Thursday, 1 September 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: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia being residents of South Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully request to maintain and expand public funding for Community Based Child Care Services in Australia, and express total opposition to the withdrawal of the operational subsidy to any user, because it will have a deleterious effect on children's services in South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the Instigation of: 1. Urgent discussions with State Governments, bodies representing children's services and the A.C.T.U. 2. That such discussions examine regulations for the quality assurance of children's services. 3. That such discussions be mindful of the need to retain quality children's services and trained personnel to work in children's services. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reynolds (from 29 citizens). Petition for closing the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that give the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that Australia is one nation which comprises people from many different racial and cultural backgrounds; that a Treaty with one of these peoples-the Aborigines- would be divisive and would be equivalent to the setting up of a separate nation; that a Treaty could lead to the introduction of a national system of land rights; that we are totally opposed to the signing of a Treaty with the Aboriginal people. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification; call upon the Senate to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X-rated video material (and its R-rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Coates (from 220 citizens), Devereux (from 282 citizens), Devlin (from 187 citizens) and Sanders (from 159 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. 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. And in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 30 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) — Pursuant to standing order 109a, I give notice that, immediately after Question Time this day, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day for disallowance of Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as amended (Amendment), as contained in Export Control Order No. 3 of 1988. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Committee has obtained satisfactory explanations from the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook), who has given undertakings that the orders will be amended to ensure that the delegation by the Secretary will not proceed beyond delegation to a Senior Executive Service Officer. The Committee has accepted that explanation but it will examine generally the question of unfettered subdelegations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a description of the Committee's scrutiny. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Summary of the Committee's Scrutiny Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment) as contained in Export Control Order No. 3 of 1988 The Committee's concern in relation to these Orders related to a possible sub-sub-delegation of the power to delegate from the Secretary through a Senior Executive Service officer to other authorised officers. It appeared that the intention of the Orders was to delegate the power of the Secretary to a Senior Executive Service Officer only but the wording indicated that the Senior Executive Service officer could then delegate the power to another officer. The Committee indicated to the Minister for Resources, Senator the Honourable Peter Cook, that the actual exercise of the powers involved appeared to have moved a very long way from their legislative source and from their original recipient. The Committee also sought an assurance from the Minister that the delegations were primarily administrative and not quasi-legislative in nature. The Minister for Resources in reply to the Committee stated that the delegation of the Secretary's administrative powers was not intended to go beyond the Senior Executive Service Officer level and that he would amend the Order to clarify the original intention. He also assured the Committee that the Secretary's powers were intended to be administrative and not quasi-legislative. The Committee thanks the Minister for his co-operation in these matters. Senator COLLINS —I seek leave to table the correspondence relating to this matter. Leave granted. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Trade Practices (Telecommunications Exemptions) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 99 and made under the Trade Practices Act 1974, be disallowed. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales) —On behalf of Senator Macklin, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That there be laid on the Table of the Senate, on or before 25 November 1988, details of all provisions of Acts which come into effect on proclamation and which have not been proclaimed, together with a statement of reasons for their non-proclamation and a timetable for their operation. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate direct the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to inquire into the management and administration of the Department of Defence's computer redevelopment program, the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project, and in particular, the Committee should examine- (a) the length of time the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project has been underway; (b) the resources committed to the project to date in terms of: (i) manpower costs, including salary and related allowances payable to both civilian and Australian Defence Force personnel, (ii) consultancy services, (iii) computing support, (iv) any other operating expenses; (c) the objectives of the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project, as stated when the proposal commenced, and the results achieved by the program to date; (d) the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project's original and 1988 cost estimates; (e) the planning and consultation which occurred at the commencement of the project, including: (i) definition of the goals of the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project, (ii) expected time-table for implementation of the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project, and (iii) adequacy of input by the three Services in the definition of user-requirements; (f) cost-benefits of the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project; and (g) what attempts have been made by the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force to ensure any major computer purchases made since 1986 conform to the standardisation and decentralisation rationale of the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project and the related Defence computer acquisition programme, Project DESINE. Senator Hill(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with support the French Government's progress towards a negotiated settlement of the independence dispute in New Caledonia as evidenced by the Matignon Accord between the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front and the rally for New Caledonia in the Republic Party signed in Paris on 20 August 1988; (b) recognises and applauds the goodwill shown by New Caledonian leaders Mr Jean-Marie Tjibaou and Mr Jacques Lafleur in reaching agreement for a peaceful settlement of differences and for a program of political development over the next ten years; (c) believes the success demonstrates the inappropriate foreign policies taken over the last five years by the Hawke Government in persistently promoting a strident and often irrational anti-French position; and (d) expresses its disappointment that Australia was thereby excluded from playing the constructive role it should have played towards resolution of a difficult problem within its region of strategic importance. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.08) —I table the explanatory memorandum. I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Transport Legislation Amendment Bill contains amendments to a number of Acts administered by the Transport and Communications portfolio. The amendments are of a kind which it has been the practice, in recent years, to make in an omnibus Bill of this nature. Navigation Act 1912 Under the Act there exist numerous administrative discretions for which there is no avenue for review other than a Court of Marine Inquiry (CMI). CMIs usually deal with marine accidents or casualties but for administrative review they are an expensive, cumbersome and outdated mechanism. This is evidenced by the fact that a CMI has not received an administrative decision in over 60 years. In addition, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has been concerned about the lack of a simple review mechanism for decisions taken under the Act and its subordinate legislation. In light of the Government's policy to centralise administrative review functions as far as possible in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a review of all administrative decisions under the Act was conducted in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department. The results of this review are implemented in the Bill. The Bill will insert new Part IXA into the Act which lists, section by section, all the administrative decisions appropriate for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Ships (Capital Grants) Act 1987 The Act is to be amended to ensure that funds it provides are used to best effect. The intention underlying this Act is to provide financial incentives to promote the introduction of modern, advanced technology trading ships which put in place the improvements in shipboard productivity and work practices recommended by the Maritime Industry Development Committee (MIDC). An integral part of these improvements is the introduction of multiskilled crews, smaller than the existing norms within the industry. It has become apparent that there is the possibility of a diversion of funds under the Act to provide what amounts to windfall gains to operators of small passenger ships intended for the coastal cruising market. Such ships are eligible for grants under the Act as it is presently drafted but their crew training and operational requirements fall outside the scope of the MIDC recommendations. Consequently, the payment of a grant to operators of these ships is not warranted. The Government estimates that if no action is taken to remedy this situation up to $6m could be paid to such operators over the next two years. The Government has therefore decided to amend the Act and target it more carefully. This will be done by making it clear that the focus of the Act is substantial cargo carrying ships (i.e., ships over 60 metres in length) and by excluding ships intended wholly for the carriage of passengers from the Act. The original definition of `trading ship' in the Act was intended to include commercial ferry operations, such as those across the Bass Strait. Such ships are in the mainstream of Australian shipping and are capable of achieving the efficiency and productivity improvements generated as part of the Ships (Capital Grants) Act package. Accordingly, the amended Act will still enable a large ferry operation to qualify for a grant, provided it carries a significant amount of cargo in addition to its passengers. To protect the revenue from claims for ships which are to be excluded by these changes, the amendments are to take effect from the date of introduction of this Bill. Existing applications will remain valid. Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 This Act gives effect to the International Convention for the Protection of Pollution from Ships 1973-78. Annexes III and V of the Convention relating to pollution by harmful packaged substances and by garbage will come into operation shortly. The Bill will extend the parts of the Act relating to Annexes III and V to ships normally under State-Northern Territory jurisdiction, until the States-Northern Territory have parallel legislation in place. The amendments are necessary for Australia to meet its international Convention obligations and have been agreed by the State-Northern Territory marine Ministers. Other Amendments The remaining amendments in the Bill are to correct drafting errors and make minor editorial improvements. Financial Impact Statement On the basis of the number of potentially eligible passenger ships on order in Australian shipyards for domestic delivery, it is estimated that the amendments of the Ships (Capital Grants) Act 1987 could save the Government up to $6m over the next two years. No figures are available beyond 1990, but it is possible the total savings could be double this amount by 1992, when the Act expires. There will be no significant costs, revenues or savings to the Government arising from the other amendments in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.04) —I table the explanatory memorandum. I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Government has always considered the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to be one of the outstanding legacies of the Whitlam Labor Government, one which the Fraser and Queensland governments wisely built on and an issue, I hope, that will continue to receive bipartisan support. There have been notable achievements in the 13 years since the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the commencement of work on the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: the Great Barrier Reef region and all of the islands within it have been inscribed, with Queensland Government support, on the World Heritage List reflecting the importance Australians attach to this area; the entire Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has been zoned with the zoning plan for the last section, the Mackay-Capricorn section, taking effect on 1 August 1988; the establishment of a management approach which allows multiple use, while ensuring that the conservation values of the marine park are not devalued; and strong co-operative arrangements have been developed with Queensland to ensure a complementary aproach to the management of Queensland lands and waters adjacent to the Marine Park and thus add to the protection of the reef. The practical experience gained from managing the Marine Park during this period has highlighted the desirability of amending provisions of the Great Barrier Reef marine Park Act to ensure that these positive developments continue. Honourable senators will be well aware of the increasing level of commercial and non-commercial activity in the Great Barrier Reef. The number of visitors to the reef has been steadily increasing; it is one of Australia's main tourist destinations. There has been an expansion of commercial fisheries further offshore; an increase in recreational fishing; an increase in private boat use; an expansion of the number of tourist facilities, including resorts, pontoons and the world's first floating hotel. Tourism activities include diving, scenic cruises, helicopter and aircraft services and day trips to islands and coral cays. The relatively recent introduction of high speed catamarans, which can move several hundred people each trip, has opened up the more remote parts of the marine park to tourism. This growth has increased pressure, not only on the environmental quality of the marine park but also on the marine resources, scientific research and general use of the marine park. There is also a growing concern that this pressure, whether by accident or deliberate act or omission, will result in damage to the marine park. Therefore given the scale of commercial activity and the limits to management resources, it is essential that there are incentives for users of the Great Barrier Reef to comply with marine park zoning plans. Mr President, it has been some time since the penalties applicable for breaches of the Act have been reviewed. With the increased level of activities in the marine park and the substantial profits to be gained, it is obvious that the existing penalties are inadequate to deter breaches of the Act. To rectify this situation it is necessary to transfer the main offence provisions from the regulations to the body of the Act. This transfer will allow the applicable penalties to be increased. The Bill provides generally for fines up to $10,000 for natural persons and $50,000 for corporations, although higher penalties apply in relation to some specific offences such as the discharge of waste, which incurs a penalty of up to $250,000 for corporations. This compares with penalties of up to $5,000 which apply currently in the regulations. The Bill provides for the transfer to the principal Act of provisions dealing with offences in zoned and unzoned areas, contravention of conditions of permissions or authorities issued by the Authority in respect of entry into zones, contravention of directions issues by the Authority, the removal of property in the marine park, the discharge of waste in the marine park and the use of vessels and aircraft in the commission of offences. I am sure honourable senators will agree that these offences can be serious as they could cause damage to this unique natural resource. Consequently there should exist appropriate penalties. It should be noted that the transfer of penalties from the regulations to the Act will require a revision of the regulations. The transfer provisions and the associated increase in penalties therefore will not come into effect until these regulations have been revised and passed by the Parliament. The policing of the marine park is a complex and time-consuming task. The Great Barrier Reef is an enormous area of over 350,000 square kilometres, which is an area larger than Victoria and Tasmania combined, and the resources necessary to supervise the use of the marine park must therefore be used effectively and efficiently. However, there is some concern, shared by the Government, that marine park inspectors presently have insufficient power to pursue, search and apprehend people suspected of committing offences against the Act. For example an offender, once outside the boundaries of the marine park, is not at present subject to the authority of inspectors. The Government believes that it is essential to the management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and its ultimate protection, that inspectors have the necessary powers to enforce the Act. As a consequence the Bill provides for a number of amendments, including extending search and seizure powers to include aircraft and providing for the search of people, vessels and aircraft should offenders be apprehended outside the marine park. The Government recognises that the extension of police powers to marine park inspectors should be limited. The Bill therefore only extends these powers where a police officer is unavailable and only where there has been an uninterrupted pursuit of the offender from a place within the marine park to a place outside the marine park where the offender has been apprehended. In addition, there have been circumstances in the past where an offence against the Act has resulted in damage or has posed a threat to the environment of the marine park. The Act, as it now stands, does not provide explicitly for remedial or preventative action to be taken nor can costs for any clean up be billed to the offender who caused the damage. As mentioned, the risk of environmental damage posed by increased use of the marine park has significantly changed since the Act's inception. There is, I believe, a need to deal with this risk effectively. The Bill therefore provides for the Commonwealth Minister responsible for the Act, provided there are reasonable grounds for believing an offence has been committed against the Act, to take such steps as are necessary to remedy actual damage or prevent possible damage to the marine park. Provision is also made for the Minister's powers to be delegated to the Authority or the Chairman of the Authority, subject to the directions of the Minister. As an adjunct to the clean up or prevention of environmental damage provision, an amendment is proposed to allow the reasonable costs of the clean up to be recovered from the offender once a conviction has been obtained. The Bill also provides for the court, at the time of the conviction, to make orders concerning the payment of the debt, so as not to place the burden of another hearing on the judicial system. In meeting the objective of conserving the Great Barrier Reef it is essential that the Authority be given the full range of management tools to ensure the effective protection and management of the marine park while providing for reasonable use. One deficiency in the current Act is that obtaining a conviction does not necessarily deter future contraventions by the offender, nor does it undo the environmental damage resulting from the offence. While the Bill provides for remedial action to be taken, there may be circumstances where it would be preferable to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of the offence. The Bill therefore provides for the Supreme Court of a State or Territory to grant an injunction where there has been or is likely to be a contravention of the Act. I should emphasise, Mr President, that the court may grant the injunction on the application not only of the Authority, but also on the application of a person whose interests have been, or would be affected by the conduct in question. This new provision allows individuals to protect their interests while at the same time enforcing the provisions of the Act. This will facilitate a far more effective enforcement of the Act without incurring additional Commonwealth expense. The Authority's education expertise and its experience in natural resource management is recognised worldwide and is the subject of many requests for assistance. Honourable senators will recognise the valuable work the Authority has undertaken to inform and educate Australians, particularly users of the marine park, of its value and the need to use it wisely. Indeed, honourable senators will be interested to hear that the Great Barrier Reef Aquarium, the Authority's major education and interpretive facility, has attracted over 320,000 visitors in its first year of operation and has won an award for the best Queensland tourist facility. The aquarium plays an important role in the Authority's education function and was funded with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government, as a bicentennial project, the Queensland Government, the private sector and the community of Townsville. I recently had the opportunity of addressing the Sixth Coral Reef Symposium in Townsville which was attended by 650 scientists and managers, the majority of whom were from overseas. The aim of the symposium was to promote global understanding of the growth and maintenance of coral reefs, which are an important natural resource to many countries, particularly small developing island nations in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Often many of these nations do not possess the scientific and managerial infrastructures to work by themselves to understand the complexities of coral reef ecosystems and to plan for the wise management of these important natural features. At this symposium I took much pride in the fact that Australia through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, mainly as a result of support from the Federal Government, is in the vanguard of coral reef research and management throughout the world and has much to offer these smaller nations. However, at present the Act does not permit the Authority to provide assistance to international organisations or individuals unless it directly concerns the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Australians should be proud of the reputation of the Authority and would, I am sure, want to share the Authority's expertise with other countries. As a consequence the Bill amends the Act by permitting the Authority to assist other institutions and individuals in environment management issues. To ensure that the assistance provided does not detract from the Authority's prime responsibility to manage the marine park, requests for assistance will be subject to ministerial approval. Provision is also made for the recovery of the costs of providing such assistance. Mr President, the Bill also introduces a number of other measures to streamline and enhance the administration of the Act. These relate to the disclosure of pecuniary interests of members of the Authority and the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, application of the Audit Act 1901 to financial, audit and reporting functions of the Authority, the jurisdiction of courts in respect to offences against the Act and the updating of the Act to reflect current drafting policy. In conclusion the Bill will be a significant step in assisting marine park managers to meet the new challenges that now exist while enhancing the protection of one of the world's greatest natural assets, the Great Barrier Reef, for the benefit of present and future generations of Australians. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator McLean, on behalf of Senator Macklin) agreed to: That the Senate, noting 8 September 1988 is 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 a 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. Motion (by Senator McLean, on behalf of Senator Macklin) agreed to: (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 on 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 MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I seek leave to correct a typographical error in the notice of motion that I gave yesterday. Leave granted. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —In notice of motion No. 130 the date in the fifth line should read 1988. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill provides for an increase in the salary of the next Governor-General after he is sworn in February 1989. Section 3 of the Constitution fixes the salary of the Governor-General for the term of office, therefore the salary fixed at the commencement of the Governor-General's appointment must be set at a level that will still be appropriate at the end of the term. The Income Tax Assessment Act provides that the official salary of the Governor-General shall be exempt from income tax. The Governor-General Act 1974 provided for a salary of $30,000. It was amended in 1977 to increase the salary to $37,000 and by the Fraser Government in 1982 to increase the salary quite considerably to $70,000. It is now proposed that the Governor- General's salary be $95,000-a figure that will remain unchanged through the period of the next Governor-General's appointment. The principle that has governed the calculation of this amount is that used to determine the salaries of Governors-General in the past; that is, to keep the average salary over a notional five year appointment somewhat ahead of the estimated average annual income, after tax, of the Chief Justice of Australia. This approach what not followed strictly when the salary was last calculated, with the result that the average exceeded the after tax income of the Chief Justice by some $15,000 per annum over the first five years of the term. The current calculation, however, would result in less than half that differential over the next five years, based on no more than 5% annual CPI increases in the Chief Justice's salary. This calculation, it should be noted, ignores the fact that changes will take place in the rates of income tax during the period, and does not take account of the possibility that there will be additional increases in federal judges' salaries arising from Remuneration Tribunal reviews. I would only add that this Government adheres to the three important principles that should apply to consideration by the Parliament of the Governor-General's salary; as put forward by Prime Minister Whitlam in 1974 and endorsed by the Fraser Government. They were that the Governor-General's salary should be dealt with in a non party way; that the salary should recognise the importance and place of this high office, and that the appointment of a Governor-General should not depend on personal wealth or the availability of other income. The proposed salary is commensurate with the office, it is economically responsible, and it re-establishes the traditional relativity between the Chief Justice and the Governor-General. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL 1988 Consideration resumed from 31 August. Clause 3. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee was considering amendment No. 2 to clause 3 moved by Senator Chaney. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I shall remind the Committee of the stage we had reached. The amendment that I moved seeks to insert a new paragraph in clause 3, the objects clause. It is a quite important clause because the Industrial Relations Commission, as it will be if this Bill is passed-the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission if the Bill does not pass-is required to act to advance the objectives set out in the Industrial Relations Bill. As the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) will know, the objectives clause is not a matter of form. It is a clause which, if enacted, will have some importance in providing a guide for the major wage fixing body and its actions. What is proposed is that we should insert a further object which is to encourage the growth of productivity and international competitiveness of Australian industry. In response, the Minister's general complaint was that the amendments are not consistent with the general tenor of the proposed Act and and would have some sort of negative impact on the administration of the Act or on the administration of the Federal scheme of industrial relations, with the mixture of State and Federal tribunals. The position, of course, is that the Government, in its own set of objects in the Act as presently drafted, has made reference to the importance of the economic interests of the Australian community. The existing objective (c) reads: . . . 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 . . . I pointed out in the committee debate yesterday that the view of the Opposition is similar to that of the Business Council of Australia which suggests that a strong signal needs to be sent to the Commission about this fundamental question of international competitiveness. I suggest to the Minister that it in no way flies in the face of the Government's general request that the economic interests of the Australian community be considered. It simply makes specific the fact that international competitiveness is of fundamental importance. It seems to me to be totally in line with the Minister's own rhetoric in the area of his direct responsibilities, namely, industry, technology and commerce. I invite the Minister to indicate that the Government is prepared to give some consideration to matters raised in this Parliament and to adopt a reasonably open mind to suggestions which could give rise to real improvement in the legislation. The simple point is that we are suggesting to the Government and the Committee that a specific reference of the kind we are seeking to insert-to the importance of productivity and international competitiveness-would be a very useful additional guideline for the Industrial Relations Commission to have. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.17) —One cannot take too much note of all the signals that one gets from the Business Council of Australia. One must have doubts whether a signal from the Business Council of Australia is sufficient to determine a legislative purpose or objective. Senator Chaney —I am not suggesting that is the reason. The Council is putting that view in common with us. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. The Government does not support this amendment-the specific provision for this `international competitiveness' phrase in the Bill. I certainly share with Senator Chaney his concern about that issue, in a wider context. Object (c) in clause 3 of the Bill already provides that proper regard should be had to the interests, including economic interests, of the Australian community as a whole. Clause 90 of the Bill requires the Commission to take into account the public interest and have regard to the state of the national economy and the likely effects on the national economy of any proposed award or order, with special reference to likely effects on the level of employment and inflation. The fact that those provisions are in the legislation is not in itself an argument against including a reference to international competitiveness in the subjective clause. But we would argue that those things are sufficiently wide to embrace the concept of international competitiveness of Australian industry. The objection to the inclusion of this phrase `international competitiveness' is more substantial than that. In attempting to establish that point, I refer to the views of the Hancock Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. The Committee of Review stated: . . . the case against imposing an explicit statutory requirement upon the Commission to have regard to `international competitiveness' is reinforced by our doubts about the applicability of such a criterion. Those doubts flow from the existence of a floating exchange rate, uncertainty about the effects of wage levels on currency values and the difficulty of judging whether the currency is overvalued or undervalued. This issue is one which should properly be discussed in the Commission. It had some other views on that of the same kind too but its position, I think, and the position of the Government are reinforced by what the Commission has actually done and said in national wage cases. For example, in its recent decision the Commission took into account the need to improve Australia's economic performance and it listed eight factors of which it took particular account, including levels of domestic inflation and future prospects, the state of the external economy, productivity movements, and scope of the decision to assist further improvements in productive performance of work. In that decision it devoted a special section to what it described as the economic context, examining the issues of economic activity, employment and unemployment, inflation, nominal real wages, productivity profitability, and the external economy. The Commission commented that the relevance of external economy, and of the external economy to its decisions affecting wages and other labour costs is not straightforward, referring to the substantial impact on competitiveness of the exchange rates. In dealing with the two tier wage decision of March 1987, it commented on the recognition by all parties of `the importance of maintaining international competitiveness for continued wage restraint for revival and private investment' and so on. In determining increases under the two tier system it said that it would have regard to the broad range of industrial economic and social factors affecting Australian society. So in essence the Government's non-acceptance of this amendment is based on two things. Firstly, there are already references in clause 90 and in the objectives clause of the legislation which require the Commission to consider these matters in a general sense. Secondly, the concept of international competitiveness is very much dependent on a floating exchange rate. Thirdly, the Commission, from time to time, in the course of its work and decisions in national wage cases is already taking those matters into account. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.23) —I thank the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce for his remarks. I simply wish to say by way of response that it seemed to me, from the passages that the Minister read from the decisions of the Commission, that what we are advocating here is quite compatible with what the Commission sometimes does in its decisions but not invariably does in its decisions. I find it a little puzzling as to why the Minister should have any difficulty with the amendment which simply says `to encourage the growth, development, productivity and international competitiveness of Australian industry'. It is not suggested that by putting this objective in one is putting down some sort of guidelines which would bind the Commission to make rulings on the basis of some particular measure of international competitiveness. Rather it is simply making the point that this is something which is of fundamental long term importance to the economy and to the capacity of the economy to pay higher wages which, in the end, is what the work force is concerned about. The only other thing I want to say is that to save the time of the committee I do not propose to divide on each of these amendments. I would ask the Australian Democrats spokesman, Senator McLean, to indicate-if he does not wish to speak on the matter-that he is not supporting the amendment and in those cases where I do not believe it is a major issue then I will accept that we have lost on the voices in appropriate cases. I would invite Senator McLean to indicate whether the Australian Democrats support or do not support this particular amendment. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(10.25) —I have indicated to Senator Chaney that we will not be supporting his amendment, nor the amendments through to those listed under serial 11 of our schedule of debate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.25) —Senator McLean has just rendered what I was about to say redundant. I just want to come back to the international competitiveness point. I certainly would argue that the concept of international competitiveness is dependent on a multiplicity of factors, only one of which essentially is within the province of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. For example, when we discuss the clauses on union structures and things like that, reference is always made to countries such as Japan and Germany, as well as many others. I am talking essentially about manufacturing. References are always made to those economies, about how competitive they are and so on. Australia is highly competitive with those countries in terms of manufacturing wages. Australia has about half the wages level that exists in Japan in manufacturing and considerably lower wages than in Germany, the United States and various other countries which are used as points of comparison. But the notion of international competitiveness is very dependent, as I said, on exchange rates and on a whole range of other factors which are not within the province of the Commission, such as management skills, design quality and all those things that go to international competitiveness. We could go on talking about this forever but I do not want to do that. I just wanted to say those things. Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN —Agreement has been reached on the way this Bill should be handled in committee. With the concurrence of the Committee, I propose to handle it in the agreed form, taking the Bill as a whole but calling groups of amendments as they become relevant. For this to work it will be necessary for everyone to be relevant to the amendments before us. There will be an opportunity at the end of the debate, when the Bill as amended is before the Committee, to raise any other matter that has not been dealt with under the group headings. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken together. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.28) —In relation to object (b) of the Bill, I move: Page 2, paragraph 3 (b), line 2, leave out ``by conciliation and arbitration''. Object (b), as it is drafted, provides as follows: to provide a framework for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration in a manner that minimises the disruptive effects of industrial disputes on the community. Quite clearly, the general objective will command broad, almost universal, community support in the sense that people wish to see the disruptive effects of industrial disputes minimised. The amendment simply takes out the words `by conciliation and arbitration' because, in the view of the Opposition, it is a wider matter than mere conciliation and arbitration. The amendment does not suggest that conciliation and arbitration should not be available and that it is not one of the very important mechanisms which can be used to minimise the disruptive effects of industrial disputes. But we believe it is very important that the whole framework of industrial relations be one which lends itself to a minimisation of industrial disputes between employers and employees. We would see there being other measures. Indeed, the legislation provides for various penalties to be imposed and so on. So there are much broader questions involved than simply conciliation and arbitration in this objective. We suggest that the meaning of the clause would be improved by the removal of those words. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.30) —We do not support the removal of the words in question. The Government's view is that the purpose of the objects in this clause of the Bill is to reflect the main focus of the legislation. The whole thrust of the legislation reflects the decision by the Government that Australia is best served by an industrial relations system based primarily on processes of conciliation and arbitration. That characteristic can be found in the State industrial systems. It is desirable in our view that consistency should be retained across the country in the various industrial relations tribunals. The Bill, in clause 89, describes the general functions of the Industrial Relations Commission. One of those functions is put specifically in terms of preventing and settling industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. If one takes out of the objects any reference to conciliation and arbitration we regard that as undesirable. The Government also takes the view that the prime purpose of the objects, at least, is to reflect the view that the primary head of constitutional power should be the conciliation and arbitration power. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.32) —In a sense this small amendment does bring out the difference between the Opposition and the Government on the whole approach to this Bill. The primary source of there being no conflict, of there being no disputes, should be the fact that employers and employees have the capacity to resolve their differences by direct agreement. In a perfect world we would not have a conciliation and arbitration commission because parties would be able to organise themselves without the need for external intervention. Accepting that we do not have a perfect world, the truth is that most successful enterprises, as much as possible, manage their affairs directly and avoid industrial disputes, not by rushing off to the Commission, to the union or to the Employers Federation but by sensible dealings-direct dealings-between employer and employee. That is central to our concern about the approach of the Government to industrial relations. The Government approaches industrial relations from the point of view of those agencies which have been created to perform some functions in the system, instead of approaching them from the point of view of wanting the basic system of employment to work of its own accord as far as possible. In other words, as in so many areas in this Bill, the emphasis is on external mechanisms, instead of the parties themselves. We think that is destructive. We think it is wrong. We believe that if the Government were consistent in its approach to developing a more internationally competitive, efficient, productive economy and a different, more productive culture in this country, again to use words that Senator Button has popularised-- Senator Button —Immortalised. Senator CHANEY —No, he has popularised them. That is something of an achievement. I say that in a positive way. Getting people to accept the idea that we need to approach things from the point of view of working more productively together is a sensible approach. That approach will be enhanced if the Government minimises the interference of external agencies as far as possible and if, as far as possible, it encourages employers and employees to work closely together. This amendment, again, is a fairly small amendment. In our view, the words that the Government is saying it wishes to retain puts entirely the wrong emphasis on the system. It is a diversion from the real task in hand. Amendment negatived. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.34) —Mr Chairman, I seek leave to move the first part of amendment No. 4, which would insert a new paragraph in the objectives, paragraph (ba), to encourage adherence to the rule of law in industrial relations. The reason I want to move this part of the amendment separately from the other three objects, which are part of the circulated amendment, is that the other three objects essentially go to our amendments with respect to trade union structure. For the purposes of debate, it would be better if they were debated in conjunction with the later amendments which go to the structure of trade unions in this country. Do the Government and the other participants in the Committee have any problem with giving leave? The CHAIRMAN —There is no need for leave. The honourable senator is entitled to move his amendment as he likes. Senator CHANEY —I am suggesting to the Minister that paragraphs (bb), (bc) and (bd), which are part of the fourth amendment, should be dealt with under order of debate No. 11, where there is a significant number of amendments which go to trade unions. Does the Minister have any problem with that? Senator Button —No. Senator CHANEY —Since there is no objection, I move: Page 2, after paragraph 3 (b), insert the following new paragraph: `(ba) to encourage adherence to the rule of law in industrial relations;' The existing object is to provide for the observance and enforcement of agreements and awards made for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. This amendment was moved because, in the view of the Opposition, the Commission should also act to ensure that other laws relevant to industrial relations are adhered to. There are, of course, other laws-the common law itself, the Trade Practices Act, the criminal law, and so on. We believe it is necessary to say that because there are documented examples of the Commission actually undermining the law in its activities. I do not suggest that that is a broad or common practice, but the particular case which achieved very great notoriety was a case of gross infringement of human rights. I refer to the situation of the Gibbins family, a husband and wife firm which operated a transport business involved in carrying livestock. If I can give the facts of that case it will become very clear why we needed an amendment of this sort. I shall quote from an article written by Mr Barry Purvis and his account of the Gibbins case because it is the quickest way that I can put it before the Senate. As he described it, the essential facts are that the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union blacklisted certain carriers of livestock because they had crossed picket lines in order to deliver live sheep to ships for export. The blacklisted drivers and trucks were prevented from delivering livestock, either for farmers or for Thomas Borthwick and Sons to Borthwick's abattoir. This caused inconvenience and loss to the company, to 30 carriers and to 22 primary producers. As a result, the company took action against the union under the Trade Practices Act and the dispute was ultimately dealt with in the Arbitration Commission under the chairmanship of the Deputy President. The Gibbins couple who were conducting this transport business were not a party to what occurred, and unfortunately they had their rights traded away in the course of the settlement of this dispute. The terms of settlement between the meat company and the union included the following statement: It is accepted that for many and varied reasons put by the union and for valid commercial reasons, the company feels it necessary, if things are to become normal at its Brooklyn and Portland works, that for industrial relations reasons those people known to the company not to be invited or engaged to come on to the work nor will the company or any of its agents require members of the union to attend those known persons. As I said, the Gibbins, in common with the other carriers involved, had no knowledge of the closed conciliation proceedings. They were not able to be present. The effect of this was to exclude them from carrying on their business in so far as it involved carrying on business with that firm. The Deputy President was the person acting under the Act. He is an official appointed to a public position, paid for by the public purse, and supposedly, one would think, administering the law in a way which paid regard to the rule of law and to the fair treatment of every citizen. In a confidential written statement which recorded settlement, the Deputy President said this: I should note that the drivers who are involved in this matter have neither appeared nor shown any interest in the proceedings before me. However, I would hope that persons who may not benefit by this resolution and desire to do so would be able to put themselves into a position where their differences were resolved with the employees at Portland consistent with the resolution of the dispute and that this should happen as soon as practical. The file containing the agreement has a statement by the Deputy President in which he said: I am prepared to say that what has been reported to me as a resolution of the dispute could only be regarded as proper in the circumstances and I recommend it. Happily, this matter got into the courts. It is very often the case, of course, that people are treated in a pretty shameful way in this country in the course of the settlement or the carrying out of industrial disputes and they are either unable to do anything about it or, in some cases, too frightened to do anything about it. When this case got before the courts the Federal Court declared illegal the agreement to blacklist the Gibbins partnership and other drivers affected. I want to quote from the judgment of Mr Justice Smithers in the Federal Court of Australia. This is how he described the agreement between the union and the company, that is, an agreement to settle a dispute which was ratified by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The judge said that it: . . . represented a complete surrender to the Union demand that because certain carriers carried on their lawful occupation by carrying live sheep to the ships their occupation as carriers to abattoirs should be destroyed. That surrender was made at the expense of the absent persons affected thereby and one can only wonder how that aspect of the matter could be proper. The reference to the lack of interest shown by `others who are involved in this matter' failed to recognise the fact that those others were in complete ignorance of the proceedings. The final sentence is obscure and appears to be directed to persons who will never be informed of it. The only meaning to be attributed to it is that it is a declaration that if carriers decide to do business with Borthwicks they must cease to carry stock to the ships in the Middle Eastern trade. The reference to persons subject to this policy, as persons `who may not benefit' from the proposed resolution of the dispute, is a naive and ingenuous description of persons who are to suffer in their livelihood by being directly excluded from the ordinary exercise of one aspect of their lawful occupation. That is what Mr Justice Smithers had to say about an agreement which I suspect people in this chamber might well defend. I see in the chamber a senator from Queensland who thinks that, at times, we are too critical of trade unions. I ask him, if he wishes to enter this debate, whether he defends that sort of behaviour which is an attack not on the rights of some bloated capitalist but on the livelihood of a husband and wife carrying out a trucking business. If he had anything to do with people in the trucking business he would know that those people do not exactly have it easy. So the concerns that underlie our desire to have an objective which shows that it is the job of the Commission to encourage adherence to the rule of law and industrial relations are, in our view, justified. Let me go back to what Mr Justice Smithers had to say in talking about how the Arbitration Commission had resolved the problem created by the union's retaliatory action against innocent livestock carriers going about their lawful business. Mr Justice Smithers said: Borthwicks also agreed that persons other than those who had involved themselves in the process of conciliation should `respect the need not to cause further provocation' and therefore, Borthwicks `accepted the fact' that stock carriers who did not recognise the Union's picket lines over live sheep were not accepting the spirit of conciliation and would see those persons as an antagonistic factor to a continuing resolution of the industrial relations problem and would not invite or engage such people to come onto the works or require the members of the Union to be involved with such people. Of course, Borthwick said, `We only did this', and I suppose that Borthwicks was not proud of what it had done-driving those people out of business. Borthwick said, `We acted under duress'. Again honourable senators opposite might say that that is rubbish; that unions never act like that; that they do not force people to force other people out of business. I invite some response. I ask whether the Government defends that sort of situation. Does the Government deny that it occurs? In this case, it was wrapped up with an exercise of jurisdiction by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This is a situation where the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission failed to protect the clear legal rights of Jim and Marlene Gibbins, who are two of the few people put in this situation who got into court and asserted their rights successfully. This is the difficulty in conducting this debate, which principally involves encouraging wholesome, decent and positive relationships between employers and employees. That is where the future of this country lies. I would agree very overtly with the honourable senator opposite that there are tens of thousands of trade unionists in this country who want precisely the same objective as I would seek. However, it is a concern for many Australians that a minority of people are prepared not to use the trade union power that they have but to abuse it. I have cited one quite specific example, and we could go on talking about that in this debate if it was thought to be fruitful. One of the things that is wrong with this country is that mechanisms which are put in place for the best possible reasons, to protect the rights and interests of the working men and women of Australia-mechanisms which we would certainly support; and certainly we support the interests of the working men and women of Australia-can be abused. As this case shows, the Commission itself, in its pursuit of the settlement of disputes, can even ride roughshod over the rights of people. Here in Canberra it was said recently that an industrial dispute could be settled by paying a crane driver something between $20,000 and $30,000 in which event he would leave town. That is the sort of seamy underside, if you like, of industrial relations. In my view it is something which should not be defended by honourable senators opposite. They should share the Opposition's repugnance to that element of industrial relations, and they should be prepared to support amendments which make it quite clear that in this area of Australian life, as in other areas of Australian life, the rule of law applies, and it applies to everybody. It applies to employers who should be brought to book if they abuse the legal rights of their employees and, of course, the records of the Commission are full of actions which have had to be taken against employers who have not met their obligations under awards. We totally support the proposition that the rule of law must apply to employers, but we also believe that it must apply to unions. I am glad that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce quoted the report of the Hancock Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, because in this context we should remember the disgusting paragraph in that report which suggests that, while the rules apply to other Australians, trade unions are too powerful to be bound by the law. That is nonsense, it is wrong and it is repugnant to a free society, and it has been proved to be wrong over recent years. I commend the Opposition's amendment, and I think it would be extraordinary if the Australian Democrats found that they were unable to support the proposition that one of the objectives of our system should be to encourage adherence to the rule of law in industrial relations. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(10.49) —I welcome the opportunity to respond. As far as I am aware, based on my experience in the trade union movement and in the community generally, the rule of law does apply. I think that Senator Chaney has demonstrated that by telling us about the outcome of a case in a higher court and the reasons for it. The fact is that there will always be a conflict of interest while there are those who, to use a cold objective term, exploit and those who are exploited. Of course, to some people the word `exploit' does not present an horrendous picture. It may simply be a description of the extent to which one person has a reasonable advantage over another. History is riddled with cases of simple workers, trying to provide a reasonable standard of living for their families, being disadvantaged by employers whose greatest concern has been to maximise profits, with no concern for those who suffer as a result of their behaviour. It has been clearly shown that laws have been made to suit the rich and not the poor. Satisfaction in the law has not been available to those people who could not afford to pay for it. Companies, large and small, have the resources to take advantage of recourse to law. Senator Chaney talked about the problem associated with a transport company. Obviously, that company in law has the right to hire and fire. It is true that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the State and Federal area has the right-not in all areas, but more recently in Federal areas-to order reinstatement. It has always had the right to recommend reinstatement. Senator Chaney —That has nothing to do with it. Senator BURNS —Yes it does have something to do with it. Senator Chaney was talking about a transport company and its livelihood and its right to operate a business. I talk about the right of an employee to earn a living so that his wife and family can be clothed and fed. I can recall an incident when a shop steward from a shipyard in Brisbane was dismissed. The sole reason was that he was the shop steward when a large number of disputes occurred. To my knowledge, he recommended against stoppages on many occasions. I represented him in the Arbitration Commission. My description to the Commission of the disadvantages his dismissal would put on his family was not considered. That company did not care. I do not know the company Senator Chaney talks about, but I suggest that it might have wanted to maximise profits, it might have had no concern for its employees, and it might have dismissed an employee to maximise profits if it suited it. Obviously the union was trying to protect its members' jobs. The transport company probably wanted to protect its profit and its future. The union was trying to protect the future of its members and the employees of that company because sending live animals overseas means that jobs are lost. In making those comments I am not suggesting that people do not have a right by law in this country to send live animals overseas. That is a commercial decision. It affects a company in terms of its profits and it affects people in terms of the jobs that are lost. But that is an industrial struggle and, in this instance, it would have been waged in good faith. Australians, depending on what their interests are, will make a judgment on that. I do not propose to do so. If the union was carrying out the wishes of its members and trying to help them, I would defend its position. Senator Chaney —Even if they are breaking the law? Senator BURNS —I think Senator Chaney would know that many laws made in this country, and in other countries throughout the world, were considered to be good and fair at the time. For instance, the Tolpuddle Martyrs were sent out here for seven years because they had the hide to demand the same rate of pay from their employer as was being paid to other labourers in the district. The law said that they could be transported to Australia away from their families, for seven years. Is that the sort of law that Senator Chaney wants? I think he would still want that sort of law, but it is not possible to return to it. I drive on the left hand side of the road. That is a good law. I observe that law because I think it is correct. I do not go to my neighbour's place to steal his property because I do not want him to do that to me. That is a good law. But I make no apology to anybody for saying that if my family were hungry and others had more food than they needed I would take that food to feed my family if that was the only way I could do so and there was not an honest living to be made. There are good laws and there are bad laws. Some bad laws have to be broken to be changed. I am prepared to take a stand on that and if society judges me on it I will accept it, but it will not prevent me from struggling for what is fair and equitable. The difference between law and justice is great. If Senator Chaney does not know that, he has a closed mind. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(10.55) —I will speak briefly on the Opposition's fourth amendment to clause 3. I suggested earlier that there is not much point in having a long and protracted debate on some of these clauses. However, Senator Chaney has teased me into the debate to make a couple of points. To suggest that the rule of law should prevail is stating the obvious. The very essence of what we are on about in this process of legislation, the very being of the Parliament, suggests that in the final analysis the rule of law will rescue us. The rule of law prevailing is implied in relation to every piece of legislation and every regulation that emanates from this Parliament and from others. It strikes us as being a statement of the obvious and we think it is an unnecessary insertion in the legislation. Further, I am teased by what appears to be the beginning of a contradiction in Senator Chaney's logic between the arguments he advanced in relation to deleting `conciliation and arbitration' from an earlier clause and inserting `the rule of law' in this clause. It struck me that he was saying earlier that in essence in the whole area of industrial relations we should emphasise direct negotiation between employer and employee. That again is a statement of the obvious. That is the very starting point of industrial relations. But assuming that that fails, we follow up with proven processes of conciliation and arbitration. I am sensing the beginning of a contradiction here that on the one hand we want to back off the regulatory process of conciliation and arbitration and leave it to direct negotiation but, on the other hand, in this clause, we want to emphasise by the inserting of the obvious a final dependence upon an umpire, a court of law, a judge or a referee. I sense that there is a contradiction there. In my speech on the second reading I suggested that there is a danger of us lapsing into adherence to a set of slogans in drafting amendments. In stating our position it seems to me that the expression `the rule of law' is almost a slogan-it is nice sounding, it conveys a million things that are good and it is not all that specific. My essential point is that it is a statement of the obvious. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.58) —I am not fully familiar with the case study Senator Chaney described. In accepting his description of it at face value, the Government certainly does not condone what happened. One could best say that one allies oneself with the view of Mr Justice Smithers on the matter. While those sorts of things are not to be condoned one wonders about the value of this amendment in the present legislation. As Senator McLean has said, in perhaps a different way, all individuals and organisations in Australia are required to observe the law. There is no justification for singling out, unless it is on the basis of ideological assumptions, the area of industrial relations to include a reference to the rule of law and the objectives of this legislation. For example, one could cite numerous cases of similar iniquities to the ones Senator Chaney described as a result of the inadequate operation of the marketplace in commercial transactions. I do not want to go into it here but the trade practices legislation does not work in respect of a number of industries where monopoly power is exercised to the detriment of small producers. There is no reference in the trade practices legislation, as I recall, enjoining that Commission to have regard to the rule of law, no should there be here. The other point is that the expression `rule of law' is deceptively simple. It embraces both practical considerations and philosophical concepts emerging from the field of jurisprudence and has no precise legal meaning. Frankly, I do not see what it will add to the legislation, and we regard it as unnecessary. Although it is a nice way of floating a concept of which we might all approve in principle and in the abstract, its relevance and purpose in this clause are not obvious to the Government. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.01) —I wish to respond to the comments made by all three speakers on this amendment. Senator Burns seemed to have totally misunderstood the facts in the example that I gave. I was not talking about some employee being dismissed by a transport company, but about a husband and wife who were operating a small business and who were, in the terms of an industrial agreement between a large company and a large union, excluded from carrying on their business without any knowledge on their part. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was a party to that agreement in the sense that it endorsed the terms of settlement which included that gross infringement of the rights of those individuals. The fact that it was an infringement of their rights was subsequently demonstrated in the Federal Court, there is no question about that. It was settled by the judgment of Mr Justice Smithers. Senator Burns expressed his sympathy for people's right to earn a living. That is precisely what is being defended in this case-the right of a couple who do not have an employer to pay a weekly wage, but who have to earn their wage week by week by carrying on business, losing that right to earn a living. That is precisely the point that I was addressing. There was a disturbing element in Senator McLean's comment when he suggested that the rule of law can be regarded as something of a slogan in these circumstances. Senator Button went on to say that he could not see any value in this amendment, that everybody is required to obey the law and why single out the industrial relations system. The reason for singling it out is that it is glaringly one of those areas of Australian life where breaches of the law, breaches of people's rights, are excused in the name of their being part of some industrial relations performance. One does not have to spend very much time going round talking to people who carry on business, particularly at the small business end of the spectrum, before one finds people who have been treated oppressively, very often illegally, but who feel that they are without a remedy. That is an existing severe practical problem. The case that I quoted of the trucking couple who actually got justice in the Federal Court can be matched by many other examples. One has only to read the judgment of the Victorian Supreme Court in the Dollar Sweets case to appreciate the treatment of a truck driver by his fellow workers. He was dragged from his truck, pushed to the ground, beaten and suffered permanent injury. These activities took place in the course of a so-called industrial dispute. It is not good enough for Senator Button or indeed Senator McLean to say that of course the law applies, and does it not prove the case as the person in question finished up in court. There are many cases where that does not occur. But much more significant is the fact that the Commission, as I indicated in the Portland Transport case, has been involved in what was a breach of the legal rights of a citizen and in a secret way. This Government has appointed Professor Hancock of the Arbitration Commission, an uncriticised appointment as I recall it. Professor Hancock has had a distinguished academic career and has a great knowledge of industrial relations. He is one of the authors of the Hancock report of the Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, the report on which this industrial legislation is supposedly based. I referred in general terms in my speech in support of this amendment to the statement which was made by the Hancock Committee headed by His Honour Mr Justice Hancock, who is currently a Deputy President of the Commission, and he talks about the application of the law in industrial relations. In paragraph 10.293 of the report, having canvassed in the previous paragraphs the question of compliance with arbitral decisions and all the rest of it, he made the following observations. I shall read the whole paragraph because it is fundamentally important in explaining why this positive affirmation of the fact that the Commission must look to the rule of law is needed. Professor Hancock and his colleagues on the Hancock Committee said: Related to these considerations is a fourth: the analogy with civil litigants and sporting contestants ignores a major ingredient of the industrial relations scene-the phenomenon of power. If we ask why litigants and sportsmen usually accept the adjudicators' decisions, we find part of the answer in the ethics accepted by the disputants; but part, too, lies in their relative weakness. The two factors are interrelated: the ethic of accepting decisions gains strength from the difficulty of doing otherwise. By contrast, trade unions are, to varying degrees, centres of power: they replace the powerlessness of individual workers with collective strength. It is a mistaken view of the pluralistic society to assume that every `subject' is equally dominated by the might of the state and its arms of enforcement. Some may wish that things were different: but vain hopes are no basis for effective policy. What Professor Hancock and his colleagues are saying is that one cannot expect trade unions to have to obey the law like other Australians because they are too powerful. I utterly reject that. To have people in this Parliament say that one does not have to worry about the rule of law because it applies, when somebody that this Government has appointed to the Commission is a party to that statement to the extent to which the law applies, seems to me to be a logical absurdity. One of the positive things that have happened in industrial relations in the last decade is that the lie which developed following the gaoling of Clarrie O'Shea-and I do not know anyone who would see the gaoling of Clarrie O'Shea or anybody else as a sensible industrial remedy these days, if ever-is that unions cannot be made to obey the law as they are too powerful. That lie actually found its way into a report which has been warmly commended by this Government. This report may contain much that is valuable, but I totally condemn the craven, undemocratic and wrong attitude reflected in that paragraph. We have a situation where somebody who is charged with the administration of this area of the law has expressed that as his view. It simply is not good enough. Australians are entitled to be treated equally and are entitled to see their legal rights upheld. I do not want to see a situation where it requires the banding together of a mass of people, as happened in Melbourne in the Dollar Sweets case, where the Chamber of Commerce rallied its members to support that beleaguered businessman, Fred Stauder, who ran a little lolly factory. That case uncovered not just the oppression of a man who was trying to make a living in his business. It uncovered the oppression of worker by worker. Senator Burns-and I see that he has gone again-came into the chamber and complained about my attitude to trade unions. He bleated that he believes he should defend the right of people to work. I will be impressed by that when Senator Burns comes in here and defends the right of the chefs who were dismissed by this Parliament from their jobs because they would not join a trade union. I do not know whether Senator Burns is worried about their wives and children. The hypocrisy and cant in these debates are pathetic. The truth is that the Minister at the table-- Senator Button —Who are you defending? Senator CHANEY —I have never defended illegal conduct by employers, and I never will. I point to the fact that, as Mr Willis said last year, the problem is that there is a lack of enforcement procedures in this area of the law. He did not say that employers who breach awards cannot be brought to book. Senator Button would know that in the reports of the Commission one will find plenty of evidence of the imposition of the rule of law on employers who do not play the game. Of course, that should happen. I support the existence of trade unions so that oppressive employers can be stopped. Of course, there will be oppressive employers, just as there will be oppressive elements of the trade union movement. Nobody is arguing that there should be some lopsided approach to this matter. I say to the Minister that his answer to me is specious. It is sophistry to suggest that we do not need to be concerned about the rule of law in the area of industrial relations because everybody is bound by the law. That is not a fact in this country. This is not the only area of deficiency. I will join the Government in pursuing other areas of deficiency as they are uncovered. This is one of the notorious areas of deficiency in this country. In the last 10 years, with the use of sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, it has been demonstrated that powerful unions can be made to obey the law in the same way that other people obey it. Senator Button would know that his mate from the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party, George Crawford, his fellow endorsed Labor candidate and parliamentarian, led the plumbers and gasfitters during month after month of guerilla warfare against the building industry in that long-running dispute that was so ineptly handled, in the sense that the Commission was so slow to come to grips with the abuse of its procedures and of employers and fellow trade unionists by the Crawford-led plumbers and gasfitters. But when the law was finally used, an injunction against illegal conduct obtained, the injunction breached and a penalty of $280,000 imposed, suddenly the rule of law did apply. Senator Button —Because the law was exercised. Senator CHANEY —Exactly. The Minister knows that in many circumstances people do not have the capacity, the economic strength, to protect their rights. How many people such as the truck driver couple that I described are in a position to protect themselves? Mr Stauder of Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd could not have protected himself without the aid, comfort and financial assistance of the Chamber of Commerce in Victoria; there is no question about that. Is the Minister defending a situation in which it is exceptional for the person whose rights are abused to get that sort of relief? That is the exceptional case, and the Minister knows it. I hope that the Minister will tell us that in some way paragraph 10.293 has been purged from the thinking of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I do not think that it has. I have enough contact with people who are involved in industrial relations to believe that that sort of thinking, that abrogation of the rule of law, is still alive and well. I urge the Committee, which at times shows some capacity to consider these matters of principle, to adopt this amendment, because I believe that it is something that 95 per cent of the Australian people would support. There is no community support for the sort of actions that I have described in this debate; none at all. The Minister and the Government know that. It will be extraordinary if they cannot support the view that it is one of the objectives of our industrial relations system to encourage adherence to the rule of law in industrial relations. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.14) —I will be very brief, Senator Chaney is saying, `I can identify some examples of reprehensible conduct in the industrial relations arena'. Senator Chaney —You are suggesting they are very rare, are you? Senator BUTTON —Let me finish. Senator Chaney is saying, `I can identify some examples of reprehensible conduct in the industrial relations arena. I can pluck out some phrases from the Hancock report which I do not like, and these things which I have done justify the amendment which I have moved. We will fix this up by putting in reference in the objectives of the Industrial Relations Act to adherence to the rule of law'. Senator Chaney will not fix it by doing that, and he knows it. He has not tried to fix it in any other legislation. He is trying to shift this debate onto a favourite ground of moral outrage. We are concerned here with a piece of legislation and what the contents of a piece of legislation should be. There is no reason, as I said earlier, for singling out this legislation for particular consideration by including objectives such as this. Having said that, I still share much of Senator Chaney's concern about the incidents which have been described-incidents which become less and less frequent in the Australian industrial relations scene because the environment has changed because of the policies of this Government. That is what this legislation is about. It is about changing attitudes and environments; it is not about singling out particular instances forever. I agree with Senator Chaney with regard to the examples he gave, but they do not justify the amendment that he has moved. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.16) —On this occasion I, too, shall be brief. I note the Minister's statement that it will not be fixed in this legislation. Unfortunately, that is probably true, because the Government has indicated that it will oppose subsequent amendments which I intend to move, which would increase the capacity of the existing system of conciliation and arbitration to enforce its own directions. The sad fact is that the Government has set its face against that sort of improvement. I do not wish to anticipate the debate in that regard, but the reality is that this amendment simply provides the objectives which are, in themselves, a guide to the behaviour of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, or the new Industrial Relations Commission. Those objectives could be made quite explicit in this way, quite apart from the specific changes which could be made to the proposed Act to provide for enforcement. Let me say two things in that regard. Fourteen months ago Mr Willis was clearly saying that that sort of change was required. When we introduced a private member's Bill to give the Commission the power to issue directions and procedures which would then flow which would require people to follow those directions, the Metal Trades Industry Association indicated that it thought they were eminently practical, workable and usable. I mention the Metal Trades Industry Association because it is important to note that that Association is at the forefront of promoting award restructuring, which the Minister would see as being one of the great white hopes of better industrial relations and a more productive set of workplaces in Australia. It is not at all incompatible with the move towards better industrial relations to have a system in which there are binding rules. The simple fact is that in those countries that the Ministers of this Government and the trade union movement point to as models and, in particular, those European countries where there is a strong involvement by the trade union movement in the work force-in Sweden, Germany, and so on-one will find that there are methods of binding trade unions to the law which certainly succeed in a way in which they do not succeed in Australia. The reality is that those countries which are seen as models have effective compliance with the rule of law as part of their system of industrial relations. In that sense Australia is an odd man out. I find it extraordinary that the Government should resist a simple statement of principle as a guide to its Commission. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(11.19) —I wish to make one or two brief points. I am conscious of the fact that I am debating this matter with two lawyers. I would like to pass a comment about the law as such. Senator Chaney is suggesting to the Committee that the rule of law should prevail. The Australian Democrats are not opposing that suggestion. I say that it is obviously true in relation to all law. Senator Burns qualified it a little by saying that his position essentially is that the rule of good law should prevail and that citizens might even feel a moral obligation to oppose laws which they consider to be bad laws. That raises an interesting and quite legitimate variation to the debate. As a non-lawyer I would like to make the observation that one's confidence in the law, of course, can take a battering. Over the last few years in this country we have witnessed some extraordinary examples. Senator Chaney has cited an example which he described, in his words, as `a notorious case of deficiency' and one can only agree, according to the case that he cited, that it was notoriously deficient. I could perhaps cite the Chamberlain case and say that we saw the legal procedure in train-and in train over a period of years and in a number of different jurisdictions-but the outcome of it was not justice. In fact it was a travesty of justice. These arguments are all relative. In the final analysis of course, we have to have confidence in the process in which we are taking part. I think that ultimately we must agree that the rule of law prevails. We are simply saying that it is implied, understood irrevocably and there is nothing to be gained by pretending otherwise as law makers. There will always be, to use Senator Chaney's words again, `a notorious case of deficiency'. There will always be, to use my words, `notorious cases of injustice'. I think we should get on with the business of making laws. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. 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. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F.Cooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Walters, M. S. Black, J. R.Durack, P. D. Colston, M. A.Short, J. R. Ray, Robert Question so resolved in the negative Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.40) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 8, subclause 4 (1), definition of ``public sector employment'', line 30, after ``but'' insert ``, other than in section 121,''. (2) Page 54, subclause 121 (1), line 25, after ``award'', insert ``or order''. (3) Page 54, subclause 121 (2), definition of ``relevant law'', paragraph (a), lines 34 to 35, leave out ``Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971'', insert ``Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988''. These amendments moved by the Government relate to the operation of clause 121 of the Bill. They are designed to make the operation of the clause more effective and ensure that the statutory powers under the clause are more in line with the scheme presently in operation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. Perhaps I should explain briefly the background of clause 121. That provision is framed to support the effective operation of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's jurisdiction over industrial issues and disputes in the Commonwealth and Territory public sectors. This is achieved by empowering the Commission to make awards that are not in accord with certain laws of the Commonwealth and a Territory. Without such a provision, the Commission could be prevented from making awards which supplement or update standards in Commonwealth or Territory legislation relating to public sector employment or, alternatively, which resolve disputes in areas of employment governed by determinations made pursuant to such legislation by public sector employees and relating to the terms and conditions of employment of staff-for example, determinations made under section 82d of the Public Service Act 1922. I turn to the amendments. Amendment No. 1 amends the definition of public sector employment in subclause 4 (1). That is necessary because subclause 121 (1) confers award-making powers in relation to an industrial dispute involving `public sector employment'. The difficulty is that certain categories of employment or service can be prescribed by regulation out of the definition of public sector employment. The purpose of so prescribing such employment or service is not to remove it from the operation of subclause 121 (1); instead, it is designed to remove it from the scope of clause 5, which gives the Commission wider jurisdiction in relation to various areas of work, including public sector employment. Without the amendment there may be circumstances where the Commission cannot resolve a dispute by making an award. To avoid that result, the amendment preserves the operation of clause 121 in respect of employment or service which may be prescribed out of the scope of the term public sector employment. Amendment No. 2 corrects an omission in the drafting. To be consistent with the schemes used throughout the Bill, there should be a reference to an order of the Commission as well as to an award. Amendment No. 3 updates the references in subclause 121 (2) to the legislation in respect of which the Commission may not make inconsistent awards or orders. The compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 is to be repealed by the procla- mation of the relevant provisions in the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. That Act came partly into operation recently but it will not repeal the earlier Act until later this year. Amendments agreed to. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.34) —I move: Page 30, paragraph 63 (1) (c), line 8, after ``organisations'', insert ``, employers and employees''. Clause 63 relates to the functions of the Australian Industrial Registry; that is, to keep a register of organisations and to act as the registry-as one would expect. The third subclause says it has the function of providing advice and assistance to organisations in relation to their rights and obligations under the Act. The amendment which I moved is to insert the words `employers and employees' after the word `organisation' so that one of the functions of the Industrial Registry would be: to provide advice and assistance to organisations, employers and employees in relation to their rights and obligations under this Act. The amendment we propose does not suggest that the Registry should not have the function of giving advice to organisations-by that I mean unions and employer organisations, who are important in terms of the functioning of the arbitration system. But the arbitration system does not impinge only on trade unions and employer organisations, the Confederation of Australian Industry and all those other bodies which are known to represent groups of employers. In fact, individual employers and employees also have rights and obligations under the Act. In the view of the Opposition, there is no reason why they also should not receive the same assistance. In other words, since the Act impinges directly on them, and not simply on them as people who are members of organisations, they ought to be as free to go to the Registry for advice and assistance as anybody else. Example of rights of individual employees under the Government's Bill include the rights concerning membership of organisations. In clauses 261, 263 and 265 of the Bill we see provisions which specifically relate to the rights of individuals. Clause 261 says, in part: Subject to any award or order of the Commission, an employee who is eligible to become a member of an organisation of employees is, unless of general bad character, entitled, subject to payment of any amount properly payable in relation to membership: (a) to be admitted as a member of the organisation; and (b) to remain a member so long as the employee complies with the rules . . . Senator Burns has come back into the chamber. I am sure he will be concerned to see the rights of employees who wish to be trade unionists-rights which are set out in this Bill-enforced. This would be consistent with the view he expressed earlier in the debate, about people's rights. There are other examples, such as the right to seek a direction that an organisation follow its own rules. The Government's Bill, in clause 209, provides that an individual may seek a direction, where he believes his organisation is not complying with the rules. That individual can be an employer or an employee. An employee who feels that his trade union is not following its rules can seek relief under clause 209. There are rights given to individuals concerning secret ballots relating to industrial action in clause 136. I mention those things because this Bill continues the situation in which organisations are very important. In other words, groups of employers, under some mantle or other-perhaps the Confederation of Australian Industry-and groups of employees under the mantle of a union, have an important role under the scheme of things under the Act. But as we would expect, and indeed we would want, the position of individuals who are concerned with those organisations also receives attention. The simple objective here is to ensure that the Registry has a formal function not merely to advise organisations but also to advise individuals. It is true that the amendments we will be moving do try to extend further the rights of individuals under the Act. But I stress the point to the Committee that the existing Bill, the Bill which will go into law, has rights for individuals. We believe they should be able to get advice from the Registry on those rights. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.40) —The amendment is not accepted. There are some practical reasons for the Government's not accepting it, as well as some other reasons. There is a certain-I do not want to go overboard-rough logic about the Opposition's amendment in the light of some other amendments Senator Chaney has moved. Senator Chaney —Oh! High praise. Senator Crichton-Browne —There's a certain consistency, Senator Button. Senator BUTTON —I would not be prepared to put it that high-not this morning; after lunch, perhaps. The amendment seems to reflect a desire to turn the Australian Industrial Registry into a version of the Industrial Relations Bureau, which was a failed creature of the Fraser Government. I do not think that is a sensible course. Senator Chaney himself has pointed out this morning how individual employers have benefited from the representative role which organisations of employers play in a variety of instances. Those employer organisations operate, as it were, outside the direct purview of the Commission. They are the privatised arm of the industrial relations system. They advise employers about their rights and so on and they will have access to the Industrial Registrar in respect of these matters. There are also a few practical reasons why we oppose this amendment. It could well involve the Registry in controversy where there are disputes between members and organisations. Many of the rights relate to the entitlement of members to bring proceedings against their organisations, some of the rights to which Senator Chaney referred. That is true on both sides, on the employer side and the employee side. I recall an example from my own experience. Some years ago the Victorian Employers Federation had a bitter, internecine dispute between its factions. I recall that they both sought advice from the Industrial Registrar and had to be sent away. The issues were ultimately resolved by the Industrial Registrar himself in pursuit of his statutory functions. So in many cases advice is more appropriately sought from sources other than the Registrar. The Bill makes financial assistance available for those purposes in matters involving litigation of one kind or another under the Act. There is merit, as Senator Chaney points out, in individuals having advice available about their rights and obligations under the Bill. This advice can be expected to be available from several sources. The Government proposes to make material available explaining the Act in simple terms. Organisations, on both sides again, can make advice available. The Registrar and the Department of Industrial Relations will continue to assist individuals to seek advice about statutory rights and obligations. The Arbitration Inspectorate will continue to perform that function as well. On balance, the amendment is not acceptable for the reasons I outlined earlier. The final reason why it is regarded as undesirable is its sheer impracticality. If the Industrial Registrar became a source of advice for any aggrieved employer and employee, I do not know how big it would be but it would be an enormous organisation potentially. That is not desirable. The resource implications have not been considered properly by the amendment. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(11.45) —The amendment that has been moved by Senator Chaney widens the functions of the Australian Industrial Registry to provide advice and assistance to employers and employees, as well as to registered organisations, in relation to their rights and obligations under the Act. As we know, the Bill establishes the Australian Industrial registry as a statutory authority. One of the functions given to the Registry is to provide advice and assistance to registered organisations in relation to their rights and obligations under the Act. But there is no reason, contrary to the comments of Senator Button, why the registry should provide help only to organisations. Individual employers and employees have rights and obligations under the Act. There is no reason for them not to have the same access to assistance as organisations are able to enjoy. The Bill as drafted by the Government simply reinforces this Government's concept of the corporate state, its lack of recognition of the importance of individuals and their rights. This Government professes to be a democratic government, to be a champion of individual rights, to uphold and respect freedom of the individual. Yet the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill not only ignore the rights of individuals; they actively deny them. We discussed earlier in the debate the rights of an individual worker to join or not to join a union, and to have a choice as to which organisation he wishes to join. So there are a number of ways in which this legislation denies the rights of individuals. More and more we see important national goals and decisions being determined by the powerful representatives of big government, big unions and big business under the corporate state mentality that has developed under this Government's administration. Therefore, it is important that the amendment moved by Senator Chaney with regard to the Industrial Registry be accepted by the Senate so that individual employers and employees, as well as organisations, will have the opportunity to seek advice and assistance from the Australian Industrial Registry. I support the amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.48) —I move: Page 38, clause 94, lines 30 to 35, leave out the clause. This amendment leaves clause 94 out of the Bill. Clause 94 provides: In determining an industrial dispute, the Commission shall, subject to section 95, provide, so far as possible and so far as the Commission considers proper, for uniformity throughout an industry carried on by employers in relation to hours of work, holidays and general conditions in the industry. We seek to delete that provision because it is, I think, common ground with respect to the development and improvement of the economy that what is required is a more flexible economy rather than a more rigid one. Certainly at that level of generality I think one would get broad agreement. The concern of the Opposition is that, in a quite practical way, this sort of provision in the Bill will discourage productive flexibility. I will give a quite specific example of that in a few minutes. We think this clause gives a negative signal at a time when we need a more flexible, enterprise-oriented system of industrial relations. We think that need for greater flexibility has been admitted, not just by the Opposition but by many people in the Government and, indeed, by people within the trade union movement. For example, last May, a few days after the May statement, Mr Keating was declaring that the last great area of change to be overcome was labour market reform. So Mr Keating, at that stage anyway, was putting this at the top of the agenda. He stated at that time that the policy objective was to create a flexible industrial relations system in which wages and conditions reflected the different levels of prosperity in different industries. It might be said that that statement is compatible with this clause because this clause does in fact refer to uniformity on an industry basis; but, in the view of the Opposition, that is too restrictive a view. If one looks at the actual economic task we face, in all of this debate one can accept that our common ground is to improve the value of the work of every Australian, to improve its productivity, to change it in ways that will not only make it more economically productive but also more satisfying personally. In our view, rigidities do not help to take us down that track. There is inbuilt in the Australian psyche a liking for uniformity. One of the problems the Minister at the table faces in terms of the changes he is seeking to promote is that people are generally quite happy to continue down tried and true tracks. They do not necessarily want change; they are comfortable doing the same thing. In a world where change is endemic and where we have to become more competitive, that can be a very destructive attitude. It is part of that Australian attitude, I think, that people find irritating differences in prices between shops, even though that kind of price competition in a general sense is helpful to consumers and will in general give them a better deal. I am sure that is a quite important part of the way people respond in the community. I understand this attraction to the idea that everyone who works in an industry should get the same sort of treatment. The trouble is that that attitude ultimately is destructive of the delivery of improved results and hence the higher living standards we want. I was going back through a paper that Charles Fitzgibbon gave in February 1986 on the evolving nature of industrial relations in this country. There were two papers, one to the Productivity Council and one to the Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC), which attracted a lot of attention in that year. This is the paper he prepared for EPAC. I am sure the Minister would have read it. Senator Button —Before he gave it. Senator CHANEY —I hope the Minister is not going to claim that he wrote it. Senator Button —No, not at all. Senator CHANEY —I record for the benefit of Hansard that the Minister does not make that claim. At paragraph 81 Mr Fitzgibbon said this: Why is it necessary to build in a method of overcoming rigidities? For those few people who might read this Hansard and the few people who are listening to this debate, perhaps I can say that Mr Fitzgibbon came from a trade union background. He was an Australian Council of Trade Unions Vice President and the head of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. That is his working background. He goes on: It is quite clear that in any complex society such as ours a rigidity which prevents a reward for special endeavour will inevitably mean that there is generally no special endeavour. Very few sections of the overall population are so imbued with their responsibility to the community generally that they will produce special effort for no reward. That is shown in instance after instance in industry. If a method of overcoming that rigidity can be developed which does not affect the overall community except in a good way, that is by introducing more endeavour and more wealth, then it is in the overall interest of the community to allow that flexibility and to eschew the rigidity that prevents the flexibility from developing. Mr Fitzgibbon has a great way with words. That is a very sensible statement, as indeed was most of what was said in that paper. It makes sense to people from all parts of the political spectrum and to both employers and trade unionists. In a practical sense, let me illustrate the sorts of difficulties which arise because of this approach of having an industry-wide approach. I pick a Queensland example, not to enrage or entice Senator Burns back into the debate but merely because it is an example which I think very squarely makes the point I wish to demonstrate. It refers to Sanctuary Cove. At Sanctuary Cove and multiplicity of people were employed under the usual multiplicity of award and conditions. Earlier this year the Queensland Industrial Commission agreed to make a new award covering all employees at Sanctuary Cove. The application for the award was made by the Queensland Confederation of Industry Ltd and was supported by the Queensland Trades and Labor Council. I am pleased to see Senator Burns nodding. This is a case where unions and employers both apparently felt that this was beneficial, so they sought a new single award to cover it. The application was supported by the Trades and Labor Council and a number of individual unions. It was unfortunately opposed by one union, the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union. I think that senator whose senior office-bearer was in that union has a lot to answer for. We will get on to that later. The award was designed to replace 15 existing awards covering employees at the resort, all with their own classification structures and pay scales. The main argument for a common award was that it would make it far easier to move employees from one part of the resort to another and in particular to meet peaks in demand for labour. Another key element in what was agreed was the concept of a loaded hourly rate. Instead of being paid penalty rates for working evenings or weekends, employees would receive a standard hourly payment with a loading to compensate for not receiving penalty payments. In principle, no employee would receive lesser aggregate earnings than he would have received under a traditional award. The Queensland Commission agreed to make that award and referred to the need to assist any measures that would enhance productivity and efficiency and give rise to the sort of flexibility that the hospitality and tourism industry in Australia has been seeking for many years. It was convinced of the need for such flexibility and that such flexibility could be obtained only through the award proposed. That is a classic illustration of what I understand the Minister supports in terms of award restructuring. It was being done on a particular site bringing together 15 disparate awards-- Senator Button —Don't start Senator Burns wanting to speak, otherwise he might outflank you on this. Senator CHANEY —I would be delighted if he did. What has happened following that is that the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union has taken action to have the State award overruled by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and it has sought to rope into the Federal award the employer at Sanctuary Cove. When I last checked, the matter had not been determined; if it has, I will be delighted to be told during the debate. I hope that the application has been unsuccessful. Commissioner Bain on 22 June rejected an application by the employer under existing 41 (1) (d) of the Act that the Federal Commission should refrain from further hearing the claim on the grounds that the matter was being dealt with and was proper to be dealt with by the Queensland Industrial Commission. Commissioner Bain's decision was rather sceptical of the concepts of the loaded hourly rate and the common award. He said: Some would regard them as brave new concepts, whilst others I feel sure would use a different objective to describe them. The inference there is that some people would see this as an abuse of union or workers' rights, which I certainly do not think is true. His attitude to the special loading was consistent with the approach that says conditions should be uniform throughout an industry, which is the clause we are seeking to delete. He said: This concept is one which could have wide repercussions not only throughout the hospitality industry in particular, but throughout industry as a whole. For this reason alone, I am of the opinion that in this matter the question of public interest is of such magnitude that it should not be determined in the narrow context of an award covering only one site of operation in what is clearly a national industry. That clearly brings forward the very provision that we are debating in committee at the moment, which suggests that there should be a uniformity of award across an industry. I make the point that that is against the interests of Australia and of the employees and employers concerned in the particular case I have given. It is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with having a system which is unduly centralised and what is wrong with the system as it currently operates. The employer and all the unions at a particular work place, except for one, agreed to a radically new approach to work organisation. It is one that will substantially increase efficiency. There will be much greater flexibility and outdated notions of penalty rates are to be abandoned, all by consent. Yet because what has been agreed to is different from what applies at other work places there is a threat to what is called the public interest. That is totally opposed to the policy we believe is carried and the one we believe the Government has promoted. Our own policy, that is, the coalition policy, says: This policy will give people more choice. We reject the attempt to impose uniform standards and approaches. In a world of increasing uncertainty and change a more decentralised and diverse approach would produce the best outcomes for Australia and Australians. We do not yet have Mr Bain's final decision but I put that forward as an example of the way this clause could be used and, I have no doubt, will be used, to restrict what could well be most productive and cooperative attempts to provide for the specific work conditions in specific enterprises. I am delighted to be able to give an example where there has been positive cooperation from the trade unions in Queensland. There is an identification of common interests, which is what is central to successful industrial relations and I simply put this before this Committee of the Whole to illustrate the fact that clause 94 in the legislation is much more likely to be a weapon for a less desirable approach to industrial relations rather than an aid to good industrial relations. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(12.01) —I am pleased that Senator Chaney has taken a positive attitude to what has occurred in Queensland. At Sanctuary Cove a group of unions had a look at a given industrial situation, were able to talk to the owners of an enterprise, and came up with what was possibly not the best position for either party but something that they both felt had considerable merit for them collectively. The fact that one of the unions did not agree with that and has had recourse to the Queensland Industrial Commission about the matter is not as important as the fact that there is no dispute about it in the physical sense. Business is still going on. Of course, there is merit in both arguments. We cannot stand still. We need to look at different ways in which we can set wages and conditions in a particular enterprise or industry. As a result of historical struggle and argument, both by negotiation and through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, we have established minimum conditions or rights where people can have coverage of employees in a particular call or a number of callings that should not be interfered with by collective agreement. Clause 94 is important and it should stay. The history of industrial relations and the making of awards and conditions are based on the fact that enlightened employers in some cases and some fairly sharp struggles between parties in others, have established minimum conditions as far as hours of work, annual leave and other matters are concerned. It is only after a substantial level of operating in this way that one needs to look at what ought to be done in terms of uniformity. It has been suggested that we should prevent that from happening and that we should say to the Commission, `As a result of discussion and mutual agreement the parties have agreed in many places to these minimum conditions'. This means, after all, that those people who own the enterprise and are seeking to make a profit for themselves or on behalf of their shareholders find that labour costs are being contained at a particular level and they can, therefore, afford to pay these conditions and, in some degree, see them as being reasonable for the people who work for them. After all, if one is to have a good attitude from the employee, obviously one needs, as an employer, to grant what conditions are reasonable. It has been suggested that this could be done in a number of ways and in a number of areas, but that we should then say to the Commission, `But you are not allowed to take any notice of that where other employers are unreasonable', thus allowing those employers to continue to be unreasonable. The Opposition has argued that there should be penalties in other areas of the Act that would prevent people from struggling to get conditions that have been established as standard. So there is no doubt that the clause needs to be there. I believe that it is proper and reasonable. I really cannot understand the sort of argument that it is okay for people to consider all these factors, make an agreement on the basis of an enterprise situation, and that that be done very broadly but then not be recognised. It is just not workable. I think the current clause needs to be there. It is an important one. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(12.05) —Contrary to Senator Burns, I support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Chaney to clause 94. The Sanctuary Cove example, of which Senator Chaney gave specific details, reinforces the need for the amendment. I will refer to that case again in detail in a few minutes. The amendment Senator Chaney has moved deletes the requirement of clause 94 of the Bill, which is as follows: . . . the Commission shall . . . provide, so far as possible and so far as . . . proper, for uniformity throughout an industry . . . in relation to hours of work, holidays and general conditions. The clause as it stands gives precisely the wrong signal at a time when we need a more flexible enterprise-oriented system of industrial relations. The need for such flexibility has been recognised even by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he declared, in his speech to the National Press Club after the mini-Budget, that labour market reform was `the last great area of change to be overcome'. Yet it is clauses such as clause 94 as put forward in this Bill that clearly indicate that the Government is not proceeding with any worthwhile reform; it is simply retaining the existing system under a new piece of legislation, under a new name. Reform of the industrial relations system in Australia is our single most important issue. The rigidities and coercion involved in the present system and which, as I have said, this Bill does nothing to change, are inconsistent with liberalism and are particularly detrimental to the interest of small States such as South Australia, which I represent. Small States require greater labour market flexibility to enable them to compete on interstate and overseas markets. The concept of comparative wage justice with wage determinations and conditions determination in one sector of industry flowing on to other sectors and individual enterprises, irrespective of their capacity to pay, hinders economic growth. Wage determination must be based on a combination of national productivity and Australia's international competitiveness with the individual capacity to pay at the enterprise level. Highly profitable enterprises should share those profits with the employees who have assisted to create them, but less profitable enterprises should not be sent broke by being saddled with wage structures that they cannot afford. This requires a more decentralised system of wage determination to allow direct negotiations and agreements to be reached between employers and employees acting at the enterprise level. This legislation will not allow that greater flexibility to be achieved. Of course, the absurdity and inflexibility of the current system, which this clause will entrench, is exemplified by the attempt to make a common award covering all employees at the Sanctuary Cove tourist resort. Senator Chaney has referred to this and I would like to refer to it in some detail. Earlier this year the Queensland Industrial Commission agreed to make a new award covering all employees at Sanctury Cove. The application for the award was made by the Queensland Confederation of Industry and was supported by the Queensland Trades and Labor Council and a number of individual unions. It was opposed by one union and one union only-the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union. The purpose of the award was to replace 15 existing awards covering various employees at the resort, all with their own classification structures and pay scales. Obviously, with a common award it would make it far easier to move employees from one part of the resort to another, in particular, to meet peaks in demand for labour and to allow the development of multiskilling which is of such great importance to Australia's future productivity. Another key element in this new award was the concept of a loaded hourly rate. Instead of being paid penalty rates for working evenings or weekends, employees would receive a standard hourly payment with a loading to compensate for not receiving penalty payments. In principle, no employee would receive lesser aggregate earnings than he would have received under a traditional award. One of the principles which bedevils our system of industrial relations and our wage cost structure is this concept of penalty rates. Here we have an opportunity to do away with penalty rates, at no loss to the individual employees concerned, and to get a more rational remuneration structure. That is why the Queensland Commission agreed to make this award-referring to the need to assist any measure which would enhance productivity and efficiency and give rise to the sort of flexibility that the hospitality and tourism industry in Australia has been seeking for so many years, so that it can generate the wealth and income for this country of which it is capable as one of our main growth industries. Of course, that potential has been hindered for so many years by our archaic industrial relations structure and our methods of wage determination and our determination of other conditions of employment. So the Commission was convinced of the need for flexibility and that that flexibility could be obtained only through the award proposed. However, the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union has taken action to have this State award overruled in the Federal Commission. It has sought to rope the employer at Sanctuary Cove into the Federal Hotels and Retail Liquor Industry Award 1983. Senator Chaney mentioned earlier that the issue has not yet been finalised. However, on 22 June 1988 Commission Bain rejected a 41 (1) (d) application by the employer that the Federal Commission should refrain from further hearing the union's claim on the ground that the matter was properly being dealt with by the Queensland Industrial Commission. So the liquor union has at least made it that far in obstructing the application of this new rational award. Commissioner Bain's decision was rather sceptical of the concepts of the loaded hourly rate and the common award and, in fact, he said: Some would regard them as brave new concepts, whilst others I feel sure would use a different adjective to describe them. This is the sort of outdated thinking that we see in some of our industrial tribunals. Here we see an award made which will benefit all employees, which will benefit this project and will indeed benefit the nation through the income and wealth that will be generated in our tourism industry, yet because of this outdated thinking we see delays in the award coming into being. Commissioner Bain's attitude to the special loading is consistent with the approach that says that conditions should be uniform throughout an industry, and the old outdated concept of comparative wage justice. If we are to develop our future potential for economic growth in this country, we must do away with that concept because, as I have said, we must have a system of wages and conditions determination which reflects conditions at the individual enterprise level. Commissioner Bain also claimed: This concept is one which could have wide repercussions not only through the hospitality industry in particular, but throughout industry as a whole. For this reason alone, I am of the opinion that in this matter the question of public interest is of such magnitude that it should not be determined in the narrow context of an award covering only one site of operation in what is clearly a national industry. Certainly, it does have wide repercussions but we do need, as the Opposition says time and again, to get to an enterprise level determination of wages and conditions. Therefore, it is quite appropriate for this award to have been made by the Queensland Industrial Commission. We need to have these repercussions flow right through the Australian economy and Australian industry so that we can get rid of this nonsense idea of comparative wage justice so that we can have wages and conditions determined at individual enterprise level according to the profitability of an individual enterprise. We need to have a situation where profitable enterprises reward the employees who have contributed to that profitability, and where enterprises that are not doing so well, that have excessive cost structures and are not profitable, can reflect those difficulties in their wages and conditions determinations so that they have the opportunity to remain in business, remain competitive, and can continue to provide employment opportunities rather than having to go out of business and throw their employees on the employment scrapheap. Clauses 94 and 95 of this Bill will further entrench the absurdities that I have so graphically illustrated with respect to Sanctuary Cove, and indeed they will not allow us to get away from this outdated concept of comparative wage justice. That is why I strongly support Senator Chaney's amendments which, by considerably restricting the ability of the new industrial commission to impose uniformity of wages and to authorise flow-ons from certified agreements, will introduce much more flexibility into the system. That is what we need in Australia today. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.15) —I thoroughly support the amendment to delete clause 94, which is totally in line with the general thrust of the Liberal Party of Australia's industrial relations policy. The amendment's purpose and design is to create a flexibility not only in the structure of industrial relations but particularly in the workplace. Clause 94 is a continuation of the present provisions as they now stand, and to me it reflects one of the real sins of industrial relations in Australia. It is a dead hand of uniformity and is symptomatic of the inherent failings of our system. The truth of the matter is that uniformity invariably attracts the lowest common denominator and takes away the opportunity for flexibility, and it also takes away incentive and provides no scope for individual initiative. If there is anything that industrial relations in Australia needs now it is some flexibility, some individual muscle, some individual enterprise and some individual initiative and a capacity for employers and employees to decide between themselves. There is a need for some variation to provide a benefit for the employee and a benefit for the employer without in any way jeopardising employees or employers in other workplaces. I rather wonder who clause 94 suits best. I suspect that Senator Chaney is right when he says that Australians are perhaps comfortable marching to one drum but, at the same time, the history of Australia shows that by nature Australians are, if nothing else, certainly enterprising in their endeavours whether to overcome hardship, adversity and deprivation or to find a way of paying a minimum level of taxation or a way to achieve the greatest reward for the least endeavour. Fundamentally, inherently and essentially Australians are very enterprising. Clauses such as clause 94 stifle that natural characteristic and inhibit the capacity of Australians to join together in the factory or the workplace and negotiate with their employer unique arrangements to suit them, their lifestyle, perhaps their family and also the employer. It may be something as simple as mothers in a factory wanting to vary their hours to suit their children or wanting to vary their hours so that they can more comfortably handle their responsibilities outside their daily work. Of course, that is stifled by clause 94. It may be a change with respect to annual leave or a variation with respect to public holidays, or it may be a matter which is of great convenience to the employees which they can negotiate with the employer providing a benefit to both. That is totally stifled by clause 94. I sometimes rather wonder who is looking after the interests of whom, and whether it is the union leaders, either at individual union level or at peak council level, who are anxious to make sure that they make all the decisions. They can ensure that they make all the decisions by making sure that no-one has a chance to join with them in these sorts of deliberations. Senator Chapman —It is the old cosy club. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right; it becomes a cosy club. At the end of the day I am quite sure that some of these union leaders are convinced that they are the only repository of knowledge and wisdom as to what is good for the workers because they believe that the workers themselves do not know what is good for them and that, if a worker is left to his own devices to negotiate his own arrangements even in trivial matters such as the flexibility of working hours, he will, to use an Australian expression, be dudded by the employer. Union leaders feel that only they can look after the workers. I am sure that at the end of the day that is how they begin to feel. But it certainly starts off with their feeling threatened by the prospect that if the individual employee groups negotiate with individual employers their functions as apparatchiks will be undermined. Clause 94 simply reinforces the dead-handed uniformity which leaves the employees to the dictates of the union movement generally. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(12.20) —I relieved Senator Button, who was handling the earlier part of the debate, as Senator Chaney was part way through his remarks supporting the amendment that he has proposed. However, this is an amendment that is, if not notorious, well known. I feel able to respond directly to Senator Chaney on the view that has been put by the Opposition but since his colleagues have developed the argument further, I think I can respond appropriately, on behalf of the Government, to them as well. I do not want to canvass a particular dispute. If we did that we would run the risk of trying to make general laws based on a particular circumstance. That would, in itself, be logically erroneous. However, I note that Senator Burns has joined in the contest over the Sanctuary Cove dispute. I will refer briefly to that dispute but I do not want to go into the arguments of the rights and wrongs of a particular dispute. That would not be the way to conduct a debate about the generalities of what is involved here. Clause 94 of the Industrial Relations Bill provides uniformity in relation to certain conditions of employment. It will replace section 51 of the Act. I cannot recall exactly when section 51 was inserted but I think it was in the 1950s. It has been around for donkey's years. It is a section that has served the test of time. It is a section, it is worth noting, that has remained in the Act under successive governments and under successive Prime Ministers-successive conservative Prime Minister and successive conservative Ministers of labour in previous Federal governments. It has travelled through a period of Labor government in the 1970s and has remained in the Act under a high profile period for industrial relations in Australia, the period of the Fraser Government. It has remained unamended in all of that time. I cannot help thinking that this debate is becoming a debate about the symbols, the images and the messages that parties wish to convey to the broader electorate in which, in an almost sloganeering way, the main differences between the industrial relations objectives the two major competing parties are presented. This provision is a machinery, mechanical, practical, down to earth, necessary provision that a bench like the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission requires to grease the day to day wheels of practical operations in industrial relations. In that sense one understands why the knights move into the lists to joust about symbols. The Government is talking about making the process work effectively so that the minutia of day to day industrial relations can better be handled. It is on the basis of how best it works that I return to the Sanctuary Cove argument only to say that one particular dispute was trotted out here as an example of why this amendment should be supported. It is wrong to take one example. One needs to look at the long running trends to see what the patterns are. Has this been an obstruction to the Commission operating effectively in the past? History says out loud, `No it has not'. The wheels of the Commission have moved in such a way that governments of all types over the years have found comfort with the actual practical application of this section. It has stood the test of time. The important element of clause 94, from the Government's point of view, is that it provides a statutory basis for the Commission to exercise a discretion for uniformity in appropriate circumstances. The objectives of the legislation speak to the issue of how the Commission must conduct its business. The objectives of the legislation provide that the Commission must deal with disputes on their merits when they are in front of the Commission. The objective of the legislation requires the Commission to take into consideration the type and scope of a dispute that it is hearing. This provision, which is subject to what the legislation's objectives are, enables, in appropriate circumstances, the Commission to act with statutory power to provide uniformity where it is appropriate and where, under the objectives, it is appropriate. So from that point of view I think most of the argument has concentrated on overstating objections and reaching for the symbols rather than on the practicalities. I conclude with a remark about practicality which is appropriate in these circumstances and which is the subject of the meat and drink of industrial debate in Australia at the moment. When the Commission moved to a two-tier wage fixation system it explicitly denied uniformity because it enabled-- Senator Burns —The unions agreed to that. Senator COOK —Senator Burns is right. That is an interesting development from the point of view of uniformity provisions. The Commission made a decision about a method of wage fixation which denied the right of uniformity and concentrated on enabling within the workplace and within the industry productivity trade-offs to be made. I suppose it could be argued that it provided uniformly that there ought to be independent negotiations under awards for productivity give-backs. It did that with a provision in the existing Act which clause 94 of the Bill that we are proposing reflects. It did not in any way inhibit the ability of the Commission to make that decision. All sides of the chamber, including the Australian Democrats, have applauded the decision about the two-tier wage structure. I think the debate is appropriate because in this forum parties will try to demonstrate the symbolic differences between us. If we look at how practically these things operate in the real world, all three sides of this chamber should vote for the inclusion of clause 94 and reject the amendment. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.28) —I do not wish to prolong the debate on this clause as we have many clauses still to consider. However, this amendment and other amendments are not a matter of rhetoric or of demonstrating differences between us and the Government. In a number of respects we have sought to point out that the system is being used to stifle precisely the sort of positive, flexible process of change that the Government purports to be encouraging. I am quite happy to respond to the invitation of the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) to cite many more than one example, but I think the Minister who has the conduct of the Bill would not want to lengthen the debate any more. It is not only in this area of the Industrial Relations Bill that there is an attempt to stifle change and flexibility. The Queensland example, which perhaps will be relevant to a later clause, is the voluntary employment agreements entered into in that State under a most, in my view, restrictive law in terms of ensuring that all sorts of conditions are met before such agreements can be entered into and approved. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has been used to try to strike down the first of those voluntary employment agreements by bringing the people who are subject to that agreement within a Commonwealth award. The truth is that the mechanisms in this system can be used to quite destructive effect. We are not saying that they cannot be used to a very constructive effect as well. We would not be voting against the Bill, we would not be making amendments, if we did not think that the system would continue. Our own policy envisages that the system will continue. What I am concerned about is to remove some of the things which seem to me to be utterly inconsistent with the broader and more positive thrust of the Government's approach to industrial and economic policies. However, I do not expect the Government to review its position, but there seems to have been a flat-footed view taken by the Government which I find pathetic. Simply to oppose all amendments is a sign of rigidity on the part of the retiring Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). I wish that we were considering this matter after he had gone. Perhaps his successor will have a little more sense than Mr Willis seems to be showing in his blocking approach to suggested amendments, often it seems to me with little or no real justification. In any event, it seems clear that the Government flat-footedly will vote against any change. This is one of those sections which can be used to strike at undesirable activity in the workplace by people who are not being enlightened in their own interest or in the national interest. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(12.32) —Leaving aside the remarks about the current Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who has made one of the most outstanding contributions of any Minister who has occupied that portfolio in the history of the Federation, what Senator Chaney has said in essence, is that there are many more examples he can give, and there are other examples, where the Commission has struck down desirable reforms. Perhaps I could answer by saying that on Sunday I had the pleasure of standing in the driving rain on the outer at the Western Oval as I watched the West Coast Eagles surmount Footscray. Senator Chaney —That would have been a pleasure. Senator COOK —It was a pleasure since I was about the only West Coast Eagles barracker among 30,000 people. Senator Chaney —It is a pleasure I would have shared with you. Senator COOK —It is a pleasure we would have shared equally. If we had both been present, it would have been a unique act of solidarity between us. As I stood there, I had a clear objective of what I wanted my team to do and what I thought should be the outcome of the match. I watched as the umpire ran around the ground and made decisions, some of which I disagreed with and said loudly that I disagreed with. However, I had to concede that the umpire was closer to the action. He was in the best position to make a judgment about whether rules had been infringed. Senator Chapman —They are not always. Senator COOK —It is commonly conceded among sportsmen that in the end one has to accept the decision of the umpire for the reason that the umpire is there with the authority, he is in a position to make the judgment, he is close to the action, and has the best view of what has occurred. Therefore, one abides by his decision. Thus it is with arbitration commissioners. From time to time I have criticised arbitration commissioners because I wanted them to arrive at different decisions from the ones they made. Thus, when I subjectively judge their decisions and make an assessment of them, as Senator Chaney has where he says commissioners have not always acted to bring about desirable outcomes, I finally have to say that they are in the best position. They have heard the evidence from both sides and recognise that having heard the evidence there is scope for intervention in the public interest, if that is desirable. If that scope is exercised, they listen to the public interest as portrayed and make their decisions. Commissioners will not always say that they have made the rights decisions. The commissioners' old boys' club would admit over a beer that sometimes they have made wrong decisions, but somebody has to make those decisions; they are in the best position to make them, and they do so. As a government or as a potential government one has to recognise that when commissioners make decisions, they make them consistent with the objective of the Act in the interests of resolving disputes. As politicians we may think that it is more desirable that they make different decisions, but that is our subjectivity overriding their position of objectivity. In the exercise of section 51 of the current Act, I have not heard any argument that that section has been used in a way to strike down the main principles of the Act in providing some flexibility in the workplace. The prime example of that is the two-tier wage fixation decision. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.35) —I am sorry to enter this debate again but there is room for some misunderstanding in what the Minister has just said. The concerns I have expressed are not based on complaints about particular Commission decisions, though I referred to some statements by Commissioner Bain in respect to the Sanctuary Cove case. Commissioner Bain is yet to make a decision. My point is that one element of the trade union movement is able to attack an agreement made by one group of unions with an employer using the concept that the clause requires uniform conditions throughout an industry. That is my area of concern. I would not like it to be thought that I am attacking a commissioner who has not yet made a decision, although I quoted without approval some of the comments, or at least queried some of his comments. There was another area in which the Minister misunderstood me. I am not saying that this provision is used to strike down some basic operation of the Act. I am saying that this provision can be used to inhibit the sort of industrial behaviour which the Government in other aspects of its activities is fostering. When Senator Button was here, I was acknowledging his own repeated statements that we need a more productive culture and the statements that he has made to encourage excellence and various other things that are required in Australian industry. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said that we require greater flexibility. He says that in common with our labour market and with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. My central point is that this clause as part of the Act can be used to inhibit the very characteristics that the Government is seeking in the industrial relations system generally-not just what is in this Bill. It can inhibit developments in the workplace which are central to the Government's own program, as I understand it. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(12.37) —I wish to make a couple of comments. As the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) said, the provision has existed for quite a long time. I have been involved in many experiences where negotiations between people of goodwill have resulted in an agreement which did not exactly conform to the award, but it suited both parties. My concern as a State union official was that it in no way damaged the interests of the broader membership of my organisation. Having satisfied that aspect, we were able on a number of occasions to reach agreement. The important thing was that it was between people of goodwill. I have been asked: `But if we agree to this change, could one of your members go to the Arbitration Commission and seek redress or prosecution for breach?'. My answer has been clear and unequivocal and has been accepted. I said, `If they do that, I shall go into the witness box and indicate that in good faith an agreement has been made and we do not agree with the person concerned'. I would expose that person as a hypocrite because he would be one of the people who had attended the meeting where the matter was discussed, and understood the purport of it, or a person who had come onto the job and who had `understood the conditions under which he would be employed'. It is a question of what can be used and whether it will be used. I suggest that if people of goodwill are involved the provision will not be used. I was interested to hear Senator Chaney talk about the restrictions that are placed on the good things that may be able to be achieved by negotiation and agreement, but the very people whom I understand the Opposition to represent in this place, such as the Australian Confederation of Industry and others-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Come on! Senator BURNS —Well, I am a fairly simple, straightforward person and I compare what the Confederation asks to be done in the community with what Opposition senators demand be done in this chamber. They are very similar. Those in the Confederation continually say, as do Opposition senators in this chamber and in public statements, that if there is an award increase to be made, how can we be sure that people will not want a double dip and want more-a breakout type of situation. Those opposite are always concerned to stop that. They want the damper put on negotiations that would move away from general increases. That exposes a somewhat hypocritical position. I can understand there being concern in regard to what is called a paid rates award-that is, an arrangement whereby parties have met, either on their own or by using the Arbitration Commission to assist them in the task, and have converted any private agreements, any over-award payments that they may have, into a paid rates award. They give the undertaking that they will not look for any further increases by way of negotiation and disputation. In such cases, honour is involved. I can understand people saying, `You have made that deal. You have no right now to look for over-award payments'. How the hell does one argue or negotiate with someone who says `Look, we want to put these over-award payments in this award', and who then says, `Now we have done that, we want some over-award payments'? That is hypocrisy. I have never been a party to it; nor will I ever be. I would say that most people in the trade union movement have not been parties to such arrangements. There are also what are known as minimum rates awards. I refer, for example, to the metal industry award. Only the minimum amount is paid, and any increases are on top of that minimum amount. But the people whom Senator Chaney represents still want to dampen down any breakout. They do not want any negotiations between the employer and the union to give union members a little more-even though, maybe, the employer can afford it at that time-even though, as a result of those changed circumstances, there could be greater productivity and a higher profit. Therefore, the workers would get a little more and the employers would get a little more. That, to me, is a bit of a contradiction. I close by saying that I think that the clause has stood the test of time. I think we should look at what will happen; we should not look at what can happen. People can do almost anything, I guess, but I do not think that they will. I think that all senators, in a spirit of consensus, should vote for the Government's proposition. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.42) —In response to Senator Burns, I want it to be absolutely clear that the people whom I represent in this Parliament are the people of Australia, and not only sectional interests. I make that point very seriously. I think it is of very great importance that that point be known. I am not representing the employers; I am representing my electorate and the people of Australia. I was very interested to hear Senator Burns's practical account of his own experience in these matters. I simply say to him that I believe that he would foster more of the same of what he has described as a good thing if he voted with the Opposition on this matter. I suspect that that would cost him the endorsement for his place in the Senate, so I do not put that forward as a likelihood. I thank the honourable senator for his contribution. I think it is much more consistent with our position on this matter than with the position being adopted by the Government. Amendment negatived. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.43) —by leave-in accordance with the schedule that has been circulated, I move: (8) Pages 38 to 39, clause 95, line 36 (page 38) to line 4 (page 39), leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Effect of certified agreements ``95. (1) The Commission is not empowered to include terms in an award, or make an award under section 112 that includes terms, that are based on the terms of a certified agreement. ``(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Commission shall not have regard to any argument raised before the Commission that is based on any matter included in a certified agreement. ``(3) The Commission may, in proceedings relating to a certified agreement, have regard to arguments based on matter included in that agreement.''. (34) Page 153, after clause 298, insert the following new clause: Offences relating to certified agreements ``298a. A person shall not, on behalf of an organisation, make a claim to the Commission that is based on matter included in a certified agreement to which that organisation is not a party. Penalty: (a) in the case of a natural person-$500; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$2,500.''. Amendment No. 8 seeks to leave out clause 95 and replace it with another clause which is substantially in the same terms, except for the last paragraph. I will not read it. It is a replacement of the existing provision. I have also moved that, after clause 298, a new clause 298a be inserted which would establish certain offences relating to certified agreements. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —It being nearly 12.45 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report progress. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —It being 12.45 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, the Senate will now consider matters of public interest. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(12.45) — I would like to speak very briefly today about an historical event which I believe to be of world significance and which I was privileged to witness a few weeks ago. I was invited to witness the destruction of four SS22 missiles in the Soviet Union, the first concrete step in the implementation of the intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). I was invited not as a senator or a parliamentarian-in fact, I was the only foreign parliamentarian present-but as a representative from the Australian peace movement. The invitation came from the Soviet Peace Committee and I was one of 28 guests from 17 countries and several international peace organisations such as Pax Christi. Those countries are mainly European, both west and east: those in the immediate range of the superpowers' land-based missiles. But there were also representatives of the peace movements in Canada and the United States and from Egypt and India as well as myself. From the time of the first Gorbachev-Reagan summit the Soviet Peace Committee had been pressing its Government to allow representatives of the world peace movement to witness the first act of nuclear disarmament. The USSR Government allowed our presence at this first destruction of nuclear weapons in recognition of the role that the world peace movement has played in bringing about this historic first step. The overseas delegates later expressed the hope that the United States would also recognise the contribution of the peace movement by inviting a similar delegation to the initial act of destruction of its own missiles. I was deeply honoured to have been invited to be a witness to the destruction of the missiles. After more than 40 years working in various ways for peace, it was a very exciting and moving experience to be present at this first concrete step towards real disarmament. I am going to describe very briefly what actually happened because I have found universal interest, sometimes in most unexpected quarters, since I returned to Australia. The actual explosion of the missiles and their launchers took place at Saryozek on the Kazakhstan steppes in the south-west corner of the USSR. We witnessed the destruction of four SS22 missiles on 1 August and from that time on eight missiles have been destroyed every day. Under the terms of the agreement the missiles themselves must be totally destroyed-nothing left-and the launchers reduced to scrap. These particular missiles had been brought to the demolition site from Czechoslovakia, from the German Democratic Republic and from other parts of the Soviet Union. We saw the stockpile of other missiles which will be destroyed over the coming months. We arrived at the site several hours before the explosion took place and found what was almost a carnival atmosphere within the military area, which had been opened for the first time to the overseas visitors, to the United States inspection team and the world media, complete with cameras and tape recorders. We were briefed at a Press conference where both the USSR and the United States military teams answered questions about the technical aspects of the event and its place in the disarmament process. We were entertained by local musicians and singers, some of us joined in the dancing and we were treated to local food. It was a festival atmosphere in celebration of what was about to happen and its significance as a step towards world peace. In the early afternoon we walked up a small hill from which we could see the missiles themselves just under two kilometres away in the valley. The warheads had been removed for later disposal, together with the guidance systems, in accordance with the INF agreement, so it was a breathtaking surprise to hear, as the countdown finished, a huge explosion and then to see an enormous red fireball with sparks shooting from it from which emerged a mushroom shaped cloud. As I said, there were no warheads on the weapons, so the visual effect was purely symbolic and had a profound effect on those who were watching. We all broke into spontaneous applause and later conversation revealed that most of us had felt very deeply moved. Almost immediately it began to rain, which the locals believed to be a sign of good fortune. Local scientists and peace activists assured us that the demolition was ecologically safe, and indeed we were able to walk around the demolition site shortly afterwards and confirm that the missiles had totally disappeared: the largest piece of launcher debris was only about half a metre in length-a safe and efficient disposal job. The local people were clearly delighted with what was happening. As one poster we saw said, `Saryozek, launching place of disarmament'. Local people are planning to build a memorial on the site with the slogan, `Farewell to the armaments!'. Before I left Australia many people said they envied what they called `the chance of a lifetime'. I am deeply grateful to have had the chance of a thousand lifetimes to be present at this first concrete act of nuclear disarmament. I pay tribute to the USSR for recognising the role of the world peace movement in bringing this about, and I hope the United States Government will do likewise when it commences its missile destruction process. Senator PARER(Queensland)(12.50) —I rise today not with any joy but to express to honourable senators some concerns I have about the implementation of the Aboriginal policy by this Government. I think we all acknowledge that Aboriginal Australians are a disadvantaged group in our community and we must do everything we can to remedy that situation as quickly as possible. However, the Government's policies for Aborigines, as they apply in the cases I am about to give, are causing more problems than they are solving. In fact, they are creating disharmony. I refer in particular to recent grants made by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Mount Isa, Queensland, which have been brought to my attention by the State member for Mount Isa, Mr Peter Beard. The grants were so irresponsible and shortsighted that they were almost beyond belief. These grants have created subsidised employment for a few people-either Aboriginal or of Aboriginal descent-in Mount Isa, but it has been achieved at the expense of other business in that town and has created ill will and resentment between white and black Australians where none previously existed. The situation is a nutshell is this: Aborigines in Mount Isa recently, between May and July-and I have only two cases I can give-have been given grants and subsidies by the Department to set up their own business in direct competition with established business in Mount Isa, in a small closed community. If some study had been done on unmet demand and grants had been made and the businesses had been successful we would have all been pleased. However, that is not the case. The established businesses are unable to compete with the taxpayer subsidised businesses of the Aborigines and two successful businesses are going, or have gone broke. The first grant that was brought to my attention concerned a car detailing business, the only one in the town. It was, I stress, a successful business, a husband and wife concern with four or five casual employees. Their best employee was a lady of Aboriginal descent whom they held in very high regard for her standard of work. Not only that, she was a very close personal friend of the owner of the business. She was also described to me as being an extraordinary honest person in the community, who never ever, and would not have, cheated on the Social Security system, who gave all information in respect of her earnings. She was approached by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to set up her own car detailing business in Mount Isa in opposition to the business for which she worked. She was embarrassed. She went to her close friend who operated the business, explained the situation, and said, `What am I going to do?' This is what she told the person who owned the business: she was to be given a $15,000 loan with no repayments for two years, then repayments to commence at 2 per cent interest. If she employed two Aboriginal people each would be paid $150 a week for six months while being trained. She was to be paid $150 a week `till she gets on her feet', and the Department would buy or rent premises for her to set up her business. It is understood there would be no rent payable, at least initially. Administrative expertise would also be provided, especially in accounting and taxation. Mr Deputy President, setting up a business in direct competition with another, even if it is a subsidised business, would not normally be a problem and perhaps could be got away with in a place such as Sydney or Melbourne. I think it is best to describe Mount Isa. It is an isolated provincial city in the far north-west of Queensland. It has a population of some 38,000 people. It is over 900 kilometres away from the nearest coastal city of Townsville. In the other direction, the nearest major city would be Darwin. To use another measure of the size of Mount Isa, it does not even yet have a McDonald's hamburger franchise in the town. That gives an idea of the sort of market that is available in such a place. Honourable senators will know that country towns and cities have only a limited market for these types of services. The establishment of a subsidised enterprise that has no capital repayments, low or no interest, subsidised employees and free administrative work in direct opposition with another business in an area such as this has made it impossible for the original car detailing business to compete-a fact that is obvious to everyone except these people who dreamed up this lunatic grant. Mr Deputy President, I ask whether this is how the Government hopes to help Aborigines-by destroying existing small business, inciting ill will and resentment and creating racial hatred at great expense to the taxpayer. I have no idea what the Government's response to this situation is. I wrote to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) in June: I wrote to him because I did not wish to make a public issue of this matter. I thought it was best raised by way of a letter. So far he has not replied to that letter. If that were an isolated incident I would probably say, `Okay, we will pursue the Minister and see whether something can be done to stop this divisiveness that is being created in small communities', but it is not. I was made aware of another case virtually identical to this only last week. The bureaucrats who could not be bothered surveying the community needs to find an unmet demand have simply found a successful ceramic business in Mount Isa and duplicated it. What was previously a thriving business has not done any business in the last two months. What is the reason? An Aboriginal owned ceramic business has commenced operations in direct competition with an original business-with another $25,000 Government grant. I might point out that the person who started the ceramic business in the first place had borrowed money, had some three years to go before the repayments could be made and employed one or two people part-time to help her-it was a lady-with the heavy work involved in casting ceramics. Suddenly, out of the blue, competition arrived. But it is not real competition. Premises were provided, I understand free of charge; expert assistance was provided, including the visit of instructors from the south-presumably from here; a staff of up to six assistants were paid under Commonwealth grants; and the latest techniques and equipment were provided. The results in both cases have been the same: a previously successful business has been totally ruined. The cost to the taxpayer is enormous and there is no gain to the community in terms of new services or products. The member for Mount Isa has lived there for some 25 to 30 years. He is in close contact with and has many friends within the Aboriginal community. In Mount Isa, a small town, stories spread fast and we have resentment and a significant change for the worse in the attitude of white Australians to their Aboriginal countrymen. This is what most concerns me and the member for Mount Isa. The question, Mr Deputy President, which must be asked is: How many other cases are there like these around Australia? These are two unsolicited cases from one small, isolated community. It is apparent that this Hawke Government is determined to drive a wedge between white and black Australians through this bizarre policy of practical implementation of reverse apartheid. The Prime Minister has promised an Aboriginal treaty which will effectively create a separate Aboriginal state within Australia, and if that does not incite bitterness and division then these grants by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs almost certainly will. The great tragedy, Mr Deputy President, is that these deeds have soured relations between Aboriginal people and the rest of the Australian community to the detriment of genuinely needy Australians. Why would people wish to help Aborigines in that community if that assistance could mean the destruction of their own jobs and livelihoods? In conclusion, I simply state that we in the Opposition believe in one Australia and this means that we are dedicated to improve the plight of Australian Aborigines. They deserve to be aided and helped-their disadvantage is our disadvantage-but we will not do it at the expense of the rest of the Australian community, as has been outlined on the two examples that I have given in respect of the subsidisation in a small community which effectively puts out of business, in a very limited market, the two businesses that were existing. I find it totally incomprehensible that this is allowed to go on. As I said earlier, it was not with any joy that I got up to speak about this. As I also mentioned part way through my speech, when the first example was drawn to my attention I did not publicise it; I wrote to the Minister. He has not had the courtesy to reply. In the interim period, while awaiting the reply, another case has popped up. Again I ask: How many are there? The effect of the policy will be the creation of dissension and disharmony in communities where there was not dissension and disharmony before. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(1.01) —I rise today in this matters of public interest debate to bring to the notice of the Senate the plight of a student at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education. The problems facing this mature age student, Margaret Gleeson, stemmed initially from the method of assessment and marking used by a lecturer and external marker in the clinical psychology unit undertaken by this student. Ms Gleeson protested first to the lecturer and then to the head of the school and because she was not satisfied with the outcome of these discussions she then appealed to the admission and qualifications committee for independent reassessment of the assignment. Her appeal was not upheld and the matter was then taken to the council of the Gippsland Institute, which then referred the matter back to the academic board for resolution. Ms Gleeson at that point was pleased to hear that the academic board would address her request for independent assessment of the controversial assignment-which, incidentally, was later published in an Australia-wide journal-and the computation of grades for assignments which she discovered had been incorrectly computed. In the event, however, the board chose not to address the matter other than to carry a motion which read: The academic board supports the decision of its standing committee, the admissions and qualifications committee, in this matter. With the avenues of appeal within the Institute closed, she then contacted a range of alternatives-the Victorian Ombudsman, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission and the Victorian Minister for Education, the media, and a solicitor as well, in desperate attempts to have these several discrepancies addressed. The discrepancies raise these questions: Why had repeated reasonable requests for a genuinely independent assessment for an assignment been denied, given that her essay was published in the National Health Issues Journal? Why did the academic board deny her right to be heard? And, why had the scores for her two assignments been downgraded? As of this date, Ms Gleeson believes that none of the above concerns have been satisfactorily answered and, indeed, she now believes that she has been found guilty by association for openly and actively supporting a lecturer who had been denied confirmation of tenure by the academic staff review committee at the end of his two-year probationary period. Ms Gleeson believes this has led to the politicisation of her case by the Institute. Ms Gleeson has discovered that a memo distributed by the Assistant Director of Administration to the President of the Council implies that she is part of `an ongoing process of defamation of the Institute'. Ms Gleeson naturally deeply resents this charge. Through this whole process her continuing studies are being hampered. In the circumstances, and given the distress the whole affair is causing to Ms Gleeson, I would hope that her calls to the reasonable and responsible bodies and individuals beyond the Institute-the Victorian Ombudsman, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission and the Victorian Minister for Education-will result in some positive and speedy action or an indication to Ms Gleeson where she might take some more positive and effective action which might conclude with some satisfactory resolution of the problem facing her and any broader issues within the Institute which may be involved. Senator HILL(South Australia)(1.05) —I wanted to say a few words at this time about education in rural Australia and the critical problems that are being faced by rural Australians in educating their children. Some 14 years ago the Henderson Commission Inquiry into Poverty found that one-quarter of rural Australians lived in poverty, in contrast to only one-sixth of city people. According to the 1986 census, 33 of the 37 poorest electorates in Australia were in the rural areas and, therefore, only four are in the cities. In other words, on an electorate basis, 90 per cent of Australians that come into the category of the poorest of our community are rural dwellers. We understand from that census that most of the families of those people are subsisting on incomes of $12,000 a year and below. The Government has admitted as much. In its 1986 economic and rural policy statement and in numerous other statements that have been put down the Government has outlined the serious problems of the rural economy. They are familiar problems to us-a higher level of farm debt, high debt servicing costs, run-down of farm capital stock, soil erosion and so forth. In other words, it seems that in the 14 years since Professor Henderson's inquiry the lot of rural Australia has worsened. Life out in the bush is not easy but one does not expect the Government to team with the considerable natural forces working against those who do not live in the cities. In particular, one would not expect the Federal Government actually to make it more difficult for those who do not live in the cities to educate their children. The links between the rural economy and education are strong. The agricultural sector badly needs educated people who can apply their knowledge of the new agricultural products and techniques, business practices and marketing to agricultural activities. I draw attention to the Commonwealth Government Schools Commission report of last year-a major report-entitled Schooling in Rural Australia, which is the other half of this equation. That detailed the problems of education in the rural areas most comprehensively. It outlined the problems of distance, staffing, curriculum, and poor retention rates in secondary schools-which are worse for rural Australia than for any other part of our community-and argued for strong, increased financial assistance to rural families for education purposes. It made it quite clear that from an education point of view rural Australia is the most disadvantaged sector of Australian society. It is not appropriate now to go into details of that report but I draw it to the attention of honourable senators. Governments in the past have looked to two ways in which they might provide some assistance to rural Australia in the education of their children. The first, which is of course common to other Australia children, is the provision of Austudy. The second, which relates to only certain categories of rural children, is the provision of an allowance for isolated children. It should be appreciated that many Australian rural families, although they live in the situation of very low income and with all the difficulties that I have already mentioned, are often asset rich. In other words, their properties can assume a value far in excess of what they seem to be able to produce in income, and their level of personal indebtedness throughout Australia is high and, unfortunately, increasing. Therefore, any step that is taken to impose a restriction on the availability to rural families of both Austudy and the isolated children's allowance on the basis of asset values in the rural Australian community should be taken particularly cautiously. Many rural families have book assets in excess of the $600,000 assets level the Government intends to impose but, as I have indicated, they have very low incomes. I refer to the minute of the Department of Employment, Education and Training, Central Office reference 87/8183, which has been circulated to indicate to rural people the asset cut-off point that will now apply in relation to both Austudy and the isolated children's allowance-the figure of $600,000. It seems that there will be a saving of some $15m which obviously is of consequence from a national economic point of view, but I suggest respectfully that it should also be looked at in terms of the people affected. It seems that nearly 7,000 children, most of whom will come from rural Australia, will have assistance cut off under Austudy. Who will be cut off from the isolated children's allowance is yet to be determined but I suggest that it will be a very large number of Australian farming children who receive that much needed extra support at this time. I ask the Government to give further consideration to the decision that it has made in this regard. I do not believe the Government has adequately appreciated the fact that many Australian farmers do have assets, in monetary terms, in book value terms, in excess of $600,000 but they are in real terms very poor and they are struggling to educate their children in an educational environment which has been acknowledged to be the most difficult in Australia. I think if the Government showed the sensitivity it should be showing towards families in these difficult rural circumstances it would realise that it has proceeded on a misconceived basis in relation to this new assets test. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(1.13) —I want today to make some comments with respect to the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and in particular the manner in which this Government is administering the Territory. A prominent issue at the moment is self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. The coalition is of the view that the ACT needs it and needs it very badly. It cannot grow and thrive under what has become a revolving door leadership with Ministers either stepping their way up to bigger and better portfolios or finding a quiet place to rest on the way out. Last week the coalition parties indicated their strong support for self-government and the need for it to come sooner rather than later. We did, however, say that an unfair and undemocratic election system was too big a price to pay and we expressed our willingness to negotiate. On the same day that announcement was made. I appeared on Capital Seven television with the Minister for Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, in an ACT budget debate. The Minister said there that self-government was not dead-I am very pleased to hear that; I was pleased and I still am-that the Government was willing to negotiate and had amendments in mind. At the time he did say-and I believe he was correct in saying-that the Government would find it easier to draft amendments to accommodate the Australian Democrats' concerns than it would to accommodate ours. That is true. I agree that the gulf is wider between us and the Government than it is between the Democrats and the Government. Of course, a particular reason for that at this stage, Mr Deputy President, of which you may not be aware, is that the Democrats' proposed system for self-government is at times inconsistent with the plus or minus 10 provision in the fair elections Bill. So they are in a somewhat invidious position at the moment in advocating a yes vote to question two in the referendum, and yet proposing a system of self-government in the ACT that cannot at all times be consistent with that. Nonetheless, that is the Democrats' problem. Last night, having heard nothing of the amendments that the Minister indicated he had in mind, I rang the Minister's office querying where the amendments were, whether there were going to be negotiations, and reiterating our willingness to negotiate. I was told that the Minister thought it was not worth negotiating with us, that it was more appropriate to be negotiating with the Democrats, which he had been doing and was doing at that very stage-an announcement I must say I was somewhat surprised to hear. I asked whether there were any amendments to consider and was offered an appointment with the Minister. That is as far as it has gone at this stage. I stress that, Mr Deputy President, because having outlined our willingness to negotiate, nothing having happened until last night, ringing last night to see what is going on, finding out that we have been left out-the Minister does not think it is worth bothering talking to us but I could commence negotiations with him-I was surprised to read this quote from the Minister in the Canberra Times today: `But being realistic, and given the delicate negotiations that are being undertaken with the Liberal Party . . . I leave it to honourable senators to make their own assessment of the Minister for making that statement. I personally regard it as inconsistent with the facts that I have outlined. Nonetheless, to return to the electoral system that is proposed for the Australian Capital Territory, the coalition regarded the electoral system basically as a bribe, a system that favours the major parties and effectively cuts out minor parties and Independents-and not a bribe that we would ever accept. It is a system in which individuals cannot vote across party lines as they can in all other elections in this country and it is an un-Australian system because we are not given a second chance. If you want to vote for an Independent, Mr Deputy President, under the Government's proposal you can put a tick by that Independent or a one in the box. Knowing your vote is being counted to elect 17 people, you can put a tick by only one box. Yet this Government has the cheek to pretend that the fair elections Bill, if passed, will ensure fair and democratic elections across the country. Australians need only turn their mind to what is proposed in the Australian Capital Territory to see the manifest deceit in referendum question No. 2. They are asked: `Do you want a Bill that will ensure fair and democratic elections throughout Australia?'. Some people will answer yes, believing that is what they will get. The Australian Capital Territory shows that it is not what they will get, because what is proposed for the Australian Capital Territory is a vote that may have the same geographic value, but it does not have the same real value because we cannot, if we want to vote for an Independent or a small party, cast a vote for the remaining candidates and we cannot vote across party lines. Big Brother says, `You will vote for either this party or that party or you will not bother voting'. If that is one vote one value, one real value, I should think again about my logic. I am quite satisfied that it is not one vote one real value across this country which is being introduced. In any event the Democrats, as I indicated-this is the other alternative for self-government-propose a system in which the electoral commissioner or redistribution committee would not be able on each occasion to satisfy the plus or minus 10 requirement of the fair elections Bill and comply with the Democrats' directions. In an ordinary electorate in a State the electoral commissioner can satisfy the plus or minus 10 requirement by drawing reasonably arbitrary lines on a map. What the Democrats say should happen in the Australian Capital Territory, where the map is much smaller, the flexibility is less, is that there shall be four seats; that the lines cannot go through discrete communities, they must go around; and each seat can have no less than five members. Consequently, the electoral commissioner, instead of having the capacity to draw lines in a reasonably arbitrary fashion around the edges, loses that capacity and there are times when he will be left, if the Democrats' system is introduced, with a Constitutional requirement of plus or minus 10, and a Bill that said he had to do it in a way that would not allow him to comply with the Constitution. There has been a deathly silence from the Democrats about this mistake, which they admit. They started admitting by saying it was a small anomaly that could be corrected: it has not yet been corrected. What I want to put on record by outlining the events with respect to self-government is that I hope that the new Minister, because I have just about given up on the existing one, has a new and refreshing attitude to negotiating with the coalition, that he does not say one thing and do another. We are keen to negotiate to get self-government for the Australian Capital Territory, we believe that self-government is not only inevitable but, because of the lousy administration by this Government, it is an imperative. I want to turn to another matter in the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Acting Deputy President, and that is the development of section 19. Before I do that I might say one more thing with respect to self-government, and it is this: I believe there is something of a covert agenda. Let me put it this way: Canberra is a government town. It has a very high proportion of public servants. All other legislatures that govern themselves, obviously, spell out the opportunities vis-a-vis public servants. All of them, except New South Wales and Tasmania, say that a public servant of the Commonwealth, another State or their State cannot hold office. However, in New South Wales and Tasmania one can be a Commonwealth public servant or the public servant of another State-but not a public servant of that particular State-and hold office. The bottom line is that every other legislature is not silent on the opportunities for public servants and thus far the Minister's drafting instructions are. One might think this is somewhat inconsequential because what in effect happens in the States is that arrangements are made for public servants who want to stand, to have a go, to stand down when the writs are issued and, if they do not win the election, they get the job back; if they win they resign. One might say, `Well, what does it matter?' The reason it matters is that they can afford to resign from the Public Service, they can have a real opportunity to participate in government, only if there is a decent salary, roughly a full time salary. Otherwise, they cannot afford it. In the old advisory assembly in the ACT, Mr Acting Deputy President, what a public servant was permitted to do was not collect an assembly salary and, therefore, not put himself in conflict. But we are now talking about real self-government, real legislative powers, and the Australian Capital Territory will not be able to be silent on this issue. The question needs to be addressed. That leads me to the covert agenda. Why has this not been addressed? The Minister says in his public statements that he is looking for `an assembly of 17', and then he says, `with four full-time Ministers'. The impli- cation, the impression that has been given very widely through the Australian Capital Territory, is that this will predominantly be a part-time assembly. That is the impression that has been given. But I believe the Government intends the full assembly to be full-time. I believe it intends recommending to the Remuneration Tribunal that if self-government proceeds the salaries should be full-time. I think it is keeping that to itself and I think that is a very bad thing. It is most unfortunate that the Government seeks in this matter to be ambiguous and misleading. Apart from ambiguity and misleading statements not being acceptable from a government in any event, they are particularly unacceptable in this respect. I come back to where I started in this matter: Canberra is basically a government town and so to be ambiguous and misleading as to the opportunities of public servants to participate in self-government is even worse in the Australian Capital Territory. It does the Government no credit to behave in this fashion. Let me quickly turn to the Civic Square redevelopment, section 19, an idea that was conceived of about 12 months ago. About one month ago we received draft legislation-11 months in the making. I do not complain about that. I am not critical about the time because it is very important to get the legislation right. I quite agree with that. What I am critical about is Minister Punch seeking approval of his idea before he produces the legislation, before he gets the details sorted out. One does not see Dawkins running around in tears because everybody has not received his idea of a graduate tax with acclamation. He is a true believer. He is prepared to fight for what he believes in. He does not just wait until everyone else agrees before he fronts up to the barrier. We do not see the Treasurer (Mr Keating) refusing to put out a Budget unless the Opposition agrees. It is a ridiculous notion. No other Minister seeks a reply before details are available. No other Minister, in fact, expects a reply on legislation before he puts it up for debate-not one. As I said, we do not see Dawkins complaining. He knows he has to wait until he puts his legislation up. Similarly, we do not see Keating afraid to put up the Budget because the other side has not agreed yet. The ACT, some would say, needs a new theatre and refurbished library. There may be some debate about that. In any event, there are promised developments and benefits to the ACT from the section 19 project proceeding. All we are saying to the Minister is that if he can show how he can guarantee they will be delivered, we will consider the legislation early before he puts it on for debate. What he has to show is that section 19 will not end up just the same as the convention centre project, on which the people of the ACT were told, `For all this office space you will get a convention centre'. They got the office space quickly and they still have not got the convention centre. That is all that the Minister is required to do. If he does that we will give him an answer before he is prepared to take the step of putting the legislation on for debate. I do not think that is unreasonable. I certainly hope that the new Minister takes a much more reasonable, sensible and pragmatic approach to government in the ACT. Sitting suspended from 1.27 to 2 p.m. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is to the Foreign Minister designate and the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer the Minister to the outrage and concern he expressed in the Senate last week about the damage to Australia's standing in Asia which, he suggested, would flow from the debate in this country about immigration policy. Does he recall saying that Australia's image had been damaged and that reports reaching the region were likely to have serious adverse consequences for Australia's trading access and commercial opportunities? Noting his statement that he was appalled at what had happened in recent weeks, I ask the Minister whether he is similarly appalled at the derogatory and racist generalisations of his former colleague, Mr Bill Hayden, in describing Indonesians as `erratic, hostile people to deal with' and in describing the Japanese approach to the Association of South East Asian Nations as their `hypocritical, self-effacing way' among many other inflammatory statements. Noting Senator Gareth Evans's claim that diplomatic posts in the region had been reporting concerns about the immigration debate, can the Minister tell the Senate whether reports are being received from our Asian-Pacific representatives about these comments by the man who is shortly to become Australia's Head of State and who therefore will have to officially represent Australia in dealings with our Pacific neighbours? Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course I am concerned about the damage that may flow from the leaking of documents involving, as they do, private expressions of opinion made in a particular context at particular times in the past. What appals me far more, however, is two things: First of all, the deliberate and public statements that have been made by a variety of spokesmen on the Opposition side, not in private, not in the context of particular events at particular times, but deliberate policy positions of a kind which can serve no other purpose than to inflame domestic prejudice and inflame a very adverse reaction overseas. Senator Stone —Humbug! Senator GARETH EVANS —To talk in the terms that Senator Stone did, to talk in the terms that Mr Sinclair did and to talk in the terms that Mr Howard did about the need to reduce the flow of Asian immigrants to this country, is to talk in terms which are deliberately and disgracefully offensive. To talk in terms which are bound by their very deliberate and public nature, is bound to excite a far more continuing degree of concern, anxiety and hostility towards this country than views expressed in private and in particular contexts by people who have no intention whatsoever of making those views public. I said that there was a second thing about this whole affair that appalled me and it is the utter failure of any Opposition spokesman and in particular Mr Spender, who to our lasting disbenefit is back in the country and pontificating again on these subjects, to express any degrees of distaste or any degree of concern about the leaking and the publication of this particular material. We have not heard an expression from anyone on the other side about the damage that may flow, not from the content of these remarks but from their illegal distribution, publication and leaking. It is that which does the damage, it is that which demonstrates the utter absence of any kind of commitment to basic principles on the other side. To condone or in fact to encourage such disclosures, which is the kind of language that we have been hearing from the other side in recent days, is of course to endanger the capacity of this Government or of any other government to pursue Australia's foreign relations in the national interest. The Government, by contrast, regards the leaking of any document of this kind as being very serious indeed. We do not accept the Spender dispensation that it is simply a very great pity that documents are leaked but that no responsibility attaches to those who do it. To put the issue in those terms in the way that it has been put by the Opposition demonstrates an utter and complete failure to have regard to the real nature of the issues involved in this case and the real nature of Australia's interests. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I will desist from commenting on the fact that the issue is not the leaking of the document but the comments on nationals of countries in our neighbourhood and the way this reflects the official Labor Government's view of them. I will ignore the McCarthyist portrayal that the Minister has put forward. I want to know whether the Minister is embarrassed by those statements which are now on the public record and how he is, as a future Foreign Minister, this month and next month going to deal with the governments of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia on his official visit? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will deal with them with a lot more charm and competence than the honourable senator would be able to manage, I can tell him. What I do say, as I said yesterday morning, is that other countries can be completely assured that Australia's foreign policy and Australia's attitude to its neighbours are exactly as has been articulated in definitive public statements by the Government. I refer again, as I did yesterday, to our complete commitment to the development of friendly and productive relations with all the countries of our region and our commitment to an independent foreign policy based on Australia's national interest. It is very well understood that that is the nature of our position and the nature of our true beliefs about our neighbours. I am sure that I will have no difficulty whatsoever in communicating that to our neighbours. Senator JONES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Bearing in mind the recent revelations of widespread and institutionalised corruption in Queensland, can the Minister inform the Senate how the passage of the referendum on fair and democratic elections on Saturday will provide more accountable government throughout Australia? Senator TATE —There is no doubt that if there is one political environment in which a government can grow complacent and corrupt itself or at least turn a blind eye to corruption in its officers-including those who have the special responsibility of law enforcement-it is when it has an arrogant assumption that, come what may, the general population of the State concerned can be ignored because of electoral arrangements which favour the party in power. There is no doubt that in Queensland one has had a situation grow up, over the last several decades, where a government has been able to ignore completely the wishes of the large mass of the people of the State concerned. Indeed, the fact is, as we know, that Mr Innes, the parliamentary Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, has pleaded with his Federal colleagues to support the second question to be put to the people next Saturday, in order that there indeed be a form of fair and democratic elections instituted in Queensland for the election of that State's Legislative Assembly. It is surprising really in that we know or suspect that many members on the Opposition side in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, when it comes to the privacy of the ballot box, will be voting yes in relation to that particular question. In doing so, they would be concurring in the plea of Mr Innes, the Leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party in Queensland who, in a press release dated 22 June, has pointed out: . . . the referendum on fair electoral boundaries to be held in September would give Queenslanders an opportunity to smash the gerrymander and ensure future governments were elected that represented all voters. He did that in the context of pointing out: Queensland's gerrymander had resulted in almost 75 per cent of the state's population having only one voice in Cabinet . . . Brisbane, with 50 per cent of the state's population, had only one junior minister . . . No Cabinet ministers represented . . . major provincial cities of Ipswich, Townsville, Toowoomba, Rockhampton, Cairns, Bundaberg, Mackay, Gladstone, Maryborough, and Mount Isa. That is the sort of situation which has evolved in Queensland, and which allowed Mr Russ Hinze to give the game away only a few days ago when he went to the heart of the matter and said that the boundaries are rigged in Queensland and all that one needed was to get a National Party tag in some of the smaller, more remote electorates and one was in, I think he said, forever and a day. That has allowed the institutionalised corruption which is being revealed day by day in the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct to prosper because the Queensland Government has felt no need to be accountable to the whole electorate. It is no good trying to hide behind States rights tags in relation to question No. 2. Mr Innes has already blown that argument out of the water, as have some of the more courageous Liberal Party members of the House of Representatives who have refused to support their Party's position on this question. The passage of the referendum to ensure that when Australians vote for members of parliament they have their vote valued in the same way as every other person voting in that election will appeal to the sense of fairness in the Australian community in general. It is interesting that in a small survey taken of 3,000 year 11 and year 12 students in Tasmania recently, those students supported question No. 2. They gave it an affirmative vote. That shows that certainly in Tasmania there will be plenty of support for this proposition, as there will be across the whole of Australia. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to the calm and rational approach of the Papua New Guinea Government earlier this year when elements of the Indonesian army crossed into the west Sepik area of PNG in pursuit of alleged OPM forces, and to the reported six or seven other Indonesian military crossings this year. Does that not indicate a greater maturity in PNG politics than Mr Hayden gave it credit for when, in not dissimilar circumstances, he said in 1984-we now learn-when the current PNG Prime Minister was the Foreign Minister: My worry is that the Papua New Guineans are likely to be faced down in their rather clumsy bluff, and that given their limited maturity and experience in such matters, might proceed with more bluster and bluff, getting deeper and deeper into a quagmire of confusion and incompetence. I ask: Does not the Government realise that a more respectful, less patronising attitude towards PNG is in Australia's national interest? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is nothing patronising, disrespectful or in any other way misconceived about Australia's attitude, public and private, as both held and communicated to the Papua New Guinea Government. Remarks alleged to have been made by Mr Hayden at an earlier time have to be seen in the context of the particular time, situation and occurrence in respect of which they were made, and also against the background of appreciating that they were not in any way intended for a wider audience. Under those circumstances the sort of indignation that Senator Hill is demonstrating on this occasion is synthetic in the extreme and unworthy of someone of his intelligence and integrity. Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen copies of a letter and pamphlet distributed in the name of the Queensland Premier, Mr Ahern, and paid for by the Queensland Government as part of the Queensland National Party's campaign against the referendum question for fair and democratic elections? Will the Minister ask the Treasurer to reduce Queensland's financial assistance grants by an amount equal to the cost of this print campaign, as he has done in respect of the Queensland Government's television campaign against the referendum question on fair and democratic elections? Can the Minister advise how such a political campaign should be funded? Senator WALSH —I have seen the pamphlet. Indeed, I have a copy here. It is coloured and is on good quality paper. I do not know what it cost, but it must have cost Queensland taxpayers a packet. Indirectly, it cost Commonwealth taxpayers a packet because Queensland gets so much of its revenue from the Commonwealth Government. I also have a copy of the letter from Mr Ahern which is signed by him but is not authorised and, therefore, is probably in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It obviously would have involved quite a lot of additional expenditure to have that letter posted out, in envelopes, postage and the time to prepare it. The pamphlet would obviously involve some distribution costs as well. That expenditure is additional to the $750,000 or $800,000 which the Queensland Minister for Finance has admitted has been spent on the television campaign. Every time Queenslanders see one of those Queensland Government financed pieces of propaganda urging a no vote in the referendum, that is $2,000 that is not going to be spent on roads, hospitals, bridges or education in Queensland. It is $2,000 taken away from those things every time Queenslanders see that bit of political propaganda, funded by taxpayers' money and put to air by the Queensland National Party Government in order to protect and preserve, it hopes, the corrupt electoral system which has produced the sort of political and legal outcome which is a matter of almost daily scandal at the Fitzgerald Royal Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. Queensland is a State governed by a corrupt police force, the League of Rights and a few members of the white shoe brigade, which has been festering for 31 years leading to the sort of corrupt administration that has finally been exposed in the Fitzgerald Royal Commission and which is finally being flushed out. I was asked how political campaigns should be financed and run. I have an example: a full page advertisement from yesterday's Courier-Mail. It is a bit hard to recognise the picture but it is actually a reproduction of Russ Hinze's face-or is supposed to be. It is a pretty rough reproduction, but the words certainly are Russ Hinze's. The advertisement says: I've carried the National Party, unlike some of the seats in Queensland that are rigged . . . to the extent that the boundaries . . . all you have to do is get the National Party tag and you can win it for ever and a day. That was broadcast on Australian Broadcasting Corporation news on 22 August. That, of course, is an Australian Labor Party advertisement. Senator Button —Senator Stone is laughing at this answer. He does not think it is serious. He is totally cynical. Senator WALSH —He is laughing, is he? I do not suppose that he is the author of this advertisement? But that is proper political advertising. It is authorised by Wayne Swan of the Australian Labor Party and it is paid for by Labor Party funds, not by taxpayers' funds. Senator COLSTON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I refer the Minister to that part of my question which asked whether he would ask the Treasurer to reduce Queensland's financial assistance grants by an amount equal to the cost of this print campaign, as he has done in respect of the Queensland Government's television campaign against the referendum on fair and democratic elections. Senator WALSH —I must apologise to Senator Colston for having failed to answer that part of the question. I will of course ask the Treasurer to examine this question of whether Queensland should have a further fine for squandering another few hundred thousand dollars, or a few million or whatever it is, of taxpayers' money by quite improperly distributing this pamphlet. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Rt Hon. Lord Young of Graffam. On behalf of all senators I extend to him a warm welcome to Australia and to Canberra in particular. I trust that he enjoys his visit. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator MACKLIN —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware that in spite of the nine-year tenure provided to service station operators by the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchising Act, oil companies are presently forcing lessees to forgo the 12-month balance of their present tenure as the price of issue of new leases? Does the Minister agree that this action by the oil companies is unfair and inconsistent with the spirit of the Act? If so, has he put this view to the oil companies? Does the Minister agree that the processes being engaged in by the oil companies are against the interests of service station operators, their employees and their families? If he does, what action does he intend to take on the matter? Senator BUTTON —I am certainly aware of the allegations to this effect contained in the honourable senator's question. However, it has always been accepted that oil companies should be under no further obligation to those dealers whose franchise agreements expire after the full nine-year term granted under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act. To remove business uncertainty for selected dealers, I understand that certain companies are offering new agreements before the expiry of the old ones with a pro rata adjustment to the new franchise fees. Such offers, or the payment of any franchise fees involved, are not in themselves contrary to the spirit of the legislation. I think Senator Macklin will be aware that the Trade Practices Commission is due to complete its study into petrol pricing next month. We will be watching the outcome of this study with interest, as pricing and the issues raised are no doubt interrelated. However, representations have been made to the Government, consistent with the allegations in Senator Macklin's question, by dealers who consider some of the terms being offered by certain oil companies in their new franchise agreements to be onerous and contrary to both the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act and the Trade Practices Act and are considering legal challenges to their validity. The Government's parliamentary legal and administrative committee is monitoring this situation. I consider, and I am sure that Senator Macklin would agree, that such issues should essentially be a matter for commercial judgment and negotiation between the parties involved. However, if as a result of investigation there is clear evidence that a franchise agreement is unfair or unconscionable, or bullying tactics are being applied by oil companies, I certainly will be prepared to intervene on the dealers' behalf and seek explanation from the oil companies concerned regarding their intentions. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister for Justice seen claims by the Victorian Federal member of parliament, Mr David Hawker, in the Naracoorte Herald of South Australia that the Commonwealth Government is `conning local councils' on referendum question No. 3? What is the Minister's response to this claim? Senator Robert Ray —It is a thinking man's newspaper. Senator MAGUIRE —It is indeed. Is it the case that Mr Jeff Kennett, the Liberal Leader in Victoria, is supporting the referendum to recognise local government in the Constitution, contrary to the position of Mr Hawker, the Federal Liberal Party and Mr Howard? Is the Government united on the referenda, in contrast to the position of the Opposition? Senator TATE —I have not had the pleasure of reading yesterday's copy of the Naracoorte Herald, or whatever it is, but I must say that what is attributed to Mr Hawker is precisely in line with the misinformation and the misleading scaremongering that has occurred in relation to all the referendum questions as far as many of the Opposition members are concerned, with a few honourable exceptions. In relation to question No. 3, dealing with the recognition of the existence of local government as an important third sphere of our good, working democracy in Australia, the distortion of a very simple proposal has been profound. The remarks attributed to Mr Hawker are, as I say, in line with the misinformation campaign which has been put around, much to the dismay of those who, over decades, have sought to give to this third sphere of government, close to the people, its rightful place in the Australian Constitution, the basic document of our democracy. As Senator Maguire hinted at in his question, it is by no means the case that the Opposition is united in this matter. Some of its members have been unable to go along with the campaign of misinformation. I have in my notes a letter circulated by Mr Ian Wilson, the Federal member for Sturt, an Adelaide electorate, who quite properly, in circulating his views to the members of his electorate, advocated a Yes vote on this question. A tribute is due to Mr Wilson for so doing. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator TATE —Apparently, honourable senators opposite find it distasteful that one of their colleagues should break ranks in this way. But Mr Wilson is not alone amongst members of the Liberal Party in advocating a Yes vote. What has captured the imagination of many Australians is the fact that the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, has gone on the record time and time again advocating a Yes vote. When somebody such as Sallyanne Atkinson advocates a Yes vote around Australia there is a very good chance that this question will be carried. Of course, it will not be carried if the misinformation campaign put around by the Opposition is allowed to go unchallenged. That is why the Australian Local Government Association, in a letter written by its director to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, on 25 August, has spoken about Mr Reith's characterisation of the local government question as containing blatant lies which would do an enormous amount of damage to the Liberal Party's credibility with local government, both in the short and the long term. When the leading spokesman for the Opposition during this referendum campaign tells blatant lies about this proposal I am sure that, because they are blatant, they will be seen through and the general public will endorse the proposal. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade designate and Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. What is the Government going to do about the fact that no government in South East Asia and the Pacific will ever again believe the publicly expressed opinion of the Hawke Government towards the countries of the region now that they know the derogatory opinions held by the former Foreign Minister and put in writing by him to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept the premise on which the question was founded. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, there is nothing in the Government's clear policy of commitment to close relations with the countries of our region which is qualified in any way by the publication of alleged private comments by the former Foreign Minister. This Government has focused policy on our region, as no previous government ever did, in terms of attention, resources and ministerial interest. Those actions will speak louder than any privately communicated words made in the context of a particular situation, a particular time and a particular place. I have made it clear, and will make it clear in the future-as the Prime Minister already has and other spokesmen have-that the countries of our region can be completely assured that Australia's foreign policy remains committed to exactly the same objectives as have been applied by this Government since 1983. It has been articulated on innumerable occasions in the definitive statements made by the Prime Minister and senior Ministers. It is these statements which define the Government's policy. It is these statements developed by Ministers and officials which weigh up the various factors which bear upon our national interest. In the formulation, consideration and development of foreign policy it is obviously proper for opinions to be expressed privately. That happens in every county of the world, every country of the region, and there will undoubtedly be some understanding of that. It is the people involved in the public disclosure of that material, the people who gave aid, comfort, nourishment and support, of the kind that we have seen from the Opposition benches, for sordid and squalid political reasons in the last couple of days who put at risk Australia's foreign relations and the national interest. I repeat that to in any way condone or encourage that kind of behaviour, those kinds of disclosures, is to endanger the capacity of this Government or of any other government to pursue the national interest internationally. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It follows the categorisation of advice from the former Foreign Minister to his Department as private comments. I ask the Minister: Is he suggesting that those comments were made otherwise than in the former Minister's ministerial capacity to his Department? I ask: Has he or the Government formally repudiated all of the views which have been so expressed? If the Government has done that, how are our Asian neighbours supposed to know that any such public repudiation is not simply overlying the same private stereotyping that is obvious from these remarks? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not want to add to my previous answer. Senator COONEY —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether he has had occasion to note the letter in this morning's Age from the Secretary of the Buddhist Council of Victoria, headed `Discrimination on religious grounds is widespread here'. While I do not intend to read all of it, the letter contains the following passages: Churchmen urging us to vote No have assured us that the existing legal freedom of religion is quite adequate. The letter then goes on: After talking with Buddhist and Islamic leaders in many cities, a clear picture emerges. Religious discrimination is widespread throughout Australia and the victims of it have almost no legal opportunity to counteract it. The letter then goes on to talk about the difficulties that South East Asian refugees have. The last sentence says: For Moslems the situation is worse. Has the Minister noted the letter and, if so, is there anything that this Government or the people of Australia can do about that situation? Senator TATE —Unfortunately in the rush of ministerial duties this morning I have read neither the Age nor the Naracoorte Herald, so I have not had an opportunity to read the letter from the Secretary of the Buddhist Council of Victoria. Nevertheless, the sentiments he there expresses and the genuine apprehension he has about the place of the adherents of minority religious beliefs in Australia is something we ought to take account of. In particular, when we have the responsibility, and indeed the privilege, of dealing with the fundamental democratic document, the Constitution, which Australians will be asked to amend on 3 September, next Saturday, we ought to take the opportunity to ensure that, although at the moment we are living in a relatively calm and tolerant time in our Australian society, in the next decade and into the next century, and thereby into the next millennium, we have a fundamental political structure guaranteed in our Constitution which ensures that the adherents of minority religions have the same practical effective opportunity to exercise their religious beliefs freely as do those who now find themselves in a majority in that regard. I also refer to those who do not adhere to any religious belief. The High Court of Australia has consistently said in relation to the present provision in the Constitution that that is its precise role in our society. That is why it has been so important, certainly as a guarantee against the use of Commonwealth parliamentary power to enforce any particular point of view, to impose any political or religious observance, or to interfere with the free practice of religion by any group in Australia. We know that the State parliaments, nevertheless, are not bound to observe the inherent human dignity of Australians who come within State jurisdictions in this regard. We know that the common law is an inadequate protection against State parliaments and governments who would interfere with this freedom, perhaps not this week, perhaps not this year, though what the Secretary of the Buddhist Council of Victoria points to is certain activity which may have the colouring of discrimination against those minority religions. The present Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Anthony Mason, in an address to a lawyers conference recently said that the common law is not the invincible safeguard of our rights that it was once thought to be. If we can entrench this important right in our Constitution against State and Territory parliaments and governments, as it is at the moment against the Commonwealth Parliament, we will be doing much to set a framework within which Australia can, I hope, retain its reputation as a tolerant society. When one hears the warning bells that have been sounded over the last few weeks in relation to the racist question, the question of minority ethnic groups, one cannot have the same confidence one may have had several months ago about the place of minority groups in our society. When added to an ethnic or racial minority status is adherence to a religion which is unfamiliar to the great majority of Australians, then one has the possibility of discrimination being practised. In that situation, if we can next Saturday as an Australian nation guarantee to all persons in Australia that their freedom to practice their religion will not be interfered with by governments and parliaments, now or in the future, we will be doing a great service to this nation. Senator SHEIL —My question without notice is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Will the Minister apologise for his scandalous personal attack on me at the last Senate sittings, when he described me as, amongst other things, despicable, contemptible, inaccurate, irresponsible, near hysterical, erroneous, reckless, cruel and even ghoulish, because I said radar was desperately needed at Coolangatta Airport, scene of a fatal mid-air collision in May of this year? The Minister denied that there was any need for radar or that there were any safety problems at all at Coolangatta. Subsequently, and I produce newspaper cuttings to prove it, the nation's air pilots and air traffic controllers threatened Australia-wide industrial action unless radar was installed at Coolangatta as soon as humanly possible. There have been several close shaves at Coolangatta since the last Senate sittings, including an incident which made the front page of the Gold Coast Bulletin of 24 August 1988. Will the Minister now admit he was wrong and retract the comments he made about me? I seek leave to table the bundle of press clippings about near misses. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —The allegations that generated that invective were, of course, that I had been somehow personally responsible for causing not only the tragic crash that occurred over Coolangatta but also a series of crashes that were said to be imminent as a result of my own neglect. That, combined with a series of other extravagant allegations about my failure to visit at the particular time and place and in the circumstances that Senator Sheil thought were appropriate, amply justified the response and the very large bucket that I endeavoured to tip over him on that occasion obviously with some degree of success because the wounds are still hurting. I did not for a moment deny that the question of a radar system for Coolangatta was something that properly should command the urgent attention of the Government and the new Civil Aviation Authority. That has happened and it has been announced, as Senator Sheil said, that there will been an accelerated program for the supply and installation of both primary and secondary radar systems. What I was concerned to respond to was the suggestion that the absence of radar was itself some kind of direct and immediate cause of the crash that occurred. What was involved in the circumstances of that crash was a visual observation arrangement for circuit training for the aircraft in question, as I recall, which procedures are followed at every comparable airport in the country. It was a tragedy that that accident occurred but it was not something that could be attributed in any direct or immediate way to the absence of radar and certainly not to my personal neglect. So if Senator Sheil does not like that, he can lump it. Senator GILES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware of the difficulty being experienced by Mrs Sheila Suttner in obtaining a South African visa which she requires urgently on compassionate grounds? Mrs Suttner's need to visit South Africa is to be close to her son Raymond, still in gaol after two years under emergency powers, and to be with her daughter Sally, both of whom are suffering from stress induced ill health. Senator GARETH EVANS —The situation is that Raymond Suttner, a South African law lecturer, has been detained without charge or trial by Senator Sheil's friends in South Africa since the state of emergency proclamation in mid-1986. As the sole white political detainee, he has effectively been segregated in solitary confinement for most of his two-year imprisonment. Not surprisingly, his health has markedly declined, particularly in recent months. The Australian Government has taken and continues to take a close interest in Suttner's case, not least because his mother is an Australian citizen. Due to Raymond Suttner's deteriorating medical condition, Mrs Suttner recently made a visa application to the South African Embassy in order to visit him in South Africa. Her daughter is also reportedly to be suffering from a stress-related illness. The latest advice to Mrs Suttner from the South African Embassy is that visa issue could take up to three months. The Australian Government recognises and respects that visa issue is a matter relating to the sovereignty of governments but, clearly, there are overriding humanitarian considerations that are quite specific to this case. Let me simply express the hope that South African authorities will view Mrs Suttner's visa application in a favourable light. Senator PETER BAUME —My question, which is directed to the Foreign Minister designate, representing the Minister with caretaker responsibilities for Foreign Affairs and Trade, concerns his explanations about remarks apparently made by Mr Hayden when that person was Foreign Minister. The Minister has made some play in his responses about particular words being used at particular times in a particular place. I ask the Minister whether he is suggesting that there was ever a time when such words would have been acceptable or appropriate comments by a Foreign Minister. Will he now make it clear to the Parliament and, through the Parliament, to our neighbours, that the words did not ever represent the views of the Australian Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I have already said, all I have been suggesting is that in the formulation and consideration of the development of foreign policy it is quite proper for opinions to be expressed privately, and to be unable to have the fullest and frankest exchanges between Ministers and officials would circumscribe policy-making in an unacceptable way. If the statements that are alleged to have been made by Mr Hayden were generalised expressions of a prevailing ministerial or government view about the countries in question, obviously I would wish to say that those views are not shared in that way by this particular Government and I have indicated already that we have put innumerable statements on the public record articulating our view of those countries and our relationships with those countries. The point is that things are said and done in the heat of the moment, particularly in what are believed to be private exchanges, which one would be most unhappy to see in the public domain; that happens in all our private relationships, as I imagine some of the more sensitive members of the Opposition, like Senator Baume, would well appreciate. What hurts on these occasions and what leads the Government to make the kind of response it has, with police investigations and High Court of Australia injunctions and so on, is not so much the fact of opinions like this being expressed at particular times in particular places and in particular contexts. What hurts is the leaks, the disclosures and the publicity attached to them, and it is that which ought to be attracting the condemnation of the Opposition, rather than the flow of crocodile tears we are seeing from people who, by their deliberate public statements in recent weeks, have done more deliberately to affect the course of Australia's relationships with other countries than anything that Mr Hayden may have done in the course of his illustrious career. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories aware of a report in the Adelaide Advertiser of 30 August 1988 entitled `Triumphant return of disabled ath- letes', showing athletes proudly displaying gold medals-bronze and silver, for that matter-won at the Westfield Bicentennial Games for athletes with disabilities? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the Government's involvement in these games and, further, outline the extent of government commitment to providing equitable access to sport and recreation opportunities for people with disabilities? Senator RICHARDSON —I am asked about the Westfield challenge which took place a few weeks ago for people with dis- abilities. In fact, I think this is the first time for some years that a question has been asked in the Senate about help for people with disabilities and probably that is overdue. Senator Crowley has had a long term interest and I congratulate her for that. The first Westfield challenge was held in 1985, when the Government made a grant of $150,000, as a seeding grant, for the first games. Senator Hill —If you can talk for 15 minutes it will help Gareth. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Hill may have no interest at all in sport for the disabled, but I do, honourable senators on this side of the chamber do, and I will take some time to answer the question. Three hundred and seventy athletes took part in those games in the following sports: swimming, track and field, weight lifting, power lifting, archery and table tennis. The Westfield challenge, which was held in Sydney over three days just a few weeks ago, brought together 400 athletes from six disability groups and I thought it was a tremendous example of what State and Commonwealth cooperation can do with the private sector in an area of great need. From that beginning in 1985 we have seen tremendous growth in the last three years. Let us look at the benefits that it can bring. Obviously, it can heighten the awareness of us all to the athletic potential of people with disabilities, and that is important. Obviously, it can offer encouragement to more disabled people to participate and that, I would suggest, is extremely important. Lastly, it is the provision of a much needed opportunity for competition at a higher level for those athletes who seek to take part. Obviously, that is in line with general government policy, but in view of the particular disabilities that these people suffer, I think it is especially important. All those who took part in the games themselves and those who helped to organise the challenge deserve our congratulations. I hope that we shall provide equality of access in sport over the next few years. In that area this Government has gone much further than those opposite ever did when they were in government. In fact, in the last year of the Liberal-National Party Government less than $200,000 was spent on sport for the disabled. This year, our grant of $900,000 is way up on our first grant of $456,000, and has more than doubled what the previous Government ever attempted-and that is only in one area of disabled sport. The money that we give to those organisations and what we do in the coaching area and a whole range of other areas represents a figure getting up towards $2m. That is a Hawke Labor Government initiative. No-one on the other side of the Senate ever thought about doing that, let alone actually doing it. All I can say is that the Government is proud of its record in that respect. It is delighted that the Westfield challenge has been such a success and we shall continue to fund those sorts of endeavours. Senator TAMBLING —The Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs would be aware of my comments in the Senate last week relating to the participation by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in a special Aboriginal festival at Barunga in June where a serious religious and cultural infringement of Aboriginal sacred ceremony and law took place. I ask the Minister: Why has the Government not responded with priority to the special requests in July and August by the Aboriginal cultural law leaders of northern Australia for funding of a meeting of traditional leaders to settle the implications of the infringement despite, I understand, favourable recommendations from the Darwin office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I further ask: Is the withholding of funds hypocritical in light of question four to be asked at Saturday's referendum and an indication of the Government's favouritism to the cultural unity policies being pushed by the land councils and radical urban Aboriginal organisations and a lack of commitment by this Government to Aboriginal traditional ceremony and cultural law? Senator TATE —I will refer the first part of the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Gerry Hand. As far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I reiterate that the purpose and intention of the passage of this referendum proposal is to ensure that the adherents of minority religions, including those who maintain the practices and beliefs of the earliest indigenous inhabitants of Australia, are respected and in no way subject to interference by governments. I would have thought that, in the light of the concern expressed by Senator Tambling, that policy, which we are putting forward to bind State and Territory parliaments and governments in the same way as the Commonwealth Parliament is bound at the moment, would have appealed to the honourable senator. Senator TAMBLING —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of the considerable press comment and the fact that I raised this matter last Tuesday in this place, why is the Minister unable to comment on the particular request by the traditional cultural leaders for funding and why does he now have to refer it to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to see whether funding can be made available? Senator TATE —Not only have I not read the Naracoorte Herald, but I must confess that I have not read the Hansard passages in which Senator Tambling raised this issue last week, and I have no further comment to make. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister seen an article which appeared under the name of Senator John Stone in this morning's Australian? Does the article contain endorsement of the Government's fiscal strategy and encapsulate the argument for not providing generous cuts in personal income tax this year? What will be the difference in the Government's fiscal position next year to enable it to provide significant tax cuts? Senator WALSH —I did see an article in the Australian published under Senator Stone's name. Given the Daily Mail experience, where an article published under Senator Stone's name was in fact ghosted by some Murdoch hack, I suppose we cannot be sure that this article was actually written by Senator Stone. However, in this case I think that it was written by Senator Stone. I will not quote too extensively from the article but he refers, among other things, to an interview which Laurie Oakes had with the Prime Minister on the Sunday program of 20 August. The article quotes a couple of paragraphs from the Prime Minister in which he spells out the reasons why the Government had made the judgment that it would not be responsible to give major tax cuts in this financial year. Senator Stone then states in the article: Now I don't always praise Mr Hawke's economic analysis but this time he is spot on. Senator Stone says `this time he is spot on'. In doing that he flatly repudiates what the Leader of the Opposition has been mouthing, that is, that we must have tax cuts now-tax cuts right now. Senator Richardson —Senator Stone's will usually prevails. Senator WALSH —Yes; I have noticed that indubitably Senator Stone's will prevails in the end. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. As well, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on 18 August: The need for tax cuts in sheer economic terms for people to be able to cope is very real and ought to be addressed in the Budget next week. So Senator Stone repudiates both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and he is quite correct to do so. On 17 August the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also said: I can give an undertaking, as you will see when we release our tax policy, to give significant tax cuts, and I can use a figure to get it into context. If you were seeking to get back to household income . . . He then went on to say that there had to be a tax cut of $56 a week for people on average weekly earnings. Since only average weekly earnings have been cited, it is not possible to calculate with any precision the total cost of such a tax cut. However, on the assumption of $56 a week for people on average weekly earnings and the same proportion for people on other incomes, My hunch-and I have not calculated this-is that the cost of such tax cuts would be something in excess of $12 billion. That is the revenue that would be forgone to provide tax cuts of that size. Mr Peacock is running around saying that there should be tax cuts of this magnitude right now, but Senator Stone has repudiated that. Of course, Senator Stone is absolutely right in repudiating him. As Mr Peacock said, he-that is, Mr Peacock-is not an accountant and he does not believe in bringing an accountant's approach to bear on the subject of public expenditure. As I said the other day, who needs an accountant when a bottle of snake oil will do? That is the attitude displayed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This is the sort of nonsense that is pouring out of the mouth of the Leaders of the Opposition, and it continues a tradition which began some years ago. For example, in April 1987 Mr Howard said: We have a policy on tax, the only thing that's missing is the numbers. That is the Andrew Peacock approach to expenditure applied to taxation: you have a tax policy but you do not know what the numbers are. Again, who needs to be able to count when a bit of snake oil will do? To be completely fair to Senator Stone's article, I should mention that he was critical of the Government on certain grounds. He argued that, while the Government was absolutely correct to do what it has done in the recent Budget-repudiating both the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the process-it would not be responsible to give significant tax cuts in the next financial year. Senator Stone —In the absence of expenditure cuts. Senator WALSH —Okay, in the absence of expenditure cuts. I look forward, but I do not intend to hold my breath while doing so, to receiving a detailed list from Senator Stone or from Mr Peacock of the expenditure cuts that they propose should be made in the next Budget. Next year there will be two very significant changes. Firstly, there will be further real declines in public expenditure and about another full percentage point decline in public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). Next year on present expectations public expenditure will fall to around 24.5 per cent of GDP, which is down to very close to the level of the late 1960s and, of course, it is massively below the level of public expenditure in any of the seven years of the Fraser-Howard reign. The notional surplus which will be available to fund tax cuts- Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: Ministers give answers of unlimited length during Question Time, and that is obvious, but the Minister for Finance seems to be going for a record. I would ask you to call him to order to enable further questions to be asked. The PRESIDENT —It is a very long answer and I would ask the Minister for Finance to conclude. Senator WALSH —I apologise, Mr President. I will round off very quickly. There are two points: firstly, the notional surplus which will be available next financial year to fund tax cuts will be very much larger than this year's surplus; and, secondly, it is explicit in the national wage case handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission case last month that tax cuts will be an important determinant-if not the most important-of wage case decisions next year and therefore of wages outcomes. Senator ARCHER —This will probably be the last occasion on which I will be able to ask a question of the Minister for Transport and Communications in his current capacity. After eight years of establishment and with a sixth Minister coming up, and after constant representations having been made, can the Minister issue the licence for the coastal community FM radio station at Wynyard in Tasmania before he vacates this portfolio and before the operators have to start all over again? Is there any facet of their operation that remains unfulfilled? Are there any problems with the operators or with the Department that are holding up the issue of the licence, which is so eagerly awaited by many thousands of people in north-western Tasmania? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would love to go out in a blaze of glory in Senator Archer's estimation, but I am afraid that the issue is a little bit more complicated than that, as I hope I made clear in a letter that I sent him just a couple of days ago. I am aware that a Wynyard based group has an active interest, and has had one for a long time, in establishing a public radio service for north-western Tasmania. This group, known for many years as Christian FM Broadcasters, proposed to provide a special interest Christian radio service. However, the public radio planning guidelines state that the first public licence in a regional area shall not be for a special interest group but will be a community licence and that a second public licence, which shall not normally be invited for at least two years after the first community licence, may be a special interest licence or, alternatively another community licence. These guidelines have been effectively operating since about 1978 and have had bipartisan support, and they are strongly supported by the industry representative body, that is, the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia. Earlier this year in Queensland the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal refused the grant of a community licence to what was in essence a special interest group, a Christian applicant, on the ground that the group, so narrowly focused, was not suitable to hold a community licence. To return to Wynyard, subsequently the Christian FM Broadcasters amended its constitution and proposal to reflect the need to become more broadly based. This change by Christian FM Broadcasters has removed concern that its application for a community licence ought not be invited on the ground that the proposal would not be appropriate for community service. So far so good. But a second issue which has to be addressed is the fact that there are now two groups proposing to provide a community radio service. The other group is based in Burnie and is seeking to serve substantially the same area as that proposed by Christian FM Broadcasters. Although my Department has in the past advised both groups that it will be recommending that two community licences be invited to the same area, the planning guidelines, as I have indicated, state that only one licence should be invited. The approach is to provide for a logical phased development of new services. It needs to be borne in mind that at some stage in the near future-the year is yet to be specified-a commercial FM licence will come to the north-west of Tasmania. Competition for revenue from the local market between commercial AM and FM stations, as well as a community station, is likely to be intense and the area is not one, as the Senate knows, regrettably, of rapid economic development. It is, therefore, not appropriate at this stage to be contemplating more than one community licence for the area. My office has had extensive consultation with both the Wynyard and Burnie groups in recent months, as Senator Archer is acknowledging, attempting to get the groups to join together. If both are genuine community broadcasters, this, in all the circumstances, would seem the obvious and sensible thing to do. The alternative is for the groups to enter into an adversarial contest before the ABT as to which group should be awarded the licence. I conclude my swan song by asking Senator Archer to use his good office to encourage the groups to combine. Whatever the outcome, I can say, to put the matter beyond doubt, that applications will be invited for a community radio service to cover the north-west Tasmania area no later than October. The only question is whether the two of them will fight it out or whether they can agree to go in as one. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. During his response to a dorothy dixer in Question Time dealing with an article written by me in this morning's Australian, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) asserted that in my article I was rebutting the views stated by, among others, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as to the capacity of this Government to provide tax cuts in the present Budget. In the course of putting that view Senator Walsh appears-I presume inadvertently; I will give him the benefit of the doubt-to have overlooked the fact that in not one but two separate points in my article I linked quite clearly the provision of tax cuts with the provision of accompanying expenditure cuts. I will quote the passages in question from the article as they illustrate the point I have just made. The first occurs where I say: For another-and in the absence of accompanying spending cuts-there is a growing question whether . . . the Treasurer's promised major tax cuts can really be (responsibly) delivered next July. The second quote is as follows: Any real tax cut in 1989-90- That is, next financial year- (unaccompanied by more less equivalent cuts in government spending) must result in a sharp reduction in the Budget surplus. Even by the Minister for Finance's standards, the misrepresentation contained in his statement to the Senate this afternoon that in that article I was rebutting the view of the Leader of the Opposition is more than usually gross. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I claim to have misrepresented and wish to make a personal explanation. Yesterday in the House of Representatives the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen)-after correctly noting that I was well known-falsely claimed that I had written letters to councils supporting the proposal for the recognition of local government to be decided at next Saturday's referendum. This is absolutely false and is the latest of a long list of dirty tricks the Government has used in its dishonest referendum campaign. My letters of support for appropriate constitutional recognition of local government followed submissions to me from several councils that sought the kind of recognition that would protect their position in four key matters. These submissions were also made to the Hawke Government and to the Constitutional Commission. As stated in the letter from the Wollongong City Council to me these matters of concern are: 1. The ability of the State Government to dismiss a properly elected Council, without public enquiry and without the views of the Council or the electors being heard. 2. The denial of any right of appeal for a dismissed Council or any avenue to seek to question the State Government's grounds for dismissal. 3. The statutory vesting of powers in the State Government in relation to matters of local zoning, rezonings, certain development applications and the removal of all planning functions despite the position occupied by Local Government as the most responsive to and most aware of local public opinion. 4. The setting by the State Government of maximum permissible annual rate increases which can severely inhibit the revenue raising ability of Councils to meet day to day expenditure on local works and services. The Hawke Government rejected each one of these four points with the result that the proposal to be put in Saturday's referendum contains not one of the key issues councils wrote to me about, which, of course, were the issues that prompted me to write a letter of general support to the councils. It is, therefore, patently dishonest for Mr Bowen or anyone else to pretend that my support for meaningful recognition of local government means that I support the present farcical proposal that does not meet even one of the council's main objectives. Mr Bowen's deception in this matter is yet another act of desperation to get these crooked proposals through. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.08) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) from making a statement relating to the Government's Offsets Program. I waited for Senator Button to make a statement at the conclusion of Question Time, but he did not do so. I feel I have an absolute obligation to industry to call upon Senator Button to clarify the confusion which he has created about this entire program. Let me explain. In the Senate during the Appropriation debate of 19 November last year, Senator Button said that he would make a statement about the partnership for development agreements in due course. Again, on Tuesday, 30 August this year, the Minister in response to a question of mine said: I shall try to put together a statement relating to the details. It appears that the Minister today will not be making that statement in the Senate and that the Senate and the Australian people will have to wait until the end of next month-it will be nearly four weeks before we sit again-or, if he does not bother to make it then, they may have to wait until October or November, or even some future stage, for him to make a statement about this matter. This is a matter of great importance. It involves multi-million dollar agreements, apparently entered into between multinational companies and this Government, agreements which the Minister told us yesterday are not contractual arrangements. He said that they are some other form of agreement. As a lawyer, I do not know what is an agreement which is not a contractual arrangement. Even an agreement which is not in writing, once consideration passes, becomes a contract. These agreements are, in fact, in writing. The Minister has made a statement, to the Estimates committees, in press releases or in the Senate to the effect that an agreement has been executed. Yet the day before yesterday, in this Parliament, the Minister said that there are no binding commercial contracts and that 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. If that is an agreement in writing and if it is binding on these people and on the Government, the people of Australia are entitled to know what are the terms and whether it can be broken. After all, we are dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts has already pointed to the opportunities that exist in the offsets program for corruption. I am not accusing anyone in Australia of being involved in corruption, but the opportunities are enormous. We know that in the United States of America, in regard to the Lockheed Company, for example, in its arrangements and dealings with Japan, there was massive corruption. Here there are opportunities which abound. This involves megabucks. We are not talking about one million dollars or half a million dollars. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars, and indeed of hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe that the people of Australia are entitled to know whether these agreements are in writing or not, whether they can be broken on notice, and what are their terms and conditions. The second point I wish to make relates to the absolute confusion which the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has created in the minds of those of us who have tried to apply our minds to what the Minister has been saying about these agreements as to what on earth are their terms and conditions. Yesterday, the Minister added to the confusion about the nature and content of these agreements by making statements which conflict with earlier statements. Previously he had made statements which conflicted with even earlier statements. One has to ask Senator Button whether he really knows what these agreements are all about. Having heard what he has said in this chamber about these matters, one suspects that he has not really grasped the nature of the agreements which he is executing on behalf of the people of Australia. Let me elaborate. I ask the Minister: Is the export performance requirement of the partnership agreements a simple 50 per cent export-import ratio, as the Minister told Estimates Committee A on 12 April 1988, and also in a Press release dated 7 April 1988? Secondly, is it a requirement for Australian value added exports to be equal to 50 per cent of imports, as the Minister admitted to Estimates Committee A later on 19 April 1988, when subjected to questioning by my colleague Senator Alston? Thirdly, is it a requirement for the average Australian content of exports to exceed 70 per cent over the range of export activities, as the Minister told the Senate last Tuesday. Let me explain what those three propositions mean in the sort of language used by ordinary people. In regard to a simple 50 per cent export-import ratio, I gave the Minister an example the other day when I referred to somebody importing $1 million worth of goods, re-exporting the same goods and then re-importing the same million dollars worth of goods. In that way the person concerned has achieved a 50 per cent export-import ratio. The PRESIDENT —Order! I point out to Senator Lewis that he is speaking on the motion as to why Standing Orders should be suspended. The Senate is being treated to a whole debate in a contribution as to why Standing Orders should be suspended. Senator LEWIS —Yes, Mr President, because it is vital that the Minister gives the answers to these questions. I can go on to explain that the second alternative adopted by the Minister was a situation where one imports, say, $2m worth of goods and exports $1m worth of goods, 50 per cent in Australian value added goods. That was another explanation given by the Minister. Finally, we had the Minister's third explanation yesterday when he said, `No, that is not right. One imports goods worth $2m; one has then to export $1m worth of goods: and, of those exports, some 70 per cent of the goods has to be Australian value added. That means one has 70 per cent of 50 per cent as Australian value added'. This is a matter of vital importance which the Minister should explain to the Senate. The people of Australia should not have to wait until October or November-some vague time in the future-when the Minister might get round to giving this explanation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.16) —The Government does not agree to the suspension of Standing Orders in relation to this matter. It was only some three days ago that I told Senator Lewis that I was quite happy to bring down a statement on this matter, and I shall do so at the earliest opportunity the moment the Senate resumes. It is in Senator Lewis's interest as in everybody else's interest that the statement be well prepared and as comprehensive as possible. Senator Lewis alleges misunderstandings about this matter. I do not want there to be any misunderstandings. The best thing I can do is to undertake, as I did the other day-and I repeat the undertaking-to bring down a statement the moment the Senate resumes, which will be quite comprehensive on all these matters which have led to misunderstanding and to some concerns. There is no particular element of urgency such as Senator Lewis has been trying to engender into the debate for the purpose of the suspension of Standing Orders. Most of the so-called agreements run over seven years. Senator Lewis —You said that some of them are up for review this year. Senator BUTTON —Each is up for annual audit of progress under the agreement, yes, but it is better that we deal with the matter rationally and sensibly. If I bring down this statement in circumstances other than this, it will give Senator Lewis the opportunity to fully debate the issue. It is important that we debate the issues rather than that there be any misapprehensions about this matter based on questions which have been asked here and so on. The Government does not agree to the suspension of Standing Orders. I repeat the undertaking I gave. I accelerate the undertaking in terms of time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.18) —I support the motion moved by Senator Lewis for the suspension of Standing Orders. I can put shortly the reasons why that motion is appropriate. Senator Lewis has already outlined that the Minister has been making statements on this matter since last year, which statements do not hold together. Senator Button —It is not sufficient to allege that. He is totally confused. Senator CHANEY —We hear that rather agitated response from Senator Button, who showed a certain amount of agitation when the question was originally put to him last week. As I recall, his response was extremely rude and dismissive of the point made by Senator Lewis. The Minister had to confess later that he had not understood some of the points put to him. The Minister is showing a cavalier approach to this matter, statements on which have been outstanding from him for a period of nearly a year. The Minister has given an inadequate answer to the Senate once in Question Time; he has been unable to define the position clearly in a second answer: and it is time that he gave the public and this chamber an explanation. The casual way in which he has dealt with this matter and his failure to give honourable senators any advice before the Senate rises are not acceptable. That is why the Standing Orders should be suspended and he should put us in the picture now. Question put: That the motion (Senator Lewis's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. 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. (Teller)Hill, R. M. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cooney, B. C. Ray, RobertCoulter, J. R. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devereux, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devlin, A. R. Schacht, C. C.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Walters, M. S. Black, J. R.Durack, P. D. Cook, P. F. S. Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —I have become aware of a situation concerning two non-union casual employees of the Catering Service at Parliament House. I have been advised that recent reports in the media, attributing remarks on this matter to a representative of the Joint House Department, are inaccurate. It is true that the two persons in question were removed from the casual list as they were non-union members. The Joint House Department acted in accord with precedent established by the previous Liberal-National Party Government in removing the persons from the casual list. The action was not taken with the knowledge of the Presiding Officers. The Minister for Industrial Relations has advised me that discussions between the Liquor Trades Employees Union, the Joint House Department and his Department will take place tomorrow and, hopefully, the matter will be resolved at that time. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Messner proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need to defeat the Hawke Government's deceitful second referendum proposal which, if successful, would empower it to alter the electoral systems of each of the six States to ensure the election of Labor governments. 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 NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.29) —I rise to speak on behalf of Senator Messner. Of all the deceitful questions that will be put to the people on Saturday, I think that question No. 2 is probably the most deceitful of all, because it sounds the most attractive and plausible. I was interested to hear, during Question Time, the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, talk about the result of a poll of over 3,000 school children in Tasmania. That was the only question that was resolved in the affirmative by the children. It was the most attractive; it seemed to offer the best lolly. I take the opportunity to draw the Senate's attention to the whole result of the poll, which was conducted in 45 schools in my State. Senator Tate and I contributed to the columns of the Launceston Examiner for five weeks, stating the case for and against the four questions. I convinced the school children that questions 1, 3 and 4 should be answered in the negative. Senator Tate just managed to convince the children that question 2 on fair and democratic elections should be resolved in the affirmative but the children were attracted by the lolly and it is a very deceitful question. Who would not be attracted to the idea of fair and democratic elections? One has to be doubtful about it when one knows that the Australian Democrats support it. That immediately makes one wonder just what is behind it. The legislation does not define democratic. People are not told that this is only going to apply to the States. People are not told that it is just not going to do anything about the skilfully drawn but biased boundaries. What this question really is about is Canberra running States' elections. It will do nothing to guarantee free and democratic elections and that is what the people are being asked about. They are not being told what it is really about. A lot of people in this country do not even realise that States do have constitutions of their own. It always surprises people if one asks, `Why do we need something like this in the Federal Constitution, we have got it in the States?' We know here that at Federation the States gave certain limited powers away to the Commonwealth. This was one they did not give away, they still do not wish to give it away but this Federal Government is not happy with its powers. It wants to take more power than it was given at Federation. It is pretty typical I suppose of Federal governments, but constantly people around Australia say no to more power to the Federal Government and they should do so this time because this will once again change the balance of power between Canberra and the States. This Federal Government does not happen to like the electoral systems in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia so it wants to change the rules of the game. These rights should not be handed over. They were not handed over at Federation and they should not be handed over now. I would like to draw the Senate's attention to a comment by Mr Malcolm Mackerras in the Weekend Australian on 6-7 August. He said: The second proposal, fair elections . . . represents the ultimate in centralism. If carried it will mean that the people of the States will not even be allowed to determine for themselves the kind of electoral system by which they are governed . . . I have no right to tell the Tasmanians how they should elect their State Parliament. I could give myself that right by a yes vote to fair elections but I will not do so. Only the people of each State should determine the electoral system of that State. The Tasmanians have a unique electoral system which they know and like. We are concerned in my State, as many of the other States are, about this intrusion of a government from the centre which does not really understand local problems and interests. We say that foreigners, and sometimes we in Tasmania mean mainlanders by that, do not know what is best for the local scene. We had a very good example of this when the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) came to Tasmania. The first law officer of the land, the man one would expect to really understand the electoral systems of this country, the man who is proposing these so-called free and democratic elections had no idea of the structure of the Tasmanian Legislative Council or how it was elected. I draw honourable senator's attention to the fact that he told journalists that and it was reported in the Australian newspaper. He did not know what the impact of his proposed so-called reforms would be on the upper House in Tasmania. He did not know how the reforms would be implemented. I believe that this is a pretty poor thing for somebody who is up there, up front, who wants the States to surrender their electoral rights. There are people, like him, who want the nation to follow the rules from Canberra but he does not even have an understanding at all of how the parliamentary systems work in his own country. For the record, let me just tell honourable senators how the Tasmanian system does work. I believe that it is a very fair system and I am not now talking about the lower House which is well known to have the fairest electoral system of any lower House in the country. I am talking now of the upper House which is the object of the Federal Government's attention in this referendum proposal. The Legislative Council in Tasmania has a fixed term with an annual rotational system. There are 19 members of the upper House, they are single member constituencies, they serve the six year terms and each May polls are held for three of the seats and the election for four seats is held in every sixth year in order to make up the 19. All but one of those people are independents. The one is a Labor man. Not only is the Deputy Prime Minister's ignorance worrying but the overall history of question 2, just by itself, is alarming. I do not think that the Federal Government's right hand knows what its left hand is doing. Let us remember just what happened in this place during those drawn-out debates that we had rushed through the night: Bills being brought in, found to be wanting, taken away again, other ones put on and guillotines proposed so that there was limited time for debating any one issue. Senator Vanstone —Supported by the Democrats. Senator NEWMAN —Supported by the Democrats loving their free democracy; very hypocritical. Senator Parer —The far Left of the Labor Party. Senator NEWMAN —Thank you Senator Parer, that is quite right. Let us remember what happened to this proposal. This is a piece of legislation that has already gone through this House, that is supposed to give us free and democratic elections and that the Government brought in. Thanks to Senator Vanstone the Government suddenly learnt that its proposal clashed with its own proposals for an electoral system in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Senator Patterson —They did it with such a rush. Senator NEWMAN —They did it with such a rush, exactly, and their drafting was pretty much up the creek of course. It was a hurried thing. The Government originally recommended that where an election is State wide or single member electorates the voting system should be preferential. But the d'Hondt system that they were proposing for the ACT is non-preferential. So the Government hastily amended its referendum Bill and that was not too good either so then the Democrats had a go. Now the Bill does allow for non-preferential voting systems for the ACT but still the Democrat proposals probably offend the constitutional proposals even now. Senator Vanstone, today during the lunch time debate, set this out very clearly. I draw people's attention to the clear manner in which she set out the dilemma for voting in the ACT and how we need to get a system which will be free, fair and democratic. This Government is not providing it. How democratic is it when the second choice of Australians need not be counted? That cannot be called an equal or a democratic vote if the second choice does not count for anything. We just cannot allow such a patched up and ill-considered amendment to be added for posterity to our Constitution. If we act in haste we are going to repent at leisure. This simply takes the matter of elections out of the flexible sphere of State legislation and puts them in concrete in our Constitution where it becomes a Federal Government imposition on the people in the States. What is democratic about an electoral system which in 1987 the Australian Labor Party with 45.83 per cent of the vote got 86 seats in the Federal election and the coalition with more votes, 46.07 per cent, only got 62 seats. I remind honourable senators that that was after the Australian Electoral Commission had spent three years going around this country and told us at the end of it that we now had free, fair, equal electorates. After getting numerically equal electorates, according to the Electoral Commissioner, that was the imbalance in the votes that we achieved. For the ALP to win an election in Victoria it needs 48.7 per cent. It needs 47.8 per cent in South Australia and 46.5 per cent in Western Australia. What the Government proposes is equal electorates but it is not proposing equal representation. Its proposal will not remove gerrymandering. In 1987 the majority report of the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill acknowledged, and I quote: The enactment of electoral laws limiting enrolment differences between electorates to an arbitrary 10 per cent would not prevent or eliminate the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries for the political advantages of one group. Of course that is right and at best the 20 per cent margin will mean reshuffling of the existing gerrymanders. I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the situation again in Tasmania where there is a seat on the west coast of Tasmania, a very isolated area, known as the seat of Gordon in the upper House. It has 6,502 electors. Compare that with Pembroke which has the largest number of electors and that is 18,682. But there is a very good and proper reason for Gordon to turn in one member of the upper House and for Pembroke to return an equal number. I think it is very similar to the argument that we, in the smaller States, should have the same number of senators as the bigger States. There are special interests that need representation that otherwise would not be heard. Gordon is that sort of seat. It is isolated. It is a mining community with no unity of interests with any other group or area anywhere near it. It is difficult to get to and would not easily be served by somebody who lived in another area. Tasmanians are happy with that system. There has been no complaint from Tasmanians that there is unfairness. They recognise the justice of the miners and the hydroelectric workers on the west coast getting a member to represent just their interests. That area is a great contributor to our economy; it is very important to us. Those people who work with their hands-and I would have thought that this Government would be interested in them, but clearly it is not-deserve to be heard, but the Australian Labor Party will not facilitate that. It is interesting that in debates in Tasmania, Federal Labor members have not appeared at all, with the occasional exception of Senator Tate. But Mr Patmore, a Labor member of the lower House in Tasmania, was prepared to debate with me at one public meeting I spoke at. He was adamant that Tasmania's representation in the Senate deserved to remain equal with that of all the other States. He had great difficulty in applying that same principle to the people in Gordon. The people in the audience roared at him and questioned him constantly during question time. Tasmanians do not seem to see things through the eyes of people like Senator Devereux, who spoke to us on Tuesday about what he said was the lack of Tasmanian support for the No case. He told us that there was nobody much up front in Tasmania supporting it. Yet only a week or so ago the Legislative Council having debated all four questions, by an overwhelming vote recommended four Noes. Senator Devereux is not the only one who has not been accepting any invitations to public meetings in Ulverstone, Devonport, Burnie, Launceston or Hobart-none of the Labor members have been fronting up to those public meetings, none have appeared on talkback radio. Senator Tate was the only person prepared to debate with me on Christian radio-and he had to be asked three times. Senator Devlin was heard on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio recently saying that there was no need for politicians in the debate and that we should not want politicians in it because it was only a debate for the people. Mr Bowen said that only yesterday. This Government does not want people to know what the real issues are. It knows that when people realise that it means more power for Canberra, they will not want a bar of it. The Government was hoping this whole matter would slip through and people would not know anything about it. I draw honourable senators' attention to the debate I was talking about in the Legislative Council in Tasmania. One of the people supporting the No vote was the former Labor Premier of Tasmania, the Honourable Doug Low. I hope that Senator Devereux will take a bit of notice of that-a former colleague, or at least a former member of his party, when he was being truly independent recognised what is in the best interests of our State. Mr Bowen tells us that he knows best. He says that our Legislative Council perhaps could be expanded from 19, representing electorates of a variety of sizes. We do not want that, Tasmanians do not want that. It is a lot of nonsense. I have miles of things I would like to say about the dirty tricks this Government has played to try to get this proposition slipped through. Mr Hawke is now trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. He intends to take a higher profile in the referendum campaign. I hope he does because he will fail. The Federal Government's duplicity in this matter is amazing. I thank God that the latest polls show that. This deceitful proposal simply has to be defeated. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.44) —This is a rather curious matter of public importance. I cannot remember someone putting forward a matter of public importance and then not speaking to it. It is very strange to have the organ grinder going later. I suspect that John Howard has been on the phone this morning. Poor old tough Tony has been told, `You are going up the back and Senator Newman, a fairly talented and energetic senator, is going to come down the front'. I can draw no other conclusion. It is also very curious to see the order in which these matters have been considered this week. Question No. 1 comes up first, then we jump to No. 3, then we have No. 4 and-on a non-broadcast day-we have No. 2. I ask Senator Macklin how predictable that is? Who could have guessed it at the start of the week. This question sums up the whole attitude of the coalition, in particular the Liberal Party; that is, there is a dichotomy between words and principles, and actions. It is something we have noted in the immigration debate and in a whole range of other areas. The Liberals will profess principles in this chamber that go to equal voting and fair boundaries but every time they are put to the test and are given a chance to prove those liberal credentials they are found wanting. This is just another example. When people opposite tell me how united they are in opposing the referendum on principle, I wonder why their shadow Cabinet took to their party meeting two positive proposals for the Yes case, and got rolled. So united are they, so much is it a matter of principle, that their shadow Cabinet got rolled on the issue. The chameleons opposite can easily fall into the No case option because it fits their negative role. Let us today forget the other three questions and concentrate on question No. 2. Why would the Liberal Party oppose it when it will remove malapportionment from Australia? There is a simple and decisive answer-but it is not represented at the moment in this chamber. It is the National Party of Australia that has dictated this policy, as so often it dictates coalition policies. We have no representatives here from the ugly side of the coalition, the big brother side of the coalition that stands over the Liberal Party. No one is here to debate and justify their view. I am sorry; Senator Tambling, in his reincarnation, has gone from Liberal to National. I have never believed in his transition; I think it was pure and absolute opportunism that made him go into the National Party. Senator Collins —He is a wet National. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, he is, but I apologise for overlooking him in the chamber. It is the National Party which dictates the agenda on this issue, purely out of self-interest, and the Liberal Party has allowed itself to be dictated to. One has to go back to the origins of the problem, to February 1987, when a whole range of issues arose over which the National Party of Australia split the coalition. If there was one imperative after the 1987 election, it was that the coalition would never again split. Its members would go through any set of contortions on policy and break any principle long held in the Liberal Party to attain one end-a unified front between the Liberal Party and the National Party. That is what we are seeing here today, that is what we have seen throughout the referendum campaign. The Liberals have bent over backwards to accommodate the National Party so they can present this mirage to the electorate. `We are unified'. In the end, it has meant that the Opposition, the coalition, has no real policies, and if it goes to the lowest common denominator there is no way that any electorate will support it. Let us look at the history of this issue of malapportionment. It has been the Labor Party that has been in the vanguard of reform. At the Federal level it was the Whitlam Government that pushed for 10 per cent maximum differences in boundaries. As soon as the Whitlam Government went out, what did Fraser do? he introduced the 5,000 square kilometre provision that again distorted electorates. In spite of what was written in his policy statement he brought that distortion in at the behest of Doug Anthony and Ian Sinclair. We had to have it right up until 1983. Having been elected in 1983 we introduced into this Parliament-and it was supported by those opposite-a 10 per cent rule based on population growth. Those opposite are on the record in Hansard as supporting that proposal and recognising it as one of the fairest methods of redistribution in Australia's history. I assume that support for the Federal system is maintained today. That is basically what we are trying to translate into the various States. Looking at the States, virtually all the progress that has been made in those States has been made by the Labor Party. Everyone says that in South Australia Steele Hall was a great reformer. However, when he left office seats were still badly malapportioned in that State. It was one of the worst gerrymanders in Australia. It was up to the Dunstan Government to remove those inequities. Until 1982 the Victorian boundaries were always country favoured. The Cain Government remedied that. Again, the Liberal Party, in the Victorian Legislative Council, did not object to a 10 per cent rule. It supported it on that occasion. It was the Wran Government that removed malapportionment in New South Wales-for the first time in the history of New South Wales. The Burke Government tried time and time again to get even electoral boundaries. It was always frustrated by the rednecks and blowhards in the Legislative Council, represented by the coalition. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why did Tonkin resign? Senator ROBERT RAY —In Western Australia the Liberal Party has a tragic history of frustrating any attempts at electoral reform. Senator Crichton-Browne and the cronies he put in the Legislative Council, in the days when he controlled the Liberal Party in Western Australia-before Senator Chaney's mob took over and humiliated him-in the days he used to be the big man in Western Australia, prevented electoral reform there. When we look right throughout Australia at the tragic history of electoral reform the State that stands out the most is Queensland. (Quorum formed) If ever there were a State where the Liberal Party should hang its head in shame it is Queensland. The form of malapportionment and gerrymandering in Queensland has several basic objectives. The first objective is probably to keep the Labor Party out of power. For those opposite that would be no real problem. The second imperative is to ensure that the National Party always wins more seats than the Liberal Party. The party that is most disadvantaged by the malapportionment in Queensland is the Liberal Party. For a number of years, from 1957 to 1983, the Liberal Party was in coalition with the Nationals as the junior member. Yet, at several State elections it achieved a far higher popular vote than did the National Party. The Liberal Party was kept in the junior ranks of the coalition simply by the malapportionment and gerrymander. From time to time there would be the odd rebellion. From time to time the odd Liberal would get up and squawk about the unfair boundaries. But the fact is that the behaviour of the Liberal Party in Queensland from 1957 to 1983 was the most craven behaviour of any political party in Australia's history. It was behaviour of absolute submission, of absolute embarrassment-to countenance a situation continuing in which it was deprived of being the major governing party in the State simply because of a desire to have a few Ministers, to have the deputy premiership. Never once, in spite of countless offers from the other side, did its members cross the floor and fix up the situation in Queensland. Apparently, that activity has finally come to a halt. Mr Innes has indicated that he will be voting Yes. And what do his Federal colleagues do, after 31 years of craven cowardice? They betray him. They let him down. They leave him holding the bag. That is the reality of the situation in Queensland. Senator Crichton-Browne —He can introduce a private member's Bill himself. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Crichton-Browne talks about introducing a private member's Bill. Would it have taken 31 years to draft a private member's Bill? Really! How long does it take to draft such a Bill? Senator Boswell —They want to get it right. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Boswell and his ilk in Queensland can never win on an even playing field. They make politics the handicap. They must have a head start to win in Queensland. Once they start by corrupting the electoral boundaries it is little wonder that corruption starts to edge out into every other section of society in Queensland. It is little wonder that every second or third policeman in Queensland is in the joke, on the take. That is what the National Party has presided over in Queensland, based on crooked electoral boundaries. In Queensland corruption has become a byword-the State with the white shoe brigade and its corrupt practices. Fancy Sir Terence Lewis getting a knighthood! The only good thing about that is that he was the only one in Queensland never to pay for it. Now that the degree of cronyism and corruption in Queensland is such that its only parallels are current day Romania and Louisiana in the 1930s, we put the proposal to the people of Australia that we wanted it to change. We want fair electoral boundaries in Queensland. That is what we will be voting for on Saturday. It is not good enough to say that this is merely a States rights matter. What does `States rights' mean? What they should mean is the protection of people's rights, the rights of Australian citizens. What we are putting to the Australian people this coming Saturday is a method to undo the corrupt electoral boundaries in Queensland. I want to say only two other things. Time and again the red herring of the difference between malapportionment and gerrymanders is dragged across this chamber. Those opposite say, `This legislation will not get rid of gerrymanders'. That is true only to a point. One of the great tools of gerrymander is malapportionment. By removing malapportionment we reduce enormously any possibility for a gerrymander, although we do not exclude it absolutely. The way to exclude it absolutely is to appoint fair commissioners. I point to examples of fair commissioners appointed at a Federal level and in my own State of Victoria, where in 1984 we appointed such commissioners. We had equal boundaries. We ended up worse off than we were with the 1982 boundaries. We do not complain about that. But there are our bona fides. We were able to appoint independent commissioners, but through the luck of the draw in the drawing of the boundaries we were, if you like, temporarily disadvantaged coming into the 1985 election. The final point I wish to raise is this question of dirty tricks. Senator Vanstone —The deceitful question. Senator ROBERT RAY —The deceitful question; a few more cliches from the shadow Minister should round out my speech. We are supposed to be guilty of that. If ever I have seen an underhanded smearing campaign I have seen it this time. Those opposite have never sought to confront the basic issues of the referendum. They have gone down every by way of deception and drawn every red herring they can find rather than confront the issues. Never has it been more clearly evinced than in question No. 2, but they are too ashamed to confront that issue. We have seen all sorts of distortions appear when this fear and smear campaign has been run by those opposite. One only has to look at the composition of the Opposition task force to see that it has drawn on the dark side of coalition politics. All those who are professional vicious right wingers within the Liberal Party attempted to get a berth on that one. Those who have used those terror tactics within the Liberal Party are now exporting their skills into the electorate and latching on to the fears that exist there. I pointed out in Question Time yesterday that even the despised Queensland National Party, with its rotten corruption, with its white shoe brigade, its crook fund raising methods, its relationship with crooked policemen, with all of its humiliation of the last few months, still has had the decency to stand up and condemn the League of Rights. It has still had the decency to say that this organisation will pervert democracy in this country. Yet at the same time the Liberal Party propaganda, distributed in Western Australia with Mr Peter Reith's authorisation, is put out in the League of Rights publication. When we check with that organisation and publication, they are doing so at the request of the West Australian Liberals. Senator Crichton-Browne —Not at my request. Senator ROBERT RAY —I invite Senator Crichton-Browne, if he is speaking in this debate, to repudiate that organisation and its involvement in this referendum campaign. It shows how desperate those opposite are to debate these proposals that they could go to such a despised and despicable organisation as the League of Rights. Senator Crichton-Browne —Like you said, I don't run the show. Senator ROBERT RAY —I said that Senator Crichton-Browne did not run the show, but there is always a possibility of a comeback. I conclude on this note: I regard and always have regarded question No. 2 as the most important question. It will eliminate a blight on Australian democracy. We in this country were historically the leaders in developing sophisticated democratic processes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In recent years at a Federal level we have been leading much of the world. If we make this achievement on Saturday, we can again hold our heads high as a country that cares about democracy, a country that can go to any international forum in the world and point to our own democratic institutions as being clean and above suspicion. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.05) —We are debating a matter of public importance that reads in a rather hilarious fashion: The need to defeat the Hawke Government's deceitful second referendum proposal which, if successful- that is the fair and democratic elections proposal- would empower it to alter the electoral systems of each of the six States to ensure the election of Labor Governments. In other words, it is an admission that if there were fair boundaries somehow or other the Australian Labor Party would get elected. Why anyone would put up such a proposal is extraordinary. Even more extraordinary, of course, is the history of this exercise. This will be the last chance I have to speak on this matter in this chamber before the people vote on Saturday. I am reminded that the campaign I started on this goes back some five years now to the private member's Bill I introduced in the old Parliament House. I remember well the debate we had in trying to get that up and running. I remember well the fact that my private member's Bill was the only private member's Bill ever discussed at the Constitutional Convention. I remember the feeling of elation when finally the vote was forced on my private member's Bill in the convention in Brisbane and it was supported by an overwhelming majority of those at the convention. I was happy therefore when, after the reference of my Bill twice to a joint committee-we had an election half-way through that inquiry-finally the Government chose to move and put to the people for their deliberation this most fundamental question. It is important to realise what is in this question. There are two items. One is a guarantee of adult franchise-the first time in Australia's history that there will be a constitutional guarantee of adult franchise. Indeed, my own State in 1899 had a very intensive campaign to stay out of the Federation. The central point of that campaign was that the Constitution that was proposed did not enshrine adult franchise. Since then, at the behest of politicians, half of the population-that is, women-have been given the right to vote. I say `given the right to vote' because it was given to them by politicians not as a right, which it should have been, but because it was felt that that was the thing to be done. Since that time, people who went to war to defend this country and had never had a say in electing the government of the country they were asked to die for, have been given the right to vote. How demeaning, how sickening, that people who were considered good enough to die for the country did not have the right to vote as a constitutional right as citizens of this country. Let us be very clear: one of the items in the second question aims to enshrine in our Constitution that most fundamental of rights-that every adult in this country because he is a citizen, not because he is male, not because he is of a particular age, not because he has property, but because he is a citizen, has the right to elect the government that will govern this country. That is in the second question. That is ignored by the Opposition parties. The other question is an attempt, and a first attempt admittedly, to move down the road to enshrine a range of rules by which politicians will get their jobs. The Opposition is saying politicians should keep those powers. I believe that there should be more of these enshrined in the Constitution. I have made a range of proposals, only some of which, of course, are in this particular question. I believe there should be another item to deal with the problem of gerrymander, which could be dealt with not in such a direct way but by saying that any redistribution had to be done on fair and non-partisan boundaries. There is a range of ways of dealing with these issues. On question No. 2, the fundamental question for the people on Saturday is: do you want politicians to have the total say about how they will draw up the rules? It is a little like saying to one football team, `You draw up the rules and then we will have a game'. Surely in any exercise in this country where we believe in a fair go it is reasonable to say that the ground rules should be fair and that the people who win are the legitimate winners. In my own State I am pleased to say that the Liberal Party is campaigning for a yes vote; the Labor Party is campaigning for a yes vote; the Australian Democrats are campaigning for a yes vote. It is only the National Party, whose hide is at stake, that is campaigning for a no vote. Why is it campaigning for a no vote? It is very clear that it could not win government unless it rigged and rorted the boundaries. People then say, `Well, all right then, it's a matter of States rights; States should be able to decide these things'. What legitimacy is there in that proposition when a State for some 60 years has rigged and rorted the boundaries? We then say, `It still has the right to continue to do that'. If it ever had the right, and I dispute that, it forfeited it a long time ago when it decided that it would continue to rig and rort the boundaries to keep itself in political power. We have seen the results of that rorting exercise. It is displayed every day in the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct in Brisbane. Why is there a connection between corruption in the police force and the electoral system? Is that not a bit of a long hop? It is not, and I will tell honourable senators why. One of the basic safeguards in a democratic community is that the government in power can always lose the next election. That keeps it honest; that keeps its nose to the grindstone; and that keeps its hands out of people's pockets. It is because a government can lose office; nothing else. We must never be beguiled by the fact that members of a government all happen to be nice people who are always looking after us. We have to ride shotgun when we put politicians into power. The way that our democracy has decided to do that is to say: `In a couple of years' time, mate, your skin is on the line again, so keep your nose clean'. That is what democracy does. That is why we have got away from dictatorships and autocracies-because they have never had to worry about those types of things. That is the genius of democracy. If a government can go to the people and not have to worry-it could say, `They know we are coming back. Let us go through the charade yet again. We have rigged the system and we will be back in power, mate'-of course it will start looking elsewhere; there is no bind on it. That sort of government is then in exactly the same situation as a dictator. Nobody is riding shotgun on the politicians; they are out of control. We have seen in Queensland why that is the case. I think either Senator Crichton-Browne or Senator Boswell asked by way of interjection, `Who is looking after us now? Why did the Fitzgerald inquiry happen?' With all due respect, it happened to be because of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It was not because of the National Party of Australia. It was because some crusading journalist decided to get out there and spill the beans. And when he did, there was nowhere to go. There had to be an inquiry, and, day after day, that inquiry is turning up the very sorry events in my State. That is why we need to look carefully at this issue and why we need, finally, to say yes to the second referendum question. I would be the first to acknowledge that it does not do everything. Indeed, I have private member's Bills in this chamber which I believe would vastly improve the representation of people not only in this Parliament but also in other parliaments. I will not stand up here and pretend that it does everything that I would like, or that it goes as far as I would like, but it is a start down the road to entrenching a set of rules by which politicians will get their jobs, not only here but also in other jurisdictions. The point about power going to Canberra has been made again in this debate. I find that absolutely extraordinary for anybody who has read the legislation. Why is that? The reason is that if the second question is passed on Saturday, this Parliament will lose powers that it currently has. It will lose powers that it has exercised, and they will be entrenched in the Constitution and no longer available to it. This chamber will lose powers on that second question, as will the House of Representatives. We will no longer be able to vary the percentage. We will no longer be able, if we wish, to put in particular propositions about how people should draw up boundaries. We will no longer be able, if we wish, to take away the independence of the Australian Electoral Commission so that we can get at the boundaries and change them in a way that suits the majority in this Parliament. This Parliament, in proposing that act to the people, is in fact proposing to divest itself of powers, not take on powers. It is true that it is also seeking to divest State parliaments of certain powers and entrench those powers in the Constitution. That seems to me to be the first step towards further democratic reforms in our society. Surely all of us have to be conscious of one overriding fact: democracies in the world are shrinking in number year by year. We have seen the unhappy events in our own region, in Fiji, where democracy has been seen to be so brittle before the point of a gun. We must never be complacent enough, just because we have built this type of edifice to house our Parliament, to think that this Parliament House, somehow or other, because of its momentum and size, will protect democracy. Democracy in this country can be protected only by the will of the people, and we have to do everything we can to entrench, to strengthen and to develop our democratic traditions. I hark back to those people who drew up the Federal Constitution; to those people who had the foresight to propose a federation for this country; to those people who had the foresight to propose innovations, such as the secret ballot; and to those people who had the foresight to propose a whole range of items adopted elsewhere in the world as fundamental democratic traditions. Why now, in 1988, should we be fearful of taking a further step to entrench democratic traditions so that those who follow afterwards will be able to thank us for continuing the fight for what is the best system in the world-the system by which the citizens of any country rule themselves? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.17) —The matter of public importance which has been put forward by Senator Newman is in the following terms: The need to defeat the Hawke Government's deceitful second referendum proposal which, if successful, would empower it to alter the electoral system of each of the six States to ensure the election of Labor governments. The long title of the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988 is: An Act to alter the constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. That is so blatantly dishonest, so blatantly misleading and so blatantly intended to induce a Yes vote that it is breathtaking in its audacity. If for no other reason, it ought to be defeated because of the dishonesty and the deception with which the Government is putting this proposal. I pick up a couple of matters raised by Senator Robert Ray. He talks about dirty tricks. I remind him that the last time we had some proposals to amend the Constitution, Senator Gareth Evans proposed an appropriation of $2m of taxpayers' money to promote the Yes case, but nothing was proposed for the No case. When we asked for it he said, `No. The Australian electorate is conservative and if it is to be persuaded, it is with the taxpayers' money that we will do it'. He said that the No case started with a head start. Today Senator Peter Walsh asked the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to withdraw funds from the Queensland Government and from the Queensland people because that Government has had the audacity to try to put the other side of the argument honestly, as it is; to go past the dishonesty of the proposal which is being put. Senator Stone —They might try withdrawing $120m in funds from the Western Australian Government. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes-do the same thing with Western Australia and see what would happen. That particular constitutional amendment proposal was dropped because the coalition moved an amendment to a consequential Bill and defeated that objective. Senator Ray said that the Australian Labor Party has maintained the integrity of electoral reform in Australia. No doubt he is one of the architects of this legislation. I remind him that it was this Government that sought to increase the size of the House of Representatives and, subsequently, the size of the Senate, not because there was an argument in support of this from an electoral point of view, not because it was required from a representative point of view, but simply because a judgment had been made that the boundaries could be drawn within an increased size of the House of Representatives to it advantage-Machiavellian as you like; certainly nothing to do with altruism. Senator Robert Ray also referred to Brian Burke as the initiator of electoral reform in Western Australia. I just remind Senator Ray that it was Arthur Tonkin, the then Minister in charge of electoral reform, who resigned from Cabinet and ultimately from Parliament because, as he said himself, Labor Premier Brian Burke of Western Australia was not serious in his intentions. In fact, Mr Burke said at a Cabinet meeting held in Geraldton, Western Australia: `Let us put up a Bill that the Opposition will be compelled to defeat. Let us ensure that we do not have electoral reform'. That is why Arthur Tonkin resigned from the Labor Cabinet. I turn for a moment to some fundamentals. Senator Robert Ray said that there is a distinction between a gerrymander and malapportionment and that we confuse the two. Let us look at Western Australia in relation to the House of Representatives on the basis that, as is already the case, there is, with a tolerance, one vote one value. What has happened in Western Australia at the Federal level over the past couple of elections compared with the last State election? On the last occasion that there were 10 House of Representatives seats for Western Australia, the Liberal and National parties achieved 57 per cent of the vote and, with that 57 per cent, 90 per cent of the seats. At the last election the Labor Party succeeded with slightly more than 50 per cent of the primary vote, and obtained 70 per cent of the members. Today Senator Robert Ray told the Senate that gerrymandering is not important, that it is malapportionment that we need to change. That is quite untrue. If we look at the Legislative Assembly in that gerrymandered State of Western Australia, we find that the difference between the number of seats held by the successful government and its primary vote has never varied by more than 7 or 8 per cent. So with all the best will in the world on the part of this Government the system in Western Australia at the moment succeeds far in excess of the Government's proposal. The tragedy is that, if this Government cannot be trusted to put the constitutional amendment proposal up, what can it be trusted to do? One would have thought that, if there was one thing that this Government and the Parliament owe the people of Australia, it is to ensure that the questions as they are put for constitutional amendment reflect the effect of those changes. However, we find the Government repeating its hallmark and presenting a dishonest question which in no way reflects the results that it will achieve if the question is carried. The truth of the matter is that this Government is not serious about this question, any more than it is with respect to question No. 3 or question No. 4-they are all sugar coating for question No. 1. If this Government was serious about its view with respect to one vote one value, we would see fundamental changes at the Federal level and we would see some changes to the Senate. Why do we not see these changes? If this Government was serious, it would apply the same measure of integrity to its own Parliament as it seeks to impose on the various States. Of course, it has chosen not to do that. However, if it provided for one vote one value with respect to the Senate, New South Wales would have 25 senators, Victoria 19, Queensland 12, South Australia 7, Western Australia 6, Tasmania 2 and the two Territories would have one each. If this Government was serious about electoral reform, it would seek to amend section 24 of the Constitution, which provides that each of the original States are entitled to a minimum of five seats. Why does the Government not do that? As long as Tasmania has five seats in the House of Representatives, the fundamental principle of one vote one value is totally distorted. What is the Government's reason for that? Surely it is no longer arguing that five seats give Tasmania a clear and distinct voice in the House of Representatives. There are now almost 150 members in the House of Representatives, so reducing Tasmania's quota from five members to three would not be noticed. However, the Government has not sought to do that, in the same way that it has not sought to change the Senate provision of each State having equal representation. It has not done that because it understands that some paramount and fundamental principles override the proposition of one vote one value, that is, particular areas of concern and responsibility. Each State has equal representation in the Senate to ensure that each State has an equal voice. Section 24 of the Constitution exists to ensure that Tasmania has a voice and so that Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives can represent the unique, distinct and separate considerations of their constituents and the aspirations, ambitions and ideals of Tasmania, in the same way that the Tasmanian senators represent 300,000 voters and New South Wales senators represent 3.5 million voters. No-one will argue that that is equity in terms of numbers. The truth of the matter is that it was recognised by our founding fathers and it is recognised now that each of the States has a unique and distinct characteristic which needs to be reflected in a fair and reasonable way in this Parliament. There is something more than one vote one value, but of course the Government chooses not to deal with that problem. I really cannot explain why it does not have the courage to deal with the Senate except for reasons of political expediency. It cannot rely on its claim that it is a States House. Prime Minister Hawke and Mr Hayden both have called for it to be abolished and the Australian Democrats, the other supporters of the question, also have called for it to be abolished. Before concluding, I wish to raise the matter of why this debate was not led by Senator Messner. Senator Messner put the proposition initially in Senator Newman's name and he was gentlemanly enough to step aside and let her commence the debate. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs) —I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 3 given by Senator Robert Ray yesterday relating to the referral of particulars of proposed expenditure to Estimates Committees, and to move the motion as amended. Leave granted. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to. (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 Committees 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 Veterans' Affairs Estimates Committee E Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Administrative Services Attorney-General's Aboriginal Affairs Estimates Committee F Primary Industries and Energy Community Services and Health Social Security (4) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Wednesday, 2 November 1988. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs) —I table the explanatory notes of estimates of proposed expenditure for 1988-89 for the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Community Services and Health and the Department of Social Security. The PRESIDENT —I present the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —by leave-I move: That the report be adopted. The report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing flows from a determination by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that there should be a reduction of $18m in the appropriations for the Parliament. As the report indicates, the first request was made on 1 August by the Minister for Finance, notwithstanding the fact, as I understand it, that officers of the Department of Finance had previously led the officers of the two Houses to believe that the appropriations which they had submitted were likely to be achieved. My first concern, Mr President, is that the request by the Minister for Finance to you and Madam Speaker was on 1 August, if my memory serves me correctly, some eight weeks after the bid was submitted by you and Madam Speaker. At that late stage, of course, it was impossible to deal with the matter properly. Also, if my memory serves me correctly it was Estimates Committee A, which was chaired by Senator Graham Richardson, which proposed-and the motion was carried unanimously in this Parliament-that matters relating to the funding of the Senate ought to be the province of the Senate, and that in the event of some disagreement between the Treasury and the Senate the matter ought to be referred to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. On this occasion it would have been Senator Button. That was not done because of the lateness of the hour of Senator Walsh, quite unilaterally and arbitrarily, taking $18m from the vote. Senator Walsh on no occasion has sought to negotiate in a constructive way with you, Mr President, and Madam Speaker or the Appropriations and Staffing Committee. When you and Madam Speaker wrote back making it clear that it was impossible to make the cuts that Senator Walsh wanted, he wrote back and made some arbitrary suggestions, some of which were quite erroneous in their propositions. It is the view of the Appropriations and Staffing Committee that the cuts that have been made will significantly reduce the capacity of the Senate to function because the original bid that was made, was made, as I understand it, as the bottom line to what was necessary by way of appropriations for the proper functioning of the Senate. I find it regrettable that on this occasion, Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, has chosen to ignore totally the motion of Estimates Committee A which was proposed in the Senate by Senator Richardson; that there has been no proper and constructive consultation; and, worse than that, the unilateral decision he has made in respect of the funding for the Senate provides decidedly less funding than the Senate's own Committee has judged that it needs. I would have thought that in this day and age, with the greater and growing intrusion of government, whether it be a Labor or Liberal government, into the management of the Parliament, it has never before been so necessary that the Parliament have the capacity and facility to scrutinise the activities and the functioning of government. We are fast reaching the point where that is no longer possible. One of the fundamental democratic principles that, presumably, most of us adhere to is the separation of powers between the Government and the Parliament. As long as there is a government that will unilaterally decide what the funding for the Parliament should be, the connection between the two is such that there cannot be a proper separation of powers. As long as government has the capacity unilaterally to make cuts in the funding of the Parliament beyond that which allows the Senate to function properly, the powers of the Senate will be depleted. Senator Walsh has shown contempt before for the Senate, but it is very sad when I find it manifested in this way. It is a blatant example by this Government of its disregard for the Senate. That can lead in only one direction-the Senate will no longer have the capacity to monitor government in the way it should. At a time when the Senate is being asked to cut back to the point where it cannot function properly, I am not aware-unless the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), who is on duty in the chamber at the moment, can enlighten me-of any significant cutbacks by the executive Government. I intend to pursue this in the Estimates hearings. I am not aware of any significant cut backs in the use of VIP aircraft; I am not aware of any cutbacks in expenditure in the executive wing of this building; I am not aware of any major cut- backs in travel allowances, either overseas or domestic, by any of the Ministers; I am not aware of any significant cutbacks by Ministers in respect of the use of Commonwealth cars; and I am not aware of any cutbacks that impinge upon or affect the executive Government. The argument, presumably, is that the Ministry needs increased funds because of increased responsibilities. At the same time it is reducing the Senate's funds and reducing its competence, its ability to function. I will be pursuing those matters and a number of others with some vigour at the Estimates hearings. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Appropriation and Staffing Committee The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit Act and other Acts for the period ended 30 June 1988 dated 1 September 1988. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —I present the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I table the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Middle East from 6 to 21 June 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report. Leave granted. Senator COLSTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. During June 1988, at the suggestion of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), an all-party delegation of members of both Houses of the Parliament visited Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel. The delegation's principal task was to acquaint itself with the difficulties confronting the frontline states of the Middle East, including Israel. As well, the delegation was to express Australia's concern about human rights violations in the occupied territories and the additional difficulty these violations have created in achieving a just and lasting peace in the region. The delegation's itinerary was an extremely busy one and we met with political leaders in all four countries, visited refugee camps in Syria, Jordan and the occupied territories and, during a tour of the occupied territories, the delegation visited two hospitals and met with a number of Palestinian groups. In addition, the delegation had the opportunity of seeing the strategic Golan Heights area from both the Syrian and Israeli sides. In relation to a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East question, the delegation believes that such a settlement should be based on two fundamental points. The first is Israel's right to exist within secure and internationally recognised borders. The second is the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and, if they so choose, independence, including the possibility of their own independent state. The delegation's overriding impression is that while there is a sincere desire for peace in the region, agreement cannot, unfortunately, be reached on the process by which peace can be achieved. The delegation is firmly of the view that such an obstacle should not be allowed to stand in the way of a peaceful solution to the tragedy besetting the Middle East. In relation to the format that a peace conference should take, the delegation believes that an international conference under United Nations auspices will have sufficient authority to bring about a just and lasting peace settlement. Prime Minister Shamir of Israel rejected outright the concept of an international conference and informed the delegation that Israel was ready to resume negotiations on the future of the occupied territories under the framework of the Camp David accords. In discussions with Arab leaders the delegation found only Egypt prepared to support the peace initiative proposed by Mr Shultz, the United States Secretary of State. However, Egypt, like all the Arab countries, sees Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) participation in any peace conference as essential. In Syria and Jordan there was little enthusiasm for the Shultz initiative, but both supported an international conference under United Nations auspices. Since the delegation's visit, announcements by King Hussein indicate that Jordan no longer regards the Shultz plan as viable. The delegation believes that the Middle East problem will not be solved while Israel continues to deny the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including self-determination. It is unfortunate that Israel is now denying the Palestinian people the same rights for which the Jewish people fought so long and hard. The delegation fully appreciates the reluctance of Israel-having fought four wars since 1948-to place faith in peace agreements which may be negotiated with the Arab nations and the PLO. However, the delegation believes that the Arab states and the PLO are now, albeit reluctantly, prepared to accept the reality of Israel's existence. The delegation believes that both Israel and the PLO should take a major step towards peace by a simultaneous recognition of each other. The delegation is concerned about human rights violations in the occupied territories and believes that these will inevitably continue while the legitimate rights of Palestinians, including the right to their own independent state if they so choose, are denied. The result of the forthcoming Israeli general election will be vital as it will determine the structure and policies of Israel. It appeared to the delegation that the formation of the National Unity Government, with equal Cabinet numbers from each political bloc, had led to a complete paralysis in relation to the Palestinian issue, as both Likud and Labour disagree on a number of issues, including the boundaries of Israel. Whilst the delegation was impressed with the vitality of Israeli democracy, it nevertheless wonders how long democratic ideals can be maintained while Israel governs, by force, the Palestinians of the occupied territories. Following its visit to the Middle East, the delegation is pessimistic regarding the prospects for peace. The efforts of Mr Shultz seem to have run into a dead end and Mr Shamir shows no apparent flexibility on the subject of an international conference. In the meantime, it seems certain that the disturbances and the attendant loss of life will continue in the occupied territories, and that the gulf between Israelis and Palestinians will continue to widen. The delegation believes that the Australian Government should use every available means and opportunity at its disposal to encourage the parties to the conflict to seek an end to the Middle East dispute. In conclusion, I would like to thank all members of the delegation for their support during the visit to the Middle East. The delegation worked extremely well together and all members made a significant contribution to the success of the visit. I would also like to express, on behalf of the delegation, my sincere thanks to the following Australian ambassadors and their staff for the tremendous amount of work done to ensure the success of the delegation. Their local knowledge and expert briefings were invaluable. I refer to Mr Ray Spurr in Damascus, Mr Terry Goggin in Amman, Mr Ian Hutchens in Cairo and Mr John Campbell in Tel Aviv. I should also like to thank the staff of the Parliamentary Relations Office for organising the delegation's visit. On behalf of all members of the delegation, I publicly thank Mr Peter Roberts, the secretary to the delegation. The high quality of his administration was appreciated by all. Finally, I express the delegation's appreciation of fine work of its adviser, Mr Graham Bauer, of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The delegation found his experience of the Middle East invaluable. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.47) —I wish to say a few words about the parliamentary delegation to the Middle East, of which I was a member. I concur entirely with the remarks of my colleague and leader of the delegation, Senator Colston, and in large part I do not wish to go over ground he has already covered. I take the opportunity to place on record my thanks not only to the other members of the delegation but also in respect of the assistance we received from the secretary, Mr Peter Roberts, and our adviser, Mr Graham Bauer. At about the time the delegation was concluding its visit to the Middle East it was reported to us that there had been comments in one of the Australian newspapers that the delegation to the Middle East was no more than an expensive junket at the taxpayers' expense that simply confirmed prejudices. I have not regarded it as my business to try to check or trace those comments. Certainly it was my strong impression that the visit was enormously beneficial in respect of my own visit. I learned a great deal from it. Obviously nothing replaces going to see for oneself or meeting the people, and I shall return to that topic. I am sure all members of the delegation will agree that we were not there as a junket, learning nothing and only confirming prejudices, but that we all learned a huge amount. Certainly any visit to the Golan Heights completely outweighs or replaces any prejudiced view. No amount of photographs or descriptions of that place can possibly convey how strategic and important the heights are in terms of military considerations, let alone anything else. That is one example I would cite as evidence of the value of the visit. Secondly, we met a great number of people in the countries we visited. The message we received, particularly from people in less than official positions, was of a considerable amount of goodwill, intelligence and concern. Certainly there is considerable frustration on the part of many people in those countries, people of goodwill, who dearly wish to see a solution to the appalling tragedy that continues to prevail in the Middle East. The opportunity to meet our Australian colleagues in the embassies and missions was something we all benefited from. I second the remarks of Senator Colston along those lines. The Israeli people and the Palestinian people whom we met highlighted that evidence of care and concern, of intelligence and goodwill, of dealing with the terrible frustration of more than 40 years of continuous, or near continuous, occupation and war in that area. None of those people celebrate that; in fact, they mourn considerably that ongoing tragedy. Again, that is something that one can read about. A quite shocking photograph of yet another disaster in the Middle East crossed our desks this morning. Even though that conveys the appalling situation, it does not convey anything like the impressions we all gained from actually visiting the territory. I wanted to relate the learning experience I had from visiting the refugee camps. I was not able to join the delegation until Amman, so I missed the visit to Syria; but I visited the Palestinian camp in Amman and two camps in the Gaza Strip area, in the occupied territories. We were advised, when we visited the camp just outside of Amman, that it was really a very good camp; the standards and conditions there were very reasonable and admirable. Certainly, one could only say that, on a relative score, it was better than the camps in Gaza. But if ever we settle for the poverty in that camp in Amman as being acceptable, we will have reached as a very sorry state. Conditions in that camp are appalling. People there are doing their very best in shocking conditions to try to live with some kind of dignity and decency. We were particularly interested in health issues. We visited the health centre and travelled with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) people, who are providing much of that assistance for the Palestinian people in those camps. Despite all of that good will and the considerable effort that is being made, one cannot overlook unsealed roads, sewage flowing in the streets-if not always sewage, at least effluent of some sort; open drains and so on. There are piles of rubbish, food refuse and animals and children growing up together. There are appalling limitations on the space to which any family has access. As I recollect it-I will not go to the wall on the accuracy of this recollection-families are allocated 100 square metres of ground on which they can build accommodation-or have it built for them with their assistance. We met one family in just such a place, comprising one wife and seven children, living in a room which was about 15 feet square. The children were able to play in an outside area which measured 30 feet by 15 feet. As those children grow and the families establish new and separate families, the remaining space is subdivided. The health centre, which was very clean, was very sparse. It had concrete floors, concrete walls, a tin roof and very little in the way of grass, asphalt or anything to keep down dust and dirt. There was no such thing as a playground. When I asked-not from innocence-where the playgrounds were, it was made absolutely clear that there were none. I was later advised that there were some playground areas in the Gaza Strip camps and that these had been closed-if one can use that word. The military did not want the Palestinian people in the Gaza camps having the opportunity even to meet in the playground areas, such as they were. The squalor and poverty in those camps cannot be ignored or overlooked. I believe that we must face up to the appalling situation in those camps. For many of those people it has been over 40 years since they moved to those camps. There is a third generation of people whose lives have been confined by the poverty and limitations of the circumstances there. Much of the work-much of the provision of care-is provided with the support of the UNHCR people, but it is provided by the Palestinian people themselves. There are people with great good will from other countries who have contributed to the effort of trying to provide basic necessities for the people in those camps. I believe it is time for the United Nations to take very serious stock of its commitment and responsibility in this area. No solution in the Palestinian camps can be reached until a political solution in the Middle East is reached. As the United Nations had a considerable hand in the establishment of the state of Israel, it seems to me that the United Nations has a considerable responsibility for the political solution in this area. It is distressing to me that the United Nations, to some extent, and relief moneys from all sources, to a huge extent, contribute to the education, clothing, health care and basic necessities in those camps in Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, for over 760,000 Palestinian refugees. That does not take account of the 1 1/2 million refugees not living in camps. Of those people living in camps, much of the care, education and training of all sorts is provided by contributions through aid dollars. In some ways the local governments, the local authorities, are abdicating or not assuming the responsibility for the care of those people. They are, if you like, a burden on the rest of the world. The rest of the world is very committed, to a considerable extent, to making sure that people in these areas do not die of starvation and neglect. I certainly do not want in any way to be seen to criticise UNHCR, whose efforts in this area have been absolutely fantastic, but they are working against the odds. They continue to represent, while there is no political solution in the Middle East, the improper direction for all of that effort. There must be some political will to find a political solution so that many of those other bandaid or other stopgap measures on behalf of people, to provide their basic human necessities, will no longer be necessary. In case I am misunderstood, I do not want to blame any particular group more than another. The Palestinian refugees are victims and political pawns in an appalling game. They have been forgotten by the authorities in the countries in which they are camped. Certainly, we were advised that they are used by some Palestinian people to perpetuate their political ambitions. The misery and the appalling conditions in which those people are growing up confirmed to me what can be guessed at from looking at the descriptions from this distance; but to see the conditions myself confirmed how appalling, how shocking and how degrading they are. I say simply that I was amazed and humbled by the way in which people growing up and living in those camps do so with considerable dignity and a capacity to optimise their care and concern for each other under those shocking conditions. One of my other interests that I was pleased to be able to touch on briefly while I was in the Middle East is APHEDA. These letters stand for the Australian People Health Education Development Abroad organisation, which is a non-government organisation which provides aid. It is now the official aid arm of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and it has projects in many countries around the world. While we were in Nablus in the occupied territories, we visited St Luke's Hospital, where I met people who could talk to me about some of the APHEDA nurse training in that area. The Gaza camp also had some APHEDA trained nurses and I was able to speak to the people there about the training program. There are other projects undertaken by APHEDA. I do not wish to stress those now, but I do cite those two cases with which we had contact while we were in the Middle East. I support Senator Colston's remarks about the challenge to democracy that must occur when civil rights of certain sections of the community are not guaranteed or protected. That is certainly something that we saw. When we visited Gaza we were certainly-fortunately, we were only on the edge of such areas-discommoded by the tear gas that was thrown at the time not very far from us. We also saw stone throwing, not only by young people but also by some of the Israeli military people. We could see the evidence of ongoing disruption and terror that prevails for the people living there. We were, to some extent, unhappy to know that our visit might have been cited as causal of yet another piece of disruption but any reading of the news reports from that area would suggest that we would not have to feel too responsible, as that kind of disruption had been going on long before we came and it has continued, as I read the newspaper, to happen to this point. I also find it very distressing that in this whole recent Intifada uprising over 200 Palestinian people have died, and I believe four Israelis though those figures may in fact not be completely accurate or up to date. That loss of life will continue. It is an appalling continuing indictment added to the other points that I have had to make about what I think are wretched conditions there, and continuing evidence, from what our delegation saw, of why there is a real need for the political will to focus on finding or trying to find processes to begin the steps of solution in this area. I do urge people to look at the report although it is only a summary of many pieces of information, descriptions of visits, and so on that came our way while we were there. Much of it is pretty provocative and disturbing information, some of it very encouraging. In the midst of considerable distress and difficulties there are rays of hope that I think occur when one meets quite splendid people. One of those people is a woman named Jean Calder, an Australian doctor of philosophy who did her training in physical education to start with and is now working with handicapped children. She, first of all, was working in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. She is now working in Cairo, Egypt, and enjoys considerable support and sympathy from the Australian ambassador there. That is how we were able to meet Jean and then go and visit her and some of the children in her care and the care of Egyptian and Palestinian people. The centre that provides the care for the children in Cairo is not restricted to providing assistance for Palestinian people. It is to help disabled people of whatever sort and, of course, many Egyptian people are able to benefit from her care. While we were there we were also able to meet Fathi Arafat who was able to give us a considerably detailed description of the Palestinian Red Crescent organisation, so that while not part of the more official visits of the delegation it was a very interesting and fruitful time indeed. Again I find it heartening to meet people of such generosity. They do give some optimism in a fairly pessimistic and bleak scene. In case I should leave people with the impression that the only optimism there was one Australian woman in Cairo, I would hasten to correct that impression. I would simply confirm again that the many people we met-in particular I would say the Palestinian and Israeli people who are of good will, who are of concern, who do desire very much to see the end of war and the beginning of peace in this unhappy region-gave great cause for optimism and I am certainly most appreciative that I could be part of this delegation. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(5.04) —I think probably most of the things that need to be said regarding this parliamentary delegation to the Middle East to specifically look at the Israeli-Palestine conflict and the situation there have been said. There are several things that I would like to add. Firstly, I regard it as a great opportunity given to me by this Parliament to be a member of that delegation, even though the experiences, particularly as Senator Crowley has indicated, in Gaza and on the West Bank were particularly harrowing. I notice that Peter Roberts and Graham Bauer are sitting up in the gallery. I would like to pay tribute to their work in helping the delegation both by way of advice and help, while we were on the trip, and also in writing the report. The matters I would like to stress relate to the emerging problem of population and environmental degradation in the Middle East, because it became quite clear to me that underlying and interwoven with the political problem in the Middle East is this very severe and exacerbating problem of the mismatch between population and the ability of the environment to support that population. It relates not only to Israel and the areas claimed by the Palestinian people but indeed it relates to Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and even to countries like Saudi Arabia. Indeed, as we flew over the deserts of Saudi Arabia and we looked down from a height of over 30,000 feet, we saw green patches laid out on this otherwise white desert. On inquiry it turned out that these green patches were areas of grain being grown with irrigated water. This water was being taken essentially from fossil beds of water underneath the desert and were rapidly being depleted. It is a type of agriculture which clearly cannot persist for very long into the future. In Jordan we found that the city of Amman which is essentially a post-war city of nearly a million people was deriving a large part of its water supply from an oasis out in the eastern desert and this oasis was, again, steadily being depleted. One sees there a large and growing population dependent upon a water supply which has no assured future. Turning to Gaza, one found there a population of almost a million people, a doubling of that population in only 17 years, and yet living on an aquifer which was being rapidly depleted and into which salt was encroaching from the Mediterranean Sea. Even the little agriculture which was available to the Palestinian people in Gaza was under very severe threat. Perhaps of immediate concern to Australia should be the observation that Egypt was exporting some 80 per cent of its food production only 20 years ago. It is now importing 80 per cent of its food needs and Egypt is one the greatest importers of Australian wheat. Of course that importation of Australian wheat can persist only as long as Egypt is maintained with international loans and should the international monetary funds decide one of these days, perhaps in the not too distant future, that it is no longer going to support Egypt, then Australia is going to be in dire straits with regard to its wheat exports. The situation in the Middle East is indeed very depressing. It is depressing because of the apparently intractable problem which has arisen between the Palestinian people and the Israelis. Underlying this problem one has the situation that throughout the whole region those populations are growing very rapidly, with doubling times of the order of 20 years. Those populations have already exceeded the capacity of the land there to supply even their basic requirements such as food and water. Of course there is no possibility of a solution to that problem until and unless the political one is solved because in speaking particularly to Palestinians one of the principal reasons given for wanting to increase their population is to take back what they see as their land which has been occupied by Israel. When inquiring at the various medical centres that we visited as to what component of those medical programs was directed towards population control, contraception, fertility and so on, one found that an extremely small fraction of those medical programs were directed in that way. Such programs were anathema to the political interests of the Palestinian people. In conclusion, I would simply point out that I think it is very important that Australia press very hard through the United Nations and whatever channels it has available to it for a political solution. Looking beyond that, even if there is a political solution, there will be a continuing and worsening problem to which Australia and all other countries in fortunate positions must direct their attention. That must involve not only better methods of agriculture but particularly direct efforts to control population growth because without that the situation in the Middle East will continually worsen. Also the population environment problem will reflect back on continuing political problems and those problems will indeed become completely intractable. Debate (on motion by Senator Hill) adjourned. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I present the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure on proposals for variations to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-This report is the first report on variations to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs tabled by the Senate Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. The work on this report was done by the joint subcommittee on variations. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure is also tabling the same report today. This first report covers variation 1987-1, containing one proposal; variation 1988-2, containing eight proposals, and variation 1988-1, containing four proposals. The joint subcommittee, in keeping with the practice of the former Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, held public hearings on variations 1981-1 and 1988-2 on 15 June 1988 and variation 1988-1 on 15 July 1988. The joint subcommittee approved the variations to the plan of layout but expressed its concern that the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) administration failed to refer variation 1987-1 to the joint subcommittee for proper parliamentary scrutiny before construction of the security fence at the United States Embassy commenced. In relation to current Committee arrangements, last October and November the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions referring the matter of variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs to their respective standing committees on transport, communications and infrastructure for inquiry and report. The resolutions also empowered the committees to sit as a joint subcommittee to consider the variations matter. Not only is the Senate Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, and its counterpart in the House of Representatives, charged with reviewing variations to the plan of Canberra but also the leasehold system in the ACT is the subject of inquiry by the committees. The situation which has arisen where these responsibilities are currently discharged by a joint subcommittee in unsatisfactory and cumbersome for a number of reasons. For instance, not all ACT members and senators are members of the standing committees and thus cannot participate fully in the activities of the joint subcommittee. Further, all ACT matters have to be referred specifically by each chamber to its standing committee and all subcommittee reports have to be referred back to each standing committee for subsequent approval. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the standing committees may be at an impasse on a contentious issue. Such reliance on a clumsy structure of committees and subcommittees with their divisions of responsibility and authority to scrutinise ACT matters confuses the public and denies easy access to the Parliament. This convoluted process of inquiry is clearly unsatisfactory. There is an urgent need for a joint committee on the ACT. This committee would enable the Federal Parliament to carry out its ongoing role to oversee the planning and development of the national capital on behalf of the nation. Further, it would provide for efficient and expeditious inquiry into matters pertaining to the ACT and provide the public with an easy access to Parliament and the opportunity to provide an input at the Federal level into ACT matters which impact on the national development of Canberra. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I wish to concur with some of the remarks that have just been made by Senator Foreman in relation to the report he has tabled on behalf of the Standing committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. Senator Foreman, quite correctly, has pointed out to the Senate that the present manner of dealing with variations to the city plan of Canberra and other related matters affecting the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is unsatisfactory. Clumsy was another word he used. It is proper that the Senate have the opportunity to scrutinise these matters. I remind the Senate that last year when the Government restructured this committee it was quite happy for the Senate to play no part in it at all. One can only agree that this format is clumsy but it is necessary that the Senate have some status in it. He also said that it denies easy access to the Parliament for those concerned. That also must be endorsed. Going back to the history of the matter, there has been a joint committee on the Australian Capital Territory I think since 1957 which has had the responsibility for the city plan and variations to it. That committee, over the years, has carried out a number of inquiries on other relevant matters such as energy, shopping hours and the Murrumbidgee, just to mention a few in more recent times. For some reason best known to the Government-even though I do understand the reason I shall not repeat it here-after the last election it did not reappoint the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Its motives for not doing so were totally base. Then it realised that for some time, until there was self-government, the city plan of Canberra had to be monitored and for an absurd reason gave that task to the Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Committee of the House of Representatives. The Senate subsequently asserted its right to be involved and monitor these things, and the structure that has been outlined by Senator Foreman, and rightly referred to as cumbersome, was set up. I agree that it was cumbersome. I agree that it was cumbersome; I was involved in getting it set up but we had to have something since the Government had absolutely set its face against having a continuation of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. There is no doubt that in the event of self-government-which I hope will come about before long-the management of the city plan of Canberra will have to be changed and most of it should become the responsibility of the ACT Government. There are areas within it, of course, that the Federal Parliament would still monitor and take an interest in. That was acknowledged. But we have been proceeding in the last 12 months effectively without a committee on the ACT. I am not denigrating the work that Senator Foreman and his Committee have done, but they have been labouring, I believe, under difficulties. The Government ought, even now, to re-establish the Joint Committee on the ACT so that these matters can be dealt with properly. It should not persist with the absurdity which exists at the present time. I certainly hope that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), who is present and who has an interest in these matters, will, as the senior Minister responsible, do something about it. I remind the Minister that tomorrow we get our fifth Minister for Territories since his Government was elected in March 1983. That alone is an absolute disgrace. It shows just how little care and interest the Government has for this Territory. In addition, after the last election his Government abolished the one committee which gave some opportunity for those elected by the people of the ACT to have some input. The matter needs to be reviewed. I ask the Minister to see that he does that. In other respects, I certainly support the variations which have been referred to, and I am familiar with the decisions that Senator Foreman's Committee has made. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Senator Collins, and pursuant to Senator Collins's notice of intention given earlier today, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1 standing in his name for disallowance of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment), as contained in Export Control Order No. 3 of 1988. Consideration resumed from 25 August on motions by Senator Walters and Senator Tambling: That the Senate take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 25 August, on motion by Senator Chapman: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(5.20) —I spoke on this report the other day-Immigration: A Commitment to Australia-a report commissioned by the former member for Port Adelaide, Mr Mick Young. He told us that this inquiry would probably be the most important inquiry into immigration that had ever been held. I said that the Government had not accepted the report very well. The Government is up in arms about it because its immigration policy has fallen into tatters. I mentioned that the Government had let immigration get out of balance because of its laziness. I cited unemployment figures relating to various migrant groups in Australia. Unemployment for the second quarter of last year was about 7.2 per cent. I doubt whether the figure has fallen since then. Senator Richardson —It has. You haven't read the figures. Senator PANIZZA —I said that I doubted whether the figure had dropped. Senator Richardson —You don't have to doubt it; it has. Senator PANIZZA —That drop is only seasonal. The total number of overseas-born unemployed immigrants was 8.4 per cent. Breaking the figures down into different nationalities, the figure for the United Kingdom and Ireland was 6.8 per cent; for Lebanon it was 28.3 per cent; for Vietnam it was 30.5 per cent; for Italy it was 3.2 per cent and for Greece it was 5.6 per cent. I cite these figures in the context of my belief that our immigration program is out of balance. Although we seem to be getting ample numbers of migrants, we are not getting migrants with the right skills, with the willingness to take certain jobs in certain areas. Most of the unemployment in Australia is in the cities, whereas in country areas such as the north-west of Western Australia, the north of Queensland and western New South Wales many jobs cannot be filled. In the past, under previous immigration programs, those jobs were filled by certain people from certain countries. The immigration figures for the last 10 years show some astounding results. Austria was a great migrating ground whose migrants greatly enriched and added to the growth of Australia. The number of immigrants from Austria has not increased very much. In the last 10 years total migration to Australia per year has moved from 68,000 to 128,000, which is almost a 100 per cent rise. But, as I said, the number of immigrants coming from Austria has not kept up with that 100 per cent rise. In fact, it is nowhere near it. For Finland the figure has been halved. France has not kept up. The number of immigrants from Italy is half what it was 10 years ago. That is a great pity. Malta has certainly not kept up. The number of immigrants from the Netherlands has halved in the last 10 years. That is where all our cement workers used to come from. The United Kingdom has barely kept up. Switzerland and Yugoslavia have both gone backwards. I will give honourable senators a case in point. Senator McKiernan might be interested in this, being a migrant himself. Senator Hill —Is he a proper migrant? Senator PANIZZA —He is a celtic migrant. I have my doubts at times as to whether he is a proper migrant. Yugoslavia has been a good breeding ground, a good migrating ground for Australia. However, in Yugoslavia it takes 14 months to get an appointment with an Australian official to pick up the form to apply to migrate to Australia. Then, no doubt, it takes more time to complete the process. That is an example of discrimination. It is an indictment of this Government that it has let its immigration program get out of kilter altogether. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(5.25) —I am forced to rise to my feet after the extraordinary contribution by Senator Panizza. Senator Richardson —Ireland is a better breeding ground, isn't it? Senator McKIERNAN —I refuse to choose between nations. That has got some political parties in hot water in recent months. The Australian Labor Party and the Government do not need to jump on that particular bandwagon. Senator Panizza cast some doubt as to whether I am a true migrant. All I need to do to prove that is to open my mouth, from what people tell me. I have been asked a number of times to clarify where I stand on this matter. I am proud to say that it was the Employers Federation of Western Australia which sponsored me to come to this great country. I am eternally grateful to it for doing so. I frequently remind that organisation of its excellent decision in 1969 to encourage migrants from the United Kingdom and from Ireland to come to this country. A lot has been said about the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. It is an excellent report. Contrary to what Senator Panizza said, it is not the Government that is in difficulty because of the FitzGerald report. I am sorry that Senator Panizza has not taken the opportunity to repeat the comments he made during the Liberal Party conference in Esperance, which was widely reported in the media. Senator Panizza —I'll stand by that one. Senator McKIERNAN —Senator Panizza should tell us what he said. He can do so by interjection. But he refrains from doing so. Senator Panizza —What did I say? Senator McKIERNAN —I am inviting Senator Panizza to repeat his comments. I am not in the business of putting words into his mouth. I do not have a transcript of exactly what he said, but it was something that I would not be proud of having said. I would have no problem repudiating those words if it was somebody in my Party who said them, or if somebody in my Party said the words that Senator Stone or Mr Sinclair said. Senator Panizza —What are the words I said? Senator McKIERNAN —I do not have the precise words that were said, which came over Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on about four occasions on a Sunday morning, but it was something that I would not be proud of. Senator Panizza —Well, you tell me what I said. Senator McKIERNAN —Senator Panizza should tell the Senate what he said. I thank the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 25 August, on motion by Senator Hill: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 25 August, on motion by Senator Hill: That the Senate take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed for 24 August on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(5.32) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PATTERSON —The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission annual report 1987 is the last report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. I believe it would be wrong of me to let this report go by without making a comment. In fact, we should have one minute's silence for the death of educational independence in this country as a result of the passing of this Commission. According to the report, one of the aims of the Commission states: to inquire into and advise the Minister of any other matters relating to tertiary institutions which may be referred to it by the Minister or which the Commission itself considered to be matters of inquiry. The report goes on: In a public statement issued on 1 October, 1987 the Commission expressed its unanimous support for three essential principles which should characterise any structure for Commonwealth involvement in higher education. In particular, it believed there should be a statutory authority with the right to prepare and publish independent reports, and with responsibility not only for recommending the allocation of resources, but also for implementing approved programs and expenditures (in accordance with Government decisions) and for monitoring outcomes. The Commission expressed the view that the authority should have its own staff support and resources consistent with these comprehensive responsibilities. Under the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), the Higher Education Council that has been set up I believe sounds the death knell for independence in education in this country. The new Higher Education Council does not have the powers that were recommended and suggested by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. It is responsible to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and can only engage in promulgating things which a Minister agrees with and can only carry out an investigation or inquiry that the Minister has directed. The Council has not been given any independence, and I have spoken about that before in this House. With the time limit I have all I can say is that the demise of the Tertiary Education Commission is very sad for Australia. It will be a long time before we can recover the situation. This will occur only when the Minister wakes up to himself and realises that the measures he tried to push through in education will come back against him in years to come. For whom does the bell toll? It tolls for the death of academic freedom and the independence of our universities. It rings in an era of centralisation and excessive government interference in research and teaching. The sooner Australia, including our academics, many of whom have now woken up to the incipient nature of this Government's control of all aspects of our life, including education, the better we will be. A free democratic society should have universities and its major councils independent, thus enabling the councils and universities to be free to express views without fear or favour. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 25 August, on motion by Senator Archer: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 25 August, on motion by Senator Archer: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 25 August, on motion by Senator Hill: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 29 August, on motion by Senator Panizza: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by Senator Hill: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.35) —On the last occasion I made a few comments on the report on sentencing by the Law Reform Commission. In particular, I was dealing with one of its recommendations-reduced emphasis on imprisonment. I listed a couple of the reasons for that recommendation and was about to mention its positive recommendation that greater consideration be given to a wide range of non-custodial orders of appropriate severity as an alternative to imprisonment, not only in relation to less serious offences, which has been the practice in the past, but also perhaps to more serious offences, especially in relation to crimes against property. That is a matter to which those interested in this subject should give serious consideration. The second area that the report covered was the inconsistency in sentencing practice. I note that the Law Reform Commission makes a number of recommendations for improving consistency in sentencing, which I think we all recognise is a shortcoming in our criminal law system at present. It suggested, for example, that there be more extensive requirements for the giving of reasons for decisions and that a statutory list of factors regarded as relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion should exist. It made some interesting suggestions such as a discount being given on a sentence for a plea of guilty. I must say that I do not agree with that. Nevertheless, it is an interesting debating point. Most importantly, the Commission suggested: . . . judicial officers need reliable, accessible and up to date information, not only to impose appropriate penalties on individual offenders but also to help ensure that sentences imposed are consistent. It develops this proposal by suggesting more fully that an information system, which does not exist at the moment, should cover both the quantitative and qualitative components that are necessary in sentencing practice. I commend those aspects of the report. The only other area that I want to touch upon at the moment is the reference in the report to corporate offenders. In the report the Commission mentions the problems that existed in relation to sentencing in the corporate world and suggested that a further specific reference should be given for inquiry and report into controlling corporate behaviour through the criminal justice system. This leads one to an earlier discussion paper on corporate offences that was put out by the Commission. It reminds us that death and physical injury often result from corporate crime. That is important because we do not really think of corporate crime in terms of harming the individual. It noted that, despite the substantial amount of harm caused by corporate crime, most regulatory bodies show a strong preference for reliance upon civil remedies and self-regulation rather than resort to criminal prosecution. In particular, Commonwealth regulatory agencies are among the least prosecutorial. They are interesting conclusions which require further analysis. The Commission advanced reasons for the overwhelming tendency of Australian regulatory agencies not to resort to criminal prosecution, including a strong belief in and reliance upon self-regulation and what was seen as the availability of stronger and more effective civil and criminal sanctions. The political power and superior resources of corporations and their executives is given as one reason; the complexity of cases is another. This requires further examination. When the Commission looked at the remedy of fines it noted, and it is most interesting, that the severity of fines in the corporate area generally has been extremely mild and has only minimal deterrent impact. This also is an important conclusion that requires further detailed consideration by this Senate. In the discussion paper the Commission examined a number of alternative sanctions that might be available to corporate offenders that have not been adequately examined in the past. I commend that for further consideration of the Senate also. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.40) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I rise only briefly to comment that in the report of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC), which carries with it very significant results showing the achievements of the OTC in the last financial year, the profit figure earned by the Commission was about $100m on a capital of about $400m-a very remarkable achievement given the challenges which that organisation has had in recent times. It is interesting to note that the Commission will now go through a period of significant change as a result of the Government's proposals to deregulate the telecommunications industry which were announced in the mini-Budget in May. Of course, OTC will benefit substantially from that deregulation. The Opposition's concern is that the deregulation proposals are not moving as quickly as we might have liked; but at least the Commission will be set up as an independent company as a result of the proposals of this Government and that having occurred, it will then be ripe for the implementation of the further stages of the Opposition's policy, upon coming to government, to sell to the public 49 per cent of its capital. In that way it will be, if you like, a partial privatisation of that organisation which, together with the deregulation of the whole industry which is now occurring in this country, will lead to a far more competitive industry which will suit the development of alternative telecommunications arrangements in this country in the years ahead. As I have said, OTC is a remarkable organisation, performing remarkably well financially. Quite apart from that, it has been faced with the long term challenges of developing and building the present cross-Pacific optical fibre cable network which will connect Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America in one remarkable chain of optical fibre systems and this will lead to a brave new world of telecommunications in the next decade or two. That will allow messages to travel literally at the speed of light between Australia and the United States and it will link up with other cable networks reaching from North America to Asia and Japan. Those networks offer tremendous opportunities for the development of the so-called 24-hour financial markets, and we visualise that, in the future, those systems will facilitate transactions on a world-wide basis, which could be carried out in the twinkle of an eye, and affect the operations of banks, financial institutions and governments to a great extent. It is a prescience of a future which will certainly change very substantially, facilitated by the kinds of changes that are being effectively met by the OTC. We, in the Opposition, look forward to the corporatisation of the organisation. We believe that it is certainly the right step forward. We want to encourage the Government to move as quickly as possible. We want to make sure that when this is achieved and when legislation is presented to the Senate, it is effective, that it sets up the OTC as a thoroughly commercial organisation, and does not attach to it bureaucratic tangles and red tape that would cause that new company difficulty in reaching its goals of presenting Australia with a vast new telecommunications network in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 31 August, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Senator Chapman: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(5.45) —This waterfront investigation by the Inter-State Commission was commissioned in 1986 to look at the problems on the waterfront. The Commission's main terms of reference were: the impact of waterfront industry performance on trade; industry structuring arrangements and the impact on price and service levels; provision of waterfront infrastructure and utilisation; and career opportunities. Honourable senators would probably remember the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. Mr McColl wrote a scathing report about the waterfronts of Australia, in particular the Newcastle waterfront, in New South Wales, which was the biggest offender, where the systems and the work practices were so far behind the times that it not only prevented the New South Wales wheat crop from getting to the export market but also added immense costs. If honourable senators read this morning's Canberra Times, they would have seen a pretty good summarisation of that report. Senator McKiernan might have read the article which is headed `Report mauls waterfront industry'. The article states: Every aspect of the waterfront industry-management, training, government responsibility, and the monopoly nature-has been criticised by the preliminary findings of the Inter-State Commission's Waterfront Investigation, released yesterday. All were poor and needed to be corrected before Australia's export-import trade could improve. The report said evidence showed the `classic symptoms of an imperfect market'. These included ineffective management, poor workforce training and career arrangements, `introspective' industrial attitudes, poor response to user needs, poor information flows to users and between transport links, lack of supply and demand balance, diffusion of government responsibility, and abuse of monopoly power-- Senator Messner —Devastating. Senator PANIZZA —It is devastating. The article continues: . . . shown especially in port-authority pricing and investment policies. Union loyalty took precedence over company loyalty, and a move toward `normal company employment' was seen as remedying some of the problems. Industrial relations was a big problem. The industry had been held to ransom by ships demanding to sail, thus undermining management authority, ships officers were often recruited with very little training. `Some potential exporters have even been deterred from exporting as a result of their experiences . . . As I have said, much the same thing is happening in the wheat trade; we are losing overseas trade because we cannot get wheat out. Mr McColl was also very scathing of the training and recruitment needed to improve the manning of the waterfront. He said that we needed to employ more highly skilled workers. The article continues: . . . managers should not be recruited exclusively from seagoing officers, who often had no knowledge of shore jobs. There were some problems: the geography of Australia, its size and the nature of its economy meant that waterfront activities were monopolies or they failed. This called for `a much greater degree of public accountability for such organisations . . . This is a great and proper damnation of the waterfront of Australia. Those of us in trades that have a need for the waterfront to import and export have known this all along, but here it is for everyone to see. I certainly hope that the Government takes it on board, that it gets over its short term thinking on industrial matters relating to waterfronts and other places and that it does something about it. Senator DEVLIN(Tasmania)(5.49) —As stated in the report of the Inter-State Commission waterfront investigation, Australian crews account for only 14 per cent of average operating costs on the waterfront, while more than half the freight rates went to paying port authority and stevedoring costs. This should not be used as an argument relating to the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. Costs for an Australian Maritime Industry Development Committee (MIDC) manned ship are in line with costs in other Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development countries. In fact, an Australian vessel with 21 men would be less costly than a Japanese ship with 16 men. These MIDC manned ships will create a situation where crews will be able to work flexibly and demarcations disputes will be eliminated. Five years ago seven unions covered seamen. Today, with the success of amalgamation and the more recent seamen's union and marine stewards amalgamation, we have only three, with the real likelihood of having two and then perhaps one seagoing union. Industrial action in the industry has seen a dramatic reduction in ship days lost from 1,593 in 1982 to 14 in 1986, according to the Weekend Australian of 23 January. This should not be seen as an argument that industrial action is to blame, or that it should not be used as a tool for the worker. Crew sizes have been reduced by one-third between the 1960s and the 1980s and this trend is continuing, with most ships having crews of 20 or less by the 1990s. Australian seamen pay taxes and spend wages in this country, unlike foreign seamen. The reliance on foreign flag vessels to the extent of 96 per cent for our export and import trade had a disastrous effect on our trade deficit in 1980, equalling $2.812 million, and it is still growing. If Australia had more shipping in Australian hands the trade deficit would be reduced and valuable foreign exchange earned through trade service. If the Australian coastal provisions of the Navigation Act were deregulated to allow cheap foreign shipping to carry coastal cargo, the effects could be that 4,000 to 5,000 Australian seamen would lose jobs; $170m to $200m in wages and corresponding tax payments would be lost; and a further 500 jobs in related industries could be lost, that is, in the ships repair area, according to the Daily Commercial News of 19 November 1987. Using foreign shipping on the Australian coast is no different from importing guest workers to work in an Australian factory alongside Australians whose wages are a reflection of the standard of living of this country and not a Third World country. The Australian Government, seagoing unions and employers have developed industry strategies that will meet technological changes in the industry on an international scale. The Australian Government needs to develop the same industry incentives for shipping that it did for the car and steel industries. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.53) —The Inter-State Commission waterfront investigation report demonstrates again the well-known fact that the Australian waterfront is in an absolute mess. It is inefficient, overpriced, unreliable, cost ineffective and riddled with ineffective and inefficient work practices. It brings Australia's trade very much into an uncompetitive position, as stated in the report. Senator Panizza outlined nine of the major problems identified in the report and I do not intend to repeat them. However, I underline the great importance of getting the waterfront right because this country should develop an export culture and a far more expanded export trade to ensure its economic development and security. It is quite clear that Australia will remain a trading nation for many centuries to come, but the costs of our waterfront practices at the moment are substantially holding back our development when we compare ourselves with the competition to our immediate north in Asia. What are some of the solutions that are outlined in the report. We must be positive and look to the future in this regard. The Commission's report outlines seven steps to try to clean up the mess on the waterfront. Firstly, it suggests that we should have more effective management in the stevedoring industry and a more well-motivated work force. I guess that supposes that there should be the introduction of all kinds of incentives and better work conditions in order to stimulate the management and the work force to work more closely together. Secondly, there should be a strengthening of the influence of both exporters and importers in obtaining some say as to how the waterfront should be managed. Thirdly, there should be an improvement in the accountability of the industry itself. There should be public records, there should be public presentation of the financial results, and there should be public accountability for the activities of both management and the work force. In that way public debate can be stimulated and improvements initiated in the full blaze of publicity. Fourthly, we should drastically improve industrial relations and, of course, the accompanying dispute settlement procedures which until now, in their antiquated form, have bedevilled the waterfront. The time has come for drastic change in order to re-establish far better and closer relationships between workers and managers. Fifthly, there should be far more emphasis on the workings of the market in the provision of infrastructure and services. Quite clearly, too many of Australia's resources are tied up with the very heavy costs of establishing infrastructure and of maintaining services at the waterfront. Clearly, that needs to change. Clearly, we need to become more efficient in that area and produce new means of productivity to ensure that the infrastructure works more effectively. Sixthly, the Commission recommends the abolition of anti-competitive practices on the waterfront by both management and labour. That clearly is an area which opens itself to opportunities for change and constructive discussion between labour and management. Finally, the report recommends the establishment of a body to coordinate and manage the whole strategy that has been outlined in the report. Quite clearly, the report is valuable. It has been a long time in coming. It now remains to be seen whether the Government will pick up the ball and run with it. Clearly, the opportunity is there for it to do that. We are aware that there is to be a change of Minister in this area. Perhaps when that has occurred we will see some action from the Government, which has been dragging its tail in this area since it came to office. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(5.59) —I echo part of Senator Messner's contribution in that I agree that the report is indeed very valuable. However, it is unfortunate that Senator Messner chose to move away from a positive tack to a negative tack when he accused the Government of having done nothing in this area. Obviously Senator Messner was not listening to Senator Devlin's contribution to this debate. Senator Devlin enumerated many of the achievements on the waterfront and in the seagoing and maritime industries of this country. They are achievements of which we can be justly and rightly proud. This Government is not resting on its laurels; it is proceeding further. This very valuable report is comprised of I think five volumes, and no doubt my colleague Senator Cooney, who is going through them in depth and in detail at the moment, will perhaps itemise each and every volume in his five minutes. Senator Panizza drew my attention to an article in the Canberra Times today. I think it is perhaps not the best article that I have read about this report. Unfortunately, the Canberra Times is the last newspaper that I have had an opportunity to read today. From a quick browse through the article, I noticed that it picks up some of the points made by the Inter-State Commission's waterfront investigation. However, I do not think that the coverage given to the report is absolutely fair and unbiased, and that is part of a particular problem. If we are to arrive at any major resolution of the difficulties and problems that exist on the waterfront-and all sides involved in the industry, as well as State and Commonwealth governments, admit that there are problems-it will need to be done by cooperation. I do not think one-sided, biased reports-although this is not the most biased or damning report I have ever read in a newspaper-do not help or assist the cause. The five volume report of the Inter-State Commission that the Senate is now discussing is an interim report. It opens up ideas and suggestions, which were enumerated by Senator Messner in his contribution to the debate, for further discussion and consultation with the public, industry, trade unions, with the workers involved and with State governments. In fact, every sector of society can be involved in ongoing discussions to bring about an efficient, manageable and, it is hoped, profitable waterfront industry. The report re-emphasises the industrial relations achievements of the Hawke Labor Government. In a previous debate I went through the statistics relating to the levels of strike activity under the present Labor Government compared with the position under the previous Liberal-National Party Government led by Malcolm Fraser. In the 5 1/2 years that Labor has been in office, we have dropped the figure of industrial disputes by 55 per cent. We still agree that it is much too high, but it is important to note-I do not have the figures to hand at present-that the waterfront industry, as Senator Devlin said, is not up with the leaders in levels of industrial activity at the moment. Part of the reason is the ongoing consultation that this Government has initiated. We have encouraged cooperation-and we are very grateful for the cooperation that we have received-from the maritime and seamen's unions. We hope that this report will serve as a catalyst for much more cooperation and consultation in this important sphere. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales) —by leave-It is proper to appreciate the review role that the Senate can take in respect of discussions of reports such as the report of the Inter-State Commission and its preliminary findings in regard to the waterfront industry. The Senate surely must adopt a more objective position than that which has been suggested in some quarters in this debate. Certainly all the problems in the industry did not begin in March 1983. To that extent it would be futile to take the view that the problems associated with the industry will evaporate as a result of one inquiry or one report. The Government is entitled to say that it recognises the fundamentals. The Government in its first term of office set in train a commission on this subject. It took upon itself the responsibility of establishing terms of reference with a view to seeking to reach a more rational position in the industry. The Government received many submissions from various interest groups which have an involvement in the industry. The Government recognised that the industry itself played a significant role in the Australian economy. Now we are required to examine half a dozen volumes of this report with a view to trying to reach a conclusion in the interests of the industry, the economy and the various parties represented in the industry. To that extent, a short term critique emanating from the Opposition is not helpful. We must surely weigh the various submissions and conclusions reached by the Inter-State Commission in a way that will be profitable from an economic and parliamentary point of view. It does not mean one has to take a biased or partisan position, but rather that one should weigh the various recommendations and problems that beset the industry. No purpose will be served at the outset to do very much more at this stage when honourable senators have not had the opportunity to do more than look at the preliminary findings-and that is what we are concerned with in this report. We are not concerned with the substantive position at this time. In the short time that some of us have had to examine these submissions, one can reach the conclusion that the Inter-State Commission is in broad agreement with the principles of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) particularly as they relate to the amalgamation of the industrial organisations concerned. Already I personally am aware of a number of such amalgamations that are taking place in the industry. I recall in the last session of Parliament, together with the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, sitting down with representatives of some of the industrial organisations when they pointed out that they had taken steps to bring about a more rational approach to the use of human resources in the industry. I was very impressed with the quality of submissions from the employee organisations in that discussion when I was fortunate to be present at a meeting of the Labor Party's communications committee. The Inter-State Commission favours union amalgamation and the ACTU's approach. There is no substantive disagreement, therefore, with the general thrust of the Industrial Relations Bill which is being considered by the Senate and to which debate many honourable senators have contributed. It is clear that in all countries there is a degree of reconstruction and rationalisation taking place. It does not matter where one goes, one sees evidence of this. I recently went on a trip to the People's Republic of China which faces problems in this respect. Although debate is useful at present, we should not be seeking to reach a conclusive position. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.08) —I 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 1988 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 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. I do not remember a set of referendum proposals that have been so deceptive and dishonest. I do not remember referendum proposals that have deliberately received so little attention, publicity or support from the Government which, on this occasion, has set out to make certain that the people of Australia do not know what the issues really are. In other words, this Government is relying on ignorance of its real motives to ensure that these referendum proposals are carried. It is relying on people not finding out what the proposals will do and, as a result, it has set out on an extraordinary campaign to limit the amount of public discussion; and that has been proved successful. In the first place, the timing of the referendum is incredible. It is occurring about 10 days after the presentation of the Budget which, of course, would be the centre of people's attention. In the run-up to the Budget people tend to concentrate on what is likely to be contained in that Budget. So in the first place the timing of the actual referendum is aimed at diminishing public discussion of the significance of the questions and the real meanings of the questions being asked. Secondly, the Government has run dead on these proposals. That might make it sound as though it were not trying to get them passed. The reality is that the only way in which these proposals could be carried is if there was no effective public discussion, because any examination of the proposals reveals how crooked, dishonest and deceptive they really are. Not one of the proposals actually does what it purports to do, and most of them do exactly the opposite. Instead of protecting Australia and Australians, they expose them to risks. Instead of extending the likely term of the Parliament, they effectively create a situation in which such terms can be significantly reduced. The first question is the one that concerns me most and is the subject of my motion. It suggests, quite improperly, that, if carried, it will extend the term of the Parliament and reduce the number of elections. In fact, the deceptive booklet which contains the Yes case, which has been printed at public expense and distributed to some, but not all, Australians in a proper way-I will deal with that point later-states: By voting YES for four-year maximum terms for Federal Parliament you can help stop this practice. That is, the practice of early elections. That is simply totally false. It continues: The public will be spared the disruption caused by having too many elections. That is simply, uncomplicatedly false. The booklet continues: The business community has strongly supported four year terms because it believes they are very important for Australia's future welfare. It is true that the business community supports four-year terms, but it is totally false that it supports this crooked proposal that this crooked Government has put up in this crooked way. Senator Lewis —Who is making these false statements? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank Senator Lewis for the interjection. The people making these false statements are members of the Australian Labor Party Government-the Party which is entrusted with the government of this country. It is a trust that they have perverted, a trust which I am certain the people of Australia will recognise should not be given to them. The problem is, of course, that this Government is using the proposition, which it has used invariably that any change is for the better. It continually uses the word `reform' when it really means `change'. Not all change is for the better. In this case, it certainly is not. The reality is that the Government is fighting its campaign on one basic proposition; that is, there have been too many elections, and proposal No. 1 somehow, magically, will end that situation. That is totally false. One could look at every proposition it puts and establish quite clearly how false they are. The Government says, for example, that the watchdog role of the Senate will not be affected in any way. That is false. Let us see exactly how false these propositions are. This Government is, in effect, saying that the way to correct the situation of there being too many elections is to increase the power of a Prime Minister to call elections whenever he wants. That is what this proposition really does. On the surface, it increases the maximum term that a parliament could serve. What it does not reveal is that it wipes out the one restraint on a Prime Minister from calling elections for both Houses whenever he wants. The Opposition has, in general, supported the concept, as has business, of extending the terms of the Parliament, but not at the risk of shortening its effective terms; in other words, not by providing the Prime Minister with added power to call an election whenever he wants, Clearly it is in my vested interest to support a genuine proposal to extend the terms of the Parliament. After all, I have had to fight six elections, five of which I am glad to have won; one of which I regret that I did not win. Those successful election victories should have meant that I had served for 21 years. In fact, I have been a parliamentarian for less than 10 1/2 years. In other words, I have fought enough elections to have served here for twice the time that I have served. Senator Bolkus used that sort of experience of his to defend the proposition that, therefore, we should extend the possible term of a government to four years and remove the one restriction on a Prime Minister from calling an election any time that he wants. Surely, the lesson from my experience and from Senator Bolkus's experience is that if a Prime Minister who has so little integrity that he can promise that, under his leadership, parliaments will run for their full terms, and then, on each occasion, call early elections, what possible prospect will there be, once that one restraint on him is removed, that we will have fewer elections. As I said, it may well be that a Prime Minister of integrity will not call as many elections. But will this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-who has not on one occasion stuck to his word about parliaments running their full terms-abuse the extra power that he proposes that he be given under this first referendum proposal? Let us be clear about this: he is being given extra power-power which he does not have at the moment-to call an election whenever he wants. For example, he would not have the power to call an early election this year if he chose to. He would not have the power under the present Constitution because to call an election for both Houses of this Parliament an important piece of legislation would have to be defeated twice in this chamber. He does not have the time for that to happen this year because if we defeated an important piece of legislation it would mean that the people of Australia would have the opportunity to find out what it was all about before it came back to us and it would not come back to us till next year. However, if this proposal goes through this Prime Minister could do one simple thing. He could prevent discussion of it in this chamber in a delaying sense. He could in fact ram it through by doing one very simple thing. It might be, for example, about the file tax number. On 4 September he could say, `This is vital. We have to have this legislation. I don't want the Senate to have the opportunity to delay it, therefore we will have an immediate election so that the people can give me a mandate to introduce a tax file number'. He could have that straight away. In three weeks that election could be over. The people of Australia would then not be given the chance of detailed examination, of beginning to understand what the real issues are. In three weeks he could be elected, perhaps with a mandate to introduce something that the people of Australia have not had the chance to examine thoroughly. Senator Calvert —And he would do it too. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the honourable senator from Tasmania. Absolutely correct. He would do it too. He has shown a total lack of integrity on this matter, repeatedly. What we face here is a real problem because if this had been, say, the identification card proposal the Prime Minister, if this proposal had been in existence, could have cut short that discussion completely, at the very beginning of it. He could have said, `I'll go to the people. I need a mandate to introduce it'. Quite frankly, the Senate would not have had the power to delay it before any such election. It would not have had the power to delay it because the Prime Minister will now have the power to call an election whenever he wants. There would be none of that six to eight months of discussion on the ID card which eventually exposed the Government's disgraceful, dishonourable and dishonest intentions about that ID card. The reality of the ID card would not have been exposed because there would not have been the time to do so. The public indignation would not have been generated as it was and the Prime Minister would have got away with it. That is what this is all about. It is to give the Prime Minister the power to get away with what he could not get away with in relation to the ID card, the Bill of Rights, section 45d of the Trade Practices Act, or any other of the disgraceful bits of legislation which he has tried to ram through this chamber and which we have refused to allow to pass. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —A very good reason why we should vote no. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —And Senator Bjelke-Petersen says, a very good reason why we should vote no. There is a deliberate Government campaign to refuse to allow the people of Australia to even find out the issues in this referendum. In the region that I seek to represent in some detail in this chamber-that is, the southern region of New South Wales-there are many areas which only this week received their official Yes and No cases from the Australian Electoral Commission. Only this week! For example, in Mittagong many people have phoned telling me that they only received their Yes or No cases on Monday. In Kieraville, a suburb of Wollongong, they received them on Tuesday and in Dapto they received them at the end of last week. Yet the law specifically says that these should all be delivered, as near as practicable, two weeks before the referendum. As I said, this is part of a deliberate and determined pattern by this Government which cut that minimum time more than in half in respect of these people. This is a deliberate campaign to refuse to allow the people of Australia to understand and inform themselves of the issue. It is worth while recognising that the Catholic bishops' complaints about this referendum do not simply apply to the freedom of religion issues. They strike at this very important and most significant point that the Government basically has set out to mislead Australians on all of these proposals, not just the one that the Catholic bishops are particularly concerned about. I quote from the Catholic bishops' statement: Each question involves significant issues of public policy and individual rights. All voters have a clear moral responsibility to inform themselves of the issues and the central Commission is concerned about the manner in which the issues in this referendum are presented. It goes on: There should not be undue concentration of political power in the Commonwealth. We have seen deliberate confusion by the Government, deliberate refusal to allow the people of Australia to find out the issues and of course a deliberate wording of these referendum proposals which are simply dishonest. Of course, the whole campaign is dishonest. Let us have a look at what the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, said. He said that one cannot possibly have what some people are saying; that is, a Senate serving twice the time of the House of Representatives because, as he says: The Australian people have made it quite clear they will not support an eight year term for a politician. .That is simply dishonest bunkum. The New South Wales upper House, for example, has a 12-year term. The Victorian upper House has an eight-year term. The South Australian upper House has an eight-year term. Apparently, according to Mr Bowen, these do not exist; the Australian people will not wear it. What absolute bunkum. We have non-stop continual dishonest nonsense. I see that Senator Bolkus also had little flights of fancy in his contribution to this the other day. He said: What this proposal will do is bring us into line with just about every other parliament in the country. There is no other upper House in this country in this situation except I think for South Australia, where Senator Bolkus comes from. His vision is clearly limited by his State boundary and his knowledge is limited accordingly. Every other State with an upper House has a system where in fact the lower House and the upper House do not get fully elected at the same time. We just have continual distortion and dishonesty from every speaker on the Government side on this issue. It is just a parade of absolute nonsense. Mr Bowen said: This referendum will not remove or weaken the power of the Senate in any way. That is patent bunkum. I have just demonstrated that it removes the power of the Senate to delay for six months, at least. It does not provide the public with the option to find out what an issue is because it gives that power to the Prime Minister to cut away beneath the Senate's feet the right to take the issue direct to the people. It would refuse to give the people more than three weeks time to find out what it is all about. This proposal would give this Prime Minister, who has shown his own lack of integrity on this issue, the power that he does not have at the moment to call an election this year. I can just hear him saying it: `Look you've just voted for this new system so I'm not giving you an early election, I'm giving you the chance that you've just voted for to start the new system straight away. I want a mandate for a tax file number'. Think of all the benefits this would give this Prime Minister. It would force the Labor Party, for example, into a bit of cohesion. It would stop this massive fight at the top between the Treasurer, Mr Keating, and the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, because they would have to be united to fight an election campaign. As a result, if they were forced to stop this dreadful brawling because there was an election that of course would be to the benefit of the Labor Party. It would remove the risk that now appears to the tax cuts. Sure, they have promised that there are going to be tax cuts. But what happens if commodity prices fall next year? It would be much more convenient for the Labor Party to go to an election this year saying, `Well, look, we've got a huge surplus so obviously we can promise you these marvellous tax cuts next year'. It is always better to promise than to deliver because after one has delivered one has nothing left to promise. There is no doubt that Mr Hawke himself would have this exciting prospect. He would love to win a fourth term so that he could beat Malcolm Fraser. The only way he would be doing that is if he cheated, got this referendum proposal through, and was able to have an election this year. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-Mr President, before you put the question relating to the adjournment, I wish to raise a matter concerning report No. 17 The Waterfront Investigation which appeared today in General Business, I understand that Senator Knowles moved that the debate be adjourned. Senator Gietzelt spoke subsequently. It was our intention to retain this report on the Notice Paper, by having the debate adjourned. Could I clarify the matter? The PRESIDENT —I believe that Senator Gietzelt spoke by leave; therefore the matter is still on the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT —Order! Under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(6.30) —I would like to take a few minutes to raise one issue about this new building. I do not want to be classified as one who has joined the list of people making unreasonable moans about things that should have been different, but I raise this issue because it is broader than just this building. I would like my remarks to be taken note of by a wide range of bodies and owners of buildings. I refer to a sign which I noticed today for the first time in the public area on the first floor, a sign that said `Mothers Room'. I presume that what is meant by that is that it is a baby changing room-that is, a baby's nappy changing room, not where one changes babies. It may perhaps even be a quiet room for feeding. I do not know who is responsible, the Joint House Department or the Parliament House Construction Authority, but whoever is responsible should take note that such a reference to a room is anachronistic, sexist and certainly insensitive. It continues to entrench attitudes which ought to be out of date-that mothers are the only people responsible for the caring of babies and that fathers are not able or expected to perform tasks such as changing nappies or feeding. Certainly if the mother is breast feeding, the father is less able to help. But even in that case it is sometimes appropriate for both partners to assist in that process. I certainly believe it is wrong for us to have a room that is labelled as a mothers room. Even a few years ago at the Trans Australia Airlines concourse at Melbourne Airport, what was a similar room had the sign changed to one which was non-specific about the care of children. I think it is very good that there is such a room here and that it was included in the brief and built. But the question is: what should it be called? Probably any of the following would be okay: parents room, baby care room, or baby changing room-or a non-gender specific international symbol. I raise this issue in the hope that it can be taken up by whoever is responsible in this building and, more generally, to ask that people who are in charge of any sort of building in our community, whether it be a retail store, office or whatever, not perpetuate ideas which should be out of date by labelling such rooms as `mothers room'. This building should be leading the way in this sort of area. It is a pity it did not, so far, but I hope it will from now on. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(6.34) —I rise to bring to the attention of the Parliament the inconsistencies of a report which appeared in yesterday's Canberra Times. It is not my normal approach to criticise the printed media; however, in this instance, I feel that I am obliged to set the record straight. The large article, which was on the front page, was titled `Tasmanian parasite puts meat exports in jeopardy'. The very nature of this heading is enough, I believe, to cause concern. The article does no justice to the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry, nor does it do justice to the Tasmanian meat industry, which has an enviable record for both its quality and controls. Mention is also made in the article of the testing facilities available through the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. Whilst I do not agree totally with some of the comments made, I am at this stage more concerned in setting the record straight with regard to Tasmania. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the Canberra Times has chosen not to print in today's edition a follow-up on the story, and so there may be some who have gained the wrong impression. The article concerns the death of three tiger quolls-native cats-which it is believed may have died from Trichinella spiralis, which is an exotic parasite capable of having very detrimental effects on humans and wildlife. The article claims that Trichinella spiralis spreads between animals when they consume meat containing the infected cysts. Quite rightly, it points out that Australia has prided itself upon its exporting of only clean pork, an industry which is worth some $14m to the Australian economy. The implications from the article are that the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry may have been remiss in the handling of this matter and that these actions could have placed the industry in jeopardy. However, quite assuredly this is not the case and my investigations have convinced me that not only has the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry handled this matter in a most effective manner, but it has also quite rightly attempted to downplay the hysterical reactions which could quite easily have developed from such an issue. We have only to hark back to the pubic hysteria that occurred over the kangaroo meat fiasco, and the damage that caused our meat industry, to realise what could happen. Today I am pleased to announce in this chamber that the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nick Evers, has advised that testing for the trichinella in 1,768 pig samples from Tasmanian abattoirs has given a 100 per cent parasite free result. Mr Evers has also confirmed that the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry ensured that prompt advice of the incident was relayed to veterinarians and public health authorities throughout the State following earlier advice to all Commonwealth and State officials through the consultative committee on existing animal diseases. The upshot of all this is that the tests have proven conclusively that Tasmania's pork industry has not been affected by the discovery of the parasite in some native wildlife species. While a positive identification of the parasite is yet to be made, it could safely be advised that it is likely that this Australian variant of trichinella, having a strict marsupial dependent life cycle, will have little or no effect on Tasmania's meat and livestock exports. This could be further supported by the fact that some rats, mice and cats from the area have been examined and found to be unaffected by the parasite. It is believed that the infection may have been present in Tasmania for some time. However, it is being regarded as an infection confined to undomesticated species and will present little, if any, danger to human health. Both Mr Evers and the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry are unhappy with the delay in testing the nature of the parasite by the laboratory in Atlanta; however, it is a matter which has been largely out of their control. It is also important that the Parliament notes that the pork industry within Tasmania operates under the most stringent guidelines and that the feeding of swill to pigs in Tasmania has been controlled for many years and no piggeries are licensed to feed kitchen waste to pigs. In concluding, I would also like to raise the possibility that this matter could have affected Tasmania's game industry. I do not know whether any honourable senators present have had the opportunity to taste Tasmanian game; if they have not, I would strongly suggest that they do because it is very enjoyable. But the point I make is that Tasmanian game species, not being carnivores, are unlikely to be implicated in any way. Animals are most likely to be affected by eating other animals or carrion in which there are muscle larvae. Mr President, I hope that I have set the record straight on this matter, that you enjoy your meal, and that I may have done some good in ensuring that the full story is understood. I would not like anyone to think that Tasmania had been lax in this matter or that Tasmania would put the meat export industry at risk. This is not the case and simply has not happened. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.40 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1988- No. 5-New topic to be included as a supplement to the labour force survey: Attendance at education institutions. No. 6-Agricultural Finance Survey. No. 7-Survey of New Capital Expenditure, 1987-88. No. 8-Survey of Motor Vehicle Use. No. 9-Research and Development Statistics. Defence Act-Determinations 1988- No. 39-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 40-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 41-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 42-Overseas Living Allowance and others.