the proposal is inherently dangerous and has the potential to greatly increase the power of the Commonwealth at the expense of the States; and (e) condemns the Government for putting forward a proposal which is, in reality, nothing more than a smokescreen by which the Government hopes to obscure its financial mistreatment of local government. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the 4th Referendum proposal purporting to extend freedom of religion and the rights to trial by jury and compensation for the acquisition of land will in fact weaken our existing rights and freedoms in these areas; (b) notes that the proposal wrongly and dangerously extends the political power of unelected High Court judges who will have the responsibility of interpreting the new provisions; (c) recognises that the proposal is unnecessary given that our existing rights and freedoms in these areas are not under threat; and, further (d) condemns the Hawke Government for putting the 3 questions into one proposal thereby restricting the freedom of choice of Australians who are forced to give either a `Yes' or `No' vote for all 3 questions. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the repeated refusal of Government Ministers in this Chamber to give any guarantee that the Prime Minister would not call an early election in 1989 for both Houses of Parliament if he were given the power to do so by a `yes' vote in the Referendum on Saturday, 3 September 1988; (b) notes that an early election in 1988 could not be held under the Constitution as it now stands, as it prevents a Prime Minister calling such an election unless important legislation has been rejected twice by the Senate, thereby giving the people of Australia at least 6 months or so to find out how dangerous the issues really are, as in the ID Card debate; (c) further notes the Government's effective admission that the only way to guarantee that there will be no early election for both Houses of Federal Parliament in 1988 is to vote `no' to Question No. 1 on Saturday, 3 September 1988; (d) advises the Australian people against voting `yes' to this question as it would give extra power to the Prime Minister to hold elections whenever he wants by removing the one existing restriction on that power, particularly as an election in 1988 would be the 4th in 6 years from a Prime Minister who falsely promised that, under him, parliaments would run their full terms; (e) asks the people of Australia do they really want to give Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, whoever is the real Prime Minister at this time, even more power than he already has; and (f) strongly recommends to the people of Australia that they reject all referendum proposals on Saturday, 3 September 1988, that give such extra power to a Prime Minister who has proved he is incapable of keeping his word. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives after 25 November 1988, and a motion is moved for the second reading of the Bill, debate on that motion shall be taken to be adjourned upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in February 1989, without any question being put. (2) That, immediately after debate on a motion for the second reading of a Bill is adjourned in accordance with paragraph (1), or following the giving of notices on a subsequent day, a motion may be moved without notice to refer that Bill to a standing committee for inquiry and report by a day not later than the first day of sitting in February 1989. (3) That this Order cease to have effect at the commencement of the first day of sitting in February 1989. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes Question No. 4 of the September 1988 Referendum is an attempt by the Labor Government to introduce a de facto Bill of Rights, a Bill that was resoundingly rejected by the people of Australia; and (b) notes the statements from various religious denominations outlining that, should Question No. 4 of the referendum not return a `no' vote in the majority, Commonwealth funding to non-government schools will be gravely threatened by an expected challenge in the High Court by the Defence of Government Schools Group, aptly named DOGS. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that they be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Science and Technology Statement 1987-88. 2. Variation agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and K.K.F.C. Proprietary Limited-section 9b of the Fisheries Act 1952. 3. Canberra Theatre Trust-Annual Report 1986-87 -including the Auditor-General's Report-sub-section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901. 4. Trustees of the Canberra Public Cemeteries-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-sub-section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901. 5. Canberra Retail Markets Trust-Annual Report 1986-87. 6. Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade- Annual Report 1986-87. 7. Waterfront Investigation-Inter-State Commission-Preliminary Findings and Discussion Papers, Volumes 1-5-section 10 of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975. The PRESIDENT —I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats nominating senators for membership of the Select Committee on Legislative Procedures. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I ask for leave to move a motion in relation to the membership of the Select Committee on Legislative Procedures. Leave granted. Senator ROBERT RAY —I move: That Senators Collins, Colston, Hamer, Jones, Macklin and Reid, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 25 August 1988, be appointed members of the Select Committee on Legislative Procedures. I hope they look at the question of notices of motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, at the conclusion of debate on any proposal pursuant to standing order 64 today, intervening business be postponed till after the consideration of Government Business Order of the Day No. 14 (Budget Statement and Papers 1988-89). Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation under standing order 408. During the debate on the matter of public importance last Wednesday, 24 August, Senator Collins challenged my position on the proposed changes to section 116 of the Federal Constitution dealing with the probability of a threat to State aid to independent schools. Senator Collins said that I did not understand the effect of Black v. Commonwealth of Australia, better known as the defence of government schools (DOGS) case. He further erroneously made an unsubstantiated statement that I had not read the judgment in the DOGS case. I have now verified the exact words used and my recollection of the case with the Commonwealth law reports and with Hansard and find that my position was fully sustained. Of the full bench of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick and judges Gibbs, Wilson and Mason specifically referred to the importance of the words `establish any law for . . .'. Therefore, my comments that the whole complexion and meaning of section 116 will be changed by the removal of those words are supported by those justices of the High Court of Australia. Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.27) —We are discussing the Government's Industrial Relations Bill 1988 and its proposal to change the face of industrial relations in this country. Many of my colleagues have already spoken on the Bill and have expressed the objections the Opposition has to it. It is fundamentally flawed in a number of respects. It does not provide for the enforcement by the proposed Australian Industrial Relations Commission of its own rulings. It does nothing to prevent compulsory unionism-and I shall come back to that-in the face of a government which says that it does not have compulsory unionism in this country. It is interesting to note the report in the Canberra Times this morning of two chefs who have been evicted, thrown out of their jobs, from this very building because they are not members of a union. The article says that the head of the Joint House Department said that it is not a closed shop, but I would be interested to know what he thinks is running here when two chefs from this building have been told to find work elsewhere because they have refused to join a union. I have other material on that that I will refer to a little later. This legislation also attempts to override the State legislation. It proposed the amalgamation of smaller unions into larger unions. As I have said, there have already been a number of speakers who have dealt with these matters. The reason I wish to speak is that being a representative of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) it is interesting to look at what has happened in five years of Australian Labor Party Government in this one Territory where it has the sole responsibility for industrial relations. Other areas also have State legislation but that is not the case in the Territory and it is reasonable to look at what has occurred here when we examine the Government's proposals for the future. In passing, we had the absurdity last night of one of the Labor senators suggesting that our attitude to industrial relations indicates a dislike of workers. That is patently absurd. Our attitude to industrial relations reflects our concern for workers and their families, and for their ability to get on with their lives and not be disrupted in their employment in the way that so many of them have. I spoke earlier this year on a matter of public importance relating to industrial relations in the Australian Capital Territory. At that time I listed-and I was criticised by Senator Robert Ray, I think, for doing so-the strikes, the bans, the interruptions to employment that had occurred during Labor rule in the ACT from March 1983. Incidentally, industrial relations is not the only area where we have been change and chaos. We have had five Ministers for the ACT in five years. That also gives some indication of the Labor Party's real attitude to the Federal Territory. We are about to get the fifth Minister coming on board tomorrow. A less suitable time to change Ministers one could hardly imagine. A vast number of disputes, bans and strikes have occurred in this Territory and the list is very long. As I said, I do not intend to reiterate them all today because there are other things I wish to talk about. It is significant because it causes increased costs for the rest of the community and disrupts the lives of the workers concerned. We are in a unique position in that, until such time as there is self-government in the Australian Capital Territory, the Federal Government has the capacity to influence industrial relations in the Territory. In the States and, since the granting of self-government, in the Northern Territory, governments are able to legislate in the field, but in the ACT the Federal Government has the field to itself. There have been bans here which have caused closures within the hospital system; strikes have closed the garbage dumps, endangering public health; and disputes have closed down building sites, resulting in the unemployment of skilled workers. Ultimately, it is the Federal Government which has had the power to be involved in the area of industrial relations. Two hundred and sixty thousand people live in the Australian Capital Territory. The Federal Government has shown, by its attitude to industrial relations and its inertia, here and across the nation, that it has had a total lack of willingness to provide meaningful solutions to the problem of lawlessness and standover tactics. It has had an effect on the workers concerned and on the population at large. The people of Canberra know all about it. They know what it means to have a government that is so spineless that it will not get involved in finding solutions to these problems. It has meant inconvenience for householders, the sick have suffered, and it has meant the closure of businesses and unemployment for workers. Wives of workers have had to queue outside the Department of Social Security to claim benefits for themselves and their children while their husbands were on strike on this very site, the Parliament House site. Surely, it is hard to expect these people to understand why the Government has not been more active in the area. Many of the workers have had no wish not to be working, but what could they do about it? We have a system of compulsory unionism in the Territory which the Government has allowed to flourish. There has been no protection for any worker who wishes not to be a member of a union. There is provision in this legislation for this conscientious objection nonsense. There is no provision within Labor philosophy for a person to have a job and not be a member of a union. I again refer to the newspaper article in which it is reported that two chefs from this building are now out on the street because they do not want to join a union. The article reads: The assistant secretary of the Joint House Department, Mr Fraser Bradley, confirmed the incident yesterday. He said union membership was `actively encouraged'- I would have no objection to that if the term actually meant what it said- and the House had a collective-style of management, where unions were included in decision-making. They certainly are! They run the place. The article continues: He disagreed that the House had a `closed-shop' arrangement . . . I hope that someone will enter the debate later and tell us what sort of arrangement operates in this building if it is not a closed shop arrangement. The first incident of this kind on this site that I knew about occurred some years ago when a carpenter lost his right to work because he did not want to be a union member. He not only could not work on this building but also he was driven out of the Territory and was not able to obtain a job. Since work on this building has run down, the heavies of the union movement have been moving into the housing industry. Senator Crichton-Browne —They talk about freedom of religion, for goodness sake! Senator REID —I will refer to freedom of religion a bit later, because it is interesting that this Government should seek to include in this referendum a proposal of this nature, just as it sought to inflict on us a Bill of Rights a couple of years ago. What about the right not to join a trade union if one wishes not to be a member of a union? People who are misled by this fourth referendum question this Saturday ought to remember the Bill of Rights debates a couple of years ago. They ought to look at what is going on in the ACT at present. They should look at what has happened in this Parliament House within the last few days. Two chefs have been thrown out on the street because they did not want to belong to a union. There is also the case of the roof tiler who was told he could not work if he did not join the union. He has worked on his own as a subcontractor all his life. But it was not just his having his job affected. The whole job would close down if he did not join. It was a dispute whereby in the end the builder himself paid the fee in order to have a quiet life. Protectionism of this kind has been rife in Canberra for some considerable time. I have pages of stories here that I could recount in relation to this. What about the hire car drivers who were told, about two years ago, that they would get no more Commonwealth work if they did not join the Transport Workers Union of Australia? Mostly they were owner drivers. Senator Chaney —Self-employed too. Senator REID —Self-employed and they wanted to stay that way. What advice could they be given, other than that while there is a Labor Government in this country they had better join the union or they and their families will starve on the streets? That is Labor's real attitude to people who want to work in this country. There have been incidents of this kind at the Australian Capital Territory Community and Health Commission and, as I said, now there is hardly a building in Canberra which has not been totally unionised in this fashion. There are a few single house constructions which may still be immune, but anything in the medium density area, any multiple construction, is now classified by the union as an industrial site and on they go. Everyone on the site must have a union ticket including the subcontractors and the small businessmen who are the backbone of this society. All the conditions have to be met: rostered days off, severance pay provisions. The housing industry in this country has been attempting to pursue a policy of more affordable housing. There was a contest in Canberra. There is a site at Calwell which is being built on and every effort is being made to build attractive, well-designed houses in a way which makes them affordable to those in this community who have been in these enormous queues waiting for public housing. How on earth can one even get an affordable housing program while daily the fees go up as a consequence of the money that a builder has to pay to the union for the right to be able to continue to build his house. The people who are working there do not want to be involved in this. They just want to work. They just want a fair days wage for the work that they put into it and they want to be able to get on with their lives. But they are being constantly interfered with. Their jobs are being constantly disrupted by this attitude of the unions towards not looking after workers but getting money into their coffers. The rights of subcontractors are being totally denied and this Government has sat back and watched it happen. Canberra is isolated. It is a landlocked island city from that point of view and it is easy for the unions to conduct these tactics under the watchful eye of a Labor government which is quite happy to see it happen. As I said, I have numerous instances and stories of what has occurred and many in Canberra could tell honourable senators of other instances as well as those which I have mentioned. I have referred to the referendum. Do not let anybody listening to this debate today think that the referendum is other than what it really is. When one looks at the erosion of rights in the fourth question and when one looks at the Bill of Rights one sees that unionism is to be included as a right but there is no right for one not to join a trade union. I think it is time that this Government's real attitude to workers was exposed. It allows these black bans to take place. There is nothing that it will do to permit a job to continue in this situation. Employers who do not toe the line find that they are likely to lose the job that they had. There has been an instance recently of a contractor winning two contracts for construction in Canberra. Because he did not have union labour he suddenly found that both of those jobs disappeared and went to someone else. That is the sort of lawlessness that is being tolerated in this community of Canberra. There have been some comments about it by one of the Arbitration Commissioners earlier this year. There was a dispute on the Quadrant site and Commissioner Baird made some very telling comments. He described the Australian Capital Territory building industry as in a state of anarchy and I wonder what has happened since. What has the Labor Government done to try to sort out the problem? What input has it had? In the Canberra Times last week there was a small article headed, `New unit will settle disputes'. `Ah', I thought, `Maybe the Government at last realises that there are problems in this Territory and it is going to do something'. The article reads: A de-facto labour department has been set up within the ACT Administration to help settle industrial disputes and meet the needs of a growing workforce. Nothing in the article indicates that the Government will seriously do anything to allow people to work at the jobs they want to work at. The article continues: The unit would create a structured approach to industrial relations, which would reduce the duration and number of disputes and stoppages in the ACT. What would do that most would be the introduction of policies which allow people to get on with the jobs they want to carry out. I referred earlier to the garbage dispute. People may think that such a dispute would not really affect people, but it occurred in January of this year when it was particularly hot in Canberra. I recognise that the garbage collectors have a right to have a dispute with their employers or the Government, but they blocked the tips altogether. They dumped things in front of the tip gates so that Canberrans who would otherwise have been able to deal with their own garbage were prevented from doing so. This also affected a number of small businesses in the waste removal and gardening industries which were not able to get on with their jobs. The people of Canberra, in the warmest part of the year, were prevented from taking their own rubbish to the garbage dumps because the Government sat back and allowed this to happen. There was some relief eventually when the small business association realised that, because the Government would not do anything, it would have to, and the garbage dumps were eventually reopened. How does any government sit back and explain this sort of thing to a community, to people who pay their rates and expect their garbage to be collected? It is one thing for there to be a dispute; but the Minister sitting on his hands and allowing the garbage dumps to remain closed gives an indication of just how bankrupt this Government is. Senator Chaney —To leave it without an effective remedy. Senator REID —Canberra was left without an effective remedy. I referred to that briefly when I started my speech: the main failing of this legislation is that it does nothing to provide for the enforcement by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of its own rulings. Even when earlier this year Commissioner Baird referred to the fact that the building industry in the ACT was in a state of anarchy he was not able to do anything about it and get people back to work-people who for the most part wanted to work and who wanted to get on with their jobs. In sorting out these problems the Government seems to be tongue tied because of the precious relationship it has with the union heavies. The new unit that is being set up will do nothing to change the situation in Canberra. I wonder whether the unit will demand that unions allow people to work without a union ticket. The Minister might be able to tell us that later on. Will this new unit that has been set up in the ACT Administration actively pursue the cause of a worker who wants to work but who does not want to belong to a union? Will the unions be counselled and advised by this unit that they should allow these people to work? Will the chefs be able to go to the new unit set up in the ACT Administration to present their case: that they were driven from their jobs by the employer-who virtually is the Labor Government-because they do not want to join a union? I shall be very interested to find out whether that is the case. It seems that the compliance issue is the one thing that the Government will not recognise as a fundamental part of any new industrial relations system. The other matters that have been referred to can be debated, but unless the Government is prepared to accept that enforcement of its rulings is a fundamental issue there is very little likelihood of there being any significant change. The Industrial Relations Bill 1988 does nothing about compliance. At the Quadrant site in Canberra more recently the dispute was between the builder and the owner of the site, but it was on that site initially that the Commissioner made his comment about the state of anarchy. Commissioner Baird has been involved long enough in the Territory to know exactly what he is talking about. It is clear that the Government has no intention of putting in place any provisions that would resolve these sorts of problems, that would enable enforcement of the Commission's rulings in relation to both employers and unions. The lack of action, the lack of commitment at the ACT level which I have referred to today, where the Government has direct involvement and responsibility for industrial relations, is reflected in this legislation we are now debating. Nobody should be deluded as to what the Government is about. The Government is prepared to see businesses suffer; it is prepared to see jobs sacrificed; it is prepared for the people of the ACT to be severely inconvenienced or even placed at risk. This legislation will cost jobs and it will hurt businesses. It will provide no protection for people who want to work and get on with their lives in this community. In the one part of the country where the Government has the power and the responsibility to do something about industrial relations we have seen over five years and five Ministers exactly what its attitude to industrial relations really is. It has failed in the ACT and it will continue to fail at the national level. Senator DEVLIN(Tasmania)(10.47) — The Senate is debating the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. The Bill is a continuation by the Hawke Government of the reform of industrial relations. It is radically different from the approach adopted by previous conservative governments, including the Fraser Government, and from the present policies of the coalition. The central objective of the Bill is to settle industrial disputes before they start through a process of consultation and conciliation. The Government has consulted widely with employers, unions and industry in developing this Bill. The Bill is representative of the views and wishes of many organisations and individuals. It does not please everyone, nor does it pretend to. The Bill is not, as has been intimated by the Opposition, simply a repeat of the wish list of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)-far from it. In addressing this Bill, I shall confine my comments to the maritime industry. I have worked in this sector all my life and have witnessed many changes. Changes are still occurring. Several weeks ago a number of daily newspapers reported Mr Ian McLachlan, then President of the National Farmers Federation, describing Australia's waterfront industries as `the garbage on our doorstep'. Mr McLachlan reportedly suggested that waterfront issues might be exploited by the National Farmers Federation by provoking disputes to encourage contributions to the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund. Many Opposition spokespersons have echoed these words and continue to promote the confrontation line. This confrontationist attitude is not only irresponsible in terms of industrial relations, but it is also unjust and ill-founded given the contribution made to date by the maritime and stevedoring unions in attempting to solve the problems of the Australian shipping industry. The maritime industries presently employ some 4,000 to 5,000 seamen, and many other jobs are provided in related industries such as ship repair. Complementary activities such as stevedoring employs perhaps another 4,000 to 5,000 workers. Australian seagoing unions have painstakingly worked for two years on the Maritime Industry Development Committee. Their achievements include reduced crews, flexible labour, no demarcation disputes, and dual purpose crews who are able to work anywhere on a vessel. Crew sizes have been reduced by one-third between the 1960s and the 1980s and this trend is continuing. Most vessels will have crews of 20 or less by the 1990s. Five years ago there were seven maritime unions. Today, through voluntary amalgamation, that number has been reduced to three and the rationalisation process is continuing. Industrial action in the industry has been dramatically reduced. Ship days lost through industrial stoppages reached 1,953 in 1982 but only 14 days were lost in 1986. The Government, seagoing unions and employers have together developed industry strategies that will meet technological changes in the industry on an international scale. The stevedoring industry is also responsibly addressing a whole range of issues pertinent to employment in the industry. The Waterside Workers Federation of Australia is contributing in a constructive and responsible way to the Stevedoring Industry Review Committee with a view to developing an agreed industry plan that will deliver improved efficiency and productivity. The Opposition will never give the unions credit for this, but that is understandable because to do so would not fit in with its confrontationist line. The vastness of Australia and the wide distribution of population, industry and natural resources place a high priority on an efficient transport service. For Australian industry to be competitive Australia needs a viable, competitive coastal shipping service as part of the national network. Australia also needs a competitive international shipping service. With only four per cent of our vital imports and exports presently being chartered in Australian vessels important earnings are lost and the Australian trade deficit increased. The maritime unions have shown a responsible attitude to reform of the Australian shipping industry. This should be recognised. Improvements have been made and will continue to be made. The future of the industry depends on cooperation, not confrontation. This Bill will further aid this process. Senator Fred Chaney, in the Age on 16 August 1988, defended the Opposition's industrial relations policy and stated that by no means all those people who have publicly lent support to the Opposition's policy come from employer ranks or the conservative side of politics. He said that Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon, former General Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation and a member of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, wrote recently: There is nothing impracticable in the coalition's industrial relations policy document and nothing that cannot be practically introduced. Let me say that Charlie Fitzgibbon was General Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation and led the union to many major reforms on behalf of the industry and its members. He has often been quoted by Liberal politicians, including the ex-Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, who has said that he would prefer having negotiations with Charlie Fitzgibbon than with other major union leaders. I presume he was talking about industrial relations. When in office Fraser and his Government Ministers slammed Fitzgibbon and the union. Fitzgibbon was the representative of his union and members when in office. I find it strange that the Opposition can now befriend Fitzgibbon and quote him, but still hammer his union. I have often said the Opposition does not understand unions or industrial relations and this proves the point once again. I have never been satisfied with the answer to why Charlie Fitzgibbon was elected to a further six-year term but served only a few months of that term and retired to greener pastures. He is still enjoying the fruits of life through his experience gained as the General Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation. However, I have also worked under the present General Secretary, Tas Bull, whom I consider as equal to the previous General Secretary, but in a different environment. He has a much harder task in guiding his membership through retraining and restructuring and the consistent attacks on the maritime unions. I am confident that Tas Bull is a competent industrial leader and representative of his membership. It is strange that Opposition members quote the former or ex-leader and can only criticise the present leadership. Senator Chaney —When did you ever hear criticism by me of Tas Bull? Senator DEVLIN —I have never quoted Senator Chaney. This Bill provides the framework to continue the reforms of the industrial relations system in this country. The reforms already in place and the policies of the Hawke Government have already delivered results. Since coming to office, over one million new jobs have been created and the level of industrial action in the form of strikes has been more than halved. Much more needs to be done. It cannot be done by the Government alone. It can be achieved through cooperation, and the Hawke Administration has the record that proves it can win that cooperation. I commend the Bill to the Senate and look forward to the committee debate on this most important Bill. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(10.56) —I welcome this opportunity to enter the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. If ever there were an area that Australia needed to rectify in order to re-establish its position in the world, it is the area of industrial relations. This is an important Bill, a big Bill. I welcome this opportunity to speak on it. The Bill was rammed through the House of Representatives with about three and a half hours of debate. There was no opportunity for amendments to be moved because there was no committee stage. It is only in the Senate that we are able to have a proper examination of, and proper debate on, the Bill. It has been an extensive debate, with many speakers, which is an indication of its importance. We have the chance to move our amendments. The thrust of the Bill is concerned more with union power than with improving industrial relations. This fits very well with the current Government's policy of establishing big government in association with big business and big unions, which is basic to a fascist state. That is not a bad way to run a country if one does not mind being told what to do, but it is very un-Australian. Back in May Mr Willis brought in a Bill which was to block access by people to sections 45d and e of the Trade Practices Act, which were the provisions used in the dreadful strikes we had at Mudginberri and with Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd. There was such an upsurge of public outrage at what was proposed that Mr Willis decided to withdraw the Bill. Now, at this much later stage, he is bringing in this Bill as a belated response to the report of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. Despite Mr Keating's reassurances that Australia's economy is on track-I dispute that-the economy is in a parlous state. If our overseas commodity prices do not stay high, we will be in an even worse and more fragile and dangerous position. The only way to rectify that is to increase production in Australia and the way to do that is to have a proper system of industrial relations. The history of industrial relations over the last couple of centuries has been checkered. Last century it was the employers who disadvantaged the employees. This century it is the employees who have been disadvantaging the employers. We have now reached a new age of enlightenment with regard to industrial relations. There is no more the attitude of `them and us'. We cannot afford any longer the specious arguments about the advent of technology, mechanisation or automation because all they do is delay development and make employees dependent on trade union activity. Often people have to change jobs two or three times in their lifetime. Most honourable senators would have had to do such a thing. Technology creates jobs; it does not destroy them. It is only the jobs that are different. For example, we could not possibly have kept up the old telephone exchanges with tiers of girls working on the switchboards or have condemned housewives to years of persisting with washing boards. Those things had to go. Somebody has to invent and build the machines. Technology only makes for a difference in the jobs. People do not have to sit around any more like limpets and scream out, `Somebody help me.' They can be far more in control of their own destiny. No longer are people born into one job and have to keep that job, or even say that they are entitled to that job and kick and scream when the job disappears. My father was a mining engineer. Mines have a certain life. When the life of the mine is gone the miner has to up sticks and move somewhere else. That is becoming the norm with employment today. People have to keep abreast of changes. Certainly management can and should help them keep abreast of impending changes-even train them for those changes, that is, if they both agree to them. People might want to change their jobs. Management needs to meet with unions regularly. Every Monday morning there should be a meeting of management and unions. They should discuss their problems, the changes and any developments that are proposed, and particularly the state of the business. Right now there is a move by trade unions to fast track their representatives on to the boards of companies. But that is not the proper locus of activity for trade unions. Trade union activity should be at management level, not at board level. The functions of a board are entirely different from those of a trade union. Now the trade unions want a say in investment, in development, in mergers, in financial figures, and the management of the business, which are all functions of the board, not functions of the trade unions. But not only that, they want the information presented to them in a form they can understand. Then, on top of that, they want a say in investment decisions. They do not want to invest any of their own money in the business or to have any responsibility for the results of their actions. This would be a recipe for disaster in a business. The recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which supposedly this legislation was based on, have not even been followed by the Government, but they are certainly founded in the old confrontationist days of `them and us'. They do not, for example, recognise the costs of exploration, development, licensing, environmental impact studies, investment decisions, taxes and royalties, borrowing to fund projects or the decision to farm in or farm out a project. I realise that in other countries, for example Japan, a person can rise through the trade unions and get on to the board of the company. But Japan has an entirely different industrial relations structure. Workers in Japan work for six days a week, with two weeks holiday a year. There is an emphasis on technology. But the focus of Japanese trade unions is on the business and the success of that business. The chairman is more or less a father figure to the employees. In Japan they have a strike season that is set and lasts for three days. It is set down so that it will cause minimal disruption to businesses. Many people, in order not to disrupt business, do not actually go on strike. They just wear a black armband to indicate that they have a protest about one thing or another. Japan has one of the soundest, strongest currencies in the world. It is investing all round the world and paying for it at home, which is not helping other countries very much. But if we want to compete, we have to work harder and smarter. We cannot do that while the country is being held to ransom by a few rampant unions and a welfare system such as that which crippled Great Britain. We certainly cannot do that when these few militant unions are aided and abetted by the Government. The book entitled Australia Reconstructed, which has been circulated over recent months, has received a lot of publicity extolling its virtues. Its context has been modelled on the Swedish and West German industrial relations systems and it is being used as a blueprint for future industrial relations in Australia. But it is just another socialist recipe for failure. Of course, those socialist paradises behind the iron and bamboo curtains also have trade unions. I have visited the Peoples Republic of China a couple of times, where trade unions exist to ensure that the production teams meet their production goals, which is a very different form of action for unions from that which pertains in Australia. Currently, there is enormous union unrest in Poland, but it is not over better terms and conditions for the unions; it is really a power struggle between the unions and the socialist Government, and all that the union wants is a bit of the socialist power from the Government. The people running that union problem are still socialists; they just think that the wrong people are running the Government. I would like to comment briefly on the accord, which I see as a triumph of union muscle over common sense in Australia, and central wage fixation with the advent of high fixed minimum wages. I am sure that these are among the main causes of unemployment in Australia, and they are a direct result of union action and the action of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If we have high fixed minimum wages, we create a lot of people who would work for less and a lot of people who could afford to pay less. But those two can never meet because, under the law, workers have to be paid these high fixed minimum wages. But not only that; it puts those people out of competition with the unions, and I am sure that the big group of unemployed people in Australia could be vastly reduced it we did not have these high fixed minimum wages. One of the faults is that unions assume that jobs are there, and that it is their right to do the jobs. They assume also that high wages are automatically there, and that jobs can be featherbedded in a lot of cases. But this is not the case. Jobs have to be created; they have to be changed; and they have to be exchanged. They are really a commodity just as money is a commodity. Money is the people's means of exchange, and that has also been hijacked by governments around the world. But in this legislation the Australian Labor Party has largely ignored the recommendations of the ILO and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is an obstruction to direct negotiations between employers and employees. We have to be more flexible in that area, not centralised and bureaucratised. We cannot continue the absurd work practices that have bedevilled Australia over many years now, such as working to rules, slow-downs, demarcation disputes, go-slows, featherbedding, and the interminable industrial disputes to which we are subjected-and most of them for the most paltry of reasons. We have to be able to guarantee our prices and our delivery dates for overseas commodity sales. All the union actions that have been taken in the past have delayed our delivery dates, increased our costs and made us uncompetitive. This Industrial Relations Bill actually proposes the maintenance of heavily controlled, heavily centralised and heavy bureaucratic procedures and it will continue to cripple our chances to compete on the international stage. I welcome the chance to debate the Bill in the committee stage that is coming up and I support the 50 amendments that are proposed by the Opposition. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(11.10) —A number of my colleagues have addressed in considerable detail many of the policies that are enunciated in the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 and the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988 which are currently before us. They have outlined a number of reservations and a number of qualifications in many areas. As Senator Sheil has just pointed out, a range of amendments will be proposed by Senator Chaney in the consideration of the detail of the Industrial Relations Bill. I would like to comment particularly with regard to the application of this legislation in the Northern Territory and how it will relate to the need to protect Northern Territory tribunals. Senator Chaney has distributed a proposed amendment to the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill and that will come before us later in the committee stage. The effect of the Government's legislation would be to remove any statutory protection for the police and prisons arbitral tribunals which are constituted under Northern Territory legislation. Such a move would be totally inappropriate at a time when the Northern Territory is moving towards Statehood. If these two local tribunals were to cease to exist and have their functions taken over by the new Industrial Relations Commission, the only control that the Territory has over industrial relations would be lost. I appreciate that the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has claimed that he does not intend to eliminate the tribunals but he proposes to structure them by way of regulation. I do not believe that that is good enough. The effect of removing the statutory protection that is provided under the Northern Territory (Self Government) Act for these tribunals was established prior to self-government on 1 July 1978. The police and prison arbitral tribunals have a particular and special functional role in the Northern Territory. I wish to highlight the work that goes on in the police forces and the prison service of the Northern Territory. The men and women who work in these areas of the Public Service in the Northern Territory have a very demanding, functional job to do. The role of a police officer or a prison worker is certainly compounded by the peculiar problems that exist in the Northern Territory. They do a fine job and are an integral part of the Northern Territory's unique Public Service. The provisions as proposed by the Federal Government in the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill, if passed, would remove that statutory protection and, therefore, subject employment in the police and prison service in the Northern Territory to the provision of the Federal industrial relations legislation. The problem is that the Northern Territory would then have to rely totally on the Minister's undertakings with regard to regulations. There are some very good and cogent reasons for maintaining the status quo. The constitutional history and development of the Northern Territory, moving from a governed Territory to a self-governing Territory in 1978 and now the progression towards full Statehood status within Australia, is most important to the Northern Territory. As has been stated on previous occasions, the Federal coalition parties support the move of the Northern Territory towards full State status. We believe, therefore, that it should be entitled to all the rights, benefits and responsibilities that apply to a State of Australia, including industrial relations. Indeed, in the explanatory memorandum attached to the Budget legislation which recently came before the Parliament the Northern Territory, for the first time, is described by the Labor Government as being funded on a seventh State basis. That is the actual phrase that has been introduced into the financial arrangements and, therefore, it should be extended to these other very important industrial relations areas. For the Federal Labour Government now to move at this time of constitutional development of the Northern Territory to further restrict the industrial relations responsibilities of the Territory is short-sighted. A substantial number of employees in the Northern Territory are already covered by awards of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly cannot at present legislate on industrial relations matters. This amendment to the self-government Act by the Bill before us would further limit the powers of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in this regard. This is a retrograde step while the Territory is moving towards obtaining the status of a State. The Northern Territory Government itself has not been silent on this matter and over the past few years has made approaches to the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and his Department raising their concern about these changes. At best the response has been that there is no intention to remove the protection for the two Northern Territory tribunals and that in future the protection will be given by way of regulations under the new industrial relations legislation. If there is no intention to remove the protection for the two Northern Territory tribunals why then is it necessary to amend the Northern Territory (Self Government) Act at all? There is an inherent flaw in proceeding in the manner proposed by the Minister for Industrial Relations. While the protection continues to be embodied in the legislation, any requirement to alter the provision will require an amendment to the legislation to be brought to this Parliament-it can then be subject to the full parliamentary process and be fully debated before being passed into law. However, if the protection is provided only by regulation any change to those regulations is not automatically subject to the full parliamentary process and virtually by the stroke of a pen the Minister could alter the arrangements to the detriment of the Northern Territory's responsibilities for these two important tribunals. As we all know, it is far easier to alter regulations than it is to alter legislation, even if that be the whim of the Minister. Whilst my colleague Senator Collins may well be Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and I would hope that he would be vigilant if ever a matter such as this came before him, one cannot be assured that Senator Collins will always be Chairman of this Committee and that the new Chairman would share my concerns for the Territory on this matter. The amendment to the Bill, as proposed by Senator Chaney, will preclude such actions and overcome the difficulties by maintaining the status quo in the new legislation. I see it as imperative that the Northern Territory retain the legislative protection currently afforded by the Northern Territory (Self Government) Act enabling the two tribunals to be established under Northern Territory legislation. This Parliament should not at this time take away any industrial relations responsibilities at a time when the Northern Territory is looking towards statehood and assuming all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a State, particularly with regard to its own Public Service employees. This Parliament should not be removing such responsibilities at a time when the Northern Territory is showing a willingness and is making positive moves towards statehood. These moves have been widely accepted throughout the Northern Territory community. The Northern Territory Government, in the past few months, has conducted a very open public awareness campaign throughout the Territory. It has invited debate and criticism of the areas that need to be developed particularly as the Territory moves towards statehood and the development of its own constitution. Senator Chaney's proposed amendments to the Bill maintain the status quo and I commend them to the Senate. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(11.20) —I will be brief. I actually rose to respond to the vision of industrial paradise put to the Senate by Senator Sheil but first I will refer briefly to Senator Tambling's contribution. Recently I spoke at a major seminar on industrial relations held in the Northern Territory and I found that the one thing that employer and employee groups are unanimous on in the Northern Territory is that they want the current arrangement with respect to Commonwealth industrial relations procedures maintained in the Northern Territory and do not want to set up their own. However, I did not rise to speak about that but about what Senator Sheil had to say about a large group of Australian employees who would `be prepared to work for lower wages and a group of employers who would be happy to pay them lower wages'. I do not doubt for a minute that the latter group exists. I respond by saying that this extraordinary view of industrial relations put by Senator Sheil-in other words, that the market would control these matters and the employers and employees could work it out between themselves-presumably would lead to some sort of social paradise where there would be no exploitation. Yesterday Senator Burns canvassed some of the working conditions that existed 30 or 40 years ago, before trade unions were as successful as they are now in maintaining minimum standards and minimum conditions, and which Senator Sheil said that he regrets existed. There is a general view in the community that all the dreadful things that happened half a century ago could not be repeated today. I will briefly recount a story about the Berimmah Baked Bricks company in Darwin, and I am sure that Senator Tambling is aware of this story. I hasten to say that the management of this factory in Darwin has now changed. This incident occurred only four or five years ago. An illegal immigrant from Indonesia entered Darwin and hid out in the bush behind the brick factory. Somehow or other the management of the factory discovered that this man was an illegal immigrant who feared that he would be found out and returned to Indonesia. As a result, the management employed him to work in the brick factory. Of course, the other employees noticed this gentleman turning up every day, working the full eight hours and then disappearing at the end of the day and, as far as they were concerned, going home. In reality this person was being employed eight hours a day for no wages whatsoever, was being maintained by the management of the factory on a supply of rice and canned food, and was living in a concrete culvert pipe behind the factory. Senator Cook —The wetback syndrome. Senator COLLINS —Yes, and it is happening right now. The only thing that prevents this situation from recurring is not the fact that we live in the 1980s but the trade union movement and the minimum standards and conditions that it has succeeded in maintaining. Only that stops this kind of exploitation. As it happened, I am pleased to say, this incident turned out to be a blessing in disguise because, when this story became public after the whistle was blown by other employees at the brick factory, in the final wrap-up of this case there was so much public outrage at what had been done to this person-and, I am pleased to say, despite the fact that he was in Australia illegally-he was paid, from memory, about $10,000 in back pay by the management of the brick factory, was given permanent residency in Australia, and certainly at that time was employed by the Darwin City Council. I do not know whether he still is. I point out to Senator Sheil that the happy position that he puts of beneficent employers and happy employees all agreeing to work for lower wages is a situation that would quickly return us to the total exploitation of workers that existed half a century ago. Certainly as far as some employers are concerned, if it were not prevented, that would return tomorrow. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.24) —I thank honourable senators for their fulsome contributions to this debate. I have not been able to hear them all but, of course, as long as I have been in the Senate a debate on industrial relations has brought out the demonology in Australian society and politics. I heard Senator Reid talking at great length about a garbage dispute in Canberra and also heard Senator Alston retailing his experiences as a student-many decades ago, I assume-when trying to work on a building site. All these things simply display a common recognition of the fact that there are problems in the industrial relations arena and the issues we have to debate really go to the best way to solve those problems. That is a legitimate topic for debate. I do not want to dwell on particular graphic issues of industrial disputation and disagreements between parties leading to detriment to the Australian community; rather, I want to concentrate on what the Government thinks is the best way of trying to resolve these issues, not only in the short term but also for the long haul. Much of that is based on bringing about attitudinal changes of one kind or another in both management and the work force. The statement I have just made is trite in the sense that if one follows industrial relations debates in the Senate for as long as I have been here, one finds that they were characterised throughout the 1970s, for example, by a paper given by Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister, in which he always talked about the importance of employers and employees reaching agreement and the consensual approach to industrial relations as the desired approach, but he then went on to cover his flank, as it were, by saying that there must be legislation which carries consequences if that level of agreement cannot be arrived at. That was the linchpin of the debate about industrial relations throughout the 1970s. All sorts of things have been tried by parliaments in terms of legislation and changes to it, but the basic issue is still one involving attitudinal change, which is fundamental. These Bills now before the Senate-the Industrial Relations Bill and the associated Bill-are an important element in the Government's industrial relations reform agenda. They reflect the Government's approach to industrial relations. That approach is based on a philosophy of consultation and cooperation rather than confrontation. We would say that it is in contrast to the Opposition's policy, which we believe encourages conflict. The Government's industrial relations approach embodies a number of things: for example, a more effective system of industrial regulation; a fair and equitable wages system; the extension, importantly, of opportunities for training and skills enhancement; the minimisation of industrial disputes through cooperation; increased involvement by employees in work place decision-making that affects their working lives; safer and better working environments; the elimination of discrimination in the work place; and the creation of greater job security. Many of these objectives are, in a sense, common ground. The real question is how best to achieve them in the Australian context. All sorts of analogies and comparisons are drawn with countries such as Japan and the United States. In fact, the Japanese and United States models of industrial relations are the ones most used by Opposition senators by way of supportive comparison for what they have to say. Extraordinarily, the German model, which is perhaps the most successful in the world-- Senator Lewis —We will never get down to 16 unions. Senator BUTTON —It is not just a question of getting down to 16 unions. I am talking of attitudinal matters and a whole range of mechanisms for involvement by employees in workplace decision-making. Senator Hamer —A single union in each work place. Senator BUTTON —That is not true in Germany. There is not a single union in each work place. Opposition members have said in this debate that there are fewer unions in other countries, and that is true; but it does not mean a single union in each work place. Senator Hamer —But it does in Germany. Senator BUTTON —It does not neces- sarily mean a single union in each workplace. The Opposition's argument is not about single unions in each workplace; it is about enterprise unions, which is a different thing. The models which have been referred to are essentially the Japanese and United States models. The difference between the Japanese and US models, particularly the US model, and the European model is that the European model depends on matters such as involvement by employees in workplace decision-making, promotion of job security and so on. Those things are inherent in the European model and they are missing from the US model. One of the extraordinary things about the references to the Japanese model is that the Liberal Party says that it is on about labour market deregulation-a free and open labour market. Whatever one says about the level of industrial unrest in Japan-and honourable senators opposite are right about that-who could possibly suggest that the Japanese labour market is deregulated and free? It is not at all. It is one of the most regulated labour markets in the world. One has to get some sort of philosophical comparison in referring to these matters, and I wanted to mention them in terms of the Government's objectives to which I have just referred in this legislation. Senator Lewis —Tell us how those objectives will be achieved by greater amalgamations in the current system. Senator BUTTON —I would like to present my speech in its own logical, sequential order. Although Senator Lewis may have a vested interest in adhockery, I am not going down that track. I shall present what I have to say in the way in which I want to present it. I mentioned the Government's objectives in its industrial relations legislation and mentioned how it is underpinned by an approach to attitudinal problems in industrial relations. I have to say, unpalatable as it may be to Liberal Party senators, that this approach has resulted in spectacular improvements in industrial relations outcomes. Senator Lewis —That is Crean's and Kelty's approach. Senator BUTTON —I referred earlier to demonology. Senator Lewis —I am not being critical of them; I am praising them. Senator BUTTON —You are just being interruptive, if that is the correct word. Senator MacGibbon —You do not seem to know the subject very well. Senator BUTTON —Having listened to Senator MacGibbon, I think that I would put myself in front. I did hear the honourable senator's contribution. This approach, unpalatable as it may be to Liberal Party senators, has resulted in spectacular improvements in industrial relations outcomes. It has resulted in a reduction in the level of time lost in industrial disputes to less than half the level that prevailed under the previous Government. There has been a reduction of 54 per cent in the period 1983-1987 compared with the period 1976-1982. I think it is probably conceded by the Opposition that there has been an enormous reduction in industrial disputation in Australia. But Opposition senators then say, `Yes, that has happened, but it has happened elsewhere' or `We are still not as good as Japan'-which is conceded-or `We are still-as good as Germany'-which is conceded-`and therefore we have to change the system further in some way'. We concede all those things: we are not as good as those countries in terms of levels of industrial disputation. But, in trying to make that point, the Opposition, and Senator Chaney in particular, has been very selective in the choice of countries with which to compare Australia's industrial relations record. I want to incorporate in Hansard a table showing `Industrial disputes: working days lost per 1,000 employees in all industries and services'. Leave granted. The table read as follows- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES: WORKING DAYS LOST PER THOUSAND EMPLOYEES IN ALL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES OECD COUNTRY* 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Averages 1976-82 1983-86 1976-86 Australia ... 760 330 420 780 630 780 370 310 240 230 240 580 260 460 ** 773 336 434 787 649 797 358 249 248 228 242 Austria ... - - - - 10 - - - - 10 - - - - Canada ... 1,360 380 830 840 930 890 610 460 390 310 690 830 460 700 Denmark ... 110 120 70 80 90 320 50 40 60 1,060 40 120 300 190 Finland ... 680 1,310 70 130 840 340 100 360 750 80 1,320 500 630 540 France ... 290 210 130 210 100 80 130 80 80 50 60 160 70 130 Germany (GR) ... 20 - 200 20 10 - - - 260 - . . 40 (90) (50) Greece ... 510 810 630 1,040 1,740 480 840 320 320 620 700 860 490 730 Ireland ... 1,030 570 770 1,750 480 500 500 380 470 520 . . 800 (460) (700) Italy ... 1,830 1,170 720 1,920 1,140 730 1,280 980 610 270 390 1,260 560 1,000 Japan ... 90 40 40 20 30 10 10 10 10 10 10 30 10 30 Netherlands ... - 60 - 70 10 10 50 30 10 20 10 30 20 30 New Zealand ... 460 410 360 350 350 360 300 340 380 660 1,110 370 620 460 Norway ... 90 20 40 - 60 20 170 - 60 40 560 60 170 100 Portugal ... . . 130 . . 200 200 330 170 230 100 100 140 (210) 140 (180) Spain ... 1,470 1,940 1,380 2,310 790 670 360 580 880 440 300 1,270 550 1,010 Sweden ... 10 20 10 10 1,150 50 - 10 10 130 170 180 80 140 Switzerland ... 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - United Kingdom ... 150 450 410 1,270 520 200 250 180 1,280 300 90 460 460 460 United States ... 300 260 270 230 230 290 100 190 90 70 120 230 120 190 OECD Average (excluding Australia) 390 280 350 Notes: * Excludes Luxemburg, Belgium, Iceland, Turkey and Yugoslavia for which insufficient information is available. ** Denotes data based on official Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) publications-differences between ILO based figures and ABS figures are due to differing methods of labour force calculation. ( ) Brackets indicate average based on incomplete data. . . Not available. - Less than five days lost per thousand employees. Source: UK Employment Gazette, June 1988 Senator BUTTON —The first point I make about the table is that Senator Chaney's comparative figures are based on working days lost per 1,000 employed, whereas the figures I have tabled are working days lost per 1,000 employees. The figures used by Senator Chaney are unsuitable for comparison as they include employers, the self-employed, members of the defence forces, and others who are not under any circumstances normally engaged in industrial action of one kind or another. There are all sorts of definitional comparisons and so on which make cross-country differences unreliable. Some of the comparisons used by Senator Chaney tend to show Australia's record to be relatively worse than is the actual position. For example, Australian figures include all disputes involving the loss of more than 10 working days in aggregate, but the United States example chosen for comparison does not count disputes involving fewer than 1,000 workers. The table I have just had incorporated in Hansard shows that, notwithstanding definitional inconsistencies, Australia's record was above that of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average for the period 1976 to 1982, a period of Liberal government, but below the OECD average for the period 1983 to 1986, the period of the present Government. To put the Australian figures in context, the number of working days lost recorded in 1986 means that on average during the whole year each member of the work force stopped work for less than one quarter of one working day. An independent research by Messrs Beggs and Chapman of the Australian National University concluded that the Hawke Government consensus based incomes policies have been instrumental in reducing the level of industrial disputation in Australia. That research found that the levels of disputes were 82 per cent below those in the period 1964 to 1982. They go on to say that this lower level of disputation has been a matter arising from Government policies, and has not been simply a manifestation of international events and forces. If the table that I have just referred to is studied by honourable senators, they will see that in the period 1983 to 1986 Australia had a much lower level of industrial disputation than did Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, and the United Kingdom, for example. Senator Chaney also made a considerable point about the fact that we claim-and I think this claim is supported by all the evidence-that a reduction in wage outcomes under the present Government's policies and attitudes, with the average annual level of increase in nominal earnings, is about half the level that prevailed during the Fraser years. I want to refer back to that point at a later stage in the debate. The third thing which the approach of the present Government has brought to industrial relations is an extraordinary attitudinal change on the part of both employers and unions, as evidenced in the operation of the two-tier wage system. This system saw for the first time employers, employees and unions reaching agreements which embodied significant productivity improvements, major reforms in work place activities, and so on. I cited yesterday in Question Time, I think, an example of the efforts of parties in relation to the metal trades award in terms of the structural change and productivity increases which will flow from that. Also under the present Government's policies there is a growing consensus amongst industrial parties represented at peak levels of organisations. I refer to joint publications of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) in relation to work practices, and the very important Metal Trades Industry Association Inc. publication, called Untying the Knot, about reducing inflexibility in the industrial system. It would be vulgar to dwell at great length on the documented achievements of this Government in the industrial relations system, including levels of disputation. Senator Chaney says, `It's still not good enough.' I agree with him; there is no dispute about that. However, the level of achievement has been enormous. Senator Chaney —You could narrow the areas of disputes. Senator BUTTON —If Senator Chaney would lower the level of dispute to concede that we probably would be much further forward. All these things have been achieved at the same time as there has been growth in gross domestic product of 4.2 per cent in 1987 which compares favourably with that of other OECD countries, a reduction in the current account deficit, a reduction in the inflation rate, an increase in total employment of 3 per cent in 1987-88, and a reduction in the unemployment rate in 1987-88 by 0.5 per cent to 7.8 per cent. This Bill is introduced against a background of the most impressive industrial relations record of any Australian Government. This legislation is being developed to complement such achievements and to facilitate further reform. A number of points have been raised in the debate. I turn to that debate as it has progressed so far. The amendments moved by Senator Chaney on behalf of the Opposition-both the Liberals and the Democrats have moved amendments-represent a vehicle for advancing a view about industrial relations. It is a view which is present in the debate internationally. They are not serious amendments. The amendments moved by Senator Chaney as a package advance a view which I would describe as a somewhat ideological view. That is not a bad thing; I am not condemning that. They leave the Government legislation substantially intact in so far as the existing structure of the system, the current industrial parties, and the current union structures are concerned. They leave intact, of course, what is almost impossible to overcome in a very quick way; the fact that we have a Federal system of government in Australia and this Federal legislation is, in a sense, complemented by or complementary to legislation which exists throughout the States. If these changes were made in the way they are proposed-as I said, they represent a vehicle for advancing a particular view of industrial relations issues-we would have the most unholy shambles. We would have Federal legislation which still carried the mainstream structures and powers of the past with a number of changes grafted onto it and, at the same time, different systems would operate in the States. That would be highly detrimental to any system of industrial relations because there is a need-even if one were to believe in Senator Chaney's view, which I do not-for transition mechanisms. The speeches made by other honourable senators have covered industrial relations generally. They have suggested what should be contained in the Federal industrial relations legislation. Inevitably they are properly concentrated on differences in approach between the Government and the Opposition. Of course there are some points on which we all agree. We are all approaching it from different directions and we all want a better industrial relations system. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the question is how to get there. The Opposition criticises the Bill because it says that it will not achieve improvements in productivity and industrial efficiency. Senator Chaney claimed that the commissioners unnecessarily prevented employers and workers from reaching their own agreements about the performance of work and conditions of employment. He said that the current system hinders labour market flexibility. In some ways these assertions do not adequately reflect the existing situation or the improvements proposed under the Bill. The successes which this Government has had to date could not have been achieved without a relatively successful Federal conciliation and arbitration system, a tribunal which Senator Chaney castigates as being the instrument for a spectacularly successful wages policy. If it is not recognised here, it is recognised internationally as such. Federally registered unions which the Opposition apparently regard as some sort of industrial dinosaurs, and which will still remain, even if Senator Chaney's amendments are carried, are contributing to the achievement of substantial productivity improvement through restructuring of awards-which they have been very good at initiating in some industries-progress towards multiskilling, the elimination of restrictive work practices, and the development of industrial democracy on the European model. Basic change has been quite rapid and the existing system has been able to deal with it. I think it is important to remember that industrial friction caused by change must be avoided in transitional mechanisms. The industrial relations system to which I have referred it retained and improved under the provisions of this Bill. What I want to say next represents the kernel of the differences in approach between the Government and the Opposition, in the context of this Bill. The Bill adds provisions enabling the Commission to authorise the entering into of certified agreements providing for particular arrangements about the performance of work, employment conditions, rates of pay and so on, which are specific to the parties to the agreement. Under this Bill one can arrive at an agreement in an enterprise or workplace between the employer and the employees or their representatives, and one can have that agreement certified by the Commission. The Opposition says: `We believe that. We can do that, too. The way we would do it is to have such agreements entered into at the enterprise level by bargaining units'-I forget what the Opposition calls them; it is something like that-`without the provision for certification.' That is very important because there are two reasons for having that provision for certification, via the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, of agreements reached between the parties at an enterprise or other level. The first reason is to avoid the sort of abuse where, in particular circumstances, conditions-wages, hours of work, and so on-can be lowered without reference to the capacity of the firm or industrial entity or whether it needs those changed conditions in order to manage the problem which it has in terms of wages and levels of conditions. There is a safeguard provided by the certification procedure of the Commission; that is, there is an outside party which can look at the question of whether that is a reasonable agreement. The second reason why the certification procedure is necessary is exactly opposite. If unions or employees in an establishment reach agreement on very high levels of wages and shorter hours, there is still wisdom in having the agreement certified by the Commission to prevent movement of those conditions, wages and so on into other sectors of the economy. So there are two purposes for the certification procedure which are less flexible, perhaps, than the Opposition would suggest, but they are very important in terms of keeping a moderating influence in the industrial relations system in this country. Senator Hill dismissed this proposal as timid. It has been endorsed by the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Manufactures. It is a very important provision which I think is at the nub of what this debate is about. The second area of difference relates to the role and powers of the proposed Industrial Relations Commission. There was much reference to the present Conciliation and Arbitration Commission obstructing employers and employees. Reference was made by Senator Chaney to some recent cases which I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into because some of them are still before the arbitration tribunals. He described the second tier system as a very bureaucratic and centralised way of impressing on enterprises the need for flexibility, and as a barrier to change. If he believes that, it amounts to a triumph of ideology over experience. Senator Chaney —There are plenty of people in enterprises who would say exactly the same thing. Senator BUTTON —Yes, and plenty who would not. The Government's proposals for the new Commission have a number of characteristics which are essential for a successful system. Effective independent machinery is provided to resolve disputes. The interests of the parties and the wider public interest are safeguarded. I will say no more about those matters because we can talk about them during the committee stage. The third main area of debate relates to the compliance measures. I will not summarise the Opposition's position at this point, but we believe that it is a distorted view of the history of the legislation. The 1987 legislation contained a comprehensive package of compliance measures, but excluded common law injunctions and actions under State legislation. There was a great clamour from employers and the Opposition about the provisions. A publicity campaign was launched and the Government agreed to defer the legislation. We now have the legislation in its existing form. Again, it is a matter which we can pursue when we discuss the compliance provisions at the committee stage. Senator McLean, of course, recognised the good sense of the decision which was ultimately made. As for the 1988 Bill, it is not true to say that it is devoid of compliance measures. The Government is trying to secure voluntary compliance at every opportunity, because that is the best means of achieving industrial relations results. The fourth area of debate relates to individual and collective rights and obligations. Let me make these points quickly: this legislation does not authorise closed shops; the Commission's powers will be confined to awarding preference; a responsible system of conscientious objection is maintained. It is quite wrong to claim that the Bill will place Australia in breach of international standards of freedom of association-as some honourable senators, including Senator Knowles, Senator Chaney and others, have said-because these international standards do not require legislative protection of the right not to join a union. Much has been said about individual freedoms and rights. I quote briefly from the report of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation chaired by Senator Harradine, tabled in the Senate in 1982: Some individuals are quick to recognise their perceived rights but are not also as quick to recognise their duty to associate with others for the common good. In addition there is a distinction between personal choice based on conscientious belief on the one hand and the dictates of self-centred individualism on the other. Those are the immortal words of Senator Harradine, who must be regarded as something of an individual, if not self-centred. The other main areas of debate, of course, relate to union structures. The Opposition criticises the Government for its changes in relation to the registration and amalgamation of unions. The Opposition, unlike Senator McLean, overlooks what is achievable in our system. Its views are totally contrary to those of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, the Myers report, the Jackson Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing Industry, and the Coombs Royal Commission, all of which recommended fewer unions and higher membership requirements. I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. I seem to have run out of time. We will have the opportunity during the committee stage to deal with some of the other issues at length. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL 1988 Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together. Senator Button-I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum for each Bill relating to the amendments to be moved by the Government. I think they have been circulated. The CHAIRMAN —Yes, they have been circulated. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.58) —The Opposition will not be moving amendments to these clauses but I thought it might be an opportunity to give some indication to the Committee of the task that we face which is to deal with a very substantial number of amendments principally being put forward by the Opposition, although a number are being put forward by the Government and also by the Australian Democrats. I think it might shorten the debate on the specific clauses and on the specific amendments if I make a couple of general comments about the Opposition's amendments. The amendments put forward changes which will bring into this legislation some of the elements of the industrial relations policy which the Opposition announced in June of this year. The major thrust of the amendments is to reduce the centralised elements of the system by making it more flexible, including the operation of the centralised system itself, and indeed the first amendment goes to that question. The second bank of amendments relates to the question of voluntary unionism and that has a certain piquancy today in the Senate, given that a couple of people just lost their jobs in this Parliament House because of their refusal to join or not to join trade unions as they please rather than being subject to the direction of a trade union or indeed an employer in that regard. There will be a bank of amendments which relate to the fact that at the moment, on the admission of the Government itself, there are no effective compliance provisions in the law in relation to voluntary compliance, which is the sort of compliance that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has just indicated he would prefer to see where voluntary compliance for one reason or another is simply not occurring. Nobody would quarrel with what Senator Button had to say a few minutes ago which was that the voluntary compliance would be preferred. The reality is, and it is known to virtually every Australian, that at times people involved in the industrial relations system in Australia flout the right of other people and do not comply with their obligations under the system. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) advised the Parliament in May of last year that the present compliance provisions are effectively moribund. They are not working and this Bill does nothing to remedy that deficiency. We will be proposing amendments to change the provisions relating to trade union structure. We do that because this Bill is promoting a viewpoint which has been advanced by the ACTU that in matters relating to trade unions, big is beautiful. Apparently size is the criterion for excellence. That is a view which is certainly not shared by the Opposition and is not shared by participants in the industrial relations field, including many trade union participants. The idea that it is only small unions which cause difficulties in the industrial relations system and the idea that creating larger unions through amalgamations which may have little or nothing to do with the logical industry structure will necessarily improve things, is not a viewpoint which is accepted by the Opposition or by many people who, on a day to day basis, are practically involved in this industrial relations system. The approach of the Opposition is one which aims to pay much greater regard to the principle of freedom of association. We believe that in Australia one should start with the proposition that individuals are free to join or not to join trade unions, or indeed to join or not to join employer associations, according to their perception of their own interest. It should not be a situation where they are bullied or intimidated or told that it will cost them their business or their employment if they do not go along with the directions of somebody that they must join an association, a trade union or otherwise, without regard to their personal preference. The principle that we are advancing in our amendments is that the public interest lies in promoting direct employer-employee dealing at the enterprise level. In other words, if we want a more productive Australia-and we need a more productive Australia if living standards are to rise and we are to pay off our debts; indeed I understand that the objectives of the Government are to produce a more productive Australia-then we have to encourage greater direct dealing and cooperation between employers and employees in this country. It is a widely understood fact that in many circumstances existing trade union structures and not least those structures which are already large, often intervene in a quite destructive way in the direct and cooperative dealings between employers and employees. Our amendments aim to facilitate the creation of single enterprise bargaining units. We are in no sense setting our face against trade unions; that is not a matter which is even in the back of our minds. It is certainly no part of our agenda. What we are saying is that we want units which are relevant to the economic challenges which face this country and to the economic task that individual enterprises have to perform. The question of large or small, in our view, has been grossly overplayed in this particular debate. One can point to Germany and to the small number of large unions in that country as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce did in his response. One can equally point to Japan where there are a very large number of small unions. In each case one can say that there has been a success in achieving continuous economic growth and a high level of productivity as well as a high level of competitiveness. What we would say about both Japan and Germany is that the union structures that they have do not, as they do in Australia, interrupt or interfere with the workplace relationships within enterprises. That is the disability, and is the fault in the system that our amendments seek to eradicate. We do not do that by saying that one can put into the law some direction as to precisely what shape trade unions should adopt. We say that in the end that is a matter for employers and employees to work out as they pursue their respective interests in the knowledge that they have an overriding common interest in prosperity and in success. We believe that if the structures are freed up to permit people to pursue their interests in that way, they will move to a more logical trade union structure for this country than the presently proposed amalgamations are likely to produce. I am sure that in the course of the committee debate we will look at some of the proposals for amalgamation which lie on the table at the moment. I do not think that the Minister at the table will be able to say that those amalgamations are in any sense likely to produce a situation where we have the ideal of single enterprise bargaining units which enable people to deal with each other without the complexity of demarcation disputes and so on. I suppose the simplest argument that is normally advanced with respect to the large union question is that it is likely to lead to a reduction in the number of demarcation disputes. I hope that the Minister might be able to produce some hard evidence that that is so. I do not think that he will. On what we have seen of the statistics it appears that he is more likely to have difficulties in the demarcation dispute area where we are dealing with large craft based unions than if we are dealing with small unions. Indeed the case has been put directly to the Opposition by a number of small unions that they are not the source of industrial problems, that it is much more likely to be the larger trade unions. Senator Button —If you have small craft based unions you derogate from the possibility of multiskilling and a whole range of flexibility. That is the problem. Senator CHANEY —That is fine to the extent that people can be encouraged to enter into the award restructuring which is currently under way and to the extent that they can be brought into more rational industry based or enterprise based structures. Those propositions will certainly have the support of the Opposition. What we say is that the mere pursuit of size will not of itself produce the outcome that the Minister apparently wants to achieve. In these general comments, I want to challenge the suggestion that what has been put forward by the Opposition are not serious amendments, that they are merely a vehicle for advancing a view. The fact of the matter is that if one looks at, for example, the enforcement provisions and the compliance provisions that the Opposition is proposing should be inserted into this Bill, one sees that they are very much along the lines of the compliance provisions which the Minister sought to put into the predecessor to this Bill just a little over 12 months ago. I think it is quite absurd to suggest that the enactment of effective compliance provisions in the Federal legislation will in some way destroy the balance of this Bill or in any way cause an imbalance or a problem in terms of the varying State and Federal jurisdictions which will continue to apply to this country. I think that the general comments made by the Minister are simply not warranted on facts and again I invite him during the course of the debate to demonstrate, where particular amendments are being brought forward, in what way those amendments will interfere with, or conflict with, the operation of the federal system of industrial relations which will continue to apply in this country. I also want to say that, whilst there may be a good deal of common ground between the Government and the Opposition with respect to the general objectives which are being pursued, a government will continue to get the support of the Opposition where it pursues policies which will add to the flexibility of the labour market in this country. I give an example of that in our support and encouragement of the approach to award restructuring which has been pioneered by the metal trades associations and the metal unions. We certainly think this is a substantial and positive move in the Australian labour market. Those areas of agreement should not mask the fact that what we are seeking to do is remove elements of the present system which prevent more of that successful move towards flexibility than can apply under the Government's proposals. Senator Button referred to the Government's spectacularly successful wages policy. The truth of the matter is that productivity in this country remains stagnant and nominal wages, that is the amount of money wages that people receive in this country, will go up again this year at about twice the rate of many of our trading competitors. Our competitiveness will not decline, because our inflation rate is also running at or worse than twice the rate of many of our trading competitors. But it is simply not a satisfactory outcome for Australia to go on having money wage increases which are simply gobbled up by a high level of inflation which preserves our competitiveness merely by in the long term guaranteeing that we will have a less valuable currency, by inflating ourselves in that direction. I agree with the Minister that friction has to be avoided in transitional mechanisms as the system pushes towards greater flexibility. Again I invite him during the discussion on specific amendments to tell the chamber where any proposal of the Opposition would give rise to additional friction-by which I guess he means industrial disputation or industrial difficulties within workplaces. I make those general comments because the Opposition is seeking in the circulated amendments to move the system further down the path of greater flexibility because we believe that is vital to us. We think that our international debt and our stagnant living standards can be dealt with only if we achieve higher productivity. We go along with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and those other bodies which have reported on the Australian labour market and regard the need for greater flexibility as virtually self-evident. I commend clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.09) —I am delighted with Senator Chaney's broad-mindedness in this debate: he is supporting clauses 1 and 2 of the Industrial Relations Bill 1988, which I thought he might have had some difficulty with. He made some general observations about the legislation which I will comment on rather than deal with them on an ad hoc basis. At the second reading stage I said that the Opposition amendments constitute, in a sense, a vehicle for advancing a view about industrial relations-by the way, I am not condemning that; I think it is quite a legitimate thing to do-but that they do not constitute a comprehensive and rational set of amendments to this legislation. I can illustrate that point in one or two ways. First of all, under clause 3, Objects of Act, subclauses 3 (b), (c) and (d) refer to the functions of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as being the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, the facilitation of prompt settlement of industrial disputes, providing a framework for settlement of industrial disputes and so on. I may have totally misinterpreted the Opposition's amendment but I do not think so. The expression `industrial disputes' in the objectives of the Bill must be read in the light of the definition in the Bill. An industrial dispute is something which is now, by a series of legal decisions and so on, capable of fairly circumspect definition. It requires an interstate element, for example. It requires a number of other things. If, by the Opposition's amendments, the legislation is changed to a system based on enterprise bargaining between employers and employees directly, that will remove the parties to industrial disputes as defined in this legislation-and as still will be defined in this legislation after the Opposition's amendments. They would remove the whole rationale of the legislative framework that has been built up on the basis of the rubber workers case and the capacity of organisations to represent classes of employers or employees. All of that would be removed. Yet the Opposition would still retain other provisions in the legislation. For example, in relation to the objectives clause, the Opposition's amendments refer to the encouragement of the organisation of representative bodies of employers and employees and their registration under the legislation. The thrust of the Opposition's amendments is totally inconsistent with that objective. It is no good putting at the front words to provide for freedom of association-which, in legislation, is gobbledegook, if I may say so-and saying that that changes the essential objective of the legislation. If one looks at clause 3 and the Opposition amendments one sees the inconsistencies which are already arising. I was trying to make a point about the conflict inherent in the transitional phase. There is a whole system of interrelated State and Federal industrial tribunals. By and large the State industrial tribunals are predicated on the same assumptions about representative organisations of employees and a whole range of issues as the Federal legislation. Without some transitional mechanisms to get from that position to where the Opposition wants to go, if the amendments were carried there would be enormous difficulties, confusion and conflict over that. It may be said that out of conflict, confusion and chaos a new phoenix will arise, a new spirit in Australian industrial relations based on the genius of Senator Crichton-Browne supporting Senator Chaney in respect of these amendments. I do not think that it is likely to happen. There are problems about the Opposition's amendments generally which I do not want to dwell on at great length. Perhaps we could get about debating them. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.16) —It is probably true that we could deal with the issues that have now been raised by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in dealing with the specific amendments that are to be moved to clause 3. If I could simply make a brief response to the general comments he has made, the reality is, as Senator Button has already pointed out, that we have a federal system of industrial relations. In other words, this Bill covers only one element of the industrial relations system in this country, that is, the element which is under the Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration power and which is dealt with by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We have, contemporaneously with that, a series of State commissions and there is a degree of interaction between those two systems. Quite apart from that, there are a very substantial number of employer-employee relationships in this country which are of a contractual or informal nature and a very substantial number, particularly in the small business sector of the Australian business community, where these formal State and Commonwealth systems have very little impact. In addition, we have in some States, and most importantly in Queensland, provisions at the State level which enable people to regulate their industrial relations by forms of agreement which are outside the arbitrated forms of agreement that are dealt with within the system generally. The Commonwealth system, not of necessity but in fact, can impact upon those other arrangements. I suspect that during the committee stage we will be debating, for example, the efforts which have been made by the trade union movement to interfere with the early attempts in Queensland to deal with employee-employer relationships by means of voluntary employment agreements. So an employer and a set of employees, having entered into a valid and binding employment arrangement under Queensland State law, may now find themselves brought before the Commonwealth Commission and an attempt made by a trade union to override the voluntarily assumed contractual relationship between the parties in the interests of presumably maintaining a trade union and award hegemony in an area of concern to the trade union. It is vitally important that this Act-we know it will become an Act-does not contain provisions which can be used to override other elements of the industrial relations system within Australia which are moving down the very track that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has sought to promote. There has been no more assiduous Minister in the Government in promoting the whole idea that Australians have to develop a new workplace culture. As I understand it, Senator Button has been urging the Australian people that they have to become much more concerned about quality and productivity. He is seeking major changes in the way we think and behave in our workplaces. I would say that the Opposition has never in any even minor way sought to sabotage those elements of the Government's approach that we believe are in the national interests. I have sought in that shorthand way to describe what I see as the positive elements of the Government's approach. The sorts of amendments that were canvassed by Senator Button in his initial and general comments go very much to ensuring that the system is not turned back into bad old ways which the Minister would not wish to see restored. Where there are elements, be they State, Federal or indeed private elements, of the system, which are moving Australia down a more productive track, then we do not want to provide tools or weapons in this legislation which would enable people who want to turn the clock back to go before the Commission and to obtain remedies which will leave people where they were, that is, in some of the mullock heaps. The Budget Papers talk about the mullock heaps of restrictive practices in this country. The Opposition amendments are aiming to ensure that the positive movements in industrial relations in this country are preserved and, where possible, accelerated. I simply make the point to the Minister that he was quite wrong when he suggested that in these amendments we are trying to move completely down the path of our own policy. We have not put forward amendments for the very broad framework that we envisage which would enable employers and employees generally to regulate the whole of their workplace arrangements by agreement. We have not put forward that sort of fundamental second stream approach in this set of amendments. Our general approach is that, for that approach to succeed, it is very important that the overall industrial relations framework be in an appropriate condition so that employers and employees are dealing with each other on a basis of reasonable equality, and there is not an imbalance of power in the relationship. Given the Government's resistance to sensible compliance provisions-the sorts of provisions that it sought to put in the Act in only May of last year-and given the Government's resistance to the principle of voluntary unionism, we do not think it is appropriate at this stage to be putting forward those detailed amendments which, by inference at least, Senator Button was suggesting are part of the package of amendments we are putting up now. The amendments we have chosen to put forward are limited to those that we believe could properly and sensibly be made to the framework put forward by this legislation. Again, I invite the Minister, as we discuss specific amendments, to draw our attention to those areas where he believes that is not the case. That is a matter we can deal with in the specifics of the debate. The CHAIRMAN —I have permitted Senator Chaney, because he will move a large number of amendments, to explain the overall thrust of his amendments but it is not a subject at this stage that is open for general debate. If honourable senators wish to talk to clauses 1 and 2 I will call them. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(12.19) —Last night in the second reading debate on the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 I referred to five of the most detrimental areas that were part of this Bill. I would like to address again in relation to clauses 1 and 2 and some of those aspects of the legislation. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Chapman, I have just ruled that your remarks must be relevant to the terms of clauses 1 and 2. Senator CHAPMAN —I am addressing my remarks to clause 1, the title of the Bill. The CHAIRMAN —I will confine the honourable senator fairly strictly. Senator CHAPMAN —The shortcomings of this legislation include provisions for the amalgamation of unions and the support given to compulsory unionism. The CHAIRMAN —Order! That is not relevant to the title. There will be plenty of opportunity in the debate to raise those points. We are dealing only with the title and the commencing date at this point of debate. If the honourable senator wishes to raise the question of the title being inappropriate then he is entitled to but not the general thrust of the Bill. Senator CHAPMAN —I am quite happy to raise these remarks in the debate on more specific clauses, now or then, whichever is your preferred option, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable senator will have plenty of opportunity later in discussion to deal with any of those points. Clauses agreed to. Clause 3 (Objects of Act). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.20) —I have a series of amendments to clause 3. Firstly, I move: (1) Page 1, paragraph 3 (a), lines 10 and 11, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: `(a) to promote industrial harmony and co-operation between employers and employees;'. Mr Chairman, the existing object which I seek to delete reads: 3. The objects of this Act are: (a) to promote industrial harmony and co-operation among the parties involved in industrial relations in Australia; We are seeking quite specifically to remove the reference to `parties involved in industrial relations in Australia' and to use the expression `employers and employees'. We are moving that amendment because we think it is a simple matter of fact that if Australia is to have a more productive economy then it is central that we get better workplace relationships. In particular, there should be the closest possible cooperation between employers and employees and, as far as possible, direct dealing between employers and employees. Over the two-year period when I was spokesman for the Opposition on matters relating to industry, technology and commerce, shadowing Senator Button, I spent a great deal of time talking to people who were in the business of trying to improve their productivity. I visited many enterprises in Australia. Subsequently I spent some time visiting enterprises in the United States. The pattern was exactly the same in every case, namely, that if a firm was successful in increasing its productivity, that was a function of a good, positive and direct working relationship between employers and employees. It seemed to me to be a common factor. In those circumstances anything which gets in the way of, or which is a barrier to, that sort of direct dealing, is clearly a significant negative, not only for the employers and the employees concerned-although it is important to them because the capacity both to maintain employment and to make higher profits, and hence to pay higher wages, depends on their success in working together-but also for the national interest. Our overall level of debt and lack of productivity rises are matters of concern to every Australian and adversely affect every Australian. I have made the point in a number of debates in this chamber that elements of the current system which would not be changed by this legislation can get in the way of what we are seeking to promote. An example from the Minister's own State of Victoria which I cited was the failure of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union successfully to undertake second tier negotiations in the meat industry. A number of employees and employers saw that their common interests would be served by their getting together and working out how to improve productivity and pay higher wages. I gave the quite specific example of a company known as Castle Bacon Pty Ltd, with a work force of over 500 employees, which, on the basis of direct discussion with its employees, obtained agreement to a series of productivity improvements and, in turn, gave its agreement to a 4 per cent wage increase. The employees concerned elected six representatives to put their case to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They went before the Commission and applied to have the agreement given effect to under the restructuring and efficiency principles of the last national wage case. That was successfully opposed by the union. The tragedy is that the Commission, in acceding to the union request, not only brought the union in as a party, but also did not countenance a series of productivity improvements. It put in a series of relatively minor gains, which the employer thought were worth maybe 1.9 per cent, rather than 4 per cent. The sad thing for Australia as well as for the people involved is that a chance to make a productivity gain was cast aside. That resulted from the system having as its concern the parties to our industrial relations system, namely, employer organisations and trade unions, and employers and trade unions, and not the people who are really involved-the employers and employees. I gave another example of meatworks in Queensland in very similar circumstances. The Deputy President of the Arbitration Commission, Mr Riordan, a Labor ex-member of this Parliament, said that all discussions between `the parties'-his expression-should involve the union, employer organisation and employer. His direction was: Employer-initiated conferences at an enterprise level occurring without the presence of the union should cease because such conferences will not assist this Commission in its important task of preventing and resolving disputes. The Opposition is in no way seeking to keep a trade union out of an issue where there is a disagreement between employers and employees and the employees wish to be represented by a trade union. There is no suggestion that the trade unionists should have their freedom restricted in any way. Indeed, our later amendments will give employees greater freedom than the Government proposes to say who should represent their interests. Our policy is that, even where it is a matter of direct dealing outside the system, employees are entitled to nominate a union as their agent if they wish. There is no attempt to exclude the trade unions if that is what the employees want. But in the cases I have cited the trade union has been standing between the employees and a wage rise, and between the employers and productive changes. It is that which we think is an absurdity. It flies in the face of the logic of every general industry proposition that is put forward by this Government. This amendment, therefore, seeks to say to the Commission which will henceforth be established under this Act that the object is to promote industrial harmony and cooperation among employers and employees, not some entity known as parties to industrial relations, but among the employers and employees who have to make things work in this country. I commend that principle and I invite the Minister to tell us why that is a difficulty for the Government and why it cannot be supported. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(12.31) —The Australian Democrats will be opposing this initial series of amendments. I would like to take the opportunity to touch on our general rationale. In my speech during the second reading debate I referred to the fact that we saw the cluster of amendments coming from the Opposition as, in essence, being an attempt dramatically to shift the blueprint or philosophy behind the legislation. That process begins with this first amendment. We do not believe that it is reasonable that that shift should occur. In essence, wherever we detect amendments to be of that nature, contributing to an overall shift philosophically from one side of the dichotomy to the other side, we see that as being unrealistic. We do not identify with it, not only for philosophical reasons but also for other reasons. That process begins with this amendment and the associated cluster of amendments. Therefore, we will not be supporting it. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(12.32) —I wish to support the amendment moved by Senator Chaney to clause 3 and the further amendments Senator Chaney will be moving to this clause. It is important that we move to an industrial relations system that promotes industrial harmony and co- operation between employers and employees, as is the intent of the first amendment moved by Senator Chaney. The way to promote that is to encourage direct negotiations between employers and employees, to allow employers and employees the option of direct negotiations, and not simply to abdicate those negotiations to industrial organisations, whether they be trade unions or employer organisations. Other amendments which the Opposition will be moving to this clause include an amendment to encourage the growth, development, productivity and international competitiveness of Australian industry as requirements that the proposed Australian Industrial Relations Commission must take into account in wage determinations. They also amend the objects to encourage adherence to the rule of law in industrial relations, to encourage direct dealing between employers and employees within each enterprise; to minimise interference in relation to enterprises by persons or bodies who have no direct interest in those enterprises; and to facilitate the consolidation of single enterprise bargaining units, that is, enterprise unions or enterprise bargaining units of industry-based unions. Those amendments all go to the heart of our current industrial relations problems. As I said, it is essential that we get to a situation where there is a much more direct relationship between employers and employees, where the responsibility for good industrial relations is referred to the workplace in which those industrial relations take place and industrial relations decisions are not taken at a level isolated from the workplace. Unless the Opposition's amendments are accepted, this legislation will entrench the current longstanding practice of industrial relations in this country which has led to much industrial disputation because it does not relate to what is happening on the ground in the workplace. The reason for that is that this legislation is very much based on the recommendations of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. The Government acknowledged that earlier in the second reading debate. It must be remembered that the Hancock Committee membership was dominated by the cosy industrial relations club. It reflected the membership of industry peak councils, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and tribunals, which have all become a common interest group concentrating on short term compromise solutions rather than tackling basic problems and longer term issues with regard to industrial relations. I believe that this legislation also owes something to the propositions put forward in that infamous document Australia Reconstructed, which sought to emphasise the corporate state and to institute bigger unions as part of the unions' push for the further entrenchment of their privileged position. Again, that is highlighted in this legislation, particularly when we consider the provisions with regard to the amalgamation of unions and the requirement that, within three years, all unions must have a membership of at least 3,000. So we must move towards a more market-oriented system of industrial relations and wage determination. We must seek to overcome the advocacy nature of our present industrial relations structure, which heightens the atmosphere of conflict rather than promoting an atmosphere of cooperation between employers and employees. We must recognise that, in our post-industrial society, there is a movement to small scale organisation with modern technology and entrepreneurship, meaning that smaller scale production units have become more viable relative to larger scale mass production. Senator Button —Do not come in here talking about a post-industrial society. You do not know what you are talking about. Senator CHAPMAN —I put it to Senator Button that I would know as much about the post-industrial society as he would, having done at least some work on that subject. Senator Bolkus —But no-one would believe you. Senator CHAPMAN —More people would believe me than would believe the honourable senator on that subject. Our industrial relations system must, therefore, incorporate the greater flexibility, which Senator Chaney was talking about earlier in this debate, to encourage productivity growth. So we need a more decentralised means of wage determination so that direct negotiations and agreements can be reached between employers and employees acting at the individual enterprise level. This legislation will do nothing to achieve that goal. In fact, it will do nothing to achieve the goal set out by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his address to the National Press Club after the May economic statement when he said that labour market reform is `the last great area of change to be overcome'. If this legislation goes through without the amendments that have been proposed by the Opposition, particularly to its objects in clause 3, it will further reinforce the existing centralised control system and inflexible labour market from which Australia has suffered for far too long. Wage determination must be based on a combination of national productivity and Australia's international competitiveness with the individual capacity to pay at enterprise level, and that can only be achieved if we institute a system of industrial relations which places much greater emphasis on enterprise bargaining and on reaching agreement at the enterprise level between employers and employees. This legislation, as it stands, fails to implement these reforms which have been advocated not only by Senator Chaney and me for some years but also by various industrial relations experts, by economists and by many unionists and employers. They all agree that the propositions that the Opposition is putting forward will go a long way towards remedying the problems inherent in the current system. It can be shown clearly through economic analysis that future prosperity in our economy will be dependent upon the introduction of a more flexible and enterprise-oriented industrial relations system. For that reason I strongly support the first amendment which Senator Chaney has moved and those amendments which he will subsequently be moving to clause 3. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.40) —As has just been said, the very essence of much of the thrust of Senator Chaney's amendments is contained, in a sense, in the amendments to clause 3. It is fair to say that our amendments are designed not only to provide some balance in the industrial relations equation but also to create the correct environment. It is not a question of the Opposition's amendments being proposed on the basis of being anti-union, or giving a sense of strength to employers, or creating an environment for confrontation between unions and employers. It is our intention, by our amendments, to provide a constructive and good environment for industrial relations-to provide, quite properly, an incentive for workers to achieve and for employers to offer an incentive to workers to achieve-an environment that allows for creativity of both employers and employees and an environment that allows the fulfilment of the aspirations of both employees and employers. It seems to me that very often in these debates on industrial relations the end purpose of legislation is lost. We tend to get ourselves bogged down with who is right, who is wrong, whose interests are protected and whose interests are eroded, rather than looking at the end of the day at the framework, at the philosophical concept, of what good industrial relations are all about. It is certainly not exclusive to the individual employee or employer; it is for the good of all of us. As I have said, our amendments to clause 3 make specific mention of a number of matters. Where there is a conflict of ambition or interest to the parties-they might have different priorities or might put a different emphasis on priorities-we look at a proper and substantial framework being set up which would have the capacity to deal with these conflicts. Mr Willis conceded in the second reading speech covering his 1987 legislation that the bans clause provisions had fallen into disrepute. The truth of the matter is-and Senator Button would concede this-that there are really no effective enforcement provisions. Senator Button —What has this got to do with this clause? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Do I need to read the amendments out for Senator Button? I am sure that he has them before him. The CHAIRMAN —There is only one amendment before the Chair at the moment, amendment No. 1, which states in part, `to promote industrial harmony and co-operation between employers and employees'. I think the honourable senator's remarks so far have been directed towards improving industrial harmony. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —This is so, Mr Chairman. I was talking about clause 3 generally. I will deal specifically with the set of words that has been moved by Senator Chaney if Senator Button wishes, but it seems to me that, in as much as the amendments embrace the general thrust of our proposals, there is no point in my hopping up and down every five minutes. But I will do that if the honourable senator wishes. Senator Button —Not at all, senator; you got me wrong. I apologise; I withdraw; I will do anything I can, just as long as you do not hop up and down on every clause. I abase myself. The CHAIRMAN —Clause 3 and amendment (1) are jointly before the Chair. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The set of words which is used in the amendment-`to promote industrial harmony and cooperation between employers and employees'-is not a glib phrase. That is really intended to have substantial meaning. We can only give it substantial meaning if we go behind it and understand those matters which impinge upon it, and they include the enforcement provisions and the present bans clause, and the relief that is presently offered in this Bill in clause 178 in respect of clause 181, which is of no account; it will achieve absolutely nothing. All it will do is guarantee a protraction of the dispute and, at the end of the day, when there is a finding, in no way will that be enforced to the point of ensuring that employees and employers comply. We talk in that clause about the virtue of facilitating the consolidation of a single enterprise bargaining unit. That, in my view, is certain to promote industrial harmony and cooperation between employers and employees. For my part, I do not make judgments as to what is a suitable size for a union-whether it is 3,000, 1,000, 500 or 100. I do not think that that ought to be the criterion for good industrial relations or for good unions. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Foreign Minister designate and Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer the Minister to the alleged comments by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in which the maturity of our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, was questioned; the 150 million people of Indonesia were described as `erratic and hostile'; our largest trading partner, Japan, was termed as hypocritical; and the then Foreign Minister of Malaysia was described as oafish. Does the Minister agree with these views of his former colleague and how does he reconcile them with the Government's alleged attempts at improving relations with the countries of South East Asia? Given the wide publicity that these views have now received and the significant position that Mr Hayden will shortly occupy in this country, what does the Government propose to do to minimise the damage done to our relations with our nearest neighbours? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government strongly regrets and condemns any leak of sensitive information at any time. The reports in this morning's press are therefore a matter of serious concern to the Government. If the documents of the kind described are indeed in the possession of Mr Toohey, obviously they were obtained illegally. The facts do need to be fully investigated before anyone, including Senator Chaney, jumps to any conclusions about anything. This morning the Government moved promptly to initiate an investigation, to be conducted by the Australian Federal Police. Until we have the results of that investigation it is not appropriate to comment-and clearly we cannot-on the circumstances which may have produced the reports in question. Obviously we are fully conscious of the need to explore all the proper steps that might be taken to protect Australia's interests from the damage that could be done as a result of the publication of confidential material relating to foreign affairs and national security. As to the substance of the documents which Mr Toohey claims to have obtained and to which Senator Chaney referred in his question, there is only one general comment that I think can be appropriately made at this stage: other countries can be completely assured that Australia's foreign policy is as has been articulated in definitive statements by the Government, including our complete commitment to the development of friendly and productive relations with all countries in our region and our commitment to an independent foreign policy based on Australia's national interests. None of this is qualified in any way by the publication of alleged private comments by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his response and note his reliance on the policy as articulated, but I draw his attention to the difficulty in pursuing that policy and convincing our neighbours that that is our policy when reports of this nature are available. Will the Minister keep the Senate fully informed on the inquiries that he says are being made? This is no longer a matter of private government administration; it is now a matter of public interest going to the maladministration of foreign affairs by this Government. Will the Minister give a clear undertaking that this Senate will be kept fully advised on the inquiries the Government is undertaking and of the outcome and the action which the Government proposes to take? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not concede for a moment that any question of maladministration is involved here. Without conceding the accuracy of any of the allegedly leaked documents, it is of course quite proper for opinions to be expressed privately by Ministers to officials in the course of their duties. What is outrageous is that comments and material of that obvious sensitivity, and which are part and parcel of the administration of any department and any government, can be leaked, if indeed that has been the case in this instance. Yes, I will keep the Senate informed as to the progress of the investigation, because obviously an issue of significant public importance and interest is involved. Senator DEVEREUX —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of an article appearing in the Australian of 30 August which claims that the Government does not have adequate monitoring powers in place to check the progress of the partnership for development agreement? Senator BUTTON —That article was drawn to my attention and I understand from what might be called the grapevine that it had not been completed at the time it went to print, which might explain some of the things in it that I found difficult to understand. First, for example, it referred to the partnership for development agreements as a trend to industry protection at the same time that tariffs were being lowered in other areas. No one is being asked to engage in any uncompetitive activity internationally as a result of the partnership for development agreements. So I find that unusual. The article also said that there is difficulty in monitoring offset requirements. It is not that there is difficulty in monitoring offset requirements under the offsets scheme, but difficulty for international corporations to find appropriate offset partners. It is very difficult for them to do that and that is a problem, as is monitoring. The article says that there are not adequate monitoring powers in place to check the progress of partnership for development agreements. The terms of the partnership for development agreements have been clearly stated on a number of occasions with respect to performance, research, development and exports. The agreements are audited annually in terms of progress under the commitments made by the partner. In each of the partnerships annual targets are established, and they are audited. The review process also focuses on future activities by the partners and, of course, there is also a provision for the termination of partnership agreements by the Commonwealth which could be utilised where serious under-performance by a partner is established in the audit process. What is the sanction with respect to Commonwealth termination? The sanction with respect to Commonwealth termination is simply that by entering into a partnership agreement the Commonwealth acknowledges that an international corporation has established activities in this country in the field of research and development, manufacturing perhaps, and software development in terms of the provision of computer industry related services which are of such order that the partner can be absolved from its obligations under the offsets program. If the Commonwealth in the course of terminating an agreement says, `This company is no longer of this character', I would have thought that that would be something of a sanction. As I said to Senator Lewis the other day while answering a question, these agreements do not represent contractual relationships between the Commonwealth and the corporate partners. There are no binding commercial contracts; it is not intended to be that way. It is an arrangement between the Commonwealth and international information industry companies as to how they do business in Australia. Senator Lewis —How can you leave a partnership if it is not a binding commercial agreement? Senator BUTTON —Very simply. Senator Lewis —If you have an arrangement, you can call it what you like. Senator BUTTON —If we do not want to call it a partnership, we call it something else. Senator Lewis —Nonsense! You are a lawyer. Didn't you learn anything? Senator BUTTON —I am a lawyer but not a pedant, and there is an important distinction between the two. Senator Lewis understands what I am saying. I am sure that if he has anything to contribute to this matter he will do it by way of debate and not by interjection. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister for Home Affairs to the failure so far by the House of Representatives to pass the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill to make informal all ticks and crosses votes during Saturday's referendum. Is it a fact that this failure, despite the agreed objectives of all parties in this Parliament, is because the Government has advice from the Attorney-General's Department that the Bill may cast some doubt on the constitutional validity of the referendum? Does the Minister recall my providing him earlier this week with an independent legal opinion by an eminent Queen's Counsel, Mr Alan Goldberg, strongly disputing the advice of the Attorney-General's Department? What is the Attorney-General's response to this opinion, and why is the Government still stalling on this issue? Given that Australians are going to vote on the referendum questions in three days' time, will the Minister now give the Senate an assurance that the Government will pass my Bill through the House of Representatives so that it will be absolutely beyond doubt that the only valid votes on Saturday will be those where people write `yes', or preferably `no', in the spaces provided on the ballot paper? Senator ROBERT RAY —The answer to the first part of Senator Short's question is yes; the answer to the second part is yes, by other reasons. Most people, if they just listen to Senator Short, would not understand the background. The allegation made by press release is that somehow this Government has been trying to have ticks and crosses by deliberate policy counted in this referendum. That accusation made by the Opposition is absolutely baseless. The proof is that we introduced legislation into the House of Representatives in March which was passed, despite three attempted Liberal amendments, and which was put to this chamber on 3 June. The vital amendment that would have outlawed ticks and crosses was defeated by all those sitting opposite in alliance with the Democrats. So when one looks at the Government's bona fides on this matter, it is no use Opposition senators saying that the Government is stalling or trying to permit ticks and crosses. Our record is there. Last June we attempted to cover this point. When the issue was again raised some weeks ago, I issued instructions for legislation to be prepared that would again make the situation quite clear-that is, that a distinct yes or a distinct no would be a valid vote, and that ticks and crosses would not be allowed. Acting on that, I put the processes in train. We then received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that it would be illegal to change the rules part way through the ballot. I provided that legal opinion from Mr Pat Brazil to Senator Short some days ago when it was in proper form. Prior to that the Liberal Party of Australia sought informal advice and then received formal advice from Mr Allan Goldberg, a person whose knowledge in these areas I acknowledge here today. He is a lawyer who often takes cases for the Liberal Party and who often approaches these matters with an incisive mind-not an infallible mind. Subsequent to receiving that advice I gave it to the Attorney-General's Department for an assessment. It has provided me-I must say that it came at only five minutes to two-with a written response which I shall table. The two key points in it that one must remember is that already many tens of thousands of people have voted by post and pre-poll voting. It is the view of the Attorney-General's Department that one cannot change the formality of their votes now. They have already cast their votes under existing law, and would endanger the legality of constitutional change to change the rules part way through. I refer Senator Short to section 128 of the Constitution, which I am sure he has already looked at. Not only does the Opposition legislation propose to outlaw ticks and crosses, but anyone who makes a mistake in one of the squares and puts `No' or `Yes' and then crosses it out and puts `No' or `Yes' adjacent to the square, which has always been acceptable in House of Representatives elections, would also find their votes misdirected. If the Opposition believes that the original advice from the Attorney-General's Department to the Electoral Commission-there is no government role in this per se-is wrong and that its interpretation of ticks and crosses is wrong, that will have to be taken up after the referendum. Anyone in this chamber with any realism would know that that will become a factor only if the vote is somewhere between 52 and 48 per cent. Anything over and above that, both sides will drop off and say that it is irrelevant. The one lesson to be learned out of this relates to the Opposition's mentality of just opposing. I do not blame the shadow Minister in this place, but I blame Mr Reith and Mr Sharp in the House of Representatives who initiated this and who badly briefed Senator Short. They did not understand the proposal when it came up last March and June. It is quite clear from the debate in the House of Representatives that they did not understand it. If ticks and crosses are allowed in this election, it lies on the Opposition's heads. We cannot change the rules halfway through, nor will we. I table the advice for information of honourable senators. Senator SHORT —I ask a supplementary question, without debating the earlier history as this is not the appropriate time. I disagree absolutely and very strongly with Senator Ray's interpretation of the earlier history. Does the Minister not agree that the Bill goes to the method of counting the vote, not the method of casting the vote, and that not one vote has yet been counted? Senator ROBERT RAY —A number of votes have already been cast under existing rules. It would not be right if we went into a House of Representatives election and announced three days before that there would be a proportional representation system. That is an absolutely ridiculous point. Senator Short —The instructions on the ballot paper are to vote yes or no. Senator ROBERT RAY —Of course, the instructions are to vote yes or no. Nothing that this Government has done has encouraged anyone to put a tick or a cross. Not only do the instructions say to vote yes or no, but anyone who advocates a tick or cross is subject to a $1,000 fine. Opposition members know that because we put it in the Act in 1983-84 to prevent people misleading the electorate. But one cannot change the rules halfway through if it imperils the legality of the Constitution. Senator Short says that history has nothing to do with it, but when he attacks the Government's bona fides I believe that it is essential to look at history to see whether we have been malevolent on this issue or not. Our score is on the board. We tried to change the position last session, but the Opposition and the Democrats thought otherwise. They bear the responsibility, not the Government. Senator AULICH —Is the Minister for Home Affairs aware that Perth residents are receiving in their letterboxes copies of a news sheet entitled `Wake up Australia', which contains arguments in favour of the No case for the Saturday referendums? Does the Minister realise that these news sheets have been carrying as inserts copies of the Liberal Party pamphlet advocating a No vote in the referendums? Could the Minister advise whether the distribution of the above information is in accordance with the laws governing referendums? Senator ROBERT RAY —When this matter was drawn to my attention, I checked the Electoral Act. From my reading of it and that of a couple of others, there would be nothing illegal in the inserting of the Liberal Party No case in the League of Rights publication `Wake up Australia'. My source for this information checked with the publisher how it came upon these Liberal Party leaflets and was told that the Liberal Party had given them for distribution. Whether to distribute separately or in the magazine referred to remains unclear. It is fairly disappointing but is typical of the referendum case of smear and fear run by the No case that they should go to the extremes they have gone to. They have gone to a whole range of extremes of distortion, especially in regard to questions 1 and 4-never confronting the central issue, but drifting off into the dark side of politics, as they do on a lot of other issues. There could be no bigger drift than to use the League of Rights in this campaign, as the Liberal Party in Western Australia appears to have done. But it was not long ago in the other chamber that Senator Boswell had to show courage to repudiate the League of Rights. Senator Chaney —In this chamber. Senator ROBERT RAY —When I say `in the other chamber', I am referring to the old Parliament House. This must be a unique occasion. The National Party is more or less in the vanguard of the decent thing. The National Party has repudiated the League of Rights and we have the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party going hand in hand with the League. I call on Western Australian Liberal senators to repudiate the League of Rights and the fact that they are using it for the No case in this referendum. Senator Patterson —On a point of order, Mr President: the Minister is debating the question. The question was whether it was legal or not, and he has already answered that. I submit that you should ask him to complete his answer. The PRESIDENT —Order! A Minister can answer a question in the way in which he sees fit. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am pointing out that it is a legal act to include the Liberal Party No case by request in the League of Rights material. Whilst it may be a legal right I point out the inconsistency-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. The Minister is now clearly misleading the Senate. He has told us that he has no knowledge of how this came about. He has no knowledge whether this occurred at anybody's request. The fact is that there is a great deal of publicly available information on the referendums, including the Liberal Party's publications. The Minister is not only debating the questions but also he is misleading the Senate within the terms of his own answer and he should be called to order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think the Minister has been in order. However, I point out that his answer is becoming very long. Senator ROBERT RAY —It has been interrupted a fair bit, Mr President. I conclude on this point: we have another sitting day tomorrow and I invite Senator Chaney and the rest of the Liberals from Western Australia to investigate the matter. If they come into this chamber and repudiate the League of Rights and say they are not involved with it in the campaign, so be it. It will be on the public record. But we know that there is very little on the other side-they rarely repudiate their own. I am just waiting for the National Party of Queensland to come in here and ask some of the Liberals questions on this matter. Quite clearly they have attempted to repudiate the League of Rights. It is another example of the Opposition-- Senator Hill —What did Peter Baume say in that debate you are talking about? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am asked what Senator Peter Baume said. I go by what people do, not by what they say. Senator Chaney —I again raise a point of order, Mr President. The Minister is again debating the question. He is ignoring the fact that Senator Austin Lewis spoke on behalf of the Opposition in the same debate as Senator Boswell. Again, I ask you, Mr President, to call the Minister to order. Senator Gareth Evans —On the point of order: for someone to interject, to get a response to the interjection and then to complain that the response is out of order is chutzpah of the highest order I have ever seen in the history of the Australian Parliament. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I ask Opposition senators to cease interjecting and I ask Senator Ray to answer through the Chair. Senator ROBERT RAY —I conclude on this note: I was asked a supplementary question, if we can call it that, by those opposite, `What about Senator Peter Baume's speech?' It was a marvellous speech, but in the end-the same applies in the immigration debate-it is what one does that counts; it is not the honey coloured words one puts on it. If Opposition senators wish to ally themselves with the League of Rights for letterboxing purposes, they should not come in with high principled, waffly speeches in this place. Senator McLEAN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of the seminar conducted by Dr Ted Steele of the Department of Biology at Wollongong University on Tuesday, 30 August, at the Australian National University on the subject of the findings of the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam? Is the Minister also aware that the conclusions of that seminar were that the current weight of evidence, including that which has emerged since the Evatt Royal Commission, leads inevitably to the conclusion that it has become more and more obvious that chronic pesticide exposure can lead to cancer as well as having other adverse effects? In view of this, in view of the very substantial scientific evidence which has emerged since the Evatt Royal Commission, and in view of the mishandling of information by the Commission, will the Government reconsider its attitude to the findings of the Commission and give veterans and their families the benefit of the doubt if they have ill health profiles consistent with the documented effects of exposure to agent orange? Senator REYNOLDS —I am advised by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that Dr Steele's views were based on various papers all but two of which were known and examined during the Evatt Royal Commission or as part of the Government's consideration of the agent orange issue. Senator Stone —Just table the answer. Senator REYNOLDS —Some honourable senators will be interested in the response. Obviously Senator Stone is not interested in veterans, but that does not surprise me. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs is obtaining a copy of the two remaining papers for examination. If Dr Steele wishes to submit new material to the Minister it will be examined. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 19 May 1988, when making public the Government's response to Mr Justice Evatt's report and Mr Hogg's assessment of it, indicated that the repatriation system would continue to provide for each veteran's case to be considered on its merits taking into account known medical and other evidence. I remind the Senate that under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, and as the Minister said in his May statement: . . . the Repatriation Commission is required to determine that an incapacity or death (claimed as related to the veteran's operational service) is war-caused unless the Commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination. Finally, the Government, through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, is continuing to monitor health trends within the Vietnam veteran community and relevant research both in Australia and overseas. Senator McLEAN —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Senator Reynolds in answering the question referred to the fact that some of the known references were cited by the Evatt Royal Commission. Is the Minister able to acknowledge that one such reference became the subject of a discussion after the Evatt Royal Commission in that the two authors appealed and objected to the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, saying in fact that the contents of their paper had been misrepresented and distorted; that they claimed compensation of $30,000; and that the Minister promised to offer some explanation of the Cabinet's position in relation to that claim? Senator REYNOLDS —No, I am not prepared to acknowledge that. I will take that part of the question on notice and get an answer for the honourable senator by tomorrow. Senator DEVLIN —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources. The Minister is actively negotiating the development of a forest accord to ensure that issues relating to forests will find common ground and that forest policies are based on commonsense. One of the aspects of the forest accord is the establishment of new tree plantations to improve productivity and to reduce the demands on native forest resources. Given the time implications of setting up plantations, can the Minister outline the initiatives he has set in place to ensure that sufficient incentive is there to enable the development of these plantations? Senator COOK —I thank Senator Devlin for the question. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator COOK —It is an important question about the future of a major industry in Australia, and I would have thought that Opposition senators would have appreciated the interest that Senator Devlin as a Tasmanian has shown in this matter. The realisation of a forest accord is something, I think, that is supported by all the parties that seek to influence forest policy in Australia. That is from the point of view of the unions concerned, from the point of view of the industry, from the point of view of those who work in the forests and from the point of view of conservationists who seek to preserve or protect part of Australia's native forests. All organisations have affirmed that they want to see an accord reached. Shortly the Government will commence the procedures to do so. All of the State governments and the Northern Territory Government, at the national forest Ministers meeting in Fremantle last month, supported the Commonwealth Government's proposition that a forest accord be undertaken. One of the essential features of an accord would be to expand the resource base so that we do not continue to have arguments over whether a stretch of native forest should be conserved or whether it should be logged. The prime objective in expanding the resource base is to encourage investment in plantations by private industry and to sponsor that investment so that, for pulp and paper manufacture for woodchips, hopefully later for saw logs, one can obtain the needs of a major industry in Australia from plantation work rather than rely on native forests. Senator Devlin asked me what we are doing about it. I point out that the national afforestation program is the provision within my portfolio under which we are proceeding to stimulate plantation investment. The program was established by the Government in 1987. It provides $15m over three years to stimulate a sustained increase in the level of investment by the States and private industry in hardwood plantations and in the rehabilitation of degraded land caused through afforestation. To date, projects have been approved which will double the rate of hardwood plantations established in Australia prior to the national afforestation program (NAP), creating over 10,000 hectares of plantations. Funding will also be allocated for research and to forest 7,000 hectares of land rehabilitation for land degradation control purposes. The Treasurer, in his Budget statement, announced an allocation of $5.95m for this financial year to fund new and ongoing projects under the NAP scheme. This represents an increase of more than 200 per cent on the 1987-88 funding. That is a positive initiative by the Commonwealth Government which I believe will be a centrepiece of the accord when it is concluded. We have traditionally had a big forest products industry in Australia. We can tear a leaf out of the book of some other countries, which have taken Australian hardwood-eucalyptus globulus is the best example; Tasmanian blue gum-and put it in to plantations. Brazil is one country which has done that and which now stands to achieve a lead over Australia in hardwood production. The way forward for this industry in Australia is to move into plantations and do the same. Those companies that rely on forests should show initiative and develop those plantations, too. Senator PUPLICK —Has the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories had any discussions with the Prime Minister about the contents of an alleged car telephone conversation between the Minister and the Treasurer? Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I raise a point of order. If the subject matter of the question is, as it appears to be, about the content of car phone conversations relating to the relationship between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, it is manifestly quite out of the ambit of the Minister's area of ministerial responsibility and, as such, it is quite beyond his competence to answer, for the reasons that you articulated yesterday, Mr President, in ruling on the same point of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will listen to Senator Puplick's question. Senator PUPLICK —Thank you, Mr President; I appreciate your courtesy. If so, I ask whether the Prime Minister sought any assurance from the Minister that the Treasurer did not use insulting and derogatory terms about the Prime Minister-for instance, inquiring whether the Treasurer described him as `envious'; I omit the other qualifying adjective and scatological noun. Was the Minister able to give the Prime Minister the assurances that he sought? The PRESIDENT —Order! I have listened carefully to the question. Yesterday I pointed out that my predecessors have consistently ruled that the question must relate to matters within a Minister's area of responsibility. I asked Senator Richardson whether there were any areas within his responsibility in the question, and he gave an answer. I would think that this question today is therefore out of order. Senator Chaney —Mr President, before you rule on that matter-and I note that you say you `think' it is out of order, not that it is out of order-can I simply address the point of order which you seem to be raising from the chair in response to the point of order which was raised earlier by Senator Evans. Quite clearly, this potentially goes to the question of a Minister's place in the Cabinet. Senator Gareth Evans —Ha! Senator Chaney —It is all very well for Senator Evans to say, `Ha!'. The situation is that some of the rather extreme statements of his predecessor are on the public record. I have little doubt that Senator Evans will be telling us in time that that is a matter of considerable importance to his portfolio responsibilities. This goes to the wider question of the whole operation of government and relationships between Ministers. It could be the grounds for the dismissal of a Minister. To suggest that this is not a matter of public interest, that this is not a matter relating to public affairs, is in my view to take an absurd and narrow view of what are public affairs. I ask you, Mr President, therefore, not to rule this question out of order. It seems to me to be quite clearly a matter of public significance which goes to the operation of ministerial government in this country. Senator Robert Ray —On the point of order, Mr President: in the time that Senator Chaney has been Leader of the Opposition he has probably taken upwards of a thousand points of order. At least a hundred have been in relation to whether something is in a Minister's portfolio. When Government senators ask questions about Mr John Elliott or the Liberal Party health policy, which one may describe as public affairs, Senator Chaney is the first one to jump to his feet and have them ruled out of order. By tomorrow I will have the text of all of those points of order so that I can quote them to Senator Chaney. I can recall several times when he tried to limit the debate by saying that the Minister could only answer something for which he was responsible. He quite often raises as a point of order the fact that we are not responsible-thank goodness!-for Liberal Party policy or John Elliott. It is along those lines, Mr President, that I concur with your ruling and believe that you should persist with it. Senator Lewis —On the point of order, Mr President: as to the matter that Senator Ray has just raised, it has nothing to do with the ministerial responsibilities of the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet. He is talking about Liberal Party policy matters, and the Federal President of the Liberal Party is not relevant to these matters. I take you back, Mr President, to what you said a few moments ago. Yesterday you put to Senator Richardson the same sort of ruling as that which you were about to make today; I hope that you have not yet quite made it. You then invited Senator Richardson to answer the question if he wished. The truth is that Senator Richardson answered the question. He may not have answered it fully, but he certainly partially answered it. I put it to you that by making a partial answer, Senator Richardson acknowledged that it was within his portfolio and that you should again put to him today that if he wishes to answer, it is his right to so answer. The PRESIDENT —Order! It will not come as any surprise to honourable senators to know that this morning I re-read the question and the answer that Senator Richardson gave yesterday. I am now of the opinion that this question is exactly the same sort of question that was asked yesterday. I do not believe that it is in his area of responsibility, and I am ruling it out of order. Senator GIETZELT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can the Minister provide the Senate with any information on the extent to which the capital gains tax has improved the progressivity of the Australian tax system? Senator WALSH —I have the information for the 1986-87 income year-that is, the first year for which capital gains tax was applicable. It shows that $43m, in round figures, was collected from individuals. Capital gains tax was paid by only 23,000 individuals out of a total of 7.2 million taxpayers, so about 0.3 per cent of taxpayers were subject to capital gains tax. It also shows that the great bulk of capital gains tax is paid by persons with high incomes. That is demonstrated by the fact that of the $43m collected, 65 1/2 per cent was collected from persons with taxable incomes in excess of $50,000. In addition, $46m in capital gains tax was collected from the corporate sector. That demonstrates very clearly that the incidence of capital gains tax is very heavily concentrated at the top end of the income scale. From memory, 65 per cent of capital gains tax was paid by people with incomes above $50,000. If I remember correctly, income tax paid by people with incomes above that figure represented only about 10 per cent of the total amount collected. So the tax is obviously much more heavily concentrated-as anybody who knows anything about it would expect-on high income earners. The only other point I make is that the actual tax collected from the capital gains tax is no more than the tip of the iceberg. The more important role of the capital gains tax, which probably can never be quantified with any precision, is that it puts a net under the income tax system. For years, when John Howard was presiding over the disintegration and decay of the Australian taxation system, there was a succession of tax avoidance and evasion schemes. At the bottom of most of those tax avoidance and evasion schemes was the conversion-in some cases fraudulent conversion; and they are being caught up with now-of the amounts that ought to have been taxed as income into a capital gain which was at that stage not taxable. That, of course, is no longer the case. I trust that some time after the Liberal Party has dumped its present leader, and before the next election, it will come to see the error of its ways and drop that silly undertaking it gave at the last election to invite the rorting and decay of the Australian taxation system by abolishing the capital gains tax. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister for Transport and Communications and follows that which was asked by Senator Puplick and ruled out of order. Has the Minister been asked to inquire or has he initiated inquiries on his own initiative into the reports of the taping of an alleged telephone call between the Treasurer and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories? If so have these investigations confirmed the existence of such a tape recording? Has the Minister or any other Minister been acquainted with the details of the alleged conversation? Is any further action being taken or is any further action planned with respect to this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have not been asked to initiate an inquiry nor have I done so. I have no knowledge of the alleged content of any such conversation. What was the last question? Senator Chaney —Have these investigations confirmed the existence of such a tape recording? Does the Minister have any details and is there any action planned? Senator GARETH EVANS —Not applicable and no. Senator CHANEY —Mr President I ask the Minister a supplementary question. In that case is he aware of any action being taken by Telecom Australia or by any other authority with respect to these allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sure that if one of the parties to an alleged conversation took the view that his privacy had been invaded he would take the appropriate steps and seek an investigation from Telecom Australia. If that has not happened there is no doubt that it is because nobody feels that there is any substance to the allegations that have been made. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister received legal advice in relation to Mr Robert Wood's request for payment under the parliamentary superannuation scheme? If so, what was that advice? Senator WALSH —I said three days ago or it may have been last week-I do not remember for certain-that I had asked my Department to check out the legal position regarding never-was-Senator Wood's application to have refunded to him the contributions to the parliamentary superannuation retirement scheme that he alleged he had made. I have since received, via the Department of Finance but from the Attorney-General's Department, legal advice. I think I can quote the officer concerned. The letter was signed by a Mr D. A. Jessop. It is rather lengthy and I will not quote the whole lot. I will quote what I believe are the most relevant sections. It says: You ask- `you' being the Finance officer who initiated the inquiry from Attorney-General's- whether the superannuation contributions credited to Mr Wood are legally refundable to him or whether the moneys, at law, are considered to be available to the Commonwealth. The short answer is that the moneys are not refundable to Mr Wood. The amounts paid to Mr Wood by way of parliamentary and electoral allowance were not, in the light of the High Court's decision, properly payable to him. That is, because Mr Wood was never a properly elected Senator, the appropriation in s. 7 (13) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 that applies, among other things, to parliamentary allowances, never authorised the payments made to Mr Wood. Those amounts would be recoverable pursuant to the principle stated in Auckland Harbour Board v. The King (1924) AC-- What does the acronym AC mean? Anyway it continues: AC 318 at 326. I am not sure what that means actually. The letter goes on: I understand however that the moneys deducted as contributions under the Superannuation Act from the moneys paid to Mr Wood as parliamentary allowances in fact have always remained in Consolidated Revenue. Moneys deducted under the Superannuation Act are paid to the Commonwealth (s. 13 (8)). No question of recovery of those moneys from Mr Wood therefore arises. Senator MORRIS —Mr President I ask a supplementary question. Can I understand from that answer that Mr Wood would receive none of his own contributions that he had paid into the fund itself? If that is a fact what is the position in regard to Mr Wood when he was serving in this Parliament and voting in the Parliament? Would not the Minister feel that it would be unfair for Mr Wood not to receive back the contributions that he had paid in? Senator WALSH —The thrust of this advice is that in fact no contributions were paid into any fund. The notional contribution, if you like, remained in Consolidated Revenue. The question, which goes beyond my area of responsibility but is implicit in the supplementary question asked, is whether any votes of the Senate taken during that period between September and May, I think it was, in which never-was-Senator Wood may have been recorded as voting, were affected in the legal sense. I do not know but so far as I am aware there was no vote of the Senate at that time, in which never-was-Senator Wood had his name recorded, which was so close that the subtraction of one vote from one side would have made any difference. Senator VANSTONE —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to ministerial responsibility. Firstly, does the Minister accept that Question Time is being abused by some Ministers? Has the Minister recently counselled any Ministers with respect to such abuses or does he not care? Secondly, did the Minister hear the remarks of his ministerial colleague Senator Robert Ray this morning to the effect that as a consequence of a quorum being called there would be a delay in the signing of certain letters in this office, which delay would particularly be directed to requests by Opposition members and senators? Senator Robert Ray —Absolutely. Senator VANSTONE —I hear Senator Robert Ray interjecting `Absolutely'. Is the use of such tactics an appropriate ministerial response to an Opposition senator using the Standing Orders. Has he counselled Senator Robert Ray as to his ministerial responsibilities and the appropriate use of discretion? If he did not hear the words or if he has not so counselled Senator Robert Ray, will he follow this matter up promptly? Senator BUTTON —I have not noticed any abuse by Ministers at Question Time except in so far as the allegations are always made that some of our answers are too long; but some of the questions are also too long. I have not spoken to any Minister about abuse at Question Time recently but I have on previous occasions. I am totally unaware of the incident involving Senator Robert Ray this morning but it sounded like a very sensible response to a frivolous quorum call. Senator VANSTONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand by the Minister's answer that the only abuse he has been made aware of is the constant complaint that answers are too long? Does he not regard it as an abuse of Question Time for a Minister to fall asleep in the chamber? Does he not regard it as an abuse of Question Time for a Minister to have to read answers relating to his or her responsibility? Does he not regard it as an abuse of Question Time to give not just long answers but answers that in their length are in inverse proportion to the substance? Does he not consider it an abuse of Question Time to deliver personal abuse rather than acceptable political rough and tumble? Does he not consider it an abuse of Question Time to frequently use Question Time in order to make either ministerial statements or comments which would more appropriately be placed in a press release? Senator BUTTON —I certainly think it is an abuse of Question Time to make a speech appropriate for the adjournment in the guise of a supplementary question. I do not intend to respond to that. It is not a question. It is a series of allegations which the honourable senator might like to raise on the adjournment tonight. Senator COATES —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources. I refer to community concern expressed about the proposed Huon Forest Products mill project in the Huon Valley in Tasmania and about consultation concerning it. What consultation with the community does the Minister propose? Can he assure concerned Tasmanians that that consultation will be genuine? Senator COOK —Yes, I can assure Tasmanians that the consultation will be genuine. I am aware of fairly intense community interest in whether or not Huon Forest Products gets granted an export licence for woodchips. In fact a host of letters have been received by me in my office, some of them asking that it not be done, others asking that it be done. My reply to all those letters has been that I will consult community opinion as part of the process in forming a decision on whether a woodchip export licence should be issued. When the Government announced its response to the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests, it announced the intention to examine the Huon Forest Products application for an export licence on at least three grounds: the environmental ground, on which I am advised by Senator Richardson; whether there is an adequate resource to justify the issuance of a licence, which I am seeking further advice on; and community consultation. I have said that the community consultation will be genuine. I will visit Tasmania, probably in the next week, and have talks with the various organisations that represent community points of view. There are organisations which purport to be opposed to the establishment of a mill; there are organisations in support of it. I intend to talk to both. I intend to talk to the three municipalities in the area to seek their opinions. As well, I want to talk to the unions that represent workers or possible workers in such an enterprise. I have had an opinion put to me by the companies. It should be said that Huon Forest Products itself has a view, but there are slightly different shades of view by other companies in Tasmania about the project. I will make provision for individuals to put views. It is not my intention to hold a public meeting; I do not think a public meeting is an ideal forum to get a considered viewpoint. Senator Puplick —Senator Ray said that was great. Senator COOK —It is an opportunity to put views back but I do not think it is a proper way in which to consult the community. I intend to visit the site. After I have indulged in that process I will announce the outcome of the consultation. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I refer to the White Paper on higher education and its reference on page 29 to the Commonwealth Government requiring adjoining institutions to merge. This statement appears to require the North Terrace campuses of the University of Adelaide, the South Australian Institute of Technology (SAIT) and the South Australian College of Advanced Education to merge. Will the Government force this merger? Does the Government realise that such a merger would have no academic or educational justification and would be resisted by the institutions concerned? Has the South Australian Government indicated its attitude to such a development? What efforts has the Commonwealth made to seek the views of the three institutions? Senator WALSH —The question is based on what I believe is a false premise; that is, that the Commonwealth has said that the merger of institutions will be mandatory. If I recall correctly, Mr Dawkins has already made it quite clear that mergers will not be mandatory; they are recommended under certain circumstances. I am advised in writing that the Government, in respecting institutional autonomy and the rights of State governments, which have legislative responsibility for higher education, has not proposed particular mergers although, as Senator Teague's question indicates, it has referred to the need for contiguous campuses to merge. That provision is to deal with situations which exist at Newcastle and Armidale, where separate institutions exist on a common site. The situation at the South Australian Institute of Technology is not in that category. Indeed, SAIT has another campus which is many kilometres away. A merger between the Adelaide University and the North Terrace campus of SAIT could obviously not be undertaken in isolation from decisions about the other SAIT campus. The South Australian Government has processes under way by which it is considering various options for future institutional arrangements. I must say that I find Senator Teague's apparent moral outrage arising from his misinterpretation of Government policy rather curious to say the least in view of the fact that it was the Fraser Government, of which he was a back bench supporter, which in 1981 issued a hit list of forced amalgamations. It simply reduced institutions' grants to force the amalgamation process, despite the objections of both institutions and State governments. It is a bit late in the day for Senator Teague to be adopting a sanctimonious approach to this question-even if it is based on an accurate interpretation of the facts, which it is not. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I tell the Minister that I do not project moral outrage but policy opposition. For the information of the Minister, I quote from the statement-though not from the area concerning general mergers. On page 29 the White Paper states: . . . the government remains committed to the view that institutions sharing common or adjacent sites should be combined under a single management structure and have a single educational profile. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, this arrangement will be a further condition of membership of the unified national system. The PRESIDENT —Order! That is a statement. There is no supplementary question. Senator TEAGUE —The question, Mr President, is this: Does the backing off that the Minister has indicated in his answer hold in the light of the explicit words that are in the policy? Senator WALSH —I am pleased if Senator Teague is not trying to be sanctimonious. It will be a pleasant change. Senator Gareth Evans —He is breaking his duck. Senator WALSH —Yes, he is. His real question referred to the Government requiring adjoining campuses to merge. The section he just quoted said that they should merge. There is a difference between `should'-that is, expressing a Government view of what ought to happen-and `requiring', which is the Government laying down a condition that it must happen. Senator POWELL —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy aware that the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee has initiated discussion on a proposal to amend the Plant Variety Rights Act effectively to extend plant variety rights to cover the products of new varieties? Secondly, is the Minister aware of Professor Lazenby's comment on page 128 of his report to the Minister on Australia's plant breeding needs that the extension of plant variety rights to include products of the variety `would not be in the best interests of consumers'? Does the Minister agree that such an extension to the Act would amount to a tax on certain food products? Finally, in the interests of consumers and farmers, particularly grain growers who could potentially be ruined should this proposal be adopted, can the Minister give an assurance that this proposal will go no further? Senator COOK —I think I can help Senator Powell with her question. The Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee, I am advised, has not initiated any discussions on amending the Plant Variety Rights Act to cover the products of new varieties. The Committee has raised for discussion the need for an amendment to cover an aspect of commercial propagation which is currently exempted from plant variety rights by section 38 of the Act; namely-this is what section 38 deals with-further propagation of plants after purchase to produce final products for sale. The Registrar of Plant Variety Rights has invited comment on possible options for amendments in the Plant Varieties Journal published, I think, in June of this year, volume 1, No. 2. I am aware of what Professor Lazenby has said. The Plant Variety Rights Act of 1987 was created in compliance with what Professor Lazenby said in his report and it specifically exempts food and other products. The second last part of the question asked whether I agree that such an extension to the Act could amount to a tax on certain food products. The Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee has not reopened and is very unlikely to reopen, I am advised, a subject such as this which has already seen a decade of public and parliamentary debate. There is no proposal even for discussion about extending plant variety rights to cover food products. The Registrar and the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee would welcome any comments that any honourable senators might have-this applies to Senator Powell-in any further consideration of these issues. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister for Justice. Has the Minister seen the article in today's Age by Xavier Connor, QC, on the proposed extension of section 116 of the Constitution in next Saturday's referendum? Mr Connor says about the proposed change: On the one hand, it prevents state promotion of any religion. On the other hand, it prevents any interference with the free exercise of religion. Does the Minister share Mr Connor's disappointment with the adoption by the Australian Bishops Conference of the legal opinion prepared by Mr David Bennett, QC? Senator TATE —I have seen the article by Xavier Connor in today's Age headed `Bishops' doubts are groundless'. Xavier Connor, as members of the Senate will know, is a former Federal Court judge and a former President of the Australian Law Reform Commission and I think is very highly regarded on both sides of politics. He said in the article: The view of the bishops is not based on Catholic theology or doctrine but on a seriously flawed view of Australian constitutional law. The vice of the bishops' presentation is that it completely and unfairly ignores a strong case for voting Yes which is entirely consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church. I find myself in total agreement with the comments of Xavier Connor. The Catholic bishops, unfortunately in my view, have made their statement based on a very bad reading of the law. It is also very defective from a philosophical point of view. The bishops seem to have been advised that the proposal to be put to the people on 3 September by way of an extension of a very important freedom which the framers of our Constitution in the late nineteenth century thought was so important that it ought to be embodied and entrenched in the Constitution rather-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Should the Minister be canvassing this issue when in debate in this place he said he was unable to give a categorical assurance on this issue? This is an absurd thing. The Minister is now asserting a position which is quite contrary to the view he asserted in earlier debate and he should be told to desist from that. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I have no power as to how a Minister shall answer a question. Senator Chaney —Whether honestly or not. Senator TATE —I ask the honourable senator to withdraw that. Senator Chaney —I said `honestly or not'. The PRESIDENT —Order! I call Senator Tate. Senator TATE —I will ignore that snide comment. Nothing that I have said so far is contrary to anything I have said previously. What I was in the middle of saying was that the bishops' opinion seems to be based on the legal advice that the proposal to be put to the people on 3 September is identical to what is contained in the United States Constitution, and that is not the case. Senator Bishop —It is not the contention. Senator TATE —I agree it is not the case; it is not identical. Indeed, the bishops speak of experience in the United States of America, where there is a constitutionally enshrined prohibition against the establishment of any religion. Those words do not appear in the United States Constitution. Therefore, as I say, it is quite clear that the bishops have received very bad advice in that regard. I believe that colours and taints the rest of their opinion. It is also important to point out that the Labor Party has been a tremendous supporter of the non-government school system since the time of Mr Whitlam as Prime Minister and Mr Kim Beazley Sr as Minister for Education. The very divisive debate on state aid to schools and the sectarian bitterness were put to an end by the action of that Government. That has been reinforced by the history of the last five years. The Hawke Government has created a situation whereby-I see this as I go around Australia, and certainly Tasmania, opening extensions to non-government schools-the practical choice available to parents has been increased immeasurably. It is implausible to think that there is some sort of hidden agenda whereby the introduction of this constitutional proposal is designed to do away with the funding of non-government schools by governments. Indeed, any fair reading of the DOGS case reveals that that case turned on the point that the provision of moneys for non-government schools in no way establishes any religion as a state church with all the titles and privileges that attach to that status. The fact is that the provision of such moneys can never establish any religion under our Constitution and therefore such funding would not be prohibited by the Constitution. I want to deal with the final point that Xavier Connor made; that is, that our proposal is entirely consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is important to point out that the Catholic Church in its own fundamental documents or constitution-the documents of Vatican II-makes it very clear that this question of religious freedom and liberty is so important that it ought to be entrenched in constitutions and not left to the normal political processes where only the political muscle of majorities is relied upon. That is not a sufficient safeguard; the framers never thought it was a sufficient safeguard. The extension of the freedoms and rights that they entrenched in our Constitution so as to bind the States and Territories is, I think, a very important one. The PRESIDENT —Order! Whilst the broadcasting system in the chamber has improved considerably in recent days, I am aware that there is now some difficulty with the clocks. However, the clock that timed Question Time is correct. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —by leave-During Question Time today Senator Ray replied to a question from me on whether the Government will take action on my private members's Bill, on behalf of the Opposition, to make informal all ticks and crosses votes at next Saturday's referendum. In his reply Senator Ray said that had the Opposition not rejected Government proposals earlier this year then the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act would have been amended to prohibit ticks and crosses as formal votes. Senator Ray's statement completely misrepresents my opposition to the Government's earlier amendments. There is an implication in what Senator Ray has said, on this and other occasions, that there were no other problems with his amendments. There were other problems and that is why I advised the Opposition to reject the relevant Government amendments. The Australian Democrats took the same view as we did. That amendment earlier this year was technically flawed. Whilst it may have dealt with the ticks and crosses issue, it would not have dealt with the other concerns relating to whether particular methods of casting votes were formal or informal. It was those other concerns which were uppermost in the minds of all parties. It was for these reasons that the Opposition rejected the Government's earlier proposals; the concerns were not adequately dealt with. Senator Ray knows that full well. In other words, Senator Ray has completely misrepresented me on this matter. May I also say that in his response he misrepresented my colleagues in the other place, Mr Reith and Mr Sharp. It was my advice to the Opposition on these matters, not theirs. The Government quite obviously is not prepared to take the necessary action that lies within its right to remove what otherwise will be a major bias in favour of the yes vote at the referendum on Saturday. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) —by leave-I will be very brief, Mr President I invite honourable senators opposite and honourable senators on this side to read the House of Representatives Hansard of 17 March and 3 June. I invite them to find there a proper explanation as to what the technical difficulties were that caused the Opposition to reject that clause of the Bill on 3 June. In private conversations with Senator Short, in the public record, and everywhere else, we have never had a satisfactory explanation. The only thing the Opposition fails to understand is the use of word `qualification'. The Opposition misinterpreted that and then went off on a wild goose chase that led it to reject that clause at the time. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —by leave-I thank Senator Ray for those remarks, but if he reads the Hansard of 3 June he will find an explanation as to why certainly the Opposition, and I think the Democrats, although I cannot speak for them, rejected this amendment and the reasons for it. I also refer Senator Ray to private conversations we had before this Bill was debated in the Senate. I said to Senator Ray that our concern was with the words `or without words of qualification' in the amendment. Senator Ray did offer to seek a view on that and that was the last I heard of it. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Bishop proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The serious threat to rights and liberties posed by the Hawke government's fourth referendum proposal, including the traditional notion of freedom of religion in Australia and in particular the widely supported principle of state aid to independent schools. 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 BISHOP(New South Wales)(3.10) —It is appropriate that this matter of public importance follows the last question asked in Question Time when Senator Tate, the Minister for Justice, attempted to give the Catholic bishops both a theology lesson and legal instruction, which perhaps I will deal with a little later in this address. Several things need to be drawn to the attention of the electorate as a whole, despite the very best attempts of the Government to stop debate on this question being raised. The first point I raise is: why on earth do we have the questions of trial by jury, freedom of religion, and fair and just terms for property rights bound up in the one question? In the course of my traversing Australia to try to bring to the attention of people the seriousness of this question, the Australian Labor Party, unable to find a parliamentary member of its team to debate the question in Armidale, sent a legal consultant to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to debate it in his place. When I asked him that question, he replied, `Oh well, otherwise there would have been six questions on the ballot paper and the Australian people could not cope with that'. That degree of cynicism being displayed in this whole debate is at the essence of why we have three important issues rolled up in one. I suggest that the real answer is that the Government hoped that the question of freedom of religion would slip through without it being properly addressed and debated. Immediately one thinks of the attitude of trying to slip through a very subtle and cynical amendment to the Constitution one asks oneself a few questions. Why? What is the hurry? What is the rush? Where is the cry from the electorate, from the people? This is a Government driven referendum. There has been no cry from the people for any changes to be made to our Constitution. So the question we are really debating is whether we find the Government driven referendums in the national interest-not in the Government's interest, not in the Opposition's interest but in the national interest. When I looked at the question of the so-called extension of the freedom of religion I remembered well the Council for the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) case, the bitterness and the divisive debate that raged for over a decade while that case was drawn out, from 1973 with, finally, a judgment being given in 1981. I remembered the debate. I remembered that Lionel Murphy accepted the plaintiff's case. Let us recant the plaintiff's case. Firstly, the plaintiff said that the decision of the Federal Government to grant state aid to independent, church based schools was an infringement of the existing section 116 of the Constitution. The argument went this way: if one gives a grant of money to a school to build an assembly hall, it is quite likely that the school will have a religious service inside that hall and that, the plaintiff said, amounted to the establishment of religion. Secondly, it was said that if one gives recurrent funding, annual budget funding, to pay teachers and to keep the school running it is quite likely that in the course of that year there will be religious instruction, and that, the plaintiff said, amounted to the establishment of religion. That argument had been run quite successfully in the United States, where the wording of the First Amendment is different from our section 116. Mr Justice Lionel Murphy-consistent, at least, because he had opposed it when he was Attorney-General in the Whitlam Government-accepted fully the arguments as proffered by the plaintiffs. It is well to remember that of the 19 plaintiffs-finally the matter was brought by the Attorney-General of Victoria-who wished their names to be recorded, two were Bill Hartley and John Halfpenny. It is important to remember that when one asks oneself the question: if one really wanted to get rid of state aid, how would one go about it? One certainly would not expect any government to have the political will to abolish state aid because, by 1990, 30 per cent of all school children will be in the independent system. So any government that tried that little caper would be out on its pink ear. If one were dedicated to getting rid of state aid to independent schools, as is Mr Nilsen of the Defence of Government Schools organisation-he is loudly proclaiming it from the rooftops-one would go another way. One would look at the arguments in the DOGS case and draft an amendment to the Constitution which answered all those criticisms in the DOGS case. One would get the Constitution amended, run a new challenge to the new section 116 and get the High Court to declare that governments may not give aid. Governments are then off the hook. Senator Archer —Only if you are fair dinkum. Senator BISHOP —That interjection is fair. One would bring that point out and debate it fairly. But that is not the way the Government has chosen to run these referendums. We have had matters of public importance in this place pointing out the deception, the duplicity and the dirty tricks department, of which the ticks and crosses, with ticks being okay and crosses being informal, is just one example. The importance of these debates is to bring the issues to the attention of the Australian people, who are usually sensible and usually understand what is meant once the debate starts to be put fully before them. They reject the grab of the Government to do something which they do not wish. Let us look at what the judges said in answer to the plaintiffs' case about why the granting of state aid was held not to be the establishment of religion. Mr Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, the then Chief Justice, Justice Gibbs, a subsequent Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Sir Anthony Mason, the current Chief Justice, were all majority judges in that decision. Each one of them stressed the importance of the words `make any law for'. Our Constitution currently reads that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for the establishing of any religion. Mr Justice Sir Anthony Mason said, in his judgment, at page 116, that the main impediment to the success of the plaintiffs' case were the words `make any law for' establishing any religion. Those are the very words that the proposed amendment will take out of the Constitution. That is why the Catholic bishops have come out in their statement and said: On the issue of freedom of religion the bishops have obtained specialist advice from a variety of experts. In the light of that advice the Bishops place on record their concern that a (yes) vote on this question could in fact end up seriously restricting freedom of religion. Senator Tambling —That is not what Senator Tate said. Senator BISHOP —Indeed. It is not what Senator Tate said. They further said: The proposal is vague, its meaning uncertain and its outcome unpredictable. There is no widespread discontent among ordinary Australians with the present religious freedoms that exist. This proposal however raises serious concerns for the future and deserves to be treated warily. The Dean of the Archdiocese of Sydney said: Any change to the Constitution on the question of freedom of religion may lead to new controversial litigation on the future of previously determined questions such as State aid to independent schools, religious instruction in State schools, prayer at public occasions and a religious department in the ABC. Rabbi Apple, of the Great Synagogue, has said: There has not been any public pressure for a change to the existing law, nor does religious freedom appear to be under threat in Australia. But even if the purpose of the proposed amendment is simply to tidy up the present law, so many new loopholes may have been created by the proposed new wording that we might end up with religious freedom curtailed, not extended. Are they all wrong-the Catholic bishops, the Anglican Church and the Jewish Synagogue-because they disagree with the Government's proposal? When we had a guillotined debate in this place, during which we could not fully explore the ramifications of the legislation, at a quarter to three in the morning I asked the Minister, Senator Tate: `Why is it that in this our bicentennial year you would want to reopen this highly contentious and divisive issue and bring upon the Australian people the curse of divisiveness?' The Minister had no answer-and it was not simply because it was 2.45 a.m. Senator Tate —That is not true. Of course I answered. I answered for hour after hour. Senator BISHOP —There were no more hours left; we finished at 3.40 a.m. We then come to the question of people trying simply to extend this to the States. At present, should the High Court decide to overrule itself in the DOGS case-which it may do now and has shown its willingness to do recently with Cole and Whitfield and its decision on section 92, where it totally overturned its meaning of the words `absolutely free' and has construed the word `absolutely' to mean perhaps `relatively'-should it choose to overturn its own decision, it would be important to note that it could not affect state aid as made by State governments, because at present the prohibition does not affect States and Territories. So at the very least, by inserting the words `States and Territories' the Government is putting at risk, from a future High Court that may determine that it wishes to override itself, the question of state aid, which could not be done in the present way. That brings me to the `opinion' given by Sir Maurice Byers in the form of a letter to the Attorney-General in the last days. In that letter, addressed to `My Dear Attorney-General' and signed `Yours sincerely, M. Byers', Sir Maurice Byers has made certain statements of certainty as to what the High Court may or may not do in the future. It is very dangerous for a barrister, eminent QC or otherwise, to make statements declaring that his or her opinion is absolutely correct and then to predict with the same degree of certainty what the High Court will or will not do. In that letter, which was released by the Attorney-General as an opinion, Sir Maurice said: It is absurd to imagine that the (High) Court would leave the certainties of its interpretation of section 116 for the chaos the United States Courts have brought to the different language and specific social history of the First Amendment. It is important to realise that the distinction between the meaning of the words `establishment' or `establishing any religion' in Australia and in the United States. The High Court has used the words `make any law for' to bring about a narrow interpretation of the meaning of the word `establish'. The United States Supreme Court, on the other hand, has chosen to give a very broad interpretation of the meaning of the word `establishment', so that it is now against the law, as defined by the Supreme Court as distinct from the legislators, for a volunteer fire brigade to erect a cross in a public place at Easter. On the other hand, when a public body wanted to erect a nativity scene in a public place at Christmas, and the matter ended up in the courts for five years, a split decision finally established that it could have a nativity scene in a public place at Christmas because it was traditional rather than religious. Do we want that sort of insane litigation before our courts? I certainly would think not. The danger in opening up this question is that we will suffer here the broadly based and broad definition of the word `establishment'. Of course, the other thing that is most interesting in looking at Sir Maurice's statement that he and his opinion are absolutely correct and that the High Court would never change its mind, is that lawyers are not always correct. Indeed, two cases which came before Sir Maurice Byers as Solicitor-General come readily to mind, in which the courts found him not to be correct. Those cases are the Collector of Customs v. Brian Lawlor Automotives Pty Ltd, reported in the 1979 Federal Law Reports, and Clunies-Ross v. The Commonwealth, reported at page 193 of Commonwealth Law Reports, No. 155. In both cases Sir Maurice Byers put forward a good and reasoned argument. He lost. His arguments were found to be wrong. Lawyers can only deal in probabilities, not in absolutes. So in choosing to say that his opinion is absolutely correct Sir Maurice has passed from the legal arena to the political arena. Perhaps in so doing he ought to take one or two lessons from the Minister and from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). His problem in that missive to the Attorney-General is that he seems confused as to whether he is speaking as Chairman of the Constitutional Commission, counsel in the original DOGS case, a so-called independent counsel or, indeed, a clairvoyant predicting just what future high courts may or may not say. Sir Maurice has built his reputation on sound ability. It is a pity to see this distinguished lawyer, who would normally cringe at the uncritical political hype of being described as Australia's leading constitutional lawyer, become Sir Maurice Biased and compromised. In that opinion Sir Maurice chose to criticise an opinion by Mr David Bennett, QC. Mr David Bennett has had the opportunity of seeing Sir Maurice Byers's opinion and he has written a supplementary opinion, which I seek leave to table. Leave granted. Senator BISHOP —I thank the Senate. In this supplementary opinion Mr Bennett answers, paragraph by paragraph, each so-called disagreement that Sir Maurice Byers has with his own opinion, which was originally given some weeks ago. As I said, Sir Maurice has now entered the political arena. He has said that his view that the High Court would never change its mind is absolutely right. The Minister has said that he cannot give an untempered and absolute guarantee that the case will not be upset. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he could not give a cast iron guarantee that a Yes vote in next Saturday's referendum would not reopen the divisive question of state aid to non-government schools, and that the division of government between Parliament and Executive and judiciary meant that it was impossible for any figure outside the High Court to say what the High Court would do. It seems that Sir Maurice is not yet familiar with his new role of political advocate. Perhaps he would do well to read what Mr Ray Nilsen has had to say. He is the man who initiated the original DOGS proceedings and is now saying that he will bring another action and support the Yes case. I put it to the Minister and to the Australian people that the test is whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt that these referendums are in the national interest-not the Government's interest; not the Opposition's interest; but in the national interest. Once the propositions are passed, it passes from the arena of the Parliament and parliamentarians and it moves to the High Court. I have spoken to many people who have said, `That fellow Lionel Bowen really is a nice chap and he and that nice Michael Tate would not do a thing like that to us. They have said they would not'. The answer to that is that it does not matter what the Government says. Once these propositions go through it is too late. It is like hanging; there is no second choice. So I ask the Government and the Australian people to use the criminal standard-that is, whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt that these referendums are in the national good. We should not use the balance of probabilities and say, `On the balance of probabilities it might be okay because if we do not like it we can lobby our politicians, be rude to them, petition them, chuck them out, and we can change it'. But the only way we can change an amendment to the Constitution is to have another amendment, and that can only come from executive government with the support of the Parliament. We cannot go lobbying a High Court judge and we certainly cannot sack him or her. I make one final plea to the Australian people. The Constitution is the most precious thing we have. It is something which needs good and strong debate-not guillotined-and we need to know beyond a reasonable doubt that it is in the national good; because a government can always ask again, but we cannot change it. When in doubt, vote No. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.30) —Senator Bishop has brought into the chamber a matter of public importance which alleges that there is a serious threat to the rights and liberties of the nation in the proposal to be put next Saturday, 3 September, that the Australian people give their assent to securing three very important rights and liberties which those who framed our Constitution thought were very important back in the late nineteenth century. We are asking that those rights and liberties be extended beyond their effective application against the Commonwealth so as to bind the States and Territories. Those three very important rights are the right to trial by jury, the right to have fair compensation for property when it is acquired by the Government and, finally, the right embodied in the proposal that State and Territory parliaments and governments be bound, as is the Commonwealth Parliament at the moment, not to establish any religion, not to prevent the free exercise of religion, not to impose any religious observance and not to require those accepting public office to take any religious test. These are all crucial parts of the good working democracy that we have in Australia, but they need to be secured, as I say, against the action of State and Territory governments in the future. It is quite right that at the moment we live in a reasonably calm and reasonably tolerant era in Australia's history, although that has not always been so. When one has the opportunity and the obligations, as we do as citizens, to engage in modifying our Constitution, we must keep in mind that we are talking about the fundamental document which creates the framework within which we will be governed and by which we govern ourselves as a free people not only for the next few decades but well into the next century. It is in that context that it is an act of great responsibility for us to ensure that future generations of Australians enjoy as a constitutionally guaranteed right those sorts of freedoms and rights and liberties which we presently generally enjoy through the political process. That is really what constitutional entrenchment of rights and liberties is all about. Far from it being the case that this proposal poses a serious threat to rights and liberties, in fact, as I say, it secures rights and liberties for the Australian people into the future against actions-unpredictable and unpredicted at the moment-which could be undertaken by any government. In fact, we should recall the words of Sir Anthony Mason at a recent conference when he said that the common law is not the invincible safeguard of our rights that it was once thought to be. In fact it is a very weak reed indeed when it is up against the actions of a State parliament, for example, which of course with the majority support of those in its chambers-or in its single chamber, as it is in Queensland-can undertake action and impose matters on the people quite without any regard whatsoever to the so-called common law rights which the people may think they are entitled to. It is with that background that we have brought forward this proposal. I will come to the religious liberty question more particularly in that regard in a moment. We know that the Opposition has been going around the country during the winter recess deliberately stirring up fears and misgivings and involving itself in scaremongering of the highest degree in relation to these matters. We know that when Mr Reith was in South Australia at a town hall meeting only a week or so ago he said, when asked by an innocent member of the audience whether the passage of this proposal would involve the elimination of Christmas and Easter, `I do not know and I do not care to find out'. Mr Reith was quite prepared to leave the people there in a state of ignorance because that is the state that best serves the Opposition's ends-to create fear, misgivings and uncertainly in the electorate so that with doubts aroused they may vote no. I do not believe that the Australian people will be taken in by the scaremongering campaign which has gone to such absurd lengths as to claim, for example, that prayers before Parliament starts might be in jeopardy as a result of this proposal. Senator Bishop —In America that is an administrative function. Senator TATE —Senator Bishop does not even know United States law on that, so I do not think that I need to pay much attention to her thoughts. The framers of the Constitution in the late nineteenth century thought that the right to trial by jury, the right to have fair and just compensation if one's property is acquired, and the right to religious freedom were so important that they should be put beyond the reach of any particular parliament or government, but they did so only with respect to the Commonwealth. What these three proposals have in common-and a common thread has been sought by Senator Bishop-is that one is simply taking these three proposals and extending their application so that the State and Territory parliaments and governments are also bound to observe these very important freedoms. I refer briefly to trial by jury. What difference does it make to a person facing the peril and jeopardy of more than two years' imprisonment that the alleged offence is a Federal, State or Territory offence? It makes no difference whatsoever to the fact that that person will be in severe jeopardy if he is found guilty, a conviction is secured and a sentence of more than two years' imprisonment is imposed. Therefore, we say in that situation, where such a peril is in prospect, an Australian should be able to assert as a right that trial by jury should be provided in the great tradition that has come down to us through the English legal tradition from Norman times. I believe that there is no real argument about that. As to the acquisition of property, what difference does it make to an Australian whether the Government acquiring his or her property is the Commonwealth Government, a State government or a Territory government? It makes no difference whatsoever. In all those instances it is right and proper that fair compensation be constitutionally guaranteed. It should not be left to the mere whim of political chance as to whether one receives fair compensation. Indeed, I would have thought that Senator Bishop, with the New South Wales Coal Acquisition Act experience in mind, would not want to leave the fair compensation of the owners of those coal rights to the vagaries of political fortune but would have liked to see persons faced with the acquisition of their property by a government of whatever sphere-Federal or State-in a position where they could obtain compensation. In the same way, what difference does it make which Parliament or government attempts to establish any religion, to interfere with the free exercise of religion, to impose any religious observance or to require some religious test before the taking of public office? Whether it is a State, Territory or Commonwealth parliament or government, none should be involved in an activity which impinges on what is really a central part of a human being's integrity and personality, that is, the freedom to choose without external governmental pressures to adhere to a particular religion or, of course, to none. That is a very central part of human integrity and dignity. Our Constitution ought to provide for that particular right to be asserted against all governments. The matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Bishop refers to our `traditional notion of freedom of religion'. Of course we have a traditional notion but we must realise in Australia that we are going through a fairly calm and reasonably tolerant period. However, I might modify that in a moment in relation to racial minorities. You would appreciate that point more than most on your side of politics, Mr Acting Deputy President. We live in a relatively tolerant era in Australia's history at the moment as far as minorities are concerned. However, I believe that we need to emphasise that our legal system, and in particular our common law tradition which we inherited from the United Kingdom, is quite unable to protect minorities against the majorities which can force their will to be embodied in law through the action of a parliament which they dominate. In fact, we know from the history of the dissenters and the Catholics in England that it is the case that the common law was unable to protect them. It was only very gradual political action which secured some rights and a sphere of freedom for them. We are involved in the construction of a constitution which is to serve future generations, so we should listen to the warning bells which have been sounded in relation to this matter by the Supreme Court of South Australia, which only a few years ago made it very clear in the Grace Bible case that the common law is unable to withstand the action of a State parliament determined to infringe freedom of religion. Sir Anthony Mason, the present Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, has also said that the common law is not the invincible safeguard of our rights that it was once thought to be. I refer to the beating of the drums of racial intolerance which have been heard around this country over the past month, exacerbated by certain statements by certain members of the Opposition-though you, yourself, very honourably, are not to be included in that category, Mr Acting Deputy President. Anyone who understands how the embers of racism have been stirred, and can be stirred even further, in a way that puts minorities in real jeopardy and in real peril as we construct our society over the next several years and decades into the next century and into the next millennium will know that the sort of easy complacent assurance that was a feature of Australia until very recently, even until a month ago, that minorities would get a fair go in this country is now not so easily assured. The fact is that minorities can be very quickly singled out by the great mass of the people coalescing into a majority and they can be put in real peril and jeopardy. I am suggesting that in relation to religious minorities that is not such an unreal prospect as we move into the next century. Where, as has been an unfortunate characteristic of the debates over the winter recess emanating from the Opposition benches in part, one has a combination of rousing of fears about a minority-a minority in a racial, ethnic and religious sense-one has a very explosive situation, which I believe can lead to the destruction of the sort of tolerant society which is too easily relied on in the Opposition's approach to this question. I refer in particular to the way in which adherents to the Muslim faith have been singled out in many instances in the course of this debate. Senator Bishop-I am sorry that she has now left the chamber-has mercilessly singled out some examples in her traipsing around the Australian nation to put her point of view. I respect her in putting that point of view, but there are two examples on which she has constantly harped. One is female circumcision, which is not a question of Muslim belief or a tenet of that religion but is practised by some person with certain cultural or tribal origins who happen to be Muslims. But by no means do all Muslims practise female circumcision, and certainly not the major kind-I bow to you as a physician, Mr Acting Deputy President-which amounts to mutilation such as would offend against the ordinary laws, if one could ever prove it. Senator Bishop also spoke of a case that was before the magistrates courts in Melbourne, where a person had bound his wife to a bed for three days, assaulted her and sexually abused her and apparently claimed in the magistrates court that this was all permitted by the Koran because he was merely disciplining his wife as permitted by that sacred book. That of course was rejected by the magistrate, and would be rejected by the High Court on any reading of section 116 as proposed and as is at present there. By their decisions in the Jehovah's Witnesses case and the Scientology case, the judges made it clear that the ordinary criminal laws which are important for the cohesion of society are not displaced by claims that one is putting into practice some religious imperative. Seizing on those examples and using them endlessly around the country is part of a very dangerous process whereby minorities in our society cannot feel as assured as they may have been even a matter of months ago that they will always enjoy the space, to use an Americanism that has crept into our language, allowed to them by the majority of their fellow citizens. Regretfully, I believe that that complacency underlies much of what the Catholic bishops say. I shall not repeat endlessly the fact that the defence of government schools case turned on the point that, in order for the passage of money from a government to a religious body to offend against the Constitution, it is required that that funding create a situation where it can be said that that religious sect, church or denomination has been established-established in the sense of having all sorts of rights and privileges accrued to it with which we are familiar in relation to the Church of England in England. That situation is not brought about by the funding of non-government schools, church-based hospitals or other community organisations. For that reason that funding is not imperilled because it can never amount to an establishing of any religion. I do not want to go over all that again because it has been done to death. I say in passing that it is important to do away with the conspiracy theory that somehow governments, obviously not wanting to undermine the funding of non-government schools, have been beguiled, misled or somehow seduced by Mr Halfpenny and Mr Hartley into putting this forward as a proposal to achieve by way of subterfuge what no government would contemplate doing openly in the political arena. That is absolutely ludicrous. Senator Teague —They are still members of the Labor Party. Senator TATE —Hartley is not a member of the Labor Party. He was expelled from the Labor Party a couple of conferences ago. That shows how much Opposition senators know. But that is not my point. The point is that this proposal was not conceived or drafted by Halfpenny and Hartley. It was drafted by the Constitutional Commission chaired by Sir Maurice Byers, who has been most unfairly spoken of as Sir Maurice Biased by Senator Bishop in the course of debate. Sir Maurice was counsel for the Commonwealth in the DOGS case and argued successfully for the funding of non-government schools by the Commonwealth. On the Commission he was assisted by two learned professors of law, Zines and Campbell, and by Gough Whitlam and Sir Rupert Hamer. It is quite implausible to put together a conspiracy theory which allows all those five people to be drawn into a scheme to insert into the Constitution the undermining of government funding of non-government schools or hospitals. It is absolutely ludicrous. My great sadness in relation to the Catholic bishops' document is not so much at their getting the law wrong, which seems to be based on bad advice in that we are talking about provisions in the United States Constitution, but the fact that their document reads: The long tradition of freedom of religion which our country has enjoyed is best protected through the democratic process in the Federal Parliament and each State and Territory Legislature. The bishops do not really believe that; otherwise they would be asking for the repeal of section 116. They know that it is important to have a constitutional guarantee at the Federal level. They ought to be prepared to accept it at the State and Territory level, and not rely merely on the political muscle of the majority. They seem to have forgotten their history out of the ghettos and their minority position. They seem to be indifferent to the other adherents to minority religious groups who are at present in our country and who will be in the sort of jeopardy of which I spoke earlier. It is not good enough to rely on the simple democratic process in talking about the guarantee of fundamental rights. The democratic process, which of course I fully support, obviously is able to be suborned and manipulated by majorities. That is the nature of it. The majority for the time being makes the law which bind people within the jurisdiction through their elected representatives. As was recognised by the Vatican Council, which produced the fundamental constitutional document of the Catholic Church in the present era, it is quite clear that religious liberty is so important that it ought to be secured and entrenched in the Constitution. The proposal that will be before the people on 3 September is to entrench a right, freedom, liberty which is crucial to our being a free and democratic people and which respects the inherent dignity of the individual in making important conscientious decisions without any influence of government being brought to bear. I believe that, in so far as the framers of our Constitution were 60 or 70 years in front of the bishops of the Catholic Church in putting forward this proposal in the late nineteenth century, with the Church catching up only in the sixties of this century, the Church ought now to take the further step of supporting entrenchment of this important right and freedom so that it binds State and Territory parliaments and governments as at present it binds this Parliament. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.50) —It is worth while asking what the fourth constitutional referendum question seeks to secure. I think one of the best expressions of that appears in the first report of the Constitutional Commission. It states: The values that underlie our political system demand that every individual be free to hold and to manifest whatever beliefs and opinions that person's conscience dictates. So long as an individual does not transgress the reasonable limits established in a free and democratic society, his or her freedom of religious belief and practice should not be fettered. Religious freedom is the paradigm freedom of conscience. The report asks why we need this particular proposal. Again, it is worth while addressing ourselves to that report. It states: We believe that the guarantee of that freedom should be consistent throughout the federation. The same standards should apply in every place and to every Government. There is no case for variation where such a basic human liberty is concerned. That is the fundamental debate. There should be no variation where such a fundamental human liberty is concerned. Let us be very clear that the Opposition's position is not that. The Opposition's position is that some governments should be able to traduce this particular right when it feels like it. Let us be very clear what the Opposition is arguing. It is not seeking to extend this right; it is seeking to oppose its extension. It is seeking to oppose the rights of citizens to their freedom of conscience when it concerns State governments. That is clear and unequivocal. It has been made clear on every platform on which I have debated. The Opposition has made no bones about it. It is attempting to ensure that State governments control the religious conscience of individuals in this country. It is a pity that when we had the type of rubbish that has been spoken about time and again, it did not put that on the table. It has covered it up. It has come out with all sorts of honeyed words and sweet propositions. But it boils down to a very simple proposition: it wants the States to be able to control people's freedom of conscience. It is fascinating that individuals such as Sir Maurice Byers are attacked for entering the political arena, but when the churches say something they are not attacked for entering the political arena. Very cleverly, all the submissions from the churches to the Constitutional Commission are put aside. The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs stated: Whatever the rationale of the framers of the Constitution in restricting the ambit of section 116 to the Constitution- That is one of the items we are dealing with here- it is submitted that no valid distinction may be maintained in the latter part of the twentieth century, and that there is no good reason why the States too should not be subject to the constitutional safeguards currently enshrined in the Section. That is the major objection I have to the document that was circulated by the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference. I am not speaking out of turn here. I wrote to the Catholic bishops. I took the time and trouble to analyse each section of their misleading statement. It is a partisan, political document. They have to accept that it is a partisan political document. Senator Boswell —It is a QC's opinion. Senator MACKLIN —It is not a Queen's Counsel opinion, it is the catholic bishops' opinion. They stated quite clearly that it is their opinion. The first proposition in the Catholic bishop's statements reads: The alteration of the Constitution is a matter so significant that all voters have a clear moral responsibility to inform themselves of the issues. That is something with which I totally agree. It goes on: Each voter should vote according to conscience rather than simply through loyalty to any political party. It has been extremely unfortunate that we have seen yet again in our constitutional debate something that we have seen so often in this country. If those people would like me to rehearse the whole 1974-77 situation I would be glad to do so. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to disentangle our constitutional debate from our petty partisan political objectives on a day to day basis. I support totally the first proposition. It is a very important statement. The second proposition states: The Central Commission is concerned about the manner in which the issues in this referendum are presented. Indeed, the issues have been selected not by any pressure from the electorate but rather by the Government. I have no idea where the Catholic bishops get that from. I have gone to innumerable conferences, conventions, meetings and branch meetings-not of my own party but of various associations-throughout my own State and throughout Australia in the last 10 years talking about constitutional change. I said to the bishops that I am unable to see how they have the faintest idea what the electorate is thinking on constitutional matters. I have been involved in a score of conferences and, frankly, the proposition carries no weight at all. The Catholic bishops go on to make an extremely disingenuous statement. They state: The Australian legal and political system involves a federation with separate tiers of government. The principle of subsidiarity demands that there should not be undue concentration of political power in the Commonwealth. Why mention that with regard of this item? It actually does not give any power to the Commonwealth; it takes power away from the States. In fact, it takes additional power away from the Commonwealth because to date the Commonwealth, in terms of administrative action, has had these capacities. It loses power, so why is this item in this statement other than to be misleading. There is no basis for that in this question. I argue that it is not a basis for any other question either. The fourth proposition states: Of particular concern is the grouping in one question of three distinct issues . . . That is reasonable but if they had actually addressed themselves to the issue a little more closely they would have seen that these are the rights which are currently enshrined in the Constitution, that they are areas that the Commonwealth is not able to trample on, and that these three questions are an attempt to remove from the States that power to trample on the rights of citizens, to take away their rights to trial by jury, to take away their property as the States have done. I am sure Senator Chaney from the Liberal Party agreed with his Party's fight in New South Wales with regard to the coal acquisition Act. It took away land and it took away property without compensation. States are quite capable of doing that as is its creature, local government, which does it time and again, day in day out. The Opposition is saying, `Let them do that. We're quite happy for States to take away your property without compensation. We don't want any constitutional guarantee of that proposition. Neither do we want a constitutional guarantee of a right to trial by jury. We don't like that. We don't want that to be a citizens' right in this country. We want to trample on that right of a citizen'. That is what it is saying. That is what it has been arguing throughout the community on every platform that I have been on. The Catholic bishops go on to say: On the issue of freedom of religion the bishops have obtained specialist advice from a variety of experts. It is interesting that they have not been able to tell me yet who their experts are. It is keeping them carefully under wraps. Proposition No. 6 is even more interesting because it shows an abysmal ignorance of why the United States of America Supreme Court decided the way it did with an item which is not in our Constitution. That ignorance of history, the ignorance of Jefferson's letter, displays an extraordinary proposition for a group which should know. That they put out this statement and do not refer to Jefferson's letter is extraordinary. Proposition No. 7 states: In particular the now settled question of government funding of non-government schools and other educational institutions may be re-opened . . . They do not actually say that it could be reopened without any change. They ignore that point; they do not tell anybody that. That is, of course, the proposition. Anybody who knows anything about constitutional history knows that that is so. But that point has been left aside. Proposition No. 8 reads: The long tradition of freedom of religion which our country has enjoyed is best protected through the democratic process . . . Again, I reiterate Senator Tate's comment: they have forgotten their church history. They have certainly forgotten it with regard to the British Commonwealth. They have certainly forgotten the persecution of the Catholic Church that has occurred in country after country. They have decided to put that aside. They have also forgotten the persecution of the church in so many countries in the world today. I find it extraordinary that a group of people who are supposed to be the pastors of their faith in this country should put aside the interests of their own religious confreres in other parts of the world. Proposition No. 9 states that voters need to be particularly cautious in looking at this proposal and that it is vague. It is in no way vague; it is a very clear proposition. It is extraordinary that the bishops then claimed, in a letter to me, that their statement should not in any way be seen as partisan or political. That is silly, and it does them no credit. It is interesting that such a statement should have been made in the context in which it was made. It is interesting that the newspapers gave this statement such a long run when so many spokespersons from a variety of religious backgrounds in this country who opposed the statement were not given the same media coverage. I think it is a pity that when such statements are made, they are not more balanced. I have debated the matter on a number of platforms with people who have presented a balanced case. There are pros and cons to any proposition. I think it would have been far more worth while, in terms of making a contribution to the debate, if the bishops had presented a more balanced case and argued their position in a more balanced way. The exercise in which we are engaged represents an attempt by the Opposition to make sure that the States do not have taken away from them the power to trample on people's rights. The Opposition wants to protect the States' and State government's power to introduce or establish religions. It wants to protect the so-called States' right to have religious tests for people entering the Public Service. It wants to protect the States' right to deny citizens the right to trial by jury. It wants to protect the States' right to be able to take away property from individuals without giving them due compensation. That is what the Opposition is arguing: the State governments are to be supreme in these areas. Quite frankly, I belong to a political party that espouses a liberal philosophy. The philosophy espoused by the Opposition in this regard comes directly from Marx, because it suggests that the States have those types of supreme powers over individuals. I will continue to fight for the enshrinement in our Constitution, within our fundamental document, of the rights of individuals. I believe that those rights will only be secure when they are finally enshrined in the Constitution, under the control of people and not of politicians. I do not happen to trust politicians. I suggest that those people who do not trust politicians take the power away from them and put it in the Constitution by voting yes on Saturday. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(4.05) —I rise to support the matter of public importance proposed by my colleague Senator Bishop. I do so knowing full well that many people are concerned about the referendum questions that will be asked on 3 September. Many people in the Christian community are certainly concerned about the fourth question, which is: `Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms to persons whose property is acquired by any government?'. That question, and all the other questions that will be put to the people, are misleading, dishonest, and blatantly biased, and they are framed in such simplistic terms that they deceive the voter into believing that the questions are innocent. Nothing can be further from the truth. These questions did not merely appear on the ballot paper by accident; they are part of the Government's political agenda-an agenda that will become apparent further down the track. They add 732 words to our Constitution; they remove 609 words; they change 33 clauses. More changes are proposed to the Constitution than have been put to the people of Australia in 87 years. This Constitution that has guaranteed our democracy, our freedom and our way of life, will be altered 33 times if these referendum questions are carried. Senator Collins —That is not an argument in itself why you shouldn't do it, is it? Senator BOSWELL —Certainly. I take up that interjection. The Australian people may perceive that there is a need for a change. This has occurred three times, in my memory. There was the question of Aboriginals being given the right to vote. No one would concede that Aboriginals should not be allowed to vote. The other changes involved the replacement of senators from various parties and a retirement age of 70 years for judges. They were clear and concise questions that could be understood by the majority of people in Australia. They had no hidden agenda and no hidden meaning. The people could see the need for change, and they responded to it. We are being offered a totally different proposition on Saturday. We are being offered 33 changes. One would have to be a constitutional lawyer even to understand them. I think the Government should be condemned for proposing 33 changes to the Constitution under the heading of four simple questions that no one can understand, and which have the capacity to change our Constitution, our democracy and the way of life that we have been proud of for the last 200 years. I do not believe that anyone in Australia, or the rest of the world, for that matter, would say that we do not have freedom of religion or that we have any constrictions on our freedoms. We are the freest nation in the world. We are the envy of every country in the world. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —We are the luckiest country. Senator BOSWELL —As Senator Bjelke-Petersen says-and I acknowledge it-we are the luckiest country in the world. We are guaranteed our constitutional freedoms under the present constitution. But the Government wants to change that. It wants to wreck it by bringing in 33 changes which no one understands and upon which people will be called to make a decision on Saturday. Since the government has pushed these referenda questions its support has evaporated by the moment. Big business has deserted it and small business is getting off the boat. Local governments were gung ho about the proposal when it first appeared. Two or three weeks ago when I travelled around Queensland, many local governments were refusing to pay their levy. More local governments were proposing that the no vote be carried than there were proposing that the yes vote be carried. A few Labor town councils were still supporting it. Churches are not supporting the referendum. The Catholic bishops have refused to support it, as has the Anglican Dean of Sydney, the Very Reverend Lance Shilton. Eminent legal groups are putting advertisements in newspapers, urging and pleading with people to vote no. Senator Macklin made a fairly determined, hard and unwarranted attack on the Catholic bishops. I certainly dissociate myself from his words. The church leaders do not have any political axe to grind. The Anglican Dean of Sydney, the Very Reverend Lance Shilton, called for a no vote and the bishops have called for a no vote. They are not aggressive towards the Australian Labor Party. They are not pro National or pro Liberal. They are concerned to act in the best interests of their own Christian community. They are concerned about freedom of religion; they are concerned about the widely supported principle of State and Federal funding of independent schools and hospitals; and they are concerned about Federal laws overriding State laws on abortion. A case involving this matter was heard in the Canadian Supreme Court recently. Senator Gareth Evans has acknowledged that the proposed Australian Bill of Rights would follow the Canadian principle and that is what we are getting. If this fourth question is answered in the affirmative we will get a Bill of Rights. They are concerned, under the proposed changes to the Constitution, that Australia will follow the American pattern of not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. That is why the bishops and church hierarchy throughout Australia are advocating a no vote. There is no political bias for the National Party of Australia or the Liberal Party of Australia. There is no aggression towards the Labor Party. There is a fundamental concern that as leaders of their churches they are entitled to express an opinion. Not to do so would be an abrogation of their responsibility. Yet they are attacked in the Senate by Senator Macklin-and it is a very vicious attack too, I might add. If question 4 is carried it is going to be a threat to independent education. I want to go into this because I too have gone and sought a Queen's Counsel opinion. There are plenty of them floating around here, but I too sought one. In 1980 there was a challenge by a group calling itself the Council for the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) and Senator Bishop has certainly picked that up and carried the argument very well. The challenge was thrown out of the High Court of Australia. The High Court made its ruling on the basis of the words `make any law for'. These are the very words that are being removed by the Government proposal-the very words that safeguard the funding of independent schools. No wonder we saw yesterday-I would love to know where this organisation gets its money from-a two-page advertisement in the Age newspaper. I am told from a reliable source that that advertisement would cost over $20,000. The Government is being encouraged by a $20,000 advertisement to push for question 4. These are the very people who wanted to undermine funding for Catholic schools, for Methodist schools, for Church of England schools and for hospitals-for all independent schools. These were the very people who wanted to undermine that funding and here they are, three or four days away from a referendum, supporting the Government with a $20,000 advertisement. That commitment by the DOGS council should warn every fair-minded Australian who believes in an independent schools system or supports assistance for church hospitals, and homes which are run by church organisations, that assistance to these very institutions will be challenged in the High Court. Senator Maguire —That is rubbish. Senator BOSWELL —It is not rubbish and the honourable senator knows it is not rubbish. That $20,000 advertisement proves that it is not rubbish because he has encouraged these people to come out and support him. I do not know what the High Court will decide. Senator Tate who has the respect, I believe, of both sides of this House does not know what the High Court will decide. Who knows what the composition of the High Court will be in five, 10 or 15 year's time. They are the people who will be making the decision, not the elected representatives of the people. They can be dismissed, can be appointed and can be voted in. We are taking democracy out of the hands of the people's elected representatives and we are putting in a High Court that cannot be dismissed, it cannot be recalled, and it is stuck there till those judges reach the retiring age of 70 years. Australia would be in a far worse state if the contributions to schools, to nursing homes, and to all these institutions that the churches provide, were removed. I say to the Christian charismatic church groups that they would do well to consider what would happen if the provision in question 4 were applied to their Bible colleges and their universities which they are looking forward to building. All of these things would be put in jeopardy under section 116. If this referendum question is carried on Saturday the new section 116 will impose four constraints which I will nominate. No government may: establish any religion; impose any religious observance; prohibit the free exercise of religion; or require a religious test as a qualification for office. The United States Constitution contains the first, third and fourth of these constraints and the Canadian charter only the third. The Australian High Court will be required to interpret section 116, should the vote on Saturday be carried as a guarantee of religious freedom. The Canadian authority as well as the American authority will probably become relevant and be applied in Australia. This is the advice I get from the opinion of my Queen's Counsel. Not only will foreign precedents be considered but the history of constitutional interpretation in both the United States and Australia shows that the interpretations change markedly over time. One only has to look at the present scope of our external affairs power as compared with its original influence. This is the other reason why it cannot be confidently predicted that the United States jurisprudence will not, in the future, be held to be applicable to the interpretation of proposed section 116. In fact, one could be highly confident that the proposed alteration provides a strong logical basis for our High Court to apply the United States and Canadian precedents. It is not good enough for Senator Tate to dismiss legitimate concerns about the relevance of the United States record of freedom of religion by saying, `It is okay. The Deputy Prime Minister is a Catholic and he has seven children'. He will not be here in another three year's time. Senator Tate might not be here either. The fact is that if we follow the Labor line on this issue our section 116 will be similar to both the American and Canadian related amendments. In the short time that I have left I want to just read out some of the things that have happened under the American amendments. In America the courts have ruled against displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools. A public school principal demanded that a picture of a school club that used the Bible for development exercise be excised from the year book. Many things like that have happened. Is this what we want to risk happening to Australia after 200 years of hard slog? Do we want to hand over so much power to an unelected, appointed body such as the High Court? Do we want to entrench this potential for freedom from religion so deep in our Constitution that we can never get it out? Do we want the Federal Government interfering in our States' legislation? This is what we risk if we accept the Government's proposal for the new section 116. This is the year of our bicentenary. We should be looking to consolidating our gains that we have made over 200 years in this nation. We should not try to experiment with something that no-one understands. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BEAHAN(Western Australia)(4.18) —The arguments put by the Opposition in relation to all these questions are, I believe, the most convoluted, misleading and distorted set of arguments that I have ever heard. It has scraped the bottom of the barrel with all four questions. Nowhere has it scraped the bottom of the barrel more thoroughly and nowhere is it so shameless than in its arguments in relation to this question of the freedoms. How can it argue against such fundamental rights as the right to trial by jury? The right to just compensation for the acquisition of property and the right to freedom of religion are unarguable. Yet we have trotted out by the Opposition a set of propositions that are not related to the argument at all but are simply designed to inject fear into the debate so that those who are feeling insecure will feel a twinge of paranoia and vote no to the propositions before them. There is very little concern for truth. I do not think I have ever heard such nonsense in any debate. I refer particularly to the debate that has raged around the country. I notice that people are a little more constrained in this House because their remarks go into Hansard, but around the country some absurd things have been said. Such remarks have been quoted here by other speakers. I will come to some of them shortly. The debate here is not designed to achieve an objective analysis of the issues, as people are claiming; rather, it is to engender fears where none exist, to whip up hysteria around a set of proposals which, to reasonable people, by any standards are modest and in any other circumstances unexceptionable. Let us look at some of the outlandish things being said. The matter of public importance refers to threats to rights and liberties, when each of the proposals is designed to extend rights and liberties. No argument I have heard so far has cast any doubt at all on that extension. We have also heard around the country the most outlandish claims. Some of them have already been alluded to. I refer to such things as almost compulsory clitoridectomies through to the suggestion that no more prayers will be allowed in schools and the observance of Christmas and Easter will no longer have a religious content. Those are the nonsensical things that are claimed. Best of all was a letter in today's West Australian by the redoubtable Sir Charles Court which takes the whole question a step further. He argues that this is all an insidious plot and that what we are trying to do is return to Roman times; that this is comparable to the rebellion of Christians under the Caesars which caused two centuries of martydom and repression. He referred to the Russian Christians who want unlicensed worship. He talked about that being one of the dark stains of the twentieth century. By juxtaposing those concepts with the proposals that we are putting on religious freedom he has tried to make out that we are supporting those 200 years of martyrdom or the Russian system of licensed religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is another rather sad example of how far out of touch with realities Sir Charles Court now is. He is one of those politicians who did not learn the rule that all politicians should learn: when they retire they get right out of politics and not try to keep involved because ultimately they degenerate into the sort of absurdities that he has. On the question of trial by jury, section 80 of the Constitution is intended to be a safeguard for individual liberty. In fact, it applies only where trial is on indictment for an offence against the Commonwealth. Thus the vast majority of people are not covered by that provision. It does not apply to States or Territories and the parliament-in the States and Territories and at the Commonwealth level-is free to decide whether offences should be tried by indictment or by other forms of trial. What we are saying in this proposition is that we should replace the threshold test of trial by indictment, which is a parliamentary thing and decided by parliament and which is governed, as Senator Tate has already said, by the majority at any time in parliament. Surely that is far more dangerous than something written into the Constitution and subject to case law following on from that. We are saying that the threshold test of trial by indictment where the accused is liable to two years imprisonment or corporal punishment should be written into the Constitution. The provision also extends to States and Territories. So it is an extension of the right of trial by jury. I would have thought that that was totally unarguable. Judging from the level of argument from the other side, that seems to be the case. Honourable senators opposite enter into a convoluted set of arguments that raise fears and furphies; they do not get close to the substance of what the arguments are all about. I think Senator Bishop earlier talked about this being a Government-driven referendum but the Opposition's policies make it clear that such a right should be written into the Constitution. In its policy manifesto before the 1987 election, under the heading `Constitutional reform', it states: 2.1.1 The right to trial by jury in serious criminal cases should be guaranteed by the Constitution. It goes on to say: The right to jury trial for serious offences against Commonwealth laws, once thought to be provided by section 80 of the Constitution, has been greatly diminished by judicial decisions. The right to trial by jury is so basic to our common law system and as a defence against arbitrary punishment that it should be entrenched in our Constitution. This protection should apply to trials for offences against Commonwealth, State or Territory laws: In other words last year the Liberal Party, in its manifesto before the election, put up a proposition which is identical to the one that we are now proposing. Yet it says there has been no movement from outside. The fact that the Constitutional Commission recommended this change seems to the Liberal Party to be irrelevant. The fact that successive Constitutional Conventions have suggested it seems to be irrelevant to the Opposition. The fact that various legal bodies have from time to time suggested it is also considered irrelevant. It is far from being a Government engendered proposition; it is a proposition that has been floating around for many years now and it was supported by the Liberal-National Party Opposition as recently as last year. In fact, the recommendation of the shadow Cabinet was that this proposal be supported, so it was supported far more recently than July of last year. The second proposition is related to the acquisition of property. The Constitution provides in section 51 (xxxi) for the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws for the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has the power to make laws. The emphasis is on `just terms'; that is, there should be reasonable compensation within the standards appropriate at the time if the Government-in this case only the Commonwealth because that is the only government to which this provision in the Constitution applies-acquires property for whatever purpose. That seems perfectly appropriate and it seems quite inappropriate too that that provision does not apply to State or Territory governments. The Liberal and National parties are the champions of private property. They bend over backwards at times to defend that right against the right of individuals who are caught up against that right. To me, the Liberal Party stands far more for property law than it does for the rights of individuals, despite painting itself otherwise. Yet the champions of private property deny the rights of individuals to receive just and reasonable compensation. I wonder how they will explain when a farm, a business or a domestic property is acquired by a State or Territory government-if this constitutional provision does not apply-for a road or for power transmission, water supply, irrigation or mining purpose. I wonder how they will explain why it is that those people do not receive any compensation; why it is that they do not have a right to compensation; why it is that they did not support that right when they had the opportunity of supporting this fourth proposal in the referendum. But it is on the question of religious freedom that the most absurd flights of fancy have been exercised. I wonder how intelligent people who have some pride in their capacity for rational analysis can lend themselves to some of the arguments that have been presented. The Opposition's campaign would have us believe that the proposal, as I have indicated, will somehow weaken the right to religious freedom rather than strengthen it, as it so clearly does; that it will somehow abolish the religious associations of public holidays such as Christmas and Easter; that it will somehow lead to the elimination of prayers in Parliament, at state funerals and other state occasions. How in the world one can argue that I will never know. It is the most illogical proposition, but it is not substantiated so it does not have to be logical. I worry about people who are able to lose whatever pride they have in their own capacity for self-analysis and honest expression of ideas and who lend themselves to that level of argument. They argue that it will lead to a plethora of unacceptable behaviour such as clitoridectomy, stoning of adulterers and so on by fringe religious groups. The nonsense in all of those arguments is patent. It has been dealt with by other speakers and I will not go into any more detail on it here. The most elaborate and deceitful furphy of them all is that it will reopen the bitter and divisive state aid debate. I have already read from Sir Charles Court's letter, in which he makes much more out of that than most others would, even the Opposition in this chamber, despite the fact that honourable senators opposite have gone to some pretty absurd lengths. Sir Charles goes even further than most of them would. Some of them would be red faced, I imagine, at the sorts of propositions he put. At least I hope so. It is a sad reflection on a man of some standing that he has sunk to that level. All of these claims are clearly utter nonsense, and I think successive speakers have proved this to be so. On the question of state aid for independent schools, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the article by Xavier Connor, QC, in today's Melbourne Age, which has already been referred to by previous speakers. I am not going to get into this argument about my QC versus your QC. Senator Chaney —What are you doing it for then? Why are you quoting him? Senator BEAHAN —I am quoting him because what he is saying-- Senator Chaney —He agrees with what you say. Senator BEAHAN —Is that not what Senator Chaney and others have been doing? Senator Short —Why are you taking the high moral ground on it? Senator BEAHAN —If Senator Short will listen I will show him that it goes through the various opinions that have been given and analyses those opinions, which is of interest. Mr Connor talks about the bishops' decision, which was based on an analysis by Peter Bennett, QC, and about the terms of reference he was given. Mr Connor says: I have read the opinions of Mr David Bennett, QC, Dr G. D. Woods, QC, and the opinion of Sir Maurice Byers, QC, on this matter. The terms of the brief to Mr Bennett are remarkable. He was not asked to express his opinion as to the probable outcome of any future challenge to state aid. The questions that Mr Bennett was asked to answer were very artfully contrived. They asked only whether there was `any doubt beyond that presently existing that the decision in the DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case would no longer be applicable'. Keeping within his brief-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.36) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Bronwyn Bishop on behalf of the Opposition in these terms: The serious threat to rights and liberties posed by the Hawke Government's fourth referendum proposal, including the traditional notion of freedom of religion in Australia and in particular the widely-supported principle of State-aid to independent schools. I have sat and listened to honourable senators from the Labor side of the House, and the one Australian Democrat who contributed. I have been reminded of why the reputation of politicians runs somewhere behind that of used car salesmen, and I say that with some apology to used car salesmen. The arguments which have been brought forward have been breathtaking in their arrogance, if not in their foolishness. The simple proposition that the Opposition is asserting in this matter of public importance is that the amendments which are being put forward by the Government pose a serious threat to existing rights and liberties. That is a matter which is based upon the confession of uncertainty that has been made by representatives of this Government. The public could be excused for not wishing to listen to any politician on these subjects. But the public might follow the rule of the courts and accept that where statements are made against interest-in other words, if one makes a statement which does not actually go to one's own interest-there is an increased possibility that one is telling the truth. Two very senior people in the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), have made it absolutely clear that they cannot give guarantees with respect to the interpretation that will be put on these changes by the High Court. Senator Collins —You cannot do that with the existing section. Senator CHANEY —Senator Collins interjects that it cannot be done with the existing section. The truth is, of course, that the existing section has been subject to challenge in the High Court of Australia. The High Court by a majority of six to one-the minority of one being Mr Justice Murphy, who adopted very much an American style approach to this, an American type interpretation-gave a certain meaning to the existing section of the Constitution. These changes must raise the possibility of new interpretations being given. We have it on the public record that those people who challenged state aid to church schools-which is supposedly supported by every honourable senator in this chamber, including Government senators-the very people who challenged it in 1981 have made it quite clear that if this referendum is carried they see the possibility of challenging again. They are not the statements of politicians but the proper admissions by the Prime Minister and Senator Tate that they cannot say what the High Court might do. When one allies it with the already existing threat of a new challenge, it is an indication of the uncertainty which necessarily exists if this constitutional referendum is passed. Let me quote another non-politician, the recently retired Chief Justice of the High Court, a man who until very recently led the Court that had the responsibility for the interpretation of our Federal Constitution. Sir Harry Gibbs in a paper given in July this year said: This 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 words of generality. That is not necessarily bad but gives the Court room to adapt the Constitution as philosophies and situations alter. But it also means that one cannot safely assume that any general provision will have no more than a symbolic effect. Senator Collins —That is right. Senator CHANEY —Senator Collins says that it is right, and it is right. I am glad he makes that concession. Sir Harry Gibbs says it is possible that the High Court could change the interpretation of the existing section at some future time. Senator Collins is nodding his head again. I agree with him: it is possible but it is very unlikely. The majority of six to one is there. We have varying opinions from learned lawyers, lawyers far better than those who inhabit this place, except perhaps for Senator Durack, who is unfortunately not with us today. There are many learned lawyers with conflicting views, but a significant group of significant lawyers says that the risk of an adverse interpretation is greater given these changes. Senator Bishop has tabled in this place an opinion from Mr Bennett, QC. That, in turn, has been criticised by Xavier Connor, QC. I do not pretend that both lawyers are not respected QCs. What I say is that the High Court has made an interpretation, which most Australians would support and be happy with, and we are changing the words in a way which must give an opportunity for a further reconsideration of that section. That is the concern which is at the heart of our opposition to this part of the referendum. Let me go back over the quite extraordinary contribution by Senator Beahan. The one value in what Senator Beahan had to say to this chamber is that he made it quite clear that we are dealing with three quite disparate propositions. One might have strong feelings about the question of property and its possible confiscation by government. One might have strong feelings about the risks to trial by jury in this amendment. It is clear that the size of juries, the question of majorities, is capable of virtually endless variation under the provision the Government is putting forward. One might have objection to the provisions with respect to freedom of religion. But the fundamental dishonesty that cannot be escaped is that all of the Australian people are being told that they must vote yes or no for all of these three propositions. They are given no opportunity to pick and choose. That is one of the great succession of dishonesties that we have seen in this whole approach. We start with a $6m Constitutional Commission, which fundamentally was used to soften up the people with the idea that our Constitution was in some way out of date. The Government did not even wait for its final report before bringing forward these referendums. We then had $3m spent on softening up the people on the need for constitutional change. We have moved into a wonderful new building. Does that mean that we also need a new Constitution? What a wonderful piece of logic and reasoning for the Australian people! It is emotional cant. It is salesmanship done at the public expense to soften up the people to what the Government believes is the need for constitutional change. We have these questions, condemned by observer after observer as thoroughly dishonest. I do not have time this afternoon to go back over that ground. There are 33 changes to the Constitution to be made by the answering of four simple and misleading questions. When the Senate sought to put in questions which truly described the changes being made by these referendums, those questions were voted down by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. There is no end to the attempts that have been made by this Government, including the attempts made by the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, to keep the argument low key, to keep politicians out of it. What an absurd proposition Mr Bowen has advanced. He has tried to still the debate, to get it through under cover of a public relations campaign carried out at the public expense. In the limited time I have, let me say that I found the arrogance of the attack on the views of the Catholic bishops by Senator Macklin quite extraordinary. I have always believed that when bishops enter these areas they are open to debate. They are participants in the debate, like everyone else. I accept the right Senator Macklin has to differ from their views. But Senator Macklin's attack was on the basis of an arrogant assumption by him that his interpretation of the law is correct and that the bishops are wrong. I believe that that is not a firm foundation for an attack on the bishops, which has been made on their views here this afternoon. I quote again the opinion of David Bennett, QC, that has been tabled by Senator Bishop. He comes to the view that there is a greater risk in the amendment which is being put forward. The question is asked: Would the proposed amendment give rise to any doubt beyond that presently existing that the decision in the DOGS case could no longer be applicable? His answer is: Yes. In other words, there would be a doubt as to whether grants of state aid to church schools would continue to be permissible under the Constitution. One could go on quoting authorities. It becomes-as Senator Beahan tried to avoid-a question of your Queen's Counsel or my Queen's Counsel. Bevan Lawrence, who in our State as a lawyer has been active in campaigning against issues such as the identity card and the Bill of Rights, no doubt would have joined issue with the embracing of the whole concept of the Bill of Rights that was implicit in Senator Beahan's speech. People such as Bevan Lawrence, members of the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia and sundry churchmen, including the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, have come out and warned that there are difficulties and dangers in this proposal. It is possible that the advice that anybody has received in this matter, including the bishops, is wrong. But I believe that there must be an increased risk of a different interpretation, given the differences of wording which exist between the Government's amendment proposal and what exists now. I believe that the caution which has been issued by the Catholic Bishops should be carefully heeded. They express their concern that a yes vote on this question could-and they use the word `could'-end up seriously restricting freedom of religion. They refer to the American experience and to the possibility that the interpretation of the Constitution in the DOGS case could be affected by the removal of the significant words `make any law for establishing' from this provision. I welcome the fact that the bishops have uttered that caution. In the context of a series of debates in this chamber where accusations of whipping up public fervour and concern have been made, I refer, as Senator Boswell did, to the advertisements taken out in the Age newspaper on 30 August. John Howard in the House of Representatives expressed his concern about the tone of those advertisements. I believe that in their tone they are totally unrepresentative of the views of the majority of Australians. The element of sectional conflict, of conflict between religious groups, that is represented in those advertisements is a matter that is a minority interest in Australia. But it is a matter of great regret that the Government, in bringing forward this referendum, has clearly raised again the hopes of those who believe that the revival of this sort of sectarian attack has a future. The Government has re-opened that debate. Within recent days we have been accused by the Government of opening up a difficult and divisive immigration debate. I throw that accusation back to the Government in this context because I believe that it has opened up a divisive debate in the area of religion and aid to schools. The last time I checked, the substantial growth in new schools numerically was in small Protestant schools. I welcome that. I welcome the fact that many different groups, some of them not religious, have taken advantage of the systems of aid which are available to widen educational choice in this country. Why in the world should we be putting it under any threat or doubt? There are few opportunities left to us to debate these referendums in this place. The people go to vote on Saturday. I hope that they will heed the warnings which have been issued. I hope that they will acknowledge the uncertainties which exist about the real meaning and the full and final import of these changes. I hope that they will throw all of them out. Indeed, I believe that they will. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(4.48) —With that last prayer to the Senate, Senator Chaney is on fairly firm ground in terms of political history. There is no doubt-and the conservatives in this country are playing on it-that, on a question of changing the Constitution, Australians are so naturally conservative in their outlook and behaviour that, when one or other of the major political parties determines to make a political campaign of the issues, the success rate for getting some change to our outdated and outmoded Constitution is not very high. The thing that has always puzzled me about these debates, as I think it puzzles others, is the extraordinary degree of wisdom and prescience that is attributed to the founding fathers who put this Constitution together. They were simply a collection, as we all are, of politicians of the day, from the various crown colonies that are now the States of Australia, who did the best job they could of putting together the basis for this nation-and a pretty good job, in my view, considering the problems that existed at the time, which were largely unrelated to the political history of the United States and certainly of Great Britain. A number of points need to be made about some of the matters that Senator Chaney has raised. It is perfectly true that there is a division among lawyers as to their interpretation of what effect the amendments to section 116 would have. Of course, lawyers grow rich on such division. If lawyers agreed on every matter that came before the nation, they would be very poor indeed. As we all know, they are very rich and they grow rich on disagreeing with each other and of course, finally, a court has to be the arbiter as to which view is correct. But lawyers do not have a mandate on the law. Some lawyers think they do. Some lawyers are very precious about the law. In fact I notice the other day when I had the hide to use the words `ratio decidendi' in a speech that I made, Senator Hill nearly had apoplexy. The reason I used the words is that I do not know of a quicker way of saying the legal principle upon which a court decision was based. It is a lot easier to use the word `ratio'. But Senator Hill nearly had a fit because I am not a lawyer and it was a dreadful thing for me to use lawyers' words. But lawyers do not have a monopoly on the law and I, like every other Australian on Saturday, will simply have to determine, basically on the grounds of commonsense, whether I believe that the changes to section 116 will destroy state aid overnight. It is an important question for me-- Senator Chaney —Not overnight. No-one is arguing that. Senator COLLINS —That is the basis of the scare campaign-perhaps next year or the year after; certainly in my lifetime. It is an important question for me because my children attend Catholic schools, I am a practising Catholic and, as I said the other night, I am also a member of the Northern Territory Catholic Education Council. So I can assure honourable senators that it is a matter I have given considerable attention to and, on balance, I am absolutely persuaded that I can safely vote yes to question four on Saturday without endangering the education of my son, the education of all other Australian Catholics and all those other children who are attending independent schools run by the Uniting Church in Australia, the Anglican Church and all the other churches. I want to quote from Xavier Connor's article but not to quote the legal points that he makes-I agree with Senator Chaney that for every Queen's Counsel that says aye we get two Queen's Counsels who say no; there is hardly anything new or revolutionary about that. I want to quote from this article purely because of the philosophical point put by Xavier Connor as a Catholic layman because, frankly, I could not say it better myself. He stated: As a Catholic layman, I am profoundly disappointed at the way in which the bishops of my church have handled the issue of freedom of religion in the referendum debate. When I went to Mass last Sunday every parishioner was given a copy of the bishops' statement. The message in it is loud and clear-vote No. The view of the bishops is not based on Catholic theology or doctrine but on a seriously flawed view of Australian constitutional law. The vice of the bishops' presentation is that it completely and unfairly ignores a strong case for voting Yes which is entirely consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church. I could not say it better than that. In fact, I am ashamed as a Catholic layman when I put the actions of those bishops against what has been done in churches such as the Anglican Church and the Uniting Church, where senior clergy have put both cases and have argued strongly in some cases for the matter to be answered in the negative, but at least have conceded that there is another side to the question and allowed the laity of their churches to make a considered decision. The bishops have chosen not to do that and I, as a Catholic layman, condemn them as Xavier Connor has done, not for any flaw in their legal arguments-we will not get bogged down in that again-but from the way they have acted in this matter, which is certainly a reflection of the dreadful sectarian arguments that affected both the Catholic Church and my Party years ago. As an Irish-Catholic-Labor person, part of that great Irish family in the Australian Labor Party, it is a history of the Labor Party with which I am very familiar. We then get on to this question of inability to provide a guarantee. Senator Chaney quoted the former Chief Justice of the High Court as saying, correctly, that a guarantee cannot be provided. Of course we cannot provide a guarantee that the interpretation that this High Court, currently constituted, has placed on section 116 as it is currently worded, is forever going to stay there. Of course, we cannot guarantee that; we cannot guarantee that about any section of the Constitution. It is all subject to the possibility of future reinterpretation. No lawyer in the country would stand up and say that we can offer a guarantee that there will never be a reinterpretation of any section of the Constitution or, indeed, any other law. If lawyers did that, they would be out of business overnight, because it is on those various interpretations that the entire practice of lawyers is based. As Australian citizens, all we can do is use our own intelligence that God has given us and, on the balance of everything that is in front of us, make our own decision about whether we think the change in the referendum proposals will weaken or strengthen the section as it currently stands. I believe that there is no compunction to vote yes to question four if it did not change the effect of section 116. If it is simply left as it currently is, what would be the point of agreeing to it? I believe, and I am sure a lot of others in my church believe, that it does precisely what the drafters of the change have tried to do-that is, strengthen the section and not weaken it. Not only does it maintain the prohibition of parliaments interfering with the practice of religion; it extends that prohibition to the Executive doing precisely the same thing, and it extends that prohibition to the States. On the question of some sinister plot being attached to lumping those three questions together, I say again, as I said in the debate the other day, that the questions are connected in the sense that they are all matters where the Commonwealth is prohibited from acting but the States are not, and they are all some of the very few sections of the Australian Constitution, which does not contain a Bill of Rights, which affect individual liberties, freedoms and the rights of citizens. Senator Short —But they are totally different subjects. Senator COLLINS —I point out the bleeding obvious to the honourable senator that, in terms of some sinister plot being attached to this, as Senator Beahan quite correctly interjected, when the original Australian Constitution was put to the people all 128 sections were canvassed in one question. Senator Short —That is totally different. Senator COLLINS —Of course it is a different situation because it does not happen to suit the honourable senator's argument. Senator Short —That is totally irrelevant. Senator COLLINS —Again it is irrelevant because it does not happen to suit the honourable senator's argument. I turn now to the appalling misinterpretations-deliberate misinterpretations in my view because the people who are putting them are not entirely mugs-of the judgments of the High Court of Australia in the Council for the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) case. Senator Bishop, who launched this debate-just one of the many bishops who are putting forward a view on this matter, to vote no-read out part of the judgment of Sir Anthony Mason in that case, but she stopped at the crucial point and, for the sake of the record, I would just like to continue where she left off. Senator Bishop said that the term `any law for' was the basis for the decision in the DOGS case. It was not. She read out Sir Anthony Mason's judgment in support of that view. In fact, the substance of that case, the legal principle upon which the decision was based-I do not want to upset any more lawyers by using legal terminology-was the words `the establishment of a religion'. Sir Anthony Mason's judgment makes that clear when he goes on to say: It is altogether too much to say that a law which gives financial aid to churches generally, to be expended on education, is a law for establishing religion. The mere provision of financial aid to churches generally more particularly when that aid is genuinely linked to expenditure on education, falls short of `establishing' a `religion' as we understand the expression. By it we mean the authoritative establishment or recognition by the State of a religion or a church as a national institution. I could not make it much clearer than that. Sir Ninian Stephen and Sir Harry Gibbs said precisely the same things in that case with a 6 to 1 decision, Justice Murphy dissenting. With the greatest respect for Mr Justice Murphy, I say that his judgment in this case was as idiosyncratic as his judgment in a number of other cases. He had strong views on this matter and he argued with legal principles to support that view. That is hardly a revolutionary thing for a Justice of the High Court to do-they do it all the time. Personally, I felt that there was more than enough room for a reformist judge like Mr Justice Murphy on the High Court. There is no getting away from the fact that Mr Justice Murphy had a strong view opposing state aid to non-government schools, and he chose that opportunity, as the sole dissenting judge, to make that point. I point out again the bleeding obvious-so much weight has been placed on Mr Justice Murphy's dissent, but it was based on the existing section 116 and not on any amended section 116. So I hardly understand the relevance of that. The one thing that the coalition wants to smother or ignore is the dissension in its own ranks on this subject. There is dissension in Opposition ranks on this question, as there is with respect to immigration, because those opposite have sold their souls to the devil-and a very high price they have paid indeed. In order to maintain-and this is what it is all about-this ramshackle coalition with the Nationals, which is what it has become, a high price has been paid for their so-called liberalism, and the Liberal Party is continuing to pay that price. Senator Panizza —Oh! We are off the immigration debate. Senator COLLINS —I will tell the honourable senator- Senator Panizza —Oh come on! You've got to be joking. Senator COLLINS —What has the Liberal Party received in return for paying this price? Theoretically, after paying this high price the Opposition should be a mile in front, but at the moment it is in the unbelievable position, half way through a term, of being five points behind. The Opposition has paid this price and sold out its liberal principles but it is still as acceptable socially and politically to the Australian electorate as a pool of dog's vomit. That is not a very good return for the price that it has paid. It is in this position today basically on two grounds: firstly, in terms of the economic management of this country the Opposition cannot lay a glove on us; and, secondly, the majority-the lion's share-of the true liberals in this Parliament are all on this side of politics. That is the real problem. The Opposition is continuing to pay the price for this. However, there are still a few outstanding examples, and I refer to one in conclusion-the circular distributed by the Hon. Ian Wilson MP to his electorate. This Liberal member of Parliament advocates, among other things, a yes vote to question No. 4. I can only say that, like Ian Wilson and probably all the other true liberals in this Parliament, I will be voting yes to question No. 4 on Saturday. Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers: upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate notes: (a) the failure of the Budget to: (i) reduce the level of Commonwealth spending on its own programs and therefore the Government's call on national resources, (ii) address underlying causes of our chronic uncompetitiveness, in particular the reasons for our extremely low productivity and excessive wages growth, and (iii) create an economic environment conducive to a substantial lift in business investment; (b) that because of these failings, the Government expects to see continuing growth in Australia's foreign debt; and (c) the criticism of the Minister for Finance in his speech to Labor Lawyers in Perth on 19 September about the Government's lack of courage in not further cutting spending, and his warning about the dangers of Australia heading further down the `Argentinian road', and calls on the Government to introduce a Mini Budget during the current Parliamentary sittings to address these deficiencies in the 1987-88 Budget''. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Dunn, I remind honourable senators that this is her first speech. Therefore, I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her. Senator DUNN(New South Wales)(5.04) —Thank you, Mr President. I did not expect to be here. Now that I am I intend to do all that I can to represent those whose major concern is to end the nuclear threat, to ensure as far as possible that future generations will be able to enjoy the beauty and health of an unspoilt natural environment, and to support and promote those measures which add to human dignity and freedom. I have great respect for the Senate, especially because the electoral system of this country makes this chamber the best forum for some widely-held community concerns that can rarely be directly represented in the lower House. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Senator Jo Vallentine, the Australian Democrat senators, like-minded Government members, and independently minded senators on the other side with whom I share much common ground. I cannot avoid some reference to the unusual circumstances of my election. Some senators come here after being on major party tickets, after convivial party barbecues and tributes from backslapping party faithful. I came here with a high public profile, in a way that the former New South Wales Premier, Neville Wran, would describe as having `a blowtorch applied to the belly'. The issues involved have been canvassed extensively in the media and it would be inappropriate to raise them here. Let me just say that my decision to enter Parliament as an independent in no way reduces my commitment to the platform of the Nuclear Disarmament Party (NDP). In the short time that my predecessor Robert Wood was in this place, he was engaged in promoting disarmament. His disappointment in losing the seat is understandable. While our differences have been publicly aired, he has also said I was `pretty solid' on the issues and in this respect, at least, I hope not to disappoint him and the considerable body of Australians who are concerned about the nuclear threat. It is a pleasant duty to thank a few of the people who provided generous support and assistance during a difficult period. First among these I acknowledge my mother, Raisa Dunn, for the dedication with which she laboured for years on a factory production line to ensure that her daughter received a decent education. I would also particularly like to thank the Senate staff and my personal staff, the Warren family, David Shellard, Tom Molomby, Eve Higson and Sarah Ahern, as well as the many others who have given me all the help I could have wished for in recent times. I should also like to acknowledge the voters of New South Wales. Although some may depreciate the results of the preferential proportional system and the quality of the votes, this is entirely unjustified. The preferential vote allows the deep community disquiet about nuclear technology to be reflected in the election of parliamentary representatives whose policies give prominence to these matters. As for the 287,000 voters themselves, they are not the primitive Luddites that opponents will suggest, but largely well-informed citizens who have given careful thought to the best use of their vote and the possibility of effecting some necessary and constructive changes through this Parliament. Much the same can be said about the direction of Australian Labor Party (ALP) preferences to the Nuclear Disarmament Party in July 1987. Public opinion polls by the commercial pollsters and more specific surveys like that recently conducted by People for Nuclear Disarmament indicate an even broader concern in the community, especially among Labor voters, than is reflected in the NDP's aggregate preferential vote. The concern of the voters derives not only from a stance of opposition to Australia's involvement in the arms race through uranium mining, the United States presence on our soil and the visits of nuclear warships to our ports. It is also expressing itself increasingly in a desire for Australia to develop an independent and self-reliant defence and foreign policy which emphasises this country's role and future in the Asia-Pacific region. We do not live in isolation, and what we do in Australia affects our neighbours. How can we, with consistency, sign the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and at the same time sell our uranium to the French for tests which spill radioactive rubbish around the Pacific region-rubbish that may contain uranium atoms originally dug from Australian soil? After the recent Euratom revelations, we can no longer pretend that our engagement in the fuel cycle does not make us a party to the nuclear arms race. The failure of the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the non-proliferation treaty adequately and the practice of flag-swapping almost certainly result in Australian uranium being diverted somewhere along the line for bombs. Even if we consider only the civil use of nuclear technology, it is clear that it has been a serious disappointment. Nuclear power does not provide a desirable nor even a satisfactory answer to the energy demands of the future. Even in those countries with a heavy dependence upon fission generated electricity, the net contribution to national energy is relatively small, construction costs are high and reactor waste is a major problem and continues to generate scandals, such as Nukem, as well as radioactivity. Maintenance, repair and decommissioning costs make such programs economically suspect, even without taking into account the additional risks and costs of accidents and sabotage. Since the commitment of the major powers to nuclear weapons, and the linked commitments of governments and commercial interests to nuclear power, military secrecy and civil misinformation have accompanied a dramatic increase in security and made fully informed debate much more difficult than it ought to be in a democratic society. Despite this security, plutonium is being moved illegally around the world and is being not only mislaid but also pilfered in significant quantities. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported the existence of a `nuclear supermarket' at Khartoum in the Sudan, where quantities of plutonium, allegedly from European sources, and enriched uranium were sold to the highest bidders, including representatives from South Africa, Iraq, Iran and other countries. This sort of corruption is inevitable, but there have been open deals by nuclear technology exporting nations such as France and Germany which have exhibited a cynical disregard for global consequences. We all know, for example, about the `peaceful' Indian nuclear device developed with the help of a Canadian reactor. It is believed that several `peaceful' weapons exist, while the technical ground for denial of their existence may be as little as the turn of a screw away from fully armed weapons. Pakistan's `Islamic bomb' may also have some loose screws. It appears not to be so insistently peaceful. Mordechai Vanunu's courageous revel- ations about Israel's nuclear arsenal, for which he was tortured and gaoled, were startling not because they disclosed the existence of the weapons, but because of the number and sophistication of the weapons. The minimum estimate is 100 atomic bombs, and there is a suspicion that Israel may be developing not merely hydrogen bombs but neutron bombs, which preserve the real estate while destroying lives. The number of bombs possessed by Israel is symptomatic of the nuclear fever exhibited by the bomb-owning states, where the number of weapons grows out of all proportion to their supposedly deterrent or military uses. It is scarcely surprising that, despite setbacks, Libya, Iran and Iraq are also seeking nuclear weapons. We are not privy to what progress they have made, although Libya advertised for nuclear bombs on the open market. These developments in the Middle East have a special potential to drag larger states, however reluctantly, into a nuclear conflict. South Africa possesses nuclear weapons; Brazil and Argentina have sought nuclear weapons. There seems little reason to doubt that all nations with substantial nuclear research facilities will eventually develop nuclear weapons. The failure of the United States Government, especially under President Reagan, to play the promised role of nuclear policeman will only encourage this process. Continued Australian engagement in the nuclear fuel cycle will inevitably make us party to this creeping worldwide affliction. The Government's claim that Australia must be involved in the uranium trade in order to have a positive role in disarmament and safeguards is, in my opinion, casuistry of a high order. The Australian Labor Party National Conference in June this year pushed through an amendment calling for a review of uranium policy by the National Executive. Proposed changes included the relaxation of the three mines policy and the establishment of a uranium enrichment plant in the Northern Territory, which was proposed by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator John Button. Significantly, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr John Kerin, rejected these proposals on economic grounds. The establishment costs of an enrichment plant would be massive. Radiation hazards in handling and transporting the enriched uranium would be increased, the product would be attractive to malevolent parties in times of international tension, and Australia would be regarded with suspicion, especially by close neighbours who might well suspect that at a later time the level of enrichment might be raised to weapons grade. I hope that this possibility is remote. I also hope that honourable senators share my distaste for the proposal of Mr Barry Coulter, the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, to establish a large nuclear waste disposal plant in the Northern Territory. Now that Senator Button has let us know that the money is available, let us use it to upgrade some other Australian resources. If we must have a woodchip industry, let us use degraded farmlands for plantations and enrich our own industry, instead of paying Japanese companies to destroy our native forests and take them away. Why not develop our wool products instead of buying them back at a high mark-up in fashion products? Best of all, let us enrich our future by providing for the welfare and education of single mothers and their children who bear the brunt of poverty in this country. To end my remarks on nuclear energy, I wish to refer briefly to the greenhouse effect, which has led to some suggestions to revive the ailing nuclear power industry. Such a reaction would be foolish. It would be many years before such reactors could be built, and when we examine the total energy use of developed nations it is obvious that merely `cleaning up' electricity generation would have a relatively minor effect on total carbon dioxide production. Most informed people expect that a strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and maintain Western standards of living will draw from a wide spectrum of technologies. One of the most important will be economies in energy use such as occurred dramatically in the United States after the oil crisis of the early 1970s. Many features of energy consumption are more a matter of style than necessity and much more could be done if governments more actively promoted energy conservation. A major need is a replacement for the liquid fuels in transportation. The cleanest longer term candidate is hydrogen which, when properly burnt, produces only water vapour. Research into the safe high-density storage of this gas is advanced and there are encouraging developments in the use of sunlight with a catalyst to split hydrogen from water, and in the technology of solar cells. Such measures may, in time, help to limit the impact of the greenhouse effect, but we live under the shadow of an even greater catastrophe-the nuclear winter-a threat that totally undermines the defensive philosophy of nuclear weapons. Although there has been some doubt cast upon the exact dimensions of the effect and the influence of seasonal variations, the basic proposition of nuclear winter stands unchallenged. The specially bad news for Australia comes from evidence that there is more atmospheric exchange between the hemispheres than was previously believed. Very shortly, not only the radioactive fallout but also the lethal sunlight obscuring clouds would cover our hemisphere. We are currently basking in the sunshine of a more optimistic world. There have been gratifying easings of conflict and tensions in Angola, the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, and a very partial disarmament treaty between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been signed and is being put into effect. We may think that a nuclear war is unlikely at the moment, that there would be some warning. However, the military forces of both sides still face their respective `evil empires' and the possibility of accident is always present, as evidenced in the case of the Vincennes disaster where, like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, human error at the interface with high technology broke down the safeguards. Are the ICBM silo crews any less ready today? I think not. Only a few years ago, to please the United States, a government of this nation of which I am usually proud to be a citizen sent its young men to die in a futile and ill- conducted war. Honourable senators may remember the American boast that the United States air force would bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age. We now know that, by accident or intent, in an unfavourable season, it may be instrumental in taking us all much further back. With luck, we may begin again at the point where our primordial ancestors crawled out of a green pond. On this issue I willingly risk being seen as another ranting Cassandra for the case against the nuclear arsenals is impossible to overstate. I have a sympathetic affection for Matthew Arnold, who saw the modern world coming and did not like it much. His image of the `darkling plain' is as apposite as ever, but I have preferred, in times of adversity, some more muscular lines from his short poem The Last Word: Let the victors, when they come When the forts of folly fall Find the body by the wall. Unfortunately, this hope of posthumous vindication cannot apply here, and we may all be lying by the wall of the fort of folly-some of us with unforgivable expressions of surprise on our carbonised features. Everyone agrees that there will be no victors. Any fair-minded citizen of a Western democracy addressing the subject of nuclear weapons and the possibility of a major nuclear conflict, finds that she will be directing a lot of trenchant criticism at our ally, the United States. This may seem unjust since the United States is only one of two superpowers that hold the world hostage. But it is also the virtue of United States democracy that allows and invites these criticisms. Indeed, much of our detailed information on nuclear technology comes from the United States because of its deep, if incomplete, commitment to freedom of information, and from the endeavours of United States citizens to keep their governments honest. However, there is a brashness and arrogance that manifests itself in military aspects of United States foreign affairs. To illustrate this, we have only to consider the bullying of New Zealand and the Palauan people as well as the United States reluctance to sign the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. It is still assumed that what is good for the United States is good for the world and, furthermore, that the world should be grateful for the chance to contribute. It is more galling to be in servitude to a professed friend than to an enemy. Press reports today back up this point. They show that US State Department officials used standover tactics on the former Opposition Leader Bill Hayden by threatening to tear up the ANZUS agreement if a future Labor government insisted that the US indicate whether or not the US ships carried nuclear weapons. This is the sort of alliance we can do without. US Secretary of State, George Shultz, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) may be great golf buddies, but this sort of backyard bullying by a superpower puts Australia in a potentially deadly game where the cards are heavily stacked against us. Let us consider the role of the so-called joint facilities on Australian soil. No-one denies that they would be targets in any major nuclear exchange and their jointness is very doubtful. Our Government argues that these facilities are necessary for deterrence. But while our Government uses the word `deterrence' to mean `retaliatory deterrence', the US military uses information from the facilities to support a destabilising, war fighting deterrence. The US military uses the word `deterrence' very broadly. The Government argues that Nurrungar and Pine Gap are essential for verification, but what is presented as verification to us may be strategic war planning for the US. There are very good reasons to support the closure of Nurrungar, in South Australia. Its function in relation to the US war fighting strategy and the strategic defence initiative is inconsistent with the Australian Government's opposition to these strategies. Whatever verification function it presently has will be rendered obsolete by the deployment of nuclear explosion sensors on the new Navstar satellites. These will perform the verification function far more efficiently than the Nurrungar satellites. Moreover Nurrungar's role in providing early warning of missile launches will become redundant with the deployment of satellite to satellite crosslinks, which will relay information directly to the US without the necessity for a ground station. Pine Gap is also generally defended on the grounds of its role in verification, despite the small amount of such work performed at the base. I support Australia playing a major role in verification. Glasnost has not extended to the Soviet military and there is a need for such activities. Australia should promote international verification efforts by phasing out Pine Gap, as it presently is, and replacing it with facilities which perform the genuine functions required for verification. North West Cape on the other hand has no role in verification. It is used to communicate with US hunter-killer submarines, which under the US Navy maritime strategy would attack Soviet submarines at the outset of conventional superpower conflict. There is no justification for its presence on Australian soil. It may be stating the obvious, but hosting a base that enables the US to fight a nuclear war makes little contribution to disarmament. The continued presence of the bases is offensive to Australian sovereignty, and the secrecy surrounding the bases is unacceptable. The only way the Australian population can reasonably make up its mind about the issue is to have more information, not less, about the bases. It is clear that, at the very least, there ought to be a full public inquiry into the bases. It is too important a decision to be left to the Government alone. The visit to Australian ports by nuclear armed warships poses special difficulties for a nation such as ours which is, according to the Government, committed to disarmament. The weapons these ships carry contribute greatly to the risk of superpower confrontation and nuclear war. In the past 10 years more than 2,500 nuclear warheads have been added to the world's naval arsenals, and the provocative naval exercises held by the US and USSR in sensitive areas have the potential for dangerous military escalation. The most worrying development is the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons such as sea launched cruise missiles. These weapons are not covered by any existing arms control agreements despite being almost identical to the air launched missiles limited by the strategic arms limitation talks and the ground launched missiles banned by the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty. Sea launched cruise missiles are currently the major obstacle to a new strategic arms control agreement, so much so that the senior arms control adviser to the US Government, Paul Nitze, has proposed the total elimination of tactical naval nuclear weapons as a solution to the problem. Such a move would also dramatically reduce the risk of nuclear escalation of a conventional naval confrontation between the superpowers. Despite the destabilising effects of these weapons the Australian Government welcomes vessels carrying them to our shores. The current series of visits is but the latest example of this. Such an unquestioning acceptance can only encourage the US to continue to resist controls on these weapons. The Government should immediately call on the US to withdraw these weapons from its arsenal. Australia should ban visits by any vessel capable of carrying these destabilising nuclear weapons. Such a decisive move would send a clear signal to the superpowers that Australia, at least, is serious about disarmament. There are also more immediate dangers for Australia in hosting the visits of nuclear warships. The danger of an accident occurring in port has been the subject of considerable interest in this House. The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has been looking at the adequacy of planning for such an accident for nearly two years and is only now preparing its final draft. I do not propose to deal today with the dangers of a reactor accident occurring in port and the inadequacy of current Australian planning for such an accident. Instead, I refer to the current visit by seven nuclear vessels of the US and UK navies to 19 Australian ports. Accidents in harbours are not rare, and the Falklands war gave us an insight into the ferocity of fires on modern warships. The plutonium that would be released and spread by an accident could, when inhaled, lead to cancers with a latency of seven to 20 years. In evidence presented to the Senate Standing Committee, US Professor Jackson Davis estimates that the incineration of a single nuclear warhead in a ship fire could cause up to 11,000 latent cancer fatalities, depending on atmospheric conditions. If our Government is determined to persist with nuclear warship visits, there is a moral obligation to put in place and rehearse a comprehensive evacuation plan. There would have to be decontamination stations with trained crews on controlled routes out of each city. In Sydney, perhaps the toll booths on the Sydney Harbour Bridge could be modified to some useful purpose. We should add to this the feasibility study for the unprecedented multi-billion dollar decontamination of each visited city; the footnotes could consider the cost of shutting down all inner urban activities and the extinction of the tourist industry. This is obviously ridiculous. We run too high a risk for the privilege of pleasuring our great and powerful friends. I ask honourable senators to cast their minds forward to 26 September, Sydney Harbour. There is a light shifting breeze, and the officially impossible has happened. A nuclear vessel has collided with another vessel and is on fire. The wind is carrying the plutonium oxide laden smoke across the crowds that pack the foreshores. Some members of Federal Parliament might not much care if the wind carried the lethal smoke up Macquarie Street to State Parliament where Premier Greiner and his Ministers are desperately trying to unearth the ancient port safety plan which the Government recently withdrew. Meanwhile thousands of Sydney residents and visitors are trapped at the waterside in a choking radiological cloud. Many of these people will be there to register their protest, but most are there because their political mentors have let them believe that unconfirmed and not denied nuclear weapons are safe. How will we explain why these people have been infected with a sort of nuclear aids? Of course this scenario is an unlikely event. So was Chernobyl. But if it did occur-and it is a possibility-the consequences would be devastating. The city of New York has, with the cooperation of the US Navy, just released an accident plan for a harbour which receives visits under exactly the same conditions as Australian ports. The Australian authorities dismiss the need to plan for such an accident. No State Government holds a plan to deal with such an accident. No special controls are placed on these ships while they are visiting our shores. The only rational conclusion is that nuclear ships must not be allowed in our ports. In closing, I must pay tribute to some of the women whose efforts have made it possible for a woman's voice to be heard in this Parliament today. First among these is South Australian Mary Lee, who was largely responsible for gaining the vote for women in Australia. In 1893, she castigated the Labor Party as a `lot of nincompoops' for supporting a suffrage Bill that was encumbered by a referendum condition. When the Constitution Amendment Act was passed on 18 December 1894, South Australian women became the first in the country to gain the vote, as well as the right to stand for parliament. Interestingly enough, when Mary Lee was invited to stand for parliament herself she declined, saying she preferred to work `on the side of right . . . unfettered by pledge or obligation to any party whatever'. Another suffragist in the movement was the vivid Henrietta Dugdale, who believed that the greatest obstacle to human advancement, `the most irrational, fiercest and most powerful of our world's monsters', was male ignorance. The much maligned writer and newspaper proprietor, Louisa Lawson, founded the suffrage society the Dawn Club so that women could get the vote `to redeem the world from bad laws passed by wicked men'. It is not surprising that many of the suffragists believed that gaining the vote, and parliamentary representation, for women would further the cause of peace. Amongst these was intellectual, feminist and peace activist Marion Harwood, whose criticism of Britain as well as Germany during World War I brought her to the attention of the censors. History has largely ignored the work of Rose Scott, President of the New South Wales branch of the Peace Society, of Annette Bear-Crawford, of Bella Lavender, who led the Labour Women's Anti-Conscription Campaign during the 1916 referendum, of Mary Fullerton and of Vida Goldstein. Finally, I come to the inimitable Jessie Street, the centenary of whose birth falls on 18 April next year. Like most of the women I have referred to, Jessie was conscious of the link betwen peace and social justice, especially for women, and she dedicated her life to this cause. I have had the great privilege of serving on the Jessie Street Centenary Committee and, through personal contact with Jessie's family, friends and colleagues, I have become aware of the powerful influence she had on a generation of women who paved the way for the resurgence of feminism in the 1970s. Jessie stood unsuccessfully for Parliament several times. She was a founding member and New South Wales President of the Australian Peace Council, and was the first woman to represent Australia at the United Nations, where she was instrumental in introducing the sexual non-discrimination clause to the United Nations Charter. She was also instrumental in promoting the Aboriginal referendum of 1967 which gave Aboriginal people the vote. Although I never met Jessie, her dedication, humour and compassion have been an inspiration to me, as I am sure they have been to the other women in this chamber, who are the inheritors of a tradition to which Jessie made such a great contribution. Fate has shown a remarkable consistency today by timing the first inaugural speech in the new Senate chamber with the debut of a revived and strengthened peace movement in Australian political life. Some critics have claimed that political representation for the peace and anti-nuclear cause has become irrelevant in today's hard-nosed economic climate. These critics have, I think, wishfully misinterpreted mere growing pains as chronic illness. Although the figures from the Frank Small and Associates survey have been much quoted in recent months, they are very significant and bear repeating. Support for the presence of the foreign bases has dropped from 60 per cent in 1980 to 35 per cent this year, while support for the visits of nuclear-armed warships has dropped from 47 per cent in 1982 to 24 per cent this year. The growing realisation by Australians that they do not have to be party to nuclear warfare nor feebly accept visits from bullying nuclear powers has shown that the peace movement has well and truly shed its `ratbag' tag and emerged as a full grown force capable of understanding the complex outlook of Australians in the 1980s. When the Prime Minister opened this futuristic building he asked us all to `understand the awesome obligation that is upon us'. He said that, for those in the new Parliament House, this will be an obligation to recognise always, in the conduct of debate, that whatever our views, ideology or party, we are part of something bigger-an institution which must endure long after the divisive issues of the day have been fought and resolved. This obligation leads me to the timely conclusion that we are the curators, not the exploiters, of this great land. We have 122 days left of the historic bicentennial year. In the days ahead let us embrace this obligation, this responsibility as curators of Australia. It is the greatest indictment of our current bicentennial celebrations that it has taken us 200 years of white history to even begin to talk about some sort of compact or treaty with the Aboriginal people. Words are not important but a meaningful agreement on Aboriginal land rights is. I place on record my admiration for the indigenous people of this land, people who have lived on this continent for around 50,000 years. Nineteen eighty-eight may be a celebration for us; all it means to them is survival. We are the sons and daughters of convicts, free settlers and immigrants who came here for a freer life. Together with the Aboriginal people-the real Australians-we hold the future of Australia in our hands. For my own part, I know it is better to light one candle than to forever curse the darkness. I will endeavour in my time in this House to shed a little light in the chamber. Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.35) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I draw attention to the fact that this statement on the Commonwealth Government sector was prepared by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce on the basis of information provided by agencies of the Commonwealth Government. The preface is signed by Ministers John Button and Barry O. Jones. The statement is an attempted puff-piece. It fails totally, because the science and technology community of this nation is absolutely fed up with this Government and fed up with its cutbacks to science and technology. Let me quote from an article in tonight's Melbourne Herald: The Science Minister, Mr Jones, today strongly attacked the Hawke Government's record on science funding. Mr Jones said that all industrial nations realised that science and technology would play a crucial role in their future competitiveness. But he warned: `We appear to be drifting in the other direction.' So one of the Ministers who signed this statement has refuted his own Government in this matter. Mr Jones happens to be an old school and university friend of mine. He is extraordinarily widely read. He has an incredibly marvellous memory. He may be one of the most knowledgeable people in the world. He is also humorous, pleasant, affable and a very nice bloke. Notwithstanding many marvellous speeches which he has made to meetings of scientists, notwithstanding the praise heaped on him by Mr Robyn Williams of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Science Show, Mr Jones has proved to be the worst science Minister that this country has ever had. He has presided over the destruction of his own Department and is now in the process of presiding over the destruction of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). He cannot walk away from these actions which have occurred under his Ministry. It is no good for him to try to blame Mr Keating and Mr Hawke. He has been in charge of this Ministry while this has been happening. CSIRO funding has declined by 8.9 per cent in real terms in this Budget and by 32 per cent in real terms in the last five years. Those figures should be contrasted with the increase in expenditure for the Commission for the Future of 5.1 per cent. Where do the priorities of this Government lie? Research into plant production, animal production and natural resources has received real cutbacks in excess of 6 per cent this year. The CSIRO Division of Entomology may have to close its entire Western Australian operations. An editorial in the Australian newspaper stated that the Budget decision on the CSIRO was misplaced. It stated: It is a dubious saving considering Australia already spends proportionately less on research and development than any other major industrialised country. Mr Jones and Senator Button are responsible for this. Notwithstanding the great speeches which Minister Jones makes, in particular to scientists, and notwithstanding all of the nonsense with which he goes on to scientists, when he expounds on his great knowledge and wide understanding of all of these matters, the truth is that he is a disastrous science Minister. An editorial in the Age stated that the Budget decision was due partly-and I quote: to an apparent inability of CSIRO management to improve the organisation's efficiency to minimise the cost of the recent four per cent wage rise. The Budget decision gives the lie to Senator Button's comments that the Budget contained a range of initiatives aimed at increasing Australia's research capability. That is absolute rubbish and completely untrue, and Senator Button knows that it is untrue. I have almost run out of time. I will finish by quoting from a letter from a young scientist to the Melbourne Age which reads: Our leaders have effectively denied younger scientists like me the chance to live and work in our own country. The present Government especially, has shirked its responsibility to secure Australia's future. That is what is happening in this country as a result of the massive cutbacks in science and technology. During the five years of the life of this Government Australia's young scientists have had to go overseas for permanent work. They cannot get any decent work in Australia. Science, under this Government, has been treated very badly-as I say, disastrously. Finally, the scientific community of Australia has woken up and, despite Senator Button's words, there is no future for science under this Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.41) —It is ironic that the first paragraph of the Science and Technology Statement 1987-88 asserts that the Science and Technology Statement provides evidence of the Government's continued support for scientific and technological activities, because it comes only one week after the Government severely cut funds to Australia's premier scientific body, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). I believe that this statement is too general, and this is one of the problems of the Government's and in fact business's attitude to science in this country. My eye recently caught a profile of Robert Solow, the American Nobel Prize winner, who in 1957 put forward a theory that technology, not capital or increases in the work force, is the key factor to economic growth. The key words here are innovation and technology. We know that in the United States, one of the key research institutions is the Bell Laboratories, which since 1926 has produced such tremendous technological tools as the transistor, the laser, the solar cell, radio astronomy, and even sound motion pictures. It is no exaggeration to say that Bell Laboratories have been a major world force in twentieth century scientific development. Here in Australia we have an equally proud body, the CSIRO. It is this very body that has seen a such dramatic fall-off of funds from this Government. There seems to be two major problems in Australian thinking on science and technology. The first is that economic growth only comes through capital or work force increases. The second is that there is too little or no place for basic or pure research and that all funds be directed to applied research. This is one of the reasons why the Government has chosen to reduce the funds to the CSIRO. We must not forget that Australia, despite its small population, has provided some first class research and development scientists in many scientific fields. Names such as Florey, Burnet, Eccles, Nossal, Paul Wild and the two Braggs are only a few of the world class scientists. Most of these people were able to make their contribution because of basic research and because of both business and government support for that basic research. All of these thoughts occurred to me when I looked at the statement being tabled today, with the overriding sadness of the short-sighted decision by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to cut back on funding to the CSIRO. In fact the intitial excitement that marked such a bold measure as the 150 per cent tax incentive scheme for research and development now seems to have disappeared. What we need is a new and fresh look at our conventional organisational practices in management. To maximise results whether in business or government, all members of a team or an orchestra must respond in harmony, combining their individual specialisations to the conductor or to the leader. Today in business we have too many middle men. I was interested to learn recently that one of New Zealand's biggest companies, Fletcher Challenge, has progressively reduced its head office to a total staff compliment of about 15. This is an example that Australian companies could well emulate. What we need are fewer cost centres and more result centres. Many of our top class businessmen, scientists and bureaucrats are promoted up the scale to become checkers of others, when their real worth should be in the scientific area with their original input and they should be rewarded with an appropriate salary. In New Zealand statutory corporations and departments are required to make statements to the Minister called statements of intent within three months of the beginning of each new financial year. This sort of thing should have been contained in the document that was presented to us. This pre-planning is lacking in Australia at both departmental and corporate level for reporting purposes. I believe it should apply to departmental secretaries in Australia at both Federal and State level and also in the business sector in order to judge and to reward performance. I note that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, Mr Barry Jones, says in the preface that he and the Government reaffirm CSIRO's major role to carry out world class research of strategic long term importance to Australia. Mr Jones, unfortunately, must be quietly very distressed at the budgetary decision to slash CSIRO, as is Australia's scientific community. It is a disgrace and worth censure. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(5.45) —This Science and Technology Statement 1987-88 is indeed an extremely sad document because it chronicles one aspect of the cut back in government funding and government support for the areas of science education and science research. Moreover it indicates more clearly than anything else the lack of understanding which this Government, and I must say-having just listened to Senator Watson-the Opposition has of the true role of science in society. Science is far more than just a handmaiden of industry and that view is the one which has been coming through in the last 10 to 15 years, through both Opposition and Government policies in the areas which I have outlined. Just as in classical times the creative minds in human societies lent their efforts towards music and art, today science is the creative activity of the best minds in our society. It is indeed a great deal more than just simply the handmaiden of industry. The report which is in front of us indicates that the total support which Government is giving for research and development in Australia has been cut by 6.9 per cent in real terms in the last year. Moreover, the report chronicles the position of Australia, relative to other countries, and indicates that out of 22 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, Australia comes fifteenth in terms of the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) which it spends on research and development. On other occasions I have been very critical of using the reference to GDP and I certainly would not like to press that figure too hard. If one looks at some of the other figures one finds that with respect to Sweden-which arguably is a country doing much better than we are both in its social programs and in its scientific research and industrial effort-that it spends more than twice as much on higher education as a component of its research and development spending than Australia does. Only the countries of New Zealand, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Portugal and Greece spend less than we do on research and development. As I have indicated, the role of science has been quite grossly misunderstood and this extends not only to the Government. I certainly would not blame the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones). I think he has been doing an excellent job against virtually impossible odds in getting the role of science and scientists to be understood. Pervading this Government, pervading the Opposition and pervading the bureaucracy, we find a total misunderstanding of the broad functions of science and scientists in society. One role of science in society which is left out of count from the narrow view which the Government has taken is the broadening information and understanding role which is necessary if society is going to adapt to an increasingly technological and complex order of things and at the same time maintain a democratic decision making process. As we are faced with problems such as the fertility changing technologies which are coming on stream; the applications of new communication mechanisms; the problems of environmental degradation, of green house and ozone depletion; as a society we will have to make properly informed democratic decisions about those questions, and then we clearly need scientists who are actively engaged in research in those areas, in teaching others about those problems, and in entering into dialogue with the community at large so that it can make proper decisions about those things. We find that right through the report there is a complete misunderstanding of that broad role of science and scientists. As I have indicated it is not just the fault of the Government, it is a fault which permeates through many levels of our society at the moment. It is very disturbing and it is one which needs urgent addressing. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.50) —I too feel that the Science and Technology Statement 1987-88 is very significant and it requires some comment in a specific area for which I have responsibility for the Australian Democrats; that is, research affecting our rural industries. Like some previous speakers on this very comprehensive report I will concentrate largely on aspects of rural research with relation to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), which-I do not often agree with Senator Watson but in this case I do-is our premier research institution. The report states that the first of the CSIRO's primary statutory functions is to carry out scientific research relevant to Australian industry, the community, national objectives, national or international responsibilities or for any other purposes determined by the Minister. I follow that with a quote from a book called Our Common Future, which is a report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by the Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland. It states: Ecology and economy are becoming even more interwoven-locally, regionally, nationally and globally-into a seamless net of causes and effects. The sections of the report on agriculture leave no doubt that nations must `promote ecologically sound farming practices' in order to ensure a substainable agriculture for the people of the world. I would have thought that was one of the national and international responsibilities of this nation-and certainly of the Government and the CSIRO specifically. In the short time available I will be concentrating on the CSIRO's Division of Entomology, whose objectives place emphasis on the development of non-chemical methods of insect control. I have had the opportunity of visiting the Division in Canberra to discuss various projects. I have the highest regard for the innovative and crucial work that is being carried out in the interests of Australian agriculture and Australia's resource base. Some few examples of the work being done which is of great ecological and economic benefit to the country are the biological control of the sirex wood wasp which is attacking radiata pine plantations in South Australia, with savings by the year 2000 estimated at over $100m; chemical free control of insects in the stored grain section of the Division, involving a major export industry; the biological control of currently or potentially the most economically dangerous weeds; the biological control of blackberry, which is costing us $40m a year; and the biological control of the common heliotrope, which involves losses of over $40m a year. On goes the list. In a recent document circulated just this month concerning entomological research emphasis is placed on other aspects. It points to the problems of residue and resistance, and states that the main emphasis of the Division's research on insect pests of plants and timber is on providing a better understanding of their biology, ecology, behaviour and natural enemies in order to develop management strategies against them that will minimise dependence on insecticides and reduce costs to the growers. It is all this kind of exercise which is very much under threat through the cutbacks in funding and through the restructuring of the funding of the CSIRO. The problem is that while certain sections of CSIRO might find the changed arrangements suitable and might be able to supplement their funding from industry, the CSIRO research divisions whose major role is in the environmental sciences will probably not attract big money from industry; neither are their research results likely to lead to new products or industries for Australia. There is an integral role to be played there. The problems are legion. We were told this week that the Western Australian branch of the Division of Entomology looks like being closed down. Its research into soil fertility and the role of the environment in agriculture is crucial. It will be very much to the detriment of Australia if we do not realise that what we are doing in this area is wrong and if we do not get, as was called for by Dr Boardman of the CSIRO, a tripartisan policy on science which recognises those aspects which my colleague Senator Coulter has talked about, and recognises the broader national and international responsibility of our science. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(5.55) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to spend a couple of minutes referring to the 1986-87 annual report of the Canberra Theatre Trust. Honourable senators who have dived to the Table Office to get a copy of the report will notice on page 2 a reference to the redevelopment of Civic Square, alias section 19. I want to make a few brief comments with respect to this. It is clear from this report that people in Canberra are very keen theatregoers. The early stages of the report show that a majority of the Australian Capital Territory population visits the Canberra Theatre each year and only 11 per cent of the population has never been there. A debate has been, one might say, raging in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) as to whether section 19 will be redeveloped and, as a consequence of that, whether Canberra will get a new lyric theatre. The Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) has been quite inappropriately misrepresenting the Opposition's position on this. I want to take the opportunity, Mr Acting Deputy President, to address my remarks through you to the residents of the ACT who want a new theatre. The Minister has produced a draft ordinance for a casino. He has yet to show how he will manage that redevelopment project to ensure that Canberra does get a new theatre. I draw the attention of ACT residents to what happened with the proposed convention centre. Residents were promised that along with a whole lot of office space, they would get a convention centre. They still do not have it. So it is incumbent on the Minister, if he wants his ordinance to be considered, to show to the residents of the ACT how he will ensure that the Public Service will not be able to bungle this project in the same way as the convention centre was bungled. That is all that is required. If the Minister is not happy to comply with that request he has an alternative: he can do what every other Minister who wants a yea or nay does-he can put his legislation on for debate. We do not hear Minister Dawkins bleating through the media that he does not know what the coalition is going to do, for example, with respect to the graduate tax. He does not expect an answer until we see the colour of the legislation. Yet this Minister does. If he wants to force the issue let him present his legislation. I suggest that if he wants any success with it he will have to detail prior to that how he will ensure that this project is not bungled as the convention centre was. Then we can talk sensibly about whether the ACT will get another theatre. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(5.59) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The preliminary findings and discussion papers of the waterfront investigation of the Inter-State Commission are the most recent results of a long line of inquiries on the waterfront and maritime industries. Some years ago there was a royal commission into the maritime unions. After that there was the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. It was diverted into the issue of tax avoidance and its recommendations on the waterfront rorts were never really acted on. In 1986 there was the industry task force on shore based shipping costs; more recently there was the report of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport; there was the Industries Assistance Commission report on coastal shipping; and now we have this report of the Inter-State Commission upon its waterfront investigations. Each of those reports has confirmed what we have all known for a very long time but which successive governments have done nothing about; that is, that the Australian waterfront is the happy home of the greatest rorts in Australian industry. Low labour productivity on the waterfront is the biggest single cost to the Australian economy. It is the exporters and import competing industries which bear the brunt of those costs. It has been estimated that the waterfront and associated industries, because of their lack of competitiveness and because of industrial rorts, are costing the Australian public more than $2 billion a year. The bulk of those costs are borne by exporters. Even the Association of Australian Port and Marine Authorities, itself responsible for administration of the ports, estimates that the cost is more than $1 billion a year. So various estimates of between $1 billion and $2 billion a year confirm the costly nature of the Australian waterfront. The National Farmers Federation, in a study which it undertook, showed that the cost just to Australian farmers was of the order of $130m a year, or some $800 per farm. It is time that action was taken to overcome this costly impost on Australian industry. More specifically, with regard to the farming community it has been estimated that it costs $1.78 to move just one tonne of wheat across the Sydney waterfront. Sydney, of course, is the worst port in Australia with regard to the wheat industry. The cost is 41c a tonne in Western Australia and 99c in Queensland. All of those costs are excessive but, of course, Sydney is by far the worst. These high costs are the result of overmanning, restrictive work practices, industrial disputes, high unit costs and less than ideal management. We see a usurpation of authority by various trade unions and we see management weakness. That all adds to the costs of our Asian ports. The Business Council of Australia, in an inquiry it undertook, showed that, compared with our European counterparts, Australian ports are only half as productive and, indeed, are only 40 per cent as efficient as the ports of Asia. How can Australian exporters compete on international markets when they are faced with these additional imposts resulting from the inefficient operation of Australian ports. The Industries Assistance Commission draft report on coastal shipping concluded that Australian coastal shipping adds another $700m to Australia's costs of shipping and transport. The whole area of maritime and port industries is a disaster as far as this country is concerned. The Bureau of Transport Economics estimated that the direct cost of getting cargo on to or off ships was at least 20 per cent higher than necessary, given the other conditions in place in Australia. Of course, the Bureau was looking at only one limited aspect of Australian ports. In Australia the car industry has to carry some six to nine days of extra supplies in case there are problems on our waterfronts. Compare that with the United States, where containers from Japan can be landed on a wharf in the morning and are unpacked and into the factory by the same afternoon. Again, this demonstrates the incapacity of Australian ports to compete with their overseas counterparts. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. The time allowed for consideration of Government papers having expired, the debate is interrupted. Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Giles: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(6.03) —We are discussing the eleventh report of the Senate Committee of Privileges. The Committee received the reference from the Senate on 16 March this year. The reference stated: Whether the circulation of a petition containing defamatory material for the purpose of gaining signatures and subsequent submission to the Senate is or ought to be privileged and how the issues should be determined and in what forum. The Committee asked the Clerk of the Senate for background information and advice. The Clerk in part suggested: . . . the Committee should assume that it has been asked to determine whether there is or ought to be a legal immunity in respect of the circulation of a petition. The Committee, in reaching the conclusion that the circulation of a petition should not be privileged, had regard to the following matters: The burden of the submissions received, as well as the concerns expressed in debate in the Senate when the matter was referred to the Committee, is that the protection afforded by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights should not be used to circumvent the normal protections afforded to persons who might be defamed by a petition purportedly circulated- I emphasise that- with an (unprovable) intention that the document be presented to a House of Parliament. The report of the Privileges Committee records: Only the person whose case gave rise to the present reference, and the Free Speech Committee, disregarded this concern in their submissions. I emphasise the reference to the Free Speech Committee because as a member of the Privileges Committee over a period of time I have found that the submissions of the Free Speech Committee have been uniformly poor and not addressed to the references the Privileges Committee has had. I should like to the read the recommendations in the Committee's report to the Senate to show that I believe the Committee's report is a balanced one. I refer to the first recommendation, which states: That while the question whether the circulation of a petition for the purpose of gaining signatures and subsequent submission to the Senate is privileged is a question of law for the courts to determine, the Committee believes that the circulation is not absolutely privileged and is probably not subject to any form of qualified privilege; The second recommendation states: That, if the Parliament were to determine that the circulation of a petition should be privileged, absolutely or otherwise, a change to the law would therefore be required; The third recommendation states: That, in the light of the dangers inherent in denying a citizen the right to pursue action in the courts to redress an attack on his or her character or reputation, the circulation of a petition containing defamatory matter should not be protected by parliamentary privilege; The fourth recommendation states: That the circulation of other petitions requires no special protection and therefore that no change to the present law is warranted. I believe that the Committee's report is absolutely appropriate, when the Senate reference is examined. I emphasise that because I believe the Committee has come down with the only recommendations that were appropriate, having in mind the Senate's reference to it. The Committee gave to the public generally and to other parliamentary organisations, State Parliaments, legal and academic individuals and institutions, civil libertarians and others who would be concerned about the question raised in the reference the opportunity to make a submission. A number of these people contributed to the Committee's inquiry with about 10 submissions. The Committee decided it was dealing with a matter of principle or a general issue or, as some have said, an academic issue, and I believe that we were right to do that. I come now to the minority report of Senator Durack. Unfortunately, the fact that the Committee acted in line with the Senate's reference, the submissions made to it, and the principle that was clearly raised in the reference from the Senate did not satisfy Senator Chaney or Senator Durack. Senator Chaney originally raised the matter. In fairness to him, I should read to the Senate what he proposed: That the following questions be referred to the Committee of Privileges: whether a petition to the Senate was suppressed in consequence of a threat of legal proceedings by the Hon. Brian Burke, and, if so, whether this constituted contempt of Parliament. The Senate rejected this proposal, and carried an amendment which finally became the reference to the Privileges Committee. But what was the petition? I shall refresh the memories of honourable senators by reminding them of the words of the petition, which were as follows: The petition of the undersigned showeth that the standard of Australia's diplomatic representatives overseas is a matter of concern to all Australians. It went on: . . . should seek to have the appointment of the Hon. Brian Burke as our ambassador to Ireland deferred until such time as the charges presently pending against Mr Len Brush and Mr Robert Martin shall have been heard and concluded, and until matters arising therefrom shall have been answered to the satisfaction of both Houses of the Parliament of Western Australia. Is this petition defamatory? We cannot say that it is defamatory, in the sense that it has not been legally tested. That is a legitimate point to take. As senators we have a commonsense application. Everybody in the cut and thrust of politics has to consider what is defamatory, what is politically rough or whatever. I believe that there is no question that the petition that I have just read out to the Senate attacks the good name of Mr Burke, who was then the Hon. Brian Burke, Premier of Western Australia. It is very clever, and one would expect clever lawyers to assist, to set out to destroy the reputation of a public figure. There is no question in my mind that his fame has been injured. He was not given the opportunity to defend his name in a court or a fair forum. The petition was to be hawked around Western Australia, seeking support. It is no wonder, in my view, that he has set out to protect his name, as the protection of one's name is about the only thing one has in this business of politics. On the last night in the old Parliament House Senator Chaney, in a very emotional state, attacked the Committee's report. That is why I am dealing with this matter. He attacked some of my colleagues in a very intemperate way, perhaps in a way that was not characteristic of Senator Chaney. But I am afraid that Senator Chaney, like all of us do at times descended from the high moral ground and, as is reflected in the minority report, engaged in crass political activity based on the Western Australian political experience in attacking Mr Burke. This is the rebuttal I make. Although a great many crocodile tears have been shed for the originator of the petition, it was a blatant political attack. For that reason the Senate rejected the reference Senator Chaney wanted to make to the Privileges Committee. We did not agree to have a fishing expedition into the petition in Western Australia and, as a result, adopted the matter of principle which the Privileges Committee has now recommended, which recommendation I have read. In my view, the Hon. Brian Burke, in threatening to take action, has done the only thing any other senator or parliamentarian would have done faced with that type of petition. For that reason I believe in what the Committee proposes-to make sure that the right of every citizen, no less a person in public life such as a parliamentarian, to take action if he is to be blackguarded by somebody-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Morris: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(6.16) —We are discussing the report by the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare on kangaroos. I sat on this Committee for a number of years, as did other honourable senators. I am afraid that I have to dissent from the majority report. I do so with a heavy heart, because I have respect for those other members of the Committee who have laboured long and hard to come up with their decisions. I share the concern of George Georges, the former Chairman of the Committee, that this report does not truly reflect the steps which will be necessary to save the kangaroo, which is, after all, Australia's animal. It is the animal which appears on our coat of arms. It is the animal which symbolises Australia around the world. The report, which is comprehensive, which contains a lot of information and data and which, as such, is a valuable document, does not really change anything in relation to the kangaroo situation. In fact, it maintains the status quo. The report merely says, `Well, there are some problems with the present system of culling kangaroos, of killing kangaroos, but in general we feel that the thrust of the present program should be maintained'. The majority took pains to frame recommendations which are not politically offensive. Certainly they made recommendations which will not offend the farming community or the kangaroo meat industry. However, I feel that the report should have taken into account the welfare of kangaroos. There are plenty of committees which look after the welfare of farmers and industry, but this is the only committee of the Parliament-in fact, it is one of the few such committees in the world that I know of-that actually looks at animal welfare. That is where the majority of the Committee went astray. They put the welfare of the farmers and industry ahead of the welfare of the animal. One of the things that bothered me most as we took testimony over the years was that not one person or agency could tell us how many kangaroos there actually were. I worked as a pilot and agent for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska. It was part of my job to ascertain the amount of feed available for caribou. Then we could set the hunting season numbers. Of course we had to know how many caribou there were, too. So we did research in both areas, on feed and on the exact numbers of caribou. When we found out how many caribou there were we could then say, perhaps, that this year we had to shoot 700 of them. No such data is available on kangaroos. I maintain that in order to have a scientifically viable conservation program-if we are worried about conserving the numbers of kangaroos-it is necessary to know what the population statistics are. We do not know. The industry and the farming community have said that, as they can shoot the same number of kangaroos every year, the population must be stable. Any wildlife expert can tell you that this is not a good way of measuring wildlife numbers. It has no relevance to the amount of effort that has been put into shooting kangaroos. They kept up the anchovy catch in the fisheries off South America-the tonnages were up every year-until the fishery collapsed because of overfishing. It was merely advanced technology which allowed them to keep their catch up. The same thing could be happening with kangaroos. We simply do not know. The logical thing to do would be to err on the side of conservatism. If we do not know how many kangaroos we have-and certainly we have no idea how many are being shot-it would seem only wise and prudent to say, `Let us not shoot as many' or, `Let us not shoot any at all'. A number of people have testified that we should simply not shoot any kangaroos at all and I believe that I would lean towards this view because no-one was able to quantify the amount of damage that kangaroos did to farms. We were never given any evidence that farming would suffer to the extent that the farmers said it would. We were never given any hard evidence to this effect. Senator Brownhill —We had plenty of visual evidence, Senator. Senator SANDERS —The honourable senator says that we were given visual evidence. We have seen marginal areas in Queensland, which is Senator Boswell's zone, where farmers should not have gone in the first place, which were formerly the habitat of kangaroos and of course, the kangaroos will start eating whatever the farmers put in. But the farmers should not have been there in the first place. We must work out an environmental balance, we must take into account the way we operate and we have to look at our land use in all areas. If the kangaroos are running in a habitat and the farmers come in and take that habitat away, the farmers should not be surprised if the kangaroos want to maintain their presence in that area. Of course, the Select Committee on Animal Welfare should be looking at the welfare of the animals, not the farmers. We also have the kangaroo meat industry. This was originally set up to take the by-products of the kangaroo kill which, in turn, was supposed to be for the benefit of the kangaroo, to keep the numbers stable and also to help the farmers. But we have had testimony to the effect that the industry has developed its own political clout and is, in itself, now a reason for killing kangaroos. I feel that, for the welfare of the kangaroos, the industry should be closed. The kangaroos should be left unmolested whenever possible. If farmers can demonstrate crop damage to a responsible and impartial wildlife officer, subsidies should be paid to that farmer for the loss of the crop or for any damage done. Subsidies should also be paid if the farmer finds it necessary to install electric fencing. We have taken evidence on electric fencing. It is effective. In fact, a farmer who testified said that electric fencing was more effective for all the animals, including his own stock, than ordinary fencing. It required a certain level of expertise to keep it going, but it was cheap to operate and it would solve the kangaroo problem. So farmers should be helped financially to install electric fencing if the need arises. If any kangaroos must be killed for crop protection or population management, professional shooters should be employed by the Government. It should not be left to hoons from the cities going out at the weekends and to a handful of professional shooters who, in fact, are quite good. But 90 per cent of the kangaroos in this country are shot by unprofessional or semi-professional shooters and there is a terrible wastage of wildlife in this area. In most respects Australia is regarded as an advanced and technologically adept nation. However, the continuing decimation of our unique wildlife demonstrates to the world that we are unwilling to address our international responsibilities. The welfare of the kangaroo, our national animal, must be placed ahead of commercial interests and inept bureaucrats. The present slaughter of kangaroos must cease. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.25) —I am pleased that, after many changes and many starts, the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare was able to come up with a virtually unanimous report on the kangaroos in Australia. I think it is rather sad that Senator Sanders has had to give a dissenting report, because I think he has seen most of the things that other members of the Committee have seen in our travels all around Australia. He has seen the things that former Senator Georges and all the other committee members have seen and he has heard the evidence that we have all heard. It is rather disappointing that he has been got to by some lobby groups and has put out a dissenting report, because that was not quite the feeling that I got from him when he was travelling around Australia with us. This issue, as with so many issues involving the welfare of animals, is a very emotive one. I have been on this Committee since the beginning of 1985 and I have found that everything we have investigated has had a very emotive ring about it. But I think the Committee has been very responsible with its report. The Committee has looked at many aspects of the industry associated with kangaroos: we have looked at the properties, we have looked at the parks and we have looked at all the aspects of the kangaroos. The kangaroo is a special animal and we acknowledge that it has a special place in the history of Australia. The affection that people have for the kangaroo, as an animal, is widespread and the Committee acknowledges that. Nevertheless, I think it is important to acknowledge that the very action of civilisation and the development of Australia's vast regions have also provided improved habitation conditions for the kangaroo, and that is one part of Senator Sanders' speech that I would agree with. As a result, in many parts of farmland Australia the kangaroo is in plague proportions. Better watering places, better pastures and better management of pastures have led to the breeding of quite substantial numbers of kangaroos around Australia. Everyone would agree that it is unpalatable to cull any animal, whether it be a kangaroo or anything else. But I think it is necessary for the economic well-being of Australia and for the physical well-being of the kangaroo population. Senator Sanders has alluded to that and I think he is completely on the wrong hop as far as that is concerned. I believe that the report strikes a happy balance between economic production and protection of the environment and the protection of the kangaroo as a species. For those who are interested in the environment as well as the animal, that is another reason why it is necessary to cull. It is true that several roo species are extinct and a few more are in danger of extinction. The Committee recognises that fact. However, if no management program is put in place there would be a very real danger of the wholesale slaughter of the kangaroo population. In essence, the report calls for better aerial surveys for ascertaining the numbers of kangaroos; more research by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service; improvements to present survey techniques; more study into quota limits to reflect more accurately the present and likely roo populations; stricter testing for professional shooters; encouragement of carcass kills; and stricter export controls. If Senator Sanders had read fully those parts of the majority report, he most probably would not have needed to say some of the things that he has just said. We heard evidence of irregularities in overseas sales but the quality of evidence was not sufficient to make any judgment. Here again, Senator Sanders has alluded to that. Just to recap, the Committee said that there should be a random inspection of consignments of kangaroo products which were to be exported; the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service should establish a fauna squad to investigate the illegal export of fauna; controls should be established over the export of kangaroo skins by appointing inspectors to check kangaroo skins at the fleshing works and to seal containers containing skins for export at those works, and only skins sealed in containers should be exported. The Committee also recommended that skins taken under approved management programs be tattooed or be able to be identified in some other way after being fleshed when the royalty tag has been detached. Again, I think that that answers all the questions raised by Senator Sanders. I think that those parts of the report which recommend fixing these problems are very responsible. Evidence was put to the Committee that there are problems with overseas sales but, as I have just said, the evidence was not absolutely quantified in all cases. Other evidence showed that the economic damage caused to the rural sector was extensive. Here again, as I interjected when Senator Sanders was speaking, he saw the damage that excessive kangaroo numbers caused in Western Australia, Queensland and even in New South Wales. Even though evidence of this damage has not been documented in any real depth, and perhaps in future it could be assessed more accurately, it is definitely there. There is damage when kangaroo numbers reach plague proportions. Anyone who drives along some of our western roads at night or in some of the highland areas will see definitely excessive numbers of kangaroos compared with even 10 or 15 years ago. This has been caused by the build-up in pastures and improved watering facilities. There is a view among certain people in the community that kangaroos are fair game. It is important that that perception be changed. I agree with Senator Sanders and his reference to thrill shooters and fun shooters. I do not believe that these people should be allowed to go out and shoot willy-nilly. Here again, the report makes it very clear that only those people who are licensed to shoot kangaroos should be able to do so. I am very sincere in that respect. If people perceive that a strict management program exists for animals such as kangaroos, there is a greater chance of an endangered species surviving. So, if we really analyse it, we must continue to have a cull, we must continue to have a management program, and we must realise that, if they are in danger of extinction, the cull must be continued I believe that the report strikes a good balance between the need to protect and the need to manage kangaroo populations within our developed farming areas. It is now up to the Government and the various department bodies to ensure that the recommendations made by the Committee are put in place. I thank the secretariat for the at times repetitive work involved in countless hearings and inspections, and for their obvious efforts in the preparation of the report. I note also the work of former Senator Jack Evans, former Senator Hearn, former Senator Scott, former Senator Siddons and former Senator Georges, who were all members of this Committee. Senator Puplick —It has a high mortality rate. Senator BROWNHILL —I think it was quite a good cull. I do not know whether or not it was a managed cull, but some of those senators definitely played a large part on the Committee before retiring from this place. I think the Committee did its work in a very thoughtful way and I commend the report to the Senate. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(6.35) —I, too, would like to speak to the report on kangaroos handed down by the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. I concur with the remarks made by my colleague Senator Brownhill. I agree wholeheartedly that the subject of kangaroos-and, in fact, all animals-is very emotive, as evidenced in submissions placed before the Committee. We know that kangaroos have been the subject of a motion in the American Congress, they have been discussed in the European Parliament and, of course, they have received a great deal of publicity in Australia over the past few years. Having noted how emotive this debate has been, I point out that during the time that I have been a member of this Committee we have taken particular care not to become involved in emotive matters but to analyse the facts. I reject the criticism and insinuations that have been made against the Committee by some of the emotive animal welfare committees. I certainly reject the criticism of the President of the Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies (ANZFAS) who stated in a media release: No doubt too the kangaroo industry and farmer lobby groups carry political clout. Accordingly, a committee established to examine animal welfare would appear to have moved right away from its initial rationale. I assure the Senate that I was not lobbied by any kangaroo industry members, nor by any farming groups. However, I note a press release from the National Farmers Federation (NFF) put out after we presented and tabled our report. The press release states: The Committee's Report will provide the basis for rational discussion of a subject which for too long has been surrounded by misinformation and emotionalism. The NFF concurs with the Committee's general conclusion that a balance must be struck between the need to preserve kangaroos in abundant numbers and the need to use Australia's resources for the well-being of all. The NFF does not agree with some of our recommendations but, when one tries to take the responsible position which I believe has been adopted in this report, one cannot please anybody. Senator Brownhill referred to the history of the Committee. The Committee's report has been in production for some four years. Unlike Cecil B. De Mille's classic film making, it has not involved a cast of thousands, but certainly something like 109 people gave evidence to the Committee. As Senator Brownhill has already said, there was also a large turnover of senators on this Committee. I think we should note the Committee's initial statement in the report: The kangaroo has a special place in the history of Australia and enjoys the affection of people both within and outside the country. It is a national symbol of which Australians are justifiably proud and its status as a protected animal is not in question. It must be preserved in abundant numbers. The report also states: The Committee concludes that a balance must be struck between the need to preserve kangaroos in abundant numbers and the need to use Australia's resources for the well being of all. The Committee found that a proper balance involves the development of a strictly controlled management program. The Committee made a well thought out, well researched and balanced list of recommendations; in fact, I think that there are some 27 in all. Naturally, on the release of the report, we received unwarranted and misleading criticism. Accusations included the statement that the Committee was `faint-hearted and lacked moral leadership'. I totally reject those accusations. I refer to the Australian and a statement by the Treasurer of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Mr Rawlinson, who said that we were faint-hearted. He also states in the article: . . . the animal welfare movement wanted pest control carried out by professional shooting, under permit, of those animals which could be shown to be doing damage, and the cessation of commercial killing for profit. Mr Rawlinson is also quoted in the Hobart Mercury of 8 June this year, as follows: . . . the animal welfare movement did not oppose all kangaroo killing but it wanted pest control done by professional shooting, under permit, of those animals which could be shown to be doing damage and the end of commercial killing for profit. There was also a joint press release from ANZFAS and the ACF. The joint press release from ANZFAS and the ACF concludes: Australia needs a national body with uniform national legislation for the proper management of our kangaroo and other wildlife populations. Having read all the press releases and taken the criticism, I suggest that perhaps those concerned should read our report. In the report we actually recommend the sorts of things for which people have asked. We recommended: . . . that the Commonwealth and the States and Territories work out on a cooperative basis over time a system for national management of kangaroos. That was one of our major recommendations. Another recommendation was that: . . . all methods of killing kangaroos other than by shooting be banned in mainland Australia. We also recommended that: . . . as a fundamental principle, the kangaroo remain a protected animal. However, its deleterious effects on human land use must be taken into account. The major recommendation of the Committee was: The Committee recommends that commercial shooting of kangaroos continue to be permitted in areas where there is a need to reduce populations of kangaroo for damage mitigation purposes. The estimated population of kangaroos on mainland Australia ranges from 16 million to 32 million. Senator Brownhill has already referred to a number of surveys of red and grey kangaroos and animal survey numbers that should be taken into account. The range of figures I have just cited has been accepted by past Ministers. It is also estimated that the population of wallabies in Tasmania is about six million. I cannot accept the view of Senator Sanders that kangaroos are an endangered species. How can one accept that these animals are endangered when one comes up with numbers such as 16 million and 32 million on the mainland, and six million in Tasmania? If one adopted that criterion, one would almost have to say that the population of Australia is endangered because this country has only about 16 million people. Therefore, I cannot accept Senator Sanders's argument. I believe that the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare is comprehensive, as has been said by other members of the Committee. A total of 109 people gave evidence to the Committee. I believe that it is a blueprint for the sensible survival of one of our national emblems. I join Senator Brownhill in complimenting the staff of the Committee not only for the very professional way in which they have put the report together but also for their patience and ability in enabling members of the Committee to gain the best possible knowledge of the subject over a period of four years, so that we could give the people of Australia a balanced and very worthwhile report. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.44) —I offer my congratulations to the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare on a balanced and very good report. The report will go out to overseas parliaments, and probably into the European Economic Community and its Parliament. No doubt other countries will use the findings contained in this report as a basis for bringing forward their importing programs. I compliment those people who have made this report possible. Although I am not a member of the Committee, I have on occasion accompanied the Committee out into the field, particularly when it has been in my home State of Queensland. I can well recall taking Senator Georges out into the Longreach-Hughenden area. Unlike Senator Sanders, who obviously saw the devastation and damage caused by the proliferation of kangaroos and who has chosen to ignore completely what he saw with his own eyes, Senator Georges was realistic enough, having been out on field trips, to change his attitude. He realised that the problem was vastly different when one saw it actually in the field compared with reading about the subject in books and magazines. The fact is, as Senator Calvert said, that there are between 15 million and 32 million kangaroos in Australia. It depends on whose evidence one takes; but, whichever way one looks at it, there are more kangaroos in Australia than there are people. Nobody has ever suggested that people in Australia are an extinct race. Certainly, kangaroos in Australia are flourishing because farmers have changed the environment. Farmers have put in crops, stored water and created a different environment from that which many years ago was quite unliveable for kangaroos. Kangaroos are now able to move into those areas and to find food and water that did not exist in earlier years. In fact, there are more kangaroos in Australia now than there have ever been. Judging by earlier reports of the days when the colony was established, it is true to say that there were very few kangaroos in those days. Now the kangaroo population has exploded and we have to find some way of achieving a kangaroo population than can co-exist with farmers. I have never heard of a farmer who has said that he wants to wipe kangaroos from his area. I have never heard a farmer say, `I want to keep every kangaroo off my property'. I have been on many properties throughout Australia and throughout Queensland and I have never heard that comment made. Farmers acknowledge that they want kangaroos in their areas in proportions that will not bankrupt them. This report signals that fact to the people of Australia and to people overseas. It is a good, balanced report and gives that message to the various parliaments throughout the world. It is necessary to cull kangaroos, and indeed wildlife, in all national parks. This applies to Africa, including South Africa. Every nation that possesses wildlife has to keep those animals within manageable proportions. The situation is no different in Queensland or in the rest of Australia. Culling or killing, whichever way one looks at it, is an emotional issue; but it is absolutely necessary. Senator Sanders takes the view that we should not cull kangaroos; that we should have no program in this respect; that the kangaroos were here first and are entitled to their share of the Australian land. That attitude is absolutely ridiculous. The farmers have to provide food for this nation as well as for the people in many nations around the world who cannot feed themselves. Those people rely on our food exports. Senator Sanders is adopting a most unrealistic, indeed dishonest attitude. He has been on all the field trips arranged for the Animal Welfare Committee. To bring down a dissenting report as he did in this chamber is quite dishonest and unrealistic. Some people have called for professional shooters to cull kangaroos. I say to those people that all that would happen would be that the professional shooters would join the National Parks and Wildlife Service, put on its badge, and go out and do exactly the same job as they were doing before but now they would do it at the expense of the taxpayer. They would not shoot any more accurately. They would not do a better job. They would not provide any better service, but it would cost the nation many millions of dollars. At the moment this business is providing employment. I will certainly not argue in this House that the kangaroo industry should exist to keep people employed. That is not what I want to say. But we have an industry that services the needs of the farming and grazing industry at no cost to the community. Senator Brownhill —In a very humane way. Senator BOSWELL —Yes. Humanity is in-built. If a kangaroo shooter is inaccurate and he cannot put the kangaroo down with a direct shot, no-one will buy his skins. Therefore, he will go broke. Only the good kangaroo shooters, the ones who shoot accurately, will remain in business. It will not be profitable for inaccurate shooters to stay in business. It is a good and balanced report. I commend it to the Senate and I compliment the people who were involved in making the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.53) —As everyone knows the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material was tabled some time ago in the Senate and there has been much talk about it both here in the Senate and in the public arena. It is to be regretted that there have been misrepresentations, misunderstandings and misinformation arising from the recommendations of the Committee to such an extent that yesterday a seminar was held within Parliament House so that the parliamentarians could be better informed on this issue. The first recommendation in the report which was supported by a slim majority, recommended that a new category NVE-non-violent erotica-be instituted. The reason for this recommendation is that the X-rated material available in Australia is in fact non-violent material. X-rated material in the USA and in the United Kingdom is permitted to contain violence as well as sexually explicit material. This is not the case in Australia, so it was felt by the majority on the Committee that to replace that category by a more explicitly stated non-violent erotica label would be sensible. The main thrust of the Committee's recommendations, which has not been caught up by the public at all, is that the R-rated category should be restricted along with the present X-rated category or, as the Committee recommends, the NVE-rated material. The restrictions recommended by the Committee are that both R-rated and current X-rated material should not be available in the ordinary video stores to the general public. Although the provision of R-rated material is supposed to be restricted to those over 18 years of age, there is no doubt that within the video hire stores and video shops people under 18 can see that material. They certainly can see the promotional material which is put up everywhere. So the Committee's recommendation is very sound. The general public does not seem to be aware that the R-rated material is the material that contains the violence and that this violent material may be in conjunction with sexually orientated material. The general consensus of opinion-and unfortunately in all these matters it is an opinion-by psychologists and by people who work in this area is that it is the violent material that is the most dangerous. I regret the fact that this very strong recommendation has not been picked up in the public arena. The Committee went further and recommended that promotional material for R-rated movies should also be restricted and not put outside cinemas, but only within the areas where the over 18-year-olds are allowed to go. The Committee also recommended that as there seems to be a great deal of confusion in the public arena as to exactly what the categories PG, G, M and R stand for, all the video covers should state clearly exactly what the ratings stand for. The G, M, R and NVE, or X-rated, movies should clearly state on the cover the reason why the particular rating is there; whether it is there because of explicit language, violence, or sexual material. Many people have said that they hire a movie in good faith with a PG or an M rating, take it home and show it, but are surprised by some of the material in it. In its deliberations the Committee also stated that it believed there should be some upgrading in these categories, that some of the material in the M category should go into the R category, and that some of the material at the top end of the R-rated scale should not be classified at all. One of the recommendations of the Committee was that the Film Censorship Board should be allowed to re-look at all this material and to reclassify it if necessary. The misunderstanding by the public was demonstrated in a poll conducted by a very well-known newspaper a few weeks ago. It asked the question: Do you believe that in X-rated video material violence should be banned or that explicitly sexual material should be banned? Three per cent were in favour of the sexually explicit material being banned and about 30 per cent said that violent material should be banned. But that question should not have been asked because there is no violent material in the presently X-rated videos in Australia. Another very important recommendation put forward by the Committee was that it should be an offence to show either an X-rated or an R-rated movie to a person under the age of 18 without the express permission of the person's parent or guardian. Another important recommendation that does not appear to have reached the public arena is that all video outlets, including mail order outlets, should be registered under the ordinance and it should be made an offence to trade without a certificate of registration. I have risen to speak very briefly to this report to try to correct some of the misinformation and misunderstandings that the public have. I hope that when this matter comes before the Parliament again, as it may well do, members of Parliament themselves will be better informed. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Senator Cook: That the following Sessional Order, contained in the Report, be adopted: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in a debate on a motion for the suspension of any Standing or Sessional Order a Senator shall not speak for more than 5 minutes, and if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the moving of the motion the question on the motion shall then be put. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the tenth report for 1988 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BROWNHILL —I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 10 of 1988, dated 31 August 1988, which, as foreshadowed by the Committee Chairman, Senator Cooney, at the end of the autumn sittings, contains the Standing Committee's alert comments on the corporations package of Bills. Senator AULICH(Tasmania) —by leave-I present a discussion paper from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training entitled, `Education for Active Citizenship'. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to that paper. Leave granted. Senator AULICH —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The discussion paper which I have tabled today was compiled by the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training as part of its current inquiry into education for active citizenship in Australian schools and youth organisations. My Committee believes that the quality of life we enjoy and the quality of the democracy we experience very much reflect the degree to which we are willing and able to pitch in and take control of our lives. The capacity to do this is what we mean by `active citizenship'. It is the mark of a civilised society that it can produce citizens who see themselves as contributors, not takers. How do Australians measure up as active citizens? Studies have shown that large numbers of Australians-especially the young-know very little about how their country is run, not just at the national level but at the State and local level as well. The dominant source of information seems to be the television screen, which by its very nature, can provide little more than a superficial view of events. A recent survey in the Australian Capital Territory found that, for example, 70 per cent of upper secondary students received most of their information about politics from television. Only 10 per cent said that they got most information from school teachers. It is not just a question of how much people know; it is also how much they care: how much they are prepared to get involved, right down to the level of the local community. Evidence gathered by my committee on this score is not particularly encouraging, especially where young people are concerned. A survey of local government in Victoria recently found that only about one in a hundred local councillors in that State is under 30, despite attempts by councils to involve younger people. My Committee is also aware of the recent report on Australia's youth from the Commission for the Future, which saw evidence of increased political apathy among young people, coupled with a growing tendency to see the world primarily in terms of the narrow perspectives of personal needs and desires. We cannot assume that this indifference towards our democratic institutions is found only among those who have had a limited education. A professor of politics at a Victorian University told the Committee that students in his first year politics classes have only `a scanty idea' of what a democracy is. He said that, `Very few students can tell you why the Constitution, Parliament or elections are important, or why ideas about participation or citizenship deserve to be taken seriously in our kind of democracy'. This statement is even more alarming when one reflects that, unlike the small percentage of students who take a university politics course, most students may never progress beyond this stunted view of the world. All of this adds up to a combination of ignorance and apathy which does not bode well for Australia's future as a caring society and a strong, healthy democracy. It also adds up to a society in which people regard themselves as powerless to influence what happens in their daily lives; a society in which they see themselves as pawns in the game rather than active participants with views of their own to express. Young people cannot be expected to remedy this situation on their own. Right across Australia, we have found, school programs offer students only meagre opportunities to learn what it means to be an active citizen, and even fewer opportunities to practise citizenship skills. There is no real debate over whether citizenship education is a legitimate concern of schools. This is generally accepted by education systems, and has been for some time. Official curriculum statements, for example reflect that view. It is a different matter, however, when one looks at the reality of what actually happens in schools. My Committee has found that citizenship education fares badly in schools and is often the loser where there are competing priorities. In many cases, it is taught by teachers who, at best are only partly trained for the task, since very few teacher education institutions in Australia offer courses to train teachers in this field. The result in the classroom is, all too frequently, that students are simply `turned off' by the topic. To put the matter bluntly, the lesson which is learnt by tomorrow's citizens is that citizenship is not worth bothering about. This appears to apply even in those professions which demand skills and training as essential qualifications, such as law, medicine and engineering. As one submission put it, the ground is being prepared for `the phenomenon of the skilled barbarian-a section of professional or educated society whose attitude towards civic questions is uninformed or crude to say the least'. My Committee believes that this is not good enough and that more effective educational responses are required. This view is apparently shared by many young people themselves. In the course of our inquiry, my Committee has made a special effort to listen to the views of young people, and our witnesses have included secondary students and representatives of youth organisations. The message we have received is that students believe the education system is short-changing them in the area of citizenship education. Many of them are, or soon will be, of voting age, but they do not see themselves as adequately equipped for this responsibility, or for the other responsibilities which the term `citizen' implies. These problems will not be overcome unless a stronger emphasis is placed on education for active citizenship. Essentially, it is a matter of priorities. As things stand at present, there is little doubt what priority the Australian educational system is placing on the quality of our democracy. The discussion paper which I have tabled today is part of my Committee's response to this situation. The document is mainly composed of extracts from submissions to the inquiry. It illustrates the range of views which have been put to us. The paper has been widely circulated as a means of generating public discussion. My Committee plans to table its report before the end of the current session. In that report we will put forward specific recommendations to combat the problem we have identified. In the meantime, I commend the discussion paper to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation: Mr Cross, Mr McGauran, Mr Milton and Mr Wright. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Act 1951, Mr Sawford, a member of the House of Representatives, has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in the place of Mr R. J. Brown, discharged. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL 1988 Consideration resumed. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —The Committee is considering clause 3 of the Industrial Relations Bill and the first amendment that Senator Chaney moved thereto. The question is: That the amendment be agreed to. Senator Chaney-I think Senator Crichton-Browne was in continuation. He is not here. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(7.08) —Senator Crichton-Browne made all sorts of promises in the course of his last contribution. He would not appear here often if he could get his remarks recorded in relation to this clause. The Government does not accept this amendment which has been moved by Senator Chaney, which seeks to replace object (a), which refers to promoting industrial harmony and co-operation amongst the parties, with an objective of promoting industrial harmony and co-operation between employers and employees. If I might say so without causing offence, many of the Opposition's amendments are couched in terms which one can only describe as `motherhood'. Senator Chaney —Are you against motherhood? Senator BUTTON —That is precisely the point, Senator. I am not, in general principle, against children. I am not against some of the fine words in these amendments. I think we have to analyse what they in fact mean because the differences between the two proposed clauses are not merely semantic. If one looks at the objects of the Act clause as a whole, what the amendment, moved by Senator Chaney would do is delete the word `parties' from that clause. Of course that would appear again on a number of occasions in the legislation if it were passed without amendment or passed with an amendment. It is appropriate that the word `parties' should appear in the objects clause. The Opposition amendment referring to employers and employees is not acceptable to the Government because of its narrow focus and because it would be too limited in operation in the context of the Bill. Essentially this Bill is about the function of the Industrial Relations Commission which will be established. It is a nice question how the Commission would discharge its function in pursuing harmony between employers and employees. That is a question which goes very much to the issue of attitudinal change. The Commission's function with this Bill, amended or otherwise, would still be involved in the settlement of industrial disputes. It is not about the sort of broader, nice sounding issue of promoting industrial harmony between employers and employees. I just make the point that the term `the parties involved in industrial relations in Australia' has a wider meaning than merely employers and employees. It refers to all parties whether they be organisations, employers, employees, or other persons. If one looks at the definitions clause of the Bill and of the existing Act one will see that that is the case. `Parties' here referred to in this proposed government clause is not intended to refer to parties in the sense of a party to an industrial dispute. For example, one can refer to clause 101 of the Bill to see the operation of that sort of provision. As I said this morning when we were having a more general discussion, the Bill will also recognise the crucial role of representative organisations of employers and employees in the Federal system. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with that role and the practice of dispute prevention and settlement. That would be the case if clause 3 (a) referred only to employers and employees. So this amendment is not acceptable. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.13) —Briefly, I respond to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) by saying that by referring to employers and employees rather than parties the Opposition is simply seeking to get over the situation where unions or indeed employer organisations can be seen not as agents for the essential people who are involved in the employment contract but as, in a sense, the prime actors in the whole field. As I said before, our objective is to encourage a more productive economy, a more productive culture. That means having more productive enterprises and that means having people working closely together within enterprises. Our concern, and I will not go over the ground completely again because it would be a waste of the time of the committee, is that on occasions-and I gave two quite specific recent examples-the involvement of parties other than the employers and employees themselves can in fact be a barrier to the sort of direct dealing that we would seek to encourage. In respect of the Minister's other fundamental point, `What about the situation for dispute settlement and so on?', I just draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the four objectives refer, first, to a framework for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes; next to ensuring that in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes proper regard is had to the interests of the parties; and so on. I do not think that in any sense the change that we are suggesting here takes away from the reality that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is required to deal with disputes. I again commend the amendment to the committee and ask for support. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. M. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N.Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McLean, P. A.Coates, J. McMullan, R. F.Collins, R. L. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. J.Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevereux, J. R. Reynolds, M.Devlin, A. R. Richardson, G. F.Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Schacht, C. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Walters, M. S. Cooney, B. C.Newman, J. M. Black, J. R.Durack, P. D. Sibraa, K. W.Baume, M. Tate, M. C.Bishop, B. K. Bolkus, N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.22) —I move: (2) Page 2, before paragraph 3 (b), insert the following paragraph: `(aa) to encourage the growth, development, productivity and international competitiveness of Australian industry;'. Clause 3 contains a whole series of objects-the promotion of industrial harmony, a framework for the prevention of disputes and so on. Our concern is that the Bill, which already introduces reference to the economic interests of Australia, needs to express the basic economic interests of Australia a little more clearly. The Government has included as one of the objects object (c), in these terms: to ensure that, in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, proper regard is had to the interests of the parties immediately concerned and to the interests (including the economic interests) of the Australian community as a whole; The Opposition supports that as a worthy objective of this legislation but we agree with the concerns expressed by the Business Council of Australia, which believes that the Government's proposal is not a sufficiently strong signal for the new Industrial Relations Commission about the weight to be given to economic criteria in settling disputes and, further, that it is not a sufficiently strong piece of guidance to the Commission given that Australia's position in the international economy is probably the key economic factor at work. What is necessary is for the parties appearing before the Commission to be able to point to a substantial change in the legislation as a clearer and stronger signal of the Parliament's intention regarding the weight to be placed on economic considerations. In a way, it is a pity that this Bill has been so delayed. It is years now since the Hancock Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems report was received by the Government. It is well over a year since the Government brought into the Parliament its first try at comprehensive legislation following the Hancock report. I think it is a pity that this legislation is not being considered in the days before the improvements in our terms of trade masked somewhat the competitive difficulties which still face this country. If we were debating this Bill in 1986 I think we all would be more alive to the point that I am seeking to have inserted in the Bill at this stage. We were all very conscious in 1986 that Australia, if it was to restore its economic health, had to look to international competitiveness as a key concern in its domestic economic management, and that includes in the operation of its labour market. The improvements in the terms of trade over the last 18 months and the restoration in full of the losses which caused the deep concerns of 1986 have temporarily at least masked the urgency of the need to improve our competitiveness. For that reason we think it is important that there be a very clear signal in this Bill that it is a vital matter for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to take into account when it is dealing with industrial disputes and the major wages questions that it will have to deal with year by year. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(7.26) —I will not cover the ground that Senator Chaney has covered. I think that in many respects this amendment goes to the heart of industrial relations. It seems to me that too often one could be tempted to make the mistake of seeing good industrial relations as an end in themselves rather than a means to a more substantial end. There is a temptation to talk about man days lost or the incidence of disputation, which are just symptoms of the failure of the industrial relations system, and not to look at the consequences of the failure of the industrial relations system. Our balance of payments, our foreign debt and our failure to compete in world markets in many respects are symptomatic of the failure by successive governments and by successive Australians to come to grips with the real problems. One could pose a fundamental question, and not in a rhetorical sense. This country God has endowed with all the fundamental natural resources that we could want-not only in minerals and metal but in energy-and he has provided us, through our own endeavours, with an intelligent, capable and well-educated work force, with a society presumably with self-respect and ambition. But having all those ingredients, why is it that at the end of the day our standard of living seems to be sliding back? Why is it that we are not able to compete with countries that are not blessed and endowed with those natural resources? Why is it that we do not compete with Singapore, Korea, Taiwan or Hong Kong? All sorts of reasons are given but essentially-I am sure Senator Button would agree-we have the ingredients to compete. But we do not. We seem to sink back into the mire and the imbroglio of the argument about industrial relations, as to who is right and who is wrong. We argue about for whom the benefits are to be achieved and we do not recognise that at the end of the day if we do not have a system that encourages, as Senator Chaney says in his amendment, growth, development, productivity and international competitiveness for Australian industry we have absolutely nothing; we achieve nothing. If we cannot do that, given our modest population, our standard of living will continue to sink. In many respects this amendment goes to the heart of what this legislation ought to be all about. It should be drafted to aim for the goals which I have mentioned. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! It being 7.30 pm, under sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 pm, under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(7.30) —I should like in this adjournment debate to continue the remarks I was making earlier this afternoon on the funding of education research and scientific effort in this country. I said this afternoon that in terms of overall funding, the Science and Technology Statement we were then discussing indicated that funding for research and development in Australia had been cut back in the recent Budget by as much as 6.9 per cent and that, compared with most Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, we were not bearing up extremely well. Indeed, we are fifteenth in a list of 22 countries. I indicated then that the role of science in society was being misunderstood both by this Government and, indeed, by the Opposition; that science was being very narrowly confined as the handmaiden of industry; and that all science which did not serve the industrial process was regarded as off limits and would not be supported. I said also that scientific enterprise was of the nature of the activity which marked the classical period of Western civilisation, when music and art flourished and was seen as the creative expression of that society. The situation today is that science is the creative expression of our modern industrial society and should be seen in that context. Science should enrich the life of modern people not just in terms of the things, the objects, which science creates but also in terms of the understanding of natural processes. I believe it was Bertrand Russell who said that it was nice to know things. That seems to me to summarise the idea that science in the modern world is the equivalent of religious contemplation in the medieval world and of artistic and musical expression in the classical period of European civilisation. There are a number of things science serves in society that go well beyond the area of industrial production. I indicated earlier this afternoon that the democratic process itself in an increasingly complex world is served by science. If we are going to make proper, rational and democratically based decisions about complex technology, the use of things such as information technology, the new technology in human fertility, genetic engineering and environmental degradation, we need an informed society and a society which can properly understand those scientific truths and processes. That means that we must have an educational system which is grounded in active scientific research work so that those who teach in our universities are actively engaged in research, indeed are at the forefront of that research, and can convey their understanding of that cutting edge of science to their students. It implies also that those people will be very actively involved in the education of the community at large. They will involve themselves in debates about the philosophy of science and about the application of science to society in general. Through that process society will be able to make proper and democratically based decisions in relation to that advancing edge of science. That is not what we find in Australian society at the present time. We find that funding is being cut back; we find that where funding is being placed it is constraining science and research effort merely to those areas that serve the technical purposes of society, leaving out completely these other purposes. The consequences of this in practical terms are also serious. I believe that future generations in Australia will look back on this period of the last 15 years-since the Whitlam years-and I include the directions the Opposition took when it was in power, and see it as a retrograde period in the development of education in this country and in the development of the understanding and the role of science in society. To give several examples, one finds that there is increasing understanding that the technology of energy use worldwide in advanced countries is causing the addition of a large number of pollutant gases to the atmosphere that have the potential to change the weather pattern substantially, to cause increases in sea levels and changes in the agricultural productivity of large areas. If we look at the most recent Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation reports, we find that CSIRO is putting a great deal of money and effort into developing the coal export industry. It would seem that if science and society were to take a longer view of this activity then a great deal more effort would be going into developing alternative energy systems, developing betters ways of charging for energy so that the correct price signals reflecting environmental damage were given to consumers, and developing conservation strategies. On the contrary, we find that this country has cut down its expenditure of money into research into alternatives, the sociological research that is necessary into questions of the acceptability of conservation measures. We are looking in completely the wrong technical direction to solve the problems which are now becoming evident to us. We could look also at the so-called Button car plan, grounded in a very conventional economic view of making this country more competitive and more able to build cars. No consideration at all has been given in that plan to the problems that face this country in terms of the run-down of fossil fuels, particularly liquid fossil fuels which power cars and, therefore, no consideration has been given to the pricing of fuels which might be reflected in the efficiency of the cars we use, and there is no place to increase the efficiency of fuel use in cars. We find that the most recent Holden cars to come on the market have as a conventional engine a 4-litre engine and as an optional engine a 5-litre engine. These are extremely inefficient vehicles, at a time when we are told that by 1991 this country will be importing $3 billion worth of foreign oil. Surely if we understood anything at all about the interplay of science in society, of where the cutting edge of the understanding of that interaction really is, then we would be addressing this problem of manufacturing in the context of what was happening to fuels, to the atmosphere, and we would be directing our industry in totally different ways. In the information technology area we find that a great deal of effort is being put into developing new information technology, but almost no effort at all is being devoted to the question of who owns the technology, for what purpose it is used, and who benefits from it. We seem to be bemused by the fact that simply increasing the flow of words or pictures passes for making life better. There is no evidence as far as I am aware that the accuracy of a signal is in any way increased when that signal is beamed to a million or a thousand million people by satellite or whether it is faxed through modern fax machines or sent through modems from computer to computer. We are being bombarded with noise but with very little information. Those important questions, which should be addressed alongside the development of the technology of information handling and information transfer, are simply being left aside. In regard to the biological control of pests, a very important area, Senator Powell today referred to the substantial cutback in funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. There would be no benefit to industry in developing these types of technologies. Therefore, they are not likely to be funded by industry. But the Government, hell-bent on getting out of funding these areas and relying on industry to pick up the tab, little realises that the greatest long term benefits lie in the area of biological control. Education, particularly tertiary education in our universities and the scientific and research effort, are under severe threat. There is a gross misunderstanding of the role of that effort in our society. We will go down the gurgler unless we recognise this and turn the process around. I see no hope of that occurring, given this Government, this Opposition and the bureaucracy which have entrenched those attitudes. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(7.43) —I rise to speak on a matter that is of great concern to people in Western Australia. A special meeting has been called tomorrow evening in the suburb of Kwinana at which representatives of the Kwinana Town Council and people representing the proposed petrochemical plant to be set up in the area will be present. The meeting has been called because of great public concern about the proposed petrochemical plant in the area. A lot has been said, especially in the Western Australian media, about the funding for this plant. The plant will be funded half by the Western Australian Government and half by the Bond Corporation. However, it is not that matter I wish to address this evening. Concerns have been expressed by two groups of people, scientists and technologists, and the residents of Kwinana. The scientists and technologists are concerned about the process which is proposed to be used in the petrochemical plant. Reports show that the proposed technology is out of date. Way back in the early 1970s the knowledge already existed that such a plant should be an integrated plant and take the processes right through, not stopping anywhere in the middle. At the proposed petrochemical plant in Kwinana two very dangerous substances, ethylene dichloride (EDC) and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), will not be followed through right to conclusion to produce the PVC pellets-which are a safe product-but will, at that dangerous stage, be stored in quantities and then exported for further processing elsewhere. The fear is that these two substances will be exported, possibly to Indonesia, to complete the process to the PVC pellet stage. Unfortunately, in Indonesia there are not the same restrictions and safety measures as exist in Australia in regard to industrial techniques. It is believed that the PVC pellets will then be exported to Japan where the manufacturing-the most financially beneficial stage-will take place. If this plant is to be set up in Western Australia, the whole process should be carried out in one hit. A matter of great concern is that Dr Tingay, the private environmental consultant responsible for the environmental report, does not seem to be aware of the danger of these two substances. For example, he believes that any spill of VCM can be contained. But, as this substances boils at minus 14 degrees centigrade, and immediately becomes a gas if there is any accident and it does make contact with the air, a very dangerous situation could evolve. With the prevailing winds we have on the western seaboard, any gas which is emitted in the Kwinana area will blow northwards and over Perth. As the people of Perth well know, from time to time smelly gases are blown in that direction. So that aspect is a matter of great concern. The local residents are also concerned because, although Kwinana was set up originally as an industrial area, it has now also become a residential area. The local people are very upset that yet another big, dirty and very dangerous industry is to be set up in the area in which they live. As I looked through material about Bulgaria, because I will shortly be in that country, I was most intrigued to read that one of the problems currently facing Bulgaria is that of pollution which comes from the petrochemical plant situated just over the border in Romania. I quote from the EIV Country Report No. 2: Clouds of chlorine gas and other pollutant from the Ciurgiu chemical plant in Romania have been drifting across the border repeatedly into the area of Ruse, angering local residents and creating minor problems between the normally very friendly Bulgarian and Romanian governments. I hope that, as the plant to be set up in Western Australia is newer, it will be somewhat more sophisticated and will not produce those sorts of problems every day. But it does illustrate the fact that it is not a happy situation to have this sort of industry situated within a residential area. An environmental impact statement into the whole proposed arrangement is required. I also firmly believe that, if the proposed petrochemical plant goes ahead in its planned format, the Western Australian public will be entitled to hold Barry Carbon, the Chairperson of the Environmental Protection Authority, personally responsible for any cancers or other conditions attributable to the petrochemical plant which manifest themselves in the surrounding community in the future. There is not a shadow of doubt that if people come into contact with the two substances I have previously mentioned, EDC and VCM, there is a great danger of cancers developing or other unfortunate manifestations, such as prevalence towards spontaneous abortion. In this adjournment speech I wish to give my support to the residents of Kwinana who will be meeting tomorrow night in an endeavour not to have the petrochemical plant set up in their area. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.49 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations- Orders 1988- No. 5-Meat Inspection (Fees) Orders as amended (Amendment). No. 6-Meat Inspection (General) Orders as amended (Amendment). Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1988- No. 44-Crimes (Amendment). No. 45-Magistrates Court (Amendment). No. 46-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2). No. 47-Agents (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2). No. 48-Education (Amendment). No. 49-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2). No. 50-Remuneration (Amendment). No. 51-Remand Centres (Amendment). No. 52-Legal Practitioners (Amendment). Regulations 1988- No. 15-Magistrates Court Rules (Amendment).