Wednesday, 12 October 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitution Alteration (Electors Initiative) Bill 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill of citizen initiated constitutional and legislative referenda and voters' veto. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will pass said bill so that a national referendum can be held on this matter with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: The Australian Government's proposed War Crimes Amendment Bill is seriously deficient. It is discriminatory. The attention of the Bill is focused exclusively on political refugees from the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia. It is bound to result in hostile political stereotyping of refugees from Communist countries and will be profoundly destructive of Australia's multi-cultural society. Your petitioners most humbly pray that, if the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled are minded to support the War Crimes Amendment Bill, the following provisions be guaranteed: 1. That Soviet, Yugoslav or other similar evidence should be totally disregarded unless corroborated by independent evidence clearly beyond Soviet (or similar) control. 2. That the defendant should have adequate and equal access to archives and site visits, as well as the right to select and interview witnesses from overseas, in the preparation of his defence. 3. No affidavits, videotapes or audiotapes to be admissible as evidence. Witnesses to appear in person and be cross-examined before an Australian jury. 4. The word ``Omission'' to be deleted from s.6 (1) (k) (III) and s.6 (5). 5. No extradition to occur before trial or after verdict. 6. Entitlement to legal assistance for the defendant so that he can conduct a proper defence. 7. Financial compensation to any person cleared of war crimes allegations. by Senator McLean (from 120 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: millions of dollars of taxpayers money is spent at each Federal election in Australia in the drafting, production and distribution of How-to-Vote cards which are unnecessary and pollutant and that this waste is not desirable or essential in assisting the electorate to vote informatively for their parliamentarians. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to introduce legislation which requires that the registered How-to-Vote cards of all political parties and candidates for political office must be placed under glass in every polling booth within obvious sight of all voters, thus making it unnecessary for How-to-Vote cards to be distributed at future federal elections. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable President of the Senate and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned at the Government's proposal to reduce significantly the pension and access to fringe benefits of persons who in good faith bought market linked insurance bonds, friendly society bonds, approved deposit funds, deferred annuities and unit trusts to protect their savings. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, amend the proposed legislation to ensure that it will not apply retrospectively and that provision is made to protect savings against inflation. by Senator Brownhill (from 49 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard of care now available in nursing homes in this State. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Patterson (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs-including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat, and place them for cost saving reasons only on a special list requiring authority from a Canberra bureaucrat, and; that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to waste valuable time referring a case to a person in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should heed the above. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Panizza (from 2,751 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate. The petition of certain citizens showeth that: The introduction of the new two dollar coin, the introduction of the Bi-Centennial Ten Dollar Note and the possible introduction of other coins is being done by Treasury without the direct consent of the majority of people in Australia. The disabled and aged members of the community are having great difficulty identifying the present one dollar coin, introduced in nineteen eighty four, and express their concern of not being able to tell the difference between the new two dollar coin and the two cent piece. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honoured house urge the government to: Investigate as a matter of urgency, means by which all persons in the community may have access to changes relating to currency, and changes only take place after due time has been given for all Australians to view the new currency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McLean (from 370 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the verdict on Saturday, 8 October 1988, of the electors of Oxley on the Hawke Government's performance in governing Australia for the past 5 1/2 years; (b) notes that the 2 party preferred swing of 12.5 per cent against the Labor Party in Oxley has exceeded even the very large swings of 8.4 per cent and 11.1 per cent previously recorded in the Federal by-elections for the seats of Adelaide and Port Adelaide, respectively, earlier in 1988; and (c) calls on the Hawke Government to acknowledge that the arrogance of its senior Ministers, and their progressive loss of touch with the feelings and aspirations of ordinary Australians, now render that Government unfit to be entrusted with the future fortunes of Australia. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —On behalf of Senator Richardson, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to to amend certain Acts relating to Defence. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —On behalf of Senator Chaney, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the Senate- (a) notes the swing against the Australian Labor Party of more than 12 per cent in the Oxley by-election on Saturday, 1 October 1988; (b) notes that this swing is the biggest by-election reversal since the historic Bass result in 1975, which preceded the destruction of the Whitlam Government; (c) notes that the Oxley result continues the disastrous run of by-election outcomes for the Hawke-Keating Government seen earlier in 1988 in the Federal seats of Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Groom; and (d) calls on the Government to acknowledge the error of its arrogant, out-of-touch postponement of tax cuts for wage and salary earners until just before the next election, which postponement has made a major contribution to the policies which have brought about a drastic decline in the living standards of all Australians. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, five sitting days hence, I shall move: (1) (a) That a Standing Committee of the Senate, to be known as the Standing Committee on Treaties, be appointed to consider all treaties laid before the Senate, and any other treaties to which the Committee may have access, and to report in respect of each such treaty: (i) whether Australia should undertake to be bound by that treaty if that treaty is not already binding upon Australia, and (ii) the effect which Australia's being bound by that treaty has or would have upon the legislative powers and responsibilities of the Australian States; and (b) that, for the purposes of this Resolution: ``treaty`` means any agreement or proposed agreement in writing between 2 or more countries which imposes or would impose rights and obligations upon those countries and which is or is intended to be binding upon those countries; and ``undertake to be bound'' in relation to a treaty refers to any action which would have the effect of making that treaty binding upon Australia, including the signing of documents, the ratification of that treaty or adherence or accession to that treaty. (2) (a) That the Committee consist of 8 Senators, 4 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, and one Independent Senator; (b) that, of the Senators appointed to the Committee pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) (a), there shall be at least one Senator for each State; and (c) that, if nominations made under sub-paragraph (2) (a) are such that appointments to the Committee in accordance with those nominations would not comply with sub-paragraph (2) (b), the President shall notify the Senate accordingly and ask for fresh nominations, and if those fresh nominations are such that appointments to the Committee in accordance with them would not comply with sub-paragraph (2) (b), the President shall notify the Senate accordingly and the Senate shall determine the appointments to the Committee in accordance with this paragraph so far as is practicable. (3) That the Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the quorum of the Committee be 4. (5) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be 2 Senators. (6) That the Committee elect a member nominated by the Leader of the Government as Chairman. (7) That the Chairman may, from time to time, appoint a member of the Committee to be Deputy-Chairman and the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (9) That a Senator, though not a member of the Committee, may participate in its public sessions and question witnesses, unless the Committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote. (10) That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (11) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and that a daily Hansard be published of such proceeding of the Committee as take place in public. (12) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint counsel to advise the Committee, and other persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee, with the approval of the President. (13) That the Committee have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit, and make regular reports on its deliberations. (14) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator HILL(South Australia) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That regulation 7 of the Australian Federal Police Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 83 and made under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, be disallowed. I seek leave to explain very briefly the notice of motion that I have just given. Leave granted. Senator HILL —I thank the Senate. The purpose of giving this notice is to allow further time for my Party to consult with others who are concerned by the changes that are being brought about to the Australian Federal Police Regulations. The change that we are particularly concerned with is one that has the effect of limiting appeal rights upon promotion. About 140 positions would no longer by appealable if this regulation became law. We believe, upon representations from the Federal Police Association, that the matter should be given very careful consideration. I have thus given this notice of motion in order that such consultations can take place. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the organisers of the Bicentennial Air Show for proceeding with a mid-air display of aviation acrobatics despite the horrific accident at Ramstein Air Base in West Germany when nearly 60 people died and hundreds were hideously injured; (b) condemns the use by the United States (US) Air Force of Richmond Air Base as a military airlift command depot which provides a staging point for flying supplies and equipment to the US bases in Australia, which are themselves integral to the first-strike capability of the US; and (cd) condemns the use of the Bicentenary celebrations for the hosting of a high-technology arms bazaar which under the guise of birthday celebrations promotes the sale and export of weapons of death and destruction. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) take note of the massive 12.5 per cent swing against the Government on Saturday, 8 October, in the Federal by-election in Oxley; (b) notes, in this connection, the conflicting economic messages being delivered recently to the electors of Oxley, as well as all other Australians, by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, respectively; and (c) notes the back-pedalling now inherent in the remarks by all those Ministers on both wages and taxation policy as the Government seeks to mend its fences in those areas. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the Australian Conservation Foundation on the outstanding success of its recent national conference, held in Sydney, entitled `taking stock and strategies for the future'; and (b) acknowledges the extreme severity of the ecological challenge at both the national and global levels, as so potently described by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, (Senator Richardson), Professor David Bellamy and other eminent speakers at the conference, and undertakes, on behalf of the Australian people to make every possible effort, through a concerted bipartisan approach to legislate to meet these enormous challenges. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the huge swing of more than 12 per cent against the Hawke-Keating Government in the by-election for Oxley, formerly one of Labor's safest seats; (b) urges the Government to take heed of this message from its former supporters who have joined thousands of other disillusioned Labor voters who have shown their disgust at the Hawke-Keating Government's arrogant abandonment of their interests by registering similar swings in previous Federal and State by-elections; (c) notes the double standards of a government which imposes severely reduced living standards on the Australian people while sanctioning an extravagant overseas jaunt by the Governor-General designate and former Member for Oxley; (d) notes that average Australian families are $56 a week worse off than when Labor assumed office in 1983; and (e) calls on this out-of-touch Government to implement policies advocated by the Liberal and National Parties which will lead to increased productivity and a restoration of Australian living standards. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move- That the Senate- (a) notes the rejection by the electors of Oxley, on Saturday, 8 October 1988 of the Prime Minister's repeated forecast to those electors that better times lie ahead for them and their fellow Australians; (b) notes, in this connection, the Federal Government's failure to read the message delivered to it by the Australian people as a whole at the referendum ballot on 3 September 1988, namely, that they refuse to be conned by misinformation campaigns out of Canberra; and (c) calls on the Government now to come clean with the Australian people as to the increasingly worrying state of our balance of payments and foreign debt problems and the need for a complete recasting of its current economic strategy for dealing with those problems. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) the deep fears exhibited in September 1988 by the Leader of the Queensland Parliamentary Labor Party, Mr Wayne Goss, that the Federal by-election for the seat of Oxley might have the incidental result of precipitating a subsequent by-election in one of the Labor-held State seats in the Ipswich area; (b) that these fears reflect the continuing appalling electoral performance of the Queensland branch of the Labor Party at the State level, as reflected most recently by the further major fall in its vote in the South Coast by-election, despite circumstances which could hardly have been more favourable for it in that contest; (c) that, as a consequence of the Labor Party's unwillingness to face the electors again in a State by-election, the candidate eventually imposed upon the local Labor Party members and voters in Oxley was both unknown and unwanted by those members and voters; and (d) that, despite the massive spending by the Labor Party in the Oxley campaign in an attempt to overcome these disabilities, Labor Party members and voters in that electorate on Saturday, 8 October 1988, clearly rejected this further example of dictatorial behaviour by a failed party machine in Brisbane. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with alarm the increasing use of drugs to improve performance levels in sports as witnessed during the recently completed Seoul Olympics; (b) congratulates all Australian athletes on the manner and high standard of their participation at the Seoul Olympics and, in particular, those who achieved personal best performances; (c) recognises that 1996 is the 100th Anniversary of the first modern Olympiad which was held in Athens in 1896; and (d) urges all Australian cities to cancel their bids to host the 1996 Olympics and to support the Greek bid to host the Centennial Olympics in Athens. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates Labor's Mr Les Scott for his victory in the Oxley by-election and notes that the National Party was relegated to third place after losing votes, compared with its results at the last general election. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL-Annual Report 1987-88-section 27 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 2. CASTING THE NET-Post-Harvest Technologies and Opportunities in the Fishing Industry-Australian Science and Technology Council Report-section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 3. HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979. 4. COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION-Fifty-fifth Report 1988-section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973. 5. COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION-Third Report 1988 on financing the Australian Capital Territory-Part Two-Analysis of Findings-section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973. 6. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY-Annual Report 1987-88-section 35 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. 7. ECONOMIC PLANNING ADVISORY COUNCIL-Annual Report 1987-88-section 27 of the Economic Planning Advisory Council Act 1983. 8. NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSION-Annual Report 1987-88-section 18 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966. 9. RESOLUTIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN SOIL CONSERVATION COUNCIL-Third Meeting-Cairns, 15 July 1988. Motion (by Senator Knowles, on behalf of Senator Reid) agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Parer for the period from 11 to 20 October 1988, inclusive, on account of absence overseas on Parliamentary business. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senators Beahan and Burns for the period from 11 to 20 October 1988, inclusive, on account of absence overseas on Parliamentary business. Motion (by Senator Hamer) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal Part VI of the Navigation Act 1912, so as to remove the obligation for ships to obtain a licence or a permit to engage in the coasting trade, and to repeal other sections of the Act which relate only to the coasting trade. Motion (by Senator Hamer) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes to repeal Part VI of the Navigation Act. This Bill was first introduced into the Senate just over two years ago to expose the unnecessarily high costs of coastal shipping in Australia as the result of monopoly control and the excessively high standards and conditions enjoyed by Australian seamen which are a major contributing factor to these high costs. Earlier this year, the Industries Assistance Commission, at the behest of the Government, produced a draft report on Coastal Shipping which substantiated and amplified my claims of two years ago. That report was a devastating indictment of the state of our coastal shipping and our port handling facilities. Let me remind Honourable Senators of the findings of this Draft Report on Coastal Shipping: Coastal shipping in Australia is uncompetitive and inefficient. High costs and a poor record of service have progressively reduced the industry to a position where the only goods currently shipped around the coast tend to be those for which alternative transport modes are either not available, or are not a realistic proposition. Whilst this must be of concern to the industry itself, the real issue for the Australian community is that inefficient coastal shipping services jeopardise growth and employment opportunities in the rest of the economy. In July of this year the Commission brought down their final report which is still on the papers list for discussion in this Chamber and which, despite the attempted sabotage by the Government, comes up with the same findings as the Draft Report. Both the draft and the final Reports conclude that any reforms resulting from the Crawford and Maritime Industry Development Committees within the coastal shipping industry are taking place too slowly and that major inefficiencies (both on-board and on-shore) manifest themselves in the form of excessive costs and avoidable delays which erode the international competitiveness of Australian industries. For these reasons and because of the appalling state of the whole shipping and waterfront industry in the past twelve months which have seen delays in the movement of cargoes, which have crippled many businesses and have had a disastrous effect on our exports and confirmed our reputation abroad as an unreliable supplier of urgently needed goods, I have decided to introduce the Navigation (Deregulation of Coasting Trade) Bill 1988, which is only very slightly changed from the Bill which I introduced in April 1986. As I said at the outset this Bill proposes to repeal Part VI of the Navigation Act to open up coastal shipping to competition and thereby improve its cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Let me remind the Senate what I said in this Chamber two years ago. I began by summarising the substance of Part VI. Part VI comprises a set of rules which apply separately to interstate shipping, making coastal shipping separate and distinct from overseas shipping. Under this part of the Act, interstate trade can only be undertaken by ships registered in Australia or by a foreign ship operating with similar crew numbers and similar crew conditions to those applying to Australian ships. The only situation in which a foreign ship may obtain a permit to operate in the coasting trade without meeting the stringent Australian crew requirements is for a single voyage where no suitable Australian ship is available for that particular freight movement. To ensure that only Australian ships or foreign ships meeting the Australian crew requirements operate in the coasting trade, a licence or permit is issued for ships to operate this trade and no ship can operate in the coasting trade without this licence or permit. The point of my Navigation Amendment Bill two years ago was to repeal the onerous and iniquitous requirement for a licence to operate in the interstate trade of Australia. For what Part VI has achieved is a monopoly over the coasting trade, a rort for the seagoing unions in Australia and a high cost service for which all Australians have been paying dearly for since 1921. Two years ago I asked: `Why do we have a Navigation Act and what were the original intentions of the Act?' And today, I intend to remind Honourable Senators of the history of that Act. The Australian Navigation Act came into being in 1912. It was based on the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 adapted to Australian conditions. The provisions of the Act underpin almost all aspects of the conduct of Australian merchant shipping. The primary objective was to build up an Australian Mercantile Marine, but in the context of an `even-handed attitude' towards shipping. This `even-handed attitude' was made quite clear by the Attorney-General of the time, Billy Hughes, when he said: The shipping industry must not be treated differently from any other. We have to consider how far our policy can be applied without materially interfering with our commerce and the convenience of our travelling public or without attempting a policy of differential treatment towards the various maritime nations. The first Navigation Bill in Australia was debated from September 1910 until the Bill finally passed both Houses in December 1912. Both Houses were divided on the question of the coasting trade, as it was called at that time. The arguments for the protection of the coastal trade will be familiar: It is of vital importance that Australia build up its own Mercantile Marine and thereby have a maritime presence in the Pacific area. Australia has the highest standard of wages and living conditions in the world- remember that this was 1910; we are now fourteenth and dropping in the world list- These standards must be maintained at all costs. Foreign vessels in competition with our own are heavily subsidized by their own Governments. Most other countries also protect their coastal trade. One other argument not so relevant or familiar today may evoke memories for some of us: Crews operating in the coastal trade should be white and not coloured, because coloured crews are not treated with the same wages and conditions as white crews. But there were also some visionaries in the Parliament at that time and the counter arguments ran as follows: Protection of the coastal trade will increase the working cost of shipping around Australia. The community will suffer, because if you increase the expenditure of shipowners, they will have to charge higher rates for passenger fares and the carriage of goods, until the increase comes home to every consumer. Parliamentary interference with the laws of political economy hit back in boomerang fashion upon those responsible for it. And to quote more fully from a speech in 1912 by Mr William James McWilliams from Tasmania: Personally I regard the Shipping Federation of Australia as the greatest monopoly in Australia; and I believe the whole basis of this Bill is to still further strengthen and buttress that monopoly, and wherever the monopoly does not exist already, to make it a sure and certain chain round the whole Australian coast. He went on to forecast that the Shipping Federation and the labour unions would make cosy deals between themselves-the former to have an entire monopoly without competition on the Australian coast and the latter to have such rates of pay and conditions as they demanded-and the public take the hindmost. He concluded his speech by saying: This Bill strikes at the very root of commerce. It is based on a law which has created, and always will create, monopoly, and which will always hand over the public to two factors-the Shipping Federation and the great organized trades unions . . . By shutting out competition we shall throw the people body and soul into the hands of the Shipping Combine. Under this Bill there will be built up a huge monopoly which will suck the very life blood from the people of Australia who are largely dependent on commerce by sea. We shall be hampering enormously the primary producer by making him pay increased freights and charges. Sadly he was absolutely right about the `huge monopoly' and the `great organized trades unions', and his Cassandra-like prophecies haunt us today. Although the Navigation Bill passed both Houses in 1912, it was not proclaimed until 1920-and then only in part. Fifty-two clauses and two schedules were proclaimed to come into operation from 2 March 1920, but that proclamation was repealed and the Act did not come into full operation until 1921. Part VI dealing with the Coasting Trade came into force also in 1921, but it was proclaimed in a web of dishonest publicity: it was said that this was legislation which supported competition in the coastal trade. `Any ship-Australian or foreign-could be licensed to engage in the coasting trade provided that it complied with certain conditions.' Certainly, the cost of the licence itself was no bar for a foreign ship. The licence is issued for a nominal fee. Today the licence costs a mere $16. What, then, was the crippling and unacceptable bar to foreign ships in the coasting trade? It was the set of conditions attached to the licence: - Seamen had to be paid at the current rates of pay operating in Australia; - Ships had to operate with Australian manning levels and Australian conditions and accommodation requirements; - If a library was provided for passengers on board, the seamen had to be permitted to use the library as well. These conditions still apply today-sixty-eight years later-to our cost. Australian coastal shipping has to be operated at Australian award rates, with Australian manning levels and Australian conditions of crew accommodation. Unless these conditions are met a licence will not be issued to a foreign ship to operate in the coastal trade. As all honourable senators will guess, no foreign ship-owner is mad enough to supply two crews for every ship, or carry in some cases almost double the number of crew required to run a ship efficiently, or provide Australian standards of food and accommodation far above those provided by any other country in the world, including countries such as Sweden or the Federal Republic of Germany with far higher standards of living than ours. It is no wonder that a library is needed to occupy Australian crews on board, since their duties, especially on the older ships in the Australian coastal fleet, include almost no ship maintenance or repairs. Many Australian ships spend costly additional time in dockyard hands to do maintenance tasks which are done as a matter of course by the crews of other nations' ships. These are the conditions which have successfully reserved for the last 68 years the coastal trade almost exclusively for Australian-owned, Australian-registered or chartered vessels and Australian crews. There is one exception, as I mentioned earlier, to the licence conditions for the coastal trade in Australia. The requirement for Australian conditions and manning levels can be waived for the issuing of a single voyage permit. The Minister for Transport may issue a single voyage permit to an unlicensed ship when a suitable licensed ship is not available and `it is in the public interest to issue a permit'. These permits are now fairly rare-26 were issued last year to convey mostly phosphate, caustic soda, sulphuric acid, aqua ammonia, and some LPG. I incorporate a table which shows the total number of single voyage permits issued since 1981/2; this table itemises the number of permits issued for the movement of different types of cargo. TABLE: 1. CARGO CARRIED UNDER SINGLE-VOYAGE PERMITS (SUMMARY) 1981-82 Ship ments Tonnes 1982-83 Ship ments Tonnes 1983-84 Ship ments Tonnes 1984-85 Ship ments Tonnes 1985-86 Ship ments Tonnes 1986-87 Ship ments Tonnes LPG ... 66 50,212 59 46,916 15 11,339 3 1,807 6 3,825 Petroleum products ... 5 96,391 . . . . . . . . . . . . Crude oil ... 1 39,934 . . . . 2 139,225 . . . . Tallow ... 6 5,423 1 1,363 2 2,215 1 400 1 1,000 . . . . Caustic soda ... 4 37,300 2 28,000 2 33,993 6 69,407 13 65,136 3 15,365 Sulphuric acid ... . . . . . . . . 2 18,485 2 9,955 1 2,520 2 5,509 General cargo ... 7 7,044 7 3,404 2 30 6 510 4 1,073 11 245 Toluene di-isocyanate (TD1) ... . . . . 4 136 . . . . . . . . Explosives ... 1 98 1 197 . . . . . . . . Phosphate ... 2 51,334 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 30,000 Molasses ... 6 25,887 . . . . . . . . 3 16,500 11 64,483 1 1,596 Bricks and timber ... 2 11,307 . . . . . . . . . . . . Aqua ammonia ... 1 3,908 . . . . . . . . 2 8,535 6 29,379 2 4,442 Newsprint ... 1 1,700 . . . . . . . . . . . . Prawns ... 4 285 . . . . . . . . . . . . Avgas ... 1 2,114 Bauxite ... 1 544 Soda ash ... 3 11,356 Zinc concentrate ... 1 3,247 Total ... 106 330,823 74 80,016 25 205,287 23 107,114 42 180,852 26 60,982 Source: Department of Transport: Annual Reports. Senator HAMER —As can be seen from the Table the number of shipments for LPG has dropped from 66 in 1981/82 to six in the last financial year, and the total number of shipments per year has dropped from 106 in 1981/82 to 26 in the latest year for which there are figures currently available. The average over the last four years has been 29 shipments per year, and perhaps that is the average in the years to come, unless action is taken to deregulate the coastal trade. One solution, as against full deregulation of coastal shipping, that has been suggested to me is the revamping of the Single Voyage Permit system (SVP). As the proposal was put to me, the Single Voyage Permit system might be modified to introduce a substantial element of competition into the coastal trade without `throwing the baby out with the bath water'. An appropriate body could meet once a year to grant a limited number of SVPs to each shipowner and coastal shipper on an appropriate tonne-kilometre determination for use at the operational dictates of the company as and when they were needed without further bureaucratic control or delay. This would be similar to but different from a quota system in that there would be annual public accounting of the use and need of SVPs, with no quota or permit to be sold from one party to another, either overtly or covertly. This is certainly an attractive idea, but it will require a different kind of amendment to the Navigation Act to make that possible. In the meantime the available evidence from the Department of Transport seems to indicate that the Department is making every effort to reduce rather than extend the number of SVPs each year. At present the availability of alternative road-rail transport is a factor to be considered in the issue of cargo SVPs on the grounds of `public interest', and the question of price differential has never been a consideration used to determine whether or not an SVP will be issued. However, I think that the Government should seriously consider the possibility in the future of issuing a limited number of SVPs in the way I have just outlined. When Part VI of the Navigation Act was finally ratified in 1921, there was very little competition from other forms of transport, such as road and rail. At that time rail was not used for any purposes other than intrastate, and this situation lasted until World War II; by 1962 a standard gauge made rail for the first time a viable option between Victoria and New South Wales. In 1921, there was also no competition from road transport-the roads either did not exist, or were not good enough to take heavy traffic safely and quickly between states. After 1954, the Hughes and Vale decision had the effect of eliminating state taxes on road transport and as the highways were improved, road began to be a viable interstate option to shipping. But in the 1920s there was no competition to the shipping of goods and people between States by sea. Shipowners, at that time, could and did pass the extra costs imposed by the Australian conditions and manning levels in coastal shipping on to the consumers and the users of coastal ships. By the 1970s coastal shipping services were declining rapidly and this downward move has continued ever since; at the same time there has been a steady increase year by year in the transporting of goods between States by rail and road. Why has there been this disastrous decline in coastal shipping? As the Industries Assistance Commission pointed out in their Final Report, users of freight services choose between different modes of transport, not only on the basis of cost from door to door, but also on time, reliability and security. For most bulk cargoes, such as iron ore, bauxite, crude oil and petroleum products, shipping is still the preferred option, but coastal shipping is now a poor competitor for non-bulk cargoes and today it accounts for a very small proportion of the market, except for the captive freight movements across Bass Strait. Two years ago I asked the question: What went wrong with Australian coastal shipping? And two years ago I pointed to Part VI of the Navigation Act for the answer: The terms of Part VI of the Navigation Act gave a monopoly to Australian shipowners (and, de facto, to Australian maritime unions) in the coastal trade of Australia. There was no competition from cheaper overseas shipping. Shipowners have had little or no control over costs-the unions demanded and, by and large, obtained everything they asked for; the unions had to be bought off again and again. It was the classic case of a union monopoly and it has resulted in the highest cost shipping service in the world. Two years later the Industries Assistance Commission now states in its Report: Advantages enjoyed by Australian seamen relative to seamen of other comparable nations are, in the main, the outcome of negotiation between shipowners and sea-going unions which have been incorporated into award conditions. Such negotiations have occurred in an environment established by the Navigation Act-which places the sea-going unions in a position of considerable negotiating power (by denying ship operators and users access to alternate shipping services). After 1921 the cost of labour escalated beyond the means of shipowners and shippers, so as new technology has become available since the 1970s, it has proved too expensive to introduce or has been outlawed by the maritime unions. For instance, when the rest of the world was using more efficient drive-on-drive-off ferries, the ANL was, and still is, running vehicle-deck ships which need specialised equipment to straddle vehicles off and on board. The cost of loading and unloading these vehicles has been estimated to be 40 per cent higher than they would otherwise be on some sort of RORO vessel. The ANL now manages a RORO vessel for Ocean Freeway Pty Ltd in Western Australian waters, and provides officers for Transport Tasmania's Bass Strait ferry, also a RORO vessel, the Abel Tasman. As I have said, except for the Bass Strait trade and some bulk cargo movements, coastal shipping in Australia is dying. The practical effect of the de facto monopoly provision of the Part VI of the Navigation Act has been to reduce the Australian coastal trade to an `irreducible minimum' to use the words of Captain William Bolitho, the Chairman of the Australian National Maritime Association, which he explains as `that cargo which cannot reasonably be carried by road or rail'. True, BHP has three newer ships in its service with reduced manning levels, but its shipping costs are still high in comparison with OECD ships if they could be used on similar runs. In addition, BHP has the ability to integrate overseas and coastal shipping to offset some of its high costs; for instance its new ships are used on the coast for only one leg of a triangular run between Australia and Japan. Who bears the high cost of Australian coastal shipping? In the beginning, the high cost of Australian coastal shipping was passed on directly to the consumer by the shipowner. Nowadays the costs are borne by the shipowner in part, the shipper in part, but ultimately the cost is borne by the consumer and the taxpayer. The consumer and the taxpayer pay for the higher price of steel from BHP, the higher price of goods which are shipped from State to State, the cost of industrial disputes, the subsidies paid to Tasmania in the Freight Equalisation Scheme, and so on. I keep harping on the high cost of coastal shipping to the community. Let me give you some examples of these high costs and explain how they might have been avoided. Up until 1983 LPG was conveyed to Tasmania in foreign ships by single voyage permit. Since 1983, LPG has been carried in an Australian flag carrier with disastrous results for Tasmania. LPG is handled by three firms in Tasmania: CIG Energy, Boral and Mobil. Early in 1983 Boral began to use an Australian vessel, the Island Gas, as a carrier for LPG on the Tasmanian run. This vessel at 6,033 dwt is larger than the foreign vessels previously used-with a larger crew of 23 (and, of course, two crews a year) as opposed to less than 16 on the foreign vessels. Because LPG is a bulk cargo, transporting LPG does not qualify for any subsidy under the scheme of equalising the cost of transport fuels throughout Australia. Since the introduction of the Australian flag ship into the Tasmanian LPG run, the new shipping arrangements have increased the cost of transporting LPG to Hobart by 75 per cent: the cost of this transport has risen from $80 to $140 per tonne, or from 4 cents a litre to 7 cents a litre. And there is no prize for guessing that the consumer pays this added transport cost. To show how the price of LPG has risen in Tasmania, I incorporate a table showing details of CIG Energy retail prices for LPG in Hobart. CIG ENERGY RETAIL PRICES FOR LPG IN HOBART, 1982-1984 Date Wholesale Price Retail Auto LPG in Hobart Retail Increase (cents/litre) (cents/litre) (cents/litre) December 1982 ... 11.2 24.3 January 1983 ... 12.8 26.5 2.2 (a) June 1983 ... 12.8 29.9 3.4 (b) July 1983 ... 15.5 32.6 2.7 (a) November 1983 ... 15.5 33.0 0.4 (c) January 1984 ... 15.5 34.0 1.0 (b) (a) Commonwealth adjustments of wholesale price. (b) Increases in shipping costs. (c) Increases in distribution costs due to 4.3 per cent national wage increase. Source: Parliamentary Library, Legislative Research Service: Notes on LPG pricing in Tasmania, February 1984. Senator HAMER —The relevant increase in the price is that between January 1983 and June 1983. This was a rise of 55.5 per cent wholly contributable to the increase in shipping costs. At the same time on the mainland, there was also a rise in the price of LPG, but that rise was of the order of 28 per cent-nothing like the enormous price hike of 55.5 per cent in Tasmania. Two years ago I gave the Senate another example of a high cost commodity because of coastal shipping costs-iron ore and steel. The Industries Assistance Commission estimated in 1981, in their draft report on the Iron and Steel Industry, that BHP's coastal shipping operating costs were between $20m and $25m higher each year than if BHP had been free to use foreign flag vessels from Japan and even higher each year if they had been free to use foreign flag vessels from Europe, say, Sweden or the German Federal Republic. The same report revealed that the freight cost per tonne of iron ore shipped from Port Hedland to Japan was about half the cost per tonne of the same ore shipped from Port Hedland to Port Kembla. Sea transport constituted, at that time, about 8 per cent of the total costs of BHP's Steel Division. If these shipping costs could have been halved by using an overseas shipping company from Sweden or the German Federal Republic, the total production costs for producing steel by BHP could have been reduced by about 4 per cent. Since relative figures would be much the same today, think what that would mean to the cost of Australian steel in this country! Furthermore the unit cost of steel transported from Port Kembla to Perth is still 44 per cent higher than from Japan to Perth. It makes it difficult to want to `Buy Australian', no matter how patriotic you are. Two years ago I also spoke of the iniquitous and totally unnecessary high cost of Christmas Island phosphate caused by the high cost of Australian shipping once it was deemed that Christmas Island was to be considered as part of the coast of Australia. The IAC in its Final Report also gives Christmas Island phosphate as an example of abnormal freight rates caused by the high cost of Australian shipping: On the issue of phosphate freight rates, the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island suggested that freight charges from Christmas Island to any Australian port are more than double those which would be obtainable on the world market. Reasons advanced for this situation were the high cost of operating Australian ships compared with their world counterparts, and the absence of opportunities for Australian ships to offset northbound ballasting costs (apart from the relatively small quantity of stores shipped to the island from Australia). What is the result? An exorbitant addition to the cost of phosphate extraction and transport. It must be enough to make an Australian farmer weep when Christmas Island phosphate can be shipped to New Zealand for almost half the cost that it comes to him. Who pays this double or treble cost for shipping phosphate from one part of Australia to another? The manufacturer, in the first instance, the farmer in the second, and the Australian public in the end. What is the solution for Christmas Island phosphate? It would regain its competitive edge if it were shipped at world freight rates. At least then it would be able to compete with a world supplier such as Florida. There are, of course, a great many similar examples of the effects of the high price of coastal shipping. The IAC also cites CRA's claims that it is less expensive to move aluminium between Burnie in Tasmania and any Asian port, such as Jakarta, Singapore, or Bangkok, than it is to ship the same aluminium to Sydney. The rate for carrying milk powder from Tasmania to Taiwan is $72 per tonne, but from Tasmania to Melbourne the rate is an exorbitant $82 per tonne-an extra $10 a tonne to take the milk powder to Melbourne rather than Taiwan. I could go on and on with examples like this which show that freight rates for coastal cargo are ridiculously high in comparison with overseas cargo and that most of these unnecessarily high costs are attributable to overmanning and ridiculous conditions in Australian ships. But manning and on-board conditions are not the only problems for coastal shipping or, in fact, for any shipping in Australia. There is another problem which requires urgent consideration and immediate action and that is the high cost of loading and unloading at ports in comparison with end-handling for road and rail. `You should not underestimate the gross inefficiency of our waterfront and the damage it does to our economy', is the warning from the Chairman of the Australian National Maritime Association. Coastal shipping companies suffer from appallingly low productivity at Australian ports, which have the hard-won but unenviable reputation of being the slowest in the world. It takes two days to load or unload 300 containers in an Australian port-it takes four hours using identical equipment to handle 300 containers in Hong Kong, six hours in Singapore and never longer than one day in a European port. This is a problem for both our coastal and overseas shipping, and it is one we must urgently solve if we are to become competitive in a world which does not owe us a living. To emphasise the absurdity of our present waterfront situation, let me tell you that if deregulation of the coastal shipping trade were to take place, it might seem to the innocent to be feasible to take advantage of an overseas vessel for backloading empty containers from Sydney to Perth or Sydney to Brisbane at backloading rates instead of sending empty containers around this country by rail. But if a container vessel unloads containers at Sydney and next requires them in Brisbane, it costs $280 per container to reposition the empty containers by rail from Sydney to Brisbane. But to carry the same empty containers in one's own ship between Sydney and Brisbane costs $572 per container. Why? Because it costs $236 to load each container back onto the ship at Sydney and another $236 to unload the container at Brisbane. This is an absurd distortion of the economic use of our transport facilities. It is obvious that coastal shipping is in an appalling state. Honourable senators should take the time to read the last available report of the Australian National Line and they would find constant references to problems for Australian coastal shipping and for Australian shipping in general. Most of these problems, of course, result from intransigent unions and inflexible work practices. To quote one or two passages from the 1986/87 Report: The viability of the coastal shipping industry in general, and ANL's participation in particular, came under serious doubt during the year, as the combination of severe competition (i.e. from road and rail), industrial stoppages, rising costs and static, or declining, real-term freight rates made the rationalisation of services the only alternative to outright withdrawal. During 1986/87 112 ship operating days were lost to ANL vessels through industrial disputes while an additional 84 operating days were lost to other vessels being worked by ANL terminals. Something drastic has to happen and it has to happen quickly. So what is the solution for Australian coastal shipping? Most people who are truly concerned about the high cost structure of Australian coastal shipping strongly advocate complete deregulation of coastal shipping, permitting foreign vessels to carry coastal cargoes without the requirements of Australian standards of manning and conditions. The Business Council of Australia has just released a Coastal Shipping Action Plan designed to boost the competitiveness of Australian shipping deregulating the market and phasing in foreign competition. The introduction of competition from foreign-flag vessels is a fundamental element of any plan to encourage and maintain a competitive Australian industry, and must be supported with removal of cost impediments unique to Australian shipping. Even the latest Report of the Australian National Line, while advocating a strong Australian shipping industry, admits that `there is a limit to what can be achieved by corporate economies and internal efficiencies and that further corrective action is now inhibited by the institutional rigidities in Australia of the industry itself and the competitive environment within which it is carried on'. The IAC Report, as I mentioned before, has clearly stated that, despite the initiatives of the Crawford and the Maritime Industry Development Committee, reform is too slow and leaves us still constantly behind our competitors, because while we improve at our very slow pace in manning levels and technical efficiencies, our competitors are also improving, but more swiftly and more effectively. And I stress again that by `competitors' I mean those OECD nations with standards of living similar to or higher than ours. What would be the gains to Australia if Australia adopted an `open seas' policy by which any user of coastal shipping would be free to purchase the services of a shipping operator of their choice? Let me emphasise that there is no doubt that the gains to all Australians would be enormous. First, there would be savings in subsidies. Australian coastal liner services could not possibly survive without subsidies, especially the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation subsidy. These subsidies cost Australia $27.5m in 1986/87. If coastal shipping were opened up to all comers, it is certain that Australia's coastal general cargo services would have to become rapidly more efficient and less costly to survive. And if overseas shipping picked up these services and performed them at a cheaper rate, the gain to Australia would be the price of the subsidies, which is the only inducement at present for ANL to maintain a general cargo coastal service. The result would be a saving to Australia of at least $30m per year. Administrative costs might also be further reduced in face of competition from overseas ships. Every ANL report indicates that the managerial staff levels are too high, but I have been delighted to see that there have been strenuous efforts to make reductions in administrative staff; I am also convinced that there has also been every effort made to reduce and rationalise seagoing personnel, with little result on the older ships in the ANL fleet, but with some hope for the future of the newer ships and among the younger newly trained seamen. There would also be some saving in fuel costs as Australian ships moved to compete with the more fuel efficient overseas vessels. There is already some progress in Australia towards replacing existing tonnage from the older and less fuel efficient ships to newer, smaller and more efficient ships, but ANL still has a number of the less efficient and therefore more costly ships on the coastal run. There is also a possibility of cost savings through greater flexibility in the use of ships, which is likely to occur through competition from overseas ships. For instance, it is possible that Australian coastal ships might adopt the flexibility of the ABC Containerline vessels which carry bulk cargoes and containers in combination. Many bulk carriers operating around the Australian coast at present often operate with certain legs of their voyage in ballast. By the combination system, they could operate bulk on some legs and container on others. This could have enormous potential for Australian overseas trade, because it is eminently suitable for Australian ships to concentrate on bulk cargoes on outward voyages and on containers on inward legs. But the biggest savings would undoubtedly come in the excessively high cost area in Australian shipping-manning and conditions. There would have to be a speeding up of the present glacially slow progress in crew reductions. Remember that the cost of manning and running an Australian ship is about twice the cost of running a Swedish or a German ship, and remember that Australia runs two complete crews for every one of its ships. The latest estimated cost for Australian crews is $100,000 per year per crew member. Therefore every crew member saved per year is a saving of $100,000 per year. To show honourable senators how this figure has been estimated, I incorporate a table showing annual crew costs per berth for Australian ships, according to ship type, with the average total cost per berth estimated at $99,000. Table 4.4 ANNUAL CREW COSTS PER BERTH FOR AUSTRALIAN-FLAG VESSELS: 1985 ($'000) Cost component Ship type General cargo Bulk carrier Coastal tanker Overseas tanker Salaries and allowances(a) ... 62 61 69 74 Long service leave ... 2 2 2 2 Payroll tax ... 4 4 4 4 On-shore allowances and joining and leaving costs(b) 3 4 5 8 Superannuation, levies and calls(c) ... 6 6 7 7 Crew-related insurance(d) ... 10 8 8 8 Victualling ... 4 5 5 5 Stores ... 1 1 1 1 Sundries ... 1 - 1 1 Total ... 93 91 102 110 a Includes wages, leave, short-term money, pay in lieu of notice, study leave, stand-by and tanker allowances, less a deduction for keep. b On-shore allowances are for travelling, accommodation and victualling when the ship is in dock. Joining and leaving expenses (mainly air fares) are paid at crew changeover (crew ``swings''). c Levies and calls include payments to Australian Maritime Industries Pty Ltd for such things as the Seamen's Retirement Fund, attendance money, industrial clothing and training for cooks. d Includes insurance premiums paid by ship operators to cover workers' compensation and related claims and seafarers accident risk. Source: IAC Report: Coastal Shipping, 20 July 1988 Senator HAMER —Immediate cost savings can be achieved even now on Australian ships if certain services on board ship are radically altered; bedmaking services could be dispensed with, cafeteria style catering could be introduced without reducing living standards on board ship, and the incredible waste of food might be avoided by eliminating the requirement for two choices of hot dishes to be cooked for all crew even if most of them are ashore during a port stop. The result would be a saving in the cost of steward services for the crew and a large reduction in the very high cost of victualling. In a total crew of between 31 and 37 on an Australian ship, cooks, stewards and crew attendants account for 8 of these crew. If this number were reduced by at least two or three, in line with the number of service crew on a Swedish or a German ship, that would represent a saving of $200,000 or $300,000 per ship per year. Two things have to be considered in this high cost area of Australian manning. First, existing ships in the Australian fleet, which is the majority of the total Australian fleet, have always operated at historically high manning levels, dating from the very beginning of the Navigation Act back in 1911. And historically it has proved almost impossible to reduce the crew levels on these ships. I incorporate a table which will show the crew levels for all Australian ships at the present time. Senator HAMER —As Honourable Senators will observe, the ships marked with an asterisk have had no reduction in crew numbers despite the Crawford recommendations nor all the stated aims of Captain Bolitho of the ANL. And remember that even a reduction of one crew member represents a saving of $100,000 per year. Secondly, newer ships have been introduced into the Australian coastal run, such as the three most recent ships for BHP, and these are now manned with smaller crews, roughly 26 for each ship-or that is 52 a year for each ship-and that does represent a reduction of about six to eight crew members for each ship. As shipping tonnage is replaced there is no doubt that there will be some reduction in crew numbers with the result of a considerable cost saving for every ship. But in both the case of the older ships and the newer ships, we still have to provide 2.2 seamen for every crew billet. This is because our seamen get six months leave a year on a six weeks on, six weeks off basis. This figure of 338 days leave for each year's work for an Australian should be compared to 226 days for a Frenchman, 216 for an American, 174 for a West German and 141 for a Norwegian. I incorporate a table showing the relative leave entitlements for the seamen of a number of shipping nations. MINIMUM LEAVE ENTITLEMENTS PER DAY ON DUTY, BY SHIPPING NATION: DECEMBER 1984 (Days) Country Leave entitlement per day worked Able Seamen Chief Mate Australia ... 0.926 0.926 Belgium ... 0.444 0.460 France ... 0.619 0.600 West Germany ... 0.477 0.523 Greece ... 0.263 0.263 Japan ... 0.247 0.247 Norway ... 0.386 0.564 Sweden ... 0.868 na UK ... 0.504 0.603 USA ... 0.592 0.748 na Not available. Source: IAC Report: Coastal Shipping, July 1988. Senator HAMER —Apart from these leave entitlements, which are the most generous in the world, Australian maritime unions have also fought for and won outrageous sick leave reimbursements. A seaman who has been sick for more than seven days is entitled to seven days' wages after he has recovered. Many unfit and useless seamen are reluctantly kept in the work force because of the very generous conditions obtained under the Seamen's Compensation Act. It is cheaper to keep a totally useless sailor in the Seamen's Engagement System or on board a ship than to try to retire him because of the over-generous benefits to be gained under the Seamen's Compensation Act. The average age of Australian seamen is over 50 and there is obviously an urgent need for a fair and proper retirement scheme for older seamen-not another rort or racket such as the retirement scheme in operation on the waterfront, but a fair and proper scheme to benefit seamen who have spent the greater part of their working lives on board Australian ships, and to enable shipowners to employ younger seamen without the crippling costs incurred under the present Seamen's Compensation Act. In addition, Honourable Senators should know that Australian crew members have to be provided with first class accommodation and air travel when they are joining or leaving their vessel. Very few employees in the Australian work force enjoy this privilege. In addition, crew members are paid award rates for time spent travelling to and from the ship. These travel and accommodation costs are further inflated because of inflexibilities in the crew roster system which dictates that crew changes for many ships take place at six week intervals, regardless of the location of the vessel in Australia. All of these high cost rorts have been won by unions in a monopoly situation created by the provisions of Part VI of the Navigation Act. Every available report and document dealing with coastal shipping in Australia arrives at one conclusion: `There is no doubt that if cabotage were abandoned in Australia coastal shipping, major savings in the cost of domestic sea transport could be realised'. And the greatest area of savings are to be achieved in manning. I cannot repeat too often, that a saving of one crew member represents a saving of $100,000 per year. In addition, if any user of coastal shipping were free to purchase the services of a shipping operator of his choice, oil companies would be able to reduce their costs by integrating their Australian vessels into their own overseas fleets and operate them under a foreign flag. As a result, Tasmania could have cheaper LPG as in the years before 1983. Some overseas flag vessels would probably enter the coastal bulk ore trade, and BHP could take advantage of that to reduce their steel costs. It is also possible that some Australian companies would purchase an interest in overseas shipping companies to maintain their own carrying capacity on the coast and reap the benefits of the lower cost overseas carriers. At last the Australian maritime unions would be forced to do something about a real reduction in manning levels and crew costs. Despite all the rhetoric of the Crawford Report and the various Labor Ministers for Transport, there has been no substantial reduction in the number of seamen and the manning costs for the majority of the ships in the Australian fleet, i.e. all the ships commissioned before 1986. Technical changes in ship construction and operation in other parts of the world have produced very large bulk carriers with manning levels of 50% of what they were a few years ago. There is also a variety of new efficient cargo carriers as well as container vessels operating with reduced crews. But what are we doing? There is no doubt that there has been extensive negotiation between the ANL management and the five maritime unions which represent the seagoing 58% of the ANL work force-now reduced to three, I am glad to say-and the unions did concede to reduce ship manning levels by a total of 81 berths across the fleet. But what were the terms of this negotiation? `No further manning reductions to take place on current ANL vessels after the reduction of 81'. So the original Crawford proposals achieved very little-as I long suspected and have constantly stated here in this Parliament. The unions agreed only to a minimal reduction in crew levels, so that they could stand back and say: `Look, what good fellows we are!'. But after that, it is `hands off' further reductions on existing ships. Further legislation was required to enforce lower manning levels on new ships in the Australian fleet, but these levels which are still above the rest of comparable OECD ships. So the rest of the world goes on producing efficient ships efficiently run with small and highly productive crews and we look on with our large crews-and two of them for every ship-and have no hope of competing-and the community has to go on paying for this incompetence and union greed. One problem of deregulation is the possibility of entry into the coastal service of Flag of Convenience (FOC) ships. But is that really a problem? By and large the less desirable FOC ships-the so-called `rust buckets'-do not attempt to come to Australian ports, because it is well known that Australia imposes stringent safety regulations on any ship entering Australian ports. In the latest Annual Report of the Department of Transport, seven instances of sub-standard ships in Australian ports were notified to the International Maritime Organisation during 1986/7; the deficiencies were serious in two cases and the Master of a Chinese ship was prosecuted and fined. Australian overseas shipping regulations also demand that ships entering Australian ports have crews manned and paid according to minimum ITF rates. However, flag of convenience or open registry ships form about a third of the world's cargo fleet, and they have proved to be very important in cost reduction; they provide an economic and efficient means of transport through the operation of free markets in charter shipping. Even the Department of Transport has had to admit the value of FOC shipping services to Australia. In 1981 the Department stated: These vessels, which operate on the spot charter market, of necessity offer lower freight rates and in consequence have been an important factor in holding down rates in the bulk trades. The Industry Task Force Review of Australia's Overseas Liner Shipping Legislation also reported that `low cost shipping had contributed to providing important competitive advantages to Australian Shippers'. By far the most important open registries at this time are Liberia, Panama, Singapore and Cyprus, and others include the Bahamas, Bermuda, the Seychelles, Cayman Island, Barbados, Somalia, Morocco, Honduras, Costa Rica, Lebanon, San Marino, Haiti, Malta, Vanuatu, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Sierra Leone. These ships are very important in Australian overseas shipping. For instance, in the two middle quarters of last year 6,156 ships used Australian ports for the purpose of conveying cargo to and/or from Australia. Of these only 380 were our own Australian Ships, but 399 were from Liberia and 1,095 were from Panama. These are the ships which have permitted Australian shippers to have some bargaining leverage in overseas trades. But the unions have made many attempts to bar these and other overseas ships from Australian trades. Already Newcastle is a closed port to FOC vessels, although this is an entirely illegal action taken by unions without the sanction of law. What will stop the unions from banning other ports to FOC vessels or other overseas vessels conveying coastal trade? Section 45d of the Trade Practices Act is the only piece of legislation which specifically prevents trade unions taking boycotting action against overseas vessels which may in the future choose to take on coastal trade activities in Australia. The Columbus Line from Germany, a highly respected flag line, has been picketed by trade unions over a period of years simply because it is a foreign shipping line, but Section 45d has prevented the unions from actually banning the Columbus ships from entering and leaving Australian ports. And, given a firm government will, the same act can be used to prevent the selfish denial of shipping services which would benefit the whole community. For, in the end, the only way to force down the cost of coastal shipping in Australia may be to widen the competition to include vessels with a lower cost structure than Australia. There is absolutely no doubt that Australia has the highest cost structure in the world for shipping. The unit cost of transporting coal from Newcastle to Port Hedland would be drastically reduced if the coal were carried in a Japanese ship at Japanese standards of manning and conditions, and the unit cost would be halved if the coal were carried in a Swedish ship, Belgian ship or a German ship at European standards of manning and conditions. In the end, competition is the only way to reduce Australian costs in shipping. All the consensuses, or consultations or Accords that this Government or any other government can ever dream up will never achieve cheaper shipping in Australia. The only way to achieve it is by competition. Some people will argue that introducing overseas ships into the coastal trade is the same thing as employing cheap labour from a developing nation to drive the buses in Australian cities, or permitting the Koreans to set up a steel works in Australia with cheaper Korean labour and Korean standards of wages and conditions. The analogy is false and misleading. What Australia does do is import a wide range of goods from the Third World, especially Pacific countries, such as textiles, craft works and clothing, reaping the benefit of the cheaper labour content of these goods. By doing so, we introduce competition in Australia for similar goods and the lower price of the imported goods are a benefit to the consumer; these goods are also important because they assist to hedge inflation and increase competition in the domestic economy. The present coastal shipping situation is economically untenable-bulk goods will continue to be carried around the coast in ships, but other goods will more and more resort to the uneconomic transport facilities provided by road and rail, unless a cheaper form of shipping can be provided on the Australian coast. Non-bulk shipping on the coast will gradually die, to the great loss of the Australian economy. As Mr McWilliams so correctly predicted in 1912, Part VI of the Navigation Act has become a monster-`a sure and certain chain round the whole Australian coast'. And it was this Federal Parliament which put this monster into place. This Parliament endowed Australia with a union monopoly which has resulted in the most expensive shipping service in the world. Even in 1924-just three years after Part VI came into force, there was an urgent public plea for the repeal of Part VI. The Report of the Royal Commission on the Navigation Act in 1924 was quite definite and precise: `the Navigation Act has failed in its purpose to build up an Australian Mercantile Marine'. The Report concluded: `The only recommendation which your Commissioners desire to make is one which will remove most of the grounds for complaint before your Commissioners, and that recommendation is that Part VI (the Coastal Trade) of the Act be repealed'. With that recommendation I heartily concur. It has long been Liberal Party policy to repeal protective provisions in the Navigation Act. I think that this Parliament should pass this Bill to deregulate coastal shipping, but not proclaim it. We should pass it to keep it in reserve. There have been in the last two years, since I first introduced this Bill, some slight improvements in crewing arrangements on new ships commissioned since 1986. Integrated training has eliminated the distinction between deck hands and engine room hands, mess arrangements have been rationalised and some officers' positions, such as the radio officer, will become redundant in the next decade. However, that is not enough to ensure the viability of a flourishing coastal shipping industry. I emphasise `flourishing', because at the moment, with the best will in the world, all that conciliation and consultation with the unions is achieving is just keeping coastal shipping afloat in those areas where there is no competition at all-the Tasmanian trade and the bulk goods which cannot conveniently be conveyed by rail or road. The rest is dying, and unless more drastic measures are taken we will not reverse this trend. We must have a carrot as well as a stick. We should keep this Bill in reserve. If the unions will co-operate to save a dying industry, if they will agree to accommodation standards and on-board conditions that are comparable to OECD ships, if they will agree to reduced manning levels-not just token reductions, but real reductions in line with other OECD ships, if they will co-operate to perform more maintenance and repair work on board ship to prevent unnecessary delays in dry dock, if they will co-operate to bring down total crew costs on Australian ships, if they will agree to leave entitlements that are in line with OECD countries, if they will accept revisions to the Seamen's Compensation Act so that it is no longer uneconomic to sack useless seamen, if they will agree to sensible victualling and the same travel and accommodation arrangements as the majority of the Australian work force, if they will agree to a fair and proper retirement scheme to allow younger seamen to be engaged-if the unions would agree to all these arrangements, then the Government will be able to do everything in its power to expand and encourage the carriage of goods in Australian ships around the coast. Then the day will come when Australian ships will again be able to profitably engage in not only the coastal shipping market in competition with road and rail, but also more competitively in the overseas shipping industry as well, instead of the present situation where only 4% of our trade is carried in Australian ships. As I have just said, we should pass this Bill, so that it is in place to be used if the unions will not co-operate to prevent the demise of their own industry. If the present trend of an ever reducing coastal fleet and very high costs on the older ships continues, then this Parliament would have no other alternative than to proclaim the Act and open up coastal shipping to foreign competition. Debate (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, and unless otherwise ordered, the routine of business on Thursday, 13 October 1988, be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Ministerial Statements, by leave (4) Discovery of Formal Business (5) Placing of Business (6) Questions (7) Adjournment. Motion (by Senator Coulter) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to regulate the use of certain substances that can significantly deplete or otherwise modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to have adverse effects on human health and the environment, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Coulter) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator COULTER(South Australia) —(10.19)-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill updates and extends the Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation Bill 1988 which I introduced on 15 April 1988. It incorporates several suggested amendments and this speech canvasses in more detail two important issues: recycling v substitution and pharmaceutical uses of chlorofluorcarbons. Probably no threat to the global environment involves such wide spread, serious and long lasting damage as the reduction in stratospheric ozone being brought about by the release of chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs) or freons. CFCs are a class of hydrocarbon chemicals in which some or all of the hydrogen atoms have been replaced with chlorine and fluorine. I incorporate in Hansard a table relating to this matter. TABLE 1 Freon 11 ... CFCl3 Freon 12 ... CF2Cl2 Freon 22 ... CHF2Cl Freon 113 ... C2F3Cl3 Freon 114 ... C2F4Cl2 Freon 115 ... C2F5Cl History Senator COULTER —CFCs were first synthesised in 1928 and came into use as refrigerant gases. They had an advantage over earlier gases being less toxic, non-flammable and apparently inert. In 1974 two US chemists, Molina and Rowland posed a simple question, `What had happened to the millions of tons of CFC which had been released in the previous 46 years?' The only `sink' they could hypothesise was the stratosphere were these otherwise stable compounds would be bombarded and degraded by the intense short wave ultra-violet (UV) light which comes from the sun. They quickly realised that if they were right, stratospheric breakdown of CFCs by UV would release atomic chlorine which would catalyse the destruction of ozone. Ozone or O3 is the gas which protects the lower atmosphere and earth's surface from very damaging short wave UV. Rowland and Molina warned that this hypothetical model should be checked out, for if correct, the consequences for life on earth would be serious indeed. Studies were done and by 1976 the US National Academy of Science (NAS) was confirming these earlier predictions and recommending restrictions on the use of CFCs. In 1979 CFCs, which by then had come into very widespread use as pressure pack propellants, were banned from this application in the US, Canada, Sweden and Norway. Other countries, including Australia, continued to allow their use for this purpose. As well as continuing in use as refrigerant gases, throughout the 70s and 80s CFCs were used increasingly as the expanding gases in the manufacture of both rigid and soft plastic foams. Most recently CFCs have been extensively used as solvents for degreasing electronic chips. Ozone Formation The primitive earth's atmosphere contained large amounts of carbon dioxide and was reducing rather than oxidising. Consequently the earth's surface was not protected from short wave UV by a stratospheric ozone layer. Indeed, life possibly began through the action of UV light on molecules in a reducing environment. Thus life evolved in and remained in the seas for a long period. Water protected it from the sun's lethal UV radiation. Not until green plants produced oxygen by photosynthesis and some of this oxygen formed ozone in the stratosphere could plants and animals survive on dry land. The oxygen to ozone conversion occurs in the stratosphere and is also caused by UV. Long Term Damage to Ozone CFCs released at the earth's surface take about 5 years to rise through the atmosphere to the stratosphere where they catalyse ozone destruction. Once there the two freons in widest use (F11 and F12) remain in the stratosphere for between 75 and 150 years before being degraded and removed. The best available evidence shows between a 1% and 3% reduction in global stratospheric ozone in the last 10 years, lower reductions near the equator, greater near the poles (Cicerone, 1987). In this 10 years ozone has been cut by 50% over the south pole during spring. In 1987 research in the Antarctic confirmed the presence of chlorine oxide, and active intermediate in the catalysts of ozone, and it is now widely accepted that the most probable cause of the Antarctic ozone hole is release of CFCs to the atmosphere. While a number of chemical pathways have been hypothesised and many intermediates detected the major catalytic path may be summarised as: Cl + O3 ClO + O2 ClO + O3 Cl + 2O2 Eventually chlorine is washed out by conversion to hydrochloric acid: 2Cl + H2O 2HClO 2HCl + O2 The enhanced ozone depletion in the Antarctic spring may be due to reactions involving chlorine nitrate and hydrochloric acid, catalysed by the presence of ice and nitric acid crystals in the stratosphere (Molina et al, 1987 and Tolbert et al, 1987). Consequences Short wave UV is destructive to all living cells causing damage to both DNA and proteins. It increases skin cancers and cataracts, changes immune responses and damages the lavel forms of sea life that spend time in the top few millimetres of the seas. These organisms form the base of most aquatic food chains. Their destruction has the most serious consequences for all marine and fresh-water life. All other species suffer variable damage. A quantitative indication of consequences is given by the following: a 3% reduction in ozone gives about a 6% increase in relevant short wave UV which gives about a 12% increase in skin cancer (see numerous references in USEPA, UNEP Vol 1 Overview, 1986). Ozone is a very selective filter of shorter wave UV, ie., the most biologically active. A 10% reduction in stratospheric ozone gives a 20% increase in UV penetration of 305 nm, a 250% increase at 290 nm and a 500% increase at 287 nm. DNA and proteins absorb maximally at about 260 nm and 280 nm respectively. Frequencies in this region are particularly damaging (nm=nanometre, a measure of wavelength). (See Figure 1). Because of CFC's long residence time in the stratosphere Hoffman of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has calculated that ozone will continue to disappear unless CFC release is cut by 85% immediately and this 15% level or less is then maintained. This conclusion has been generally accepted by the scientific community. Figures 2 & 3 are from Hoffman's paper in USEPA, UNEP Volume 1, Overview, 1986. Although UV increase as a consequence of ozone destruction is the most immediate concern it should not be forgotten that CFSs are also very effective greenhouse gases, far more effective than carbon dioxide. Their role as greenhouse gases is only overshadowed by carbon dioxide because of the latter's much higher concentration in the atmosphere. Nonetheless while carbon dioxide will provide about 47% of the greenhouse warming between 1980 and 2030, CFCs will contribute as much as 27%. Moreover, while the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing at about 0.5% p.a., CFC 11 and 12 are increasing at 5 and 7% p.a. respectively. As shown in Figure 4, under the conditions of the Montreal Protocol, if all nations limit their production to 0.3 kg/head (and limit population to its present size) CFC 11 and 12 in the atmosphere would still increase sixfold over the next two centuries. (See Figure 4). The Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol For several years the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has been bringing nations together to discuss this threat to the global ozone, the most recent meeting being in Montreal in late 1987. It was there agreed that a protocol will come into force on 1 January 1989. Six months later nations are to set CFC consumption at 1986 levels, between 1993 and 94 to cut consumption by 20% and by 1999 by 50%. The 1986 production is calculated by multiplying the actual production of each freon by its Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP) and totalling the resulting figures. Developing countries whose consumption of `controlled substances' (the term used in the protocol) is less than 0.3 kg per capita per year may delay their compliance with the control measures for up to 10 years provided their annual consumption does not exceed 0.3 kg per capita. For comparison, Australia's 1986 consumption was about 1.1 kg per capita. Table 2 compares the US, Australian and Chinese absolute and per capita consumption of CFCs 11 and 12: TABLE 2 Country Total consumption Population Per capita consumption US... 238,100 t 232 m 1.03 kg Australia... 13,100 t 16 m 0.82 kg China... 18,000 t 1,000 m 0.018 kg These figures underscore two important points: 1. An average Australian uses CFC at 45 times the rate of an average Chinese. This places a heavy personal responsibility on individual Australians to reduce their use of CFCs. 2. On the other hand China's population is very large and the absolute impact which China would have on the earth's ozone were she to adopt the pattern of CFC use found in the US and Australia would be enormous. It is therefore imperative that alternative technologies be found and implemented quickly. Extending the Chinese example it should be noted that 1986 production/release was approximately 0.16 kg/head averaged over the whole planet. Bringing all people to 0.3 kg/year consumption, while cutting industrial countries' production by 70-80% would, nonetheless, mean a doubling of global production. (See Figure 4). I incorporate in Hansard a table showing Australian production by sector. TABLE 3 1986 Australian Production by Sector Sector CFC Amount in tonnes Ozone Depleting Potential Contribution Aerosols... CFC 11 2,400 t 1 2,400 CFC 12 2,700 t 1 2,700 CFC 114 100 t 1 100 Refrigeration and Air Conditioning... CFC 11 2,100 t 1 2,100 CFC 12 2,200 t 1 2,200 CFC 115 300 t 0.6 180 CFC 22 1,600 t 0 0 Plastic foam Production... CFC 11 1,700 7 1 1,700 CFC 12 1,800 t 1 1,800 Solvents and Dry Cleaning... CFC 11 100 t 1 100 CFC 12 100 t 1 100 CFC 113 700 t 0.8 560 Fire Extinguishers... Halon 1211 600 t 3 1,800 Halon 1301 200 t 10 2,000 Total ODP... 17,740 Comments on Table 3. 1. CFC 11 and 12 contributed 13,100 (74%) of Australia's 1986 ozone depleting potential. 2. CFC 22 use in refrigerators and air conditioners was 26% of all CFCs used in refrigeration. The ODP of CFC 22 is very low. 3. Contribution by sector to Australia's 1986 ozone depleting potential: Aerosols 29%, Refrigeration and air-conditioning 25%, Foams 19%, Solvent 4%, Halons 22% (the actual release of halons only contributed 2%). 4. Considering CFC alone the removal of CFCs from pressure packs, the exclusive use of CFC 22 in refrigerators and an 85% recycling of CFC used in foam manufacture and as solvents could cut the ozone depleting potential by 96.5%. Senator COULTER —As of April 1988 only the US and Mexico have ratified the Montreal Protocol. Halons 1211 and 1301 are CF2BrC1 and CF3Br respectively. They are widely used in fire extinguishers. The provision of an extinguisher is a precaution one hopes will never be needed. Therefore most of these halons will never be used. It is estimated that in 1986 only 30t of halons were actually released to the atmosphere. However in the absence from Australia of a high temperature incinerator to dispose safely of these stable and persistent chemicals and in view of their very high ozone depleting potential the halons must also be rapidly phased out of use. By the very nature of their application they cannot be recycled. Recycling v Substitution A great deal of prominence has been given to the replacement of CFC 11 and 12 with substitutes which are much less damaging to stratospheric ozone and an impression has been given that this substitution will solve the `problem'. Two CFCs often mentioned are CFC 123 and 134A. These are only partly halogenated; their molecules contain some hydrogen which has not been replaced by chlorine or fluorine. They are less stable chemically, break down more quickly and therefore do not persist in the stratosphere for as long. Molecule for molecule they would therefore cause only a fraction of the ozone damage as CFC 11 and 12. CFC 22 (table 1) is a partly halogenated CFC already in widespread use. Its ozone depleting potential is thought to be about 3% of that of CFC 11 and 12. The use of these substitutes would reduce but not abolish ozone depletion assuming that per capita release did not rise and populations remained constant. Global per capita CFC release is about 0.16 Kg per year which is about one-fifth the per capita release of Australians (nearer one-sixth compared with Americans). The prevailing view is that industrial development is expected to spread into less developed countries over the next few decades and global population is expected to double in 35 years. Thus merely substituting these more benign CFCs for 11 and 12 without also imposing strict controls on release can only slow ozone depletion. It cannot prevent substantial damage. Recycling must be an important component of any strategy designed to properly address the problem of stratospheric ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol seeks control through production cuts. This Bill seeks to control emissions which, through reducing demand, will bring about production cuts. The advantage of this approach is the emphasis on recycling which must remain an important part of any effective strategy into the foreseeable future. CFCs, including the new, partly halogenated CFCs, are very potent greenhouse gases. It has been estimated that CFC 123 and 134A have about 10% of the greenhouse potential of CFC 11 and 12. As pointed out above, approximately 27% of greenhouse warming between 1980 and 2030 is expected to be due to CFCs. For this reason also, substitution without recycling will merely exacerbate the problem of greenhouse warming. Recycling also has a distinct cost advantage. Du Pont have recently estimated that setting up new plants to manufacture the new CFCs will cost $10 billion globally. Recycling to the extent of 95% would substantially reduce the size and cost of these new production facilities. Pharmaceutical uses of CFCs CFC's have been used in recent years to deliver metered doses of aerosols, especially in the treatment of asthma. This method of medication has advantages in that it is portable, it has a fast action, it delivers the medication to the site needed, the bronchial tree, rather than the whole body and it can be used by the patient early in an attack, sometimes preventing a full blown asthma attack from occurring. For this reason some legislation has sought to exclude from control CFCs used in pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical industry, notably Glaxo, has contended that there are no alternatives. Australians currently release about 170 tonnes of CFC 12 into the atmosphere each year from this source and Glaxo state they expect this amount to rise and plateau at about 260 tonnes. The health costs of this release must be weighed against the health benefits. Increasing UV, consequent on ozone depletion, causes increases in skin cancer and other diseases. In 1982 there were approximately 3,000 cases of malignant melanoma diagnosed in Australia. About 15% or 450 patients had survival times of less than 5 years. Malignant melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in men and the third most common cancer in women. If one exempts this use in Australia then we must exempt this use throughout the world unless we are prepared to argue for our use and deny it to those in Third World countries. Extension of Australia's per capita pharmaceutical use to the whole world would result in a global release of 100,000 tonnes per year or one-eighth of present release from all sources. I believe the health and other costs of this release would far outweigh the benefits. I am not convinced that the advantages of this method of administering drugs could not be achieved using a gas other than CFC 12 but the stimulus for developing such a system will not be present if a time-limit for phasing CFCs out of use is not set. Carbon dioxide, which is already widely and cheaply dispensed in small containers as soda siphon sparklets, is one possibility. The matter of a longer phase-out period to allow the necessary re-design of dispensers would better be handled by way of regulation rather than providing a permanent dispensation in the Bill. Too Little Too Late Recognising that: a. the Montreal Protocol falls far short of the 85% immediate reduction that is required. (Since 1986 actual ozone depletion has always exceeded computer predictions.) b. the problem relates to CFC release to atmosphere, not in use c. bringing in new gases and new technology in, say refrigeration, requires fairly long lead times, on behalf of the Australian Democrats I introduced a motion in the Senate last year to achieve two things: i. Eliminate the trivial and non essential uses of CFCs, i.e. in pressure packs. ii. insist on recycling of CFCs in all other applications. Both Government and Opposition in speaking to this motion recognised that global ozone depletion caused by CFC release was the most important environmental problem. I incorporate in Hansard the five figures to which I have referred. The Bill Senator COULTER —It is clear that much more needs to be done to reduce the release of ozone depleting substances than is incorporated in the Montreal Protocol. The Protocol specifically allows nations to proceed with CFC reduction faster than the mutually agreed 20% then 50% reduction by the end of the century. This is not only desirable it is both necessary and possible. CFC use in pressure pack cans cannot be defended and should be phased out quickly and completely. This is a non-essential use of CFCs. Twenty-five per cent of pressure packs on Australian shelves still contain CFCs. Trivial applications, such as use in cosmetics appear to be expanding in Australia. It would be disastrous if China were to follow this path! In all other applications CFCs could be recycled. When a refrigerator requires regassing or gets to the end of its life the CFC could and should be collected, cleaned and recycled. At present it is merely bled to the atmosphere. Table 3 shows that freon 22 has an ozone depleting potential near to zero. CFCs with unsubstituted hydrogens appear to be much less stable. Replacing CFC 11 and 12 with CFC 22 in refrigerators (where possible) would substantially reduce the ODP. If CFCs continue to be used in foam expansions and solve applications, these processes could and should be carried out in closed systems, the CFC sucked off, condensed and recycled. Already Unifoam AG, Glarus, Switzerland, a plastic foam manufacturer has developed a process which is achieving 85% recycling. (Modern Plastics International, November, 1987, p.66.) There are foaming gases other than CFCs in widespread use. Hydrocarbons have been used extensively but, as with pressure packs, they pose a risk because of their flammability. It's clear that our ultimate aim should be to eliminate CFC use entirely. However, with CFCs a part of so many aspects of our industrial life style this cannot be achieved as quickly as necessary. The lead times for change are too long. But the achievement of 85%+ reduction is possible by elimination of unnecessary uses (pressure packs) and recycling in others. 1. The title of the Bill avoids reference to chlorofluorocarbons and uses the term ``Ozone Depleting Substances''. There are a number of non-chlorofluorocarbon substances which have ozone depleting characteristics, e.g. the 1,1,1,-trichloroethane used as a solvent in typist correcting fluid. At present these are not major contributors to ozone depletion. However the Bill leaves the way open to control the use and release of any of these agents should future research show that to be necessary. 2. The definition of ``ozone depleting substance'' (O.D.S.) in 3. (1) is in two parts. Part (a) adopts Group 1 of Annex A to the Montreal Protocol while part (b) allows the declaration of any other substance to be an O.D.S. It should be noted that part (a) does not include CFC 22 which has an ozone depleting potential of 0.03 compared with CFC 11 or 12 which have an ozone depleting potential of 1.0. As 26% of the CFC used in refrigerators in Australia in 1986 was CFC 22 rather than CFC 11 or 12, CFC 22 will almost certainly need eventual control. However, this Bill, which is designed to make the most rapid reduction in ODS release at the earliest opportunity, allows the uncontrolled use of CFC 22 to continue at present. Halons are also not included at this stage. As mentioned earlier the ozone depleting potential of halons is large but, at the moment, release of halons is small. It is anticipated that halons will be quickly brought under this legislation but that 12 months, the ``period of grace'' allowed in this Bill, may be insufficient for the transition to alternatives for extinguishers. As the nature of their use precludes recycling of halons the only course open is total abandonment of their use. 3. The Bill sets a ``period of grace'' of twelve months after which the controls on substances, equipment and practices outlined in the Bill will become operative. The Bill contains no retrospective element with respect to equipment although, of course, bulk stocks of ODSs held at the end of the period of grace will become subject to control. 4. Clause 5 bans the use of ODSs in aerosols. 5. Clause 6 requires that all new refrigeration equipment, including air conditioners, be so constructed that contained ODSs can be collected, safely stored and recycled. Clause 8 requires that ODSs in equipment manufactured or sold after the end of the period of grace be collected and not allowed to escape when the equipment is serviced. Clause 9 requires that before disposal at the end of its useful life such equipment will be drained of its ODSs so that no ODS escapes to the atmosphere. 6. Clause 7 covers other uses of ODSs such as foam blowing and solvent degreasing. It requires that these operations be carried out in closed systems in such a way that ODS vapours can be removed safely, stored and not allowed to escape to the atmosphere. Recognising that total recycling in such applications is clearly impossible, the clause sets a minimum of 85% efficiency in this recycling operation. Both the major uses of ODSs covered by this clause are fairly large scale commercial operations for which the measurement of efficiency in recycling should be straightforward. In both applications there are non-CFC alternatives and some use of CFC 22. I reiterate that equipment is available and in use in Switzerland for the manufacture of plastic foams which achieves an 85% efficiency of recycling of ODSs. 7. Clause 11 prohibits the exportation from Australia of equipment which does not conform to the new requirements imposed by this Bill. While Australia can have no control over the manner of use of this equipment in foreign hands, this requirement should act as an encouragement to behave responsibly. 8. Clause 10 controls the safe storage, transport and handling of ODSs. Once it becomes illegal to release ODSs to atmosphere those holding used ODSs collected from serviced or scrapped equipment or recycled solvent or foaming agents will have only two methods of disposing of these materials. Either they may be destroyed in a high temperature incinerator, which Australia does not yet possess, or they may be cleaned, redistilled and recycled into use. It is anticipated that this Bill will force this latter course. In some quarters fears have been expressed that substantial diminution in CFC manufacture in Australia will lead to unemployment in that industry. Recycling of CFC's with a need to redistill or otherwise purify used, mixed or contaminated CFC almost certainly in the same facilities now involved in manufacture of CFC, will accommodate some of this potential unemployment. 9. Clauses 15-18 create the mechanisms for inspection by identifiable authorised persons of places and equipment and the taking and keeping of records. 10. Clause 21 enables the creation of regulations which require the keeping of records by appropriate persons and the specification of which records should be kept. Regulations will also require the labelling of refrigeration equipment and set the manner in which processes involving ODSs are to be carried out. 11. Clause 20 has the effect that the Bill will operate in relation to natural persons or bodies corporate who manufacture etc., in the course of or for the purposes of trade and commerce among the States and Territories or overseas. For the information of Honourable Senators I would point out that the following changes to the Bill as originally presented and read a first time on 15 April 1988, have been made: In Clause 2, the date of 1.1.89 has been adopted rather than a date to be fixed by Proclamation. As the Bill includes a 12-month period of grace before the various controls become operative it is felt this provides sufficient time for those affected to comply, it provides certainty and it also meets the recognised urgent need to quickly reduce the release of Ozone Depleting Substances into the atmosphere. In Clause 3, ``examinable documents'' have been extended to include books and documents relating to ``the manufacture'' of Ozone Depleting Substances. This may have been included in (c) as originally worded; the addition makes it quite clear. In Clause 3, ``sell'' has been extended to cover leasing or rental arrangements. In Clause 11, prohibition of exportation of Ozone Depleting Substance containing products has been extended to importation. The Bill elsewhere prohibits the sale of such goods. This addition would have the effect of preventing the importation for personal use or as promotion give- aways, i.e., aerosol cosmetics. Clause 11 (2) is deleted so as to prevent the export or import of non-conforming equipment, the manufacture of which was complete before the expiration of the period of grace. It is felt that the Bill should prevent the off-loading, perhaps to Third World countries, of equipment which does not conform with the requirements of this Bill. This equipment would be more safely scrapped in Australia under the stringent provisions of this Bill. A new clause (Clause 11 (2)) is included which absolutely prohibits the export of Ozone Depleting Substances after the period of grace has expired. This is necessary as manufacturers of Ozone Depleting Substances in Australia, faced with substantially decreased demand as a consequence of recycling may seek to maintain production by selling ODSs offshore. For the information of the Honourable Senators, the following are the references made in the speech. 1. Cicerone, Ralph J, Changes in Stratosphere Ozone. (1987) Science 237: 35-42 2. Molina, Mario J et al. Antarctic Stratospheric Chemistry of Chlorine Nitrate, Hydrogen Chloride, and Ice: Release of Active Chlorine. (1987) Science 238: 1253-57 3. Tolbert, Margaret A et al. Reaction of Chlorine Nitrate with Hydrogen Chlorine and Water at Antarctic Stratospheric Temperatures. (1987) Science 238: 1258-60 4. USEPA, UNEP (1986) Volume 1: Overview ``Effects of changes in Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate.'' This, and its companion volumes contain a wealth of information. Several of the papers contained in this volume are referred to in the text. 5. Rogers, Jerry & Stephens, Robert, Absolute Infrared Intensities for F-113 and F-114 and an Assessment of Their Greenhouse Warming Potential Relative to Other Chlorofluorocarbons. (1988) Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 93 No. D3, pages 2423-2428 Debate (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) adjourned. Discharge from Notice Paper Motion (by Senator Coulter)-by leave-agreed to: That General Business Order of the Day No. 34 (Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation Bill 1988) be discharged from the Notice Paper. Motion (by Senator Sheil) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Census and Statistics Act 1905 to provide for the voluntary provision of information under the Act. Motion (by Senator Sheil) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(10.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this amendment is to remove the compulsion to answer questions from all surveys save the census itself. It is not to deny the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) access to information, but to make the answers to survey questions voluntary for everything but the census. We all recognise the need for the Government to have adequate information on which to base decisions and there is no intention of denying this information to the Government. This information should be available under the prescribed subjects defined in the regulations to the Census Act, the answers to which would remain compulsory. The reason for the proposed amendment is the public reaction to the current household expenditure survey. Initially most members of the public were willing to comply but when they realised the length and breadth of the survey they reacted in shock and amazement. On examination it revealed that the processes of the Parliament were being savaged by the ABS. In addition, client users such as the National Heart Foundation, Better Health Bureau, State, local and Federal governments and their departments, employer and employee groups, were using the ABS because of its powers to compel answers in order to gain information for their own purposes, information that represented a gross invasion of privacy. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has displayed domineering arrogance and harassment. The ABS has given inaccurate directions to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) concerning the need to table its proposals in parliament. For the ABS to compel answers to surveys, it is required to table new proposals in both Houses of parliament; otherwise answers are voluntary. There appears to be no power of the Parliament to reject or amend these tabled proposals, so there is no reason for the ABS not to table other than to keep its own purpose dark. Perhaps this is also the reason why the ABS tables such proposals under papers of the Clerks rather than under Treasury ministerial papers. Previous household expenditure surveys were voluntary and tabled prior to the advent of ABS. The authority derives from the Act of 1905 and previous tablings were an ongoing program. The ABS claims that voluntary answers to its surveys would lead to: unclear expenditure patterns for disadvantaged groups such as pensioners, one parent families and the unemployed. inability to identify specific expenditures such as housing, health, transport, and geographical regional data for State governments. But there are major differences between this household expenditure survey and previous surveys: (a) Previous household expenditure surveys were voluntary; (b) This one is compulsory despite no tabling of the proposal; (c) There is an increase in the scope of the survey from 3,000 questions to 1,000 questions; (d) Previous surveys applied only to capital cities but this one alleges that 25 per cent of the households to be surveyed covers 12 per cent of the people-Tasmania, Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; (e) Each member of the household is supplied with a personal diary which includes an expenditure questionnaire; (f) It contains an income questionnaire involving the production of income tax return, bank books, collateral, guarantees and and access to people's bank managers. The Bureau claims that this is simply an ongoing program. The Attorney-General, in expressing his opinion on the need to table the proposal, is apprehensive concerning the matter and has made the qualified statement that `if the 1988-89 survey is of the nature you have described then there is no necessity to table'. The ABS invokes the treaty power of the International Labour Organisation Convention concerning Labour Statistics (No. 160), which was ratified by Australia in 1987. Article 13 of that Treaty states, `Statistics of household expenditure . . . and, where possible, household income . . . shall be compiled covering all types and sizes of private households or families'. Obviously this is the type of survey that could be used in the foundations of introducing a wealth tax-a proposition to which most Australians are totally opposed. The Statistician maintains that the reason he issues directives to people to answer is to ensure the information so acquired is protected by confidentiality and other provisions of the Act. He says he approaches respondents with sensitivity and delicacy in order to obtain their willing cooperation in the context that respondents have a legal obligation to respond. But we have had public backlash and court cases which the ABS has lost. The Statistician tries to convince respondents the surveys are worth while and reminds them of their responsibilities. He writes to all respondents explaining his powers and responsibilities, and follows up with phone or personal contact. If all this persuasion fails he issues a directive where respondents know what they are doing or are encouraging others not to comply and where the respondent's replies are considered to be statistically significant. If all this fails then he selects which respondents to prosecute-that is, there are objectors and the Statistician picks and chooses whom he will harass, pursue, and prosecute. This may account for the huge public outcry compared with the few `Directives' and prosecutions. How many hidden cases have there been where the Statistician has hauled off and the respondent has retired to lick his wounds? The Ombudsman largely sides with the Statistician in considering a person's privacy should be sacrificed because of the obligation owed to the community at large and it would only be in exceptional circumstances that official action could properly be taken pursuant to the statutory powers characterised as oppressive. It is difficult to assess the implications of overtly voluntary collection. However the ABS says there is ample evidence of severe consequences for the quality of statistical data: (1) the drop in response rates would have an unknown impact; (2) movements between the results of regular surveys would be different because voluntary respondents have different characteristics from involuntary respondents. There is no way to overcome this by increasing the number of voluntary respondents. This applies particularly to businesses. Voluntary respondents are therefore not typical; (3) it would have dire consequences for statistical indicator collections. The largest 1,000 businesses comprise 60 per cent of economic activity; (4) a high non-response would render surveys on agricultural, manufacturing and retail industries non-viable. This would limit data required by Governments and regional bodies; in which case State governments would probably use their powers to bring in compulsory surveys; (5) voluntary household expenditure survey implications would also be serious. The non-response rate would be high, as shown by the experience of other countries-Australia and Canada . . . compulsory . . . non-response rate 5 per cent, Netherlands and Sweden . . . voluntary . . . non-response rate 20 per cent, West Germany . . . overtly voluntary . . . non-response rate 40 per cent. Again the difference in the characteristics of voluntary and compulsory respondents is stressed by the Bureau; (6) the Australian Bureau of Statistics says voluntary surveys would cost more, as seeking to persuade people to cooperate would cost more, and it would place an unfair burden on those people and businesses willing to cooperate. None of those reasons carry sufficient weight to counterbalance the invasion of personal privacy and harassment occasioned by the ABS. The only reason the consumer price index keeps escalating is that the Government keeps spending more than it reaps, and this devalues people's money. People invented government to protect their personal privacy, not to violate it. Certainly governments need certain information in order to make responsible decisions. But when the information is forced out of people in order for the government to engage in social engineering schemes, that is going too far. It is even worse when a government uses these forced confessions to advance its own political purposes, as the Hawke Government has done, and is doing, with this extended survey. Privacy is a precious possession. That is why we have fought to preserve it since the beginning of democracy. It is the reason we invented government-to do those things for us which we could not do ourselves, such as defence of the nation and maintenance of law, both of which are largely to protect our privacy. Privacy is so important that the people have been willing to give up enormous power to governments to protect it. Governments in their turn are only interested in maintaining the power that has been given to them. In order to maintain that power they have descended to practice of promising handouts in exchange for votes. In order to capture those votes they need information on where best to buy them. As the process develops they need so much information that the means of acquiring it becomes an invasion of privacy. This is where Australia is today. The process of acquiring information is not new. Generations of governments have initiated all sorts of spy networks in order to maintain power: for knowledge is power in our world. Catherine de Medici organised a network of courtesans, pimps and peepholes in order to maintain her influence. Signal towers and ships dotted nations and oceans. Laird's Lugs can still be seen in many Scottish and Irish castles. The history of government power and control of the people abounds with the means of acquiring information. In Australia today this power is called the Australian Bureau of Statistics and it is being used cynically, callously and ruthlessly to extract personal information from people by the force of law. Apart from governments using the power of the ABS to acquire information from the people by compulsion, many outside agencies are using the ABS because of its power of compulsion. I have cited the examples previously in my speech. The officers of the ABS are revelling in their position of power and privilege. Their bureaucratic arrogance is only exceeded by their intemperance. Our people are now willing to go to gaol and challenge the ABS officers in court rather than submit to their inquisition. The fact that the people are winning in court has not deterred the ABS from proceeding because it presumes it has the impenetrable barriers of the Public Service to protect it. The ABS has attempted to use the power of its bureaucratic position to savage the procedures of the democratic process and the Parliament. It has attempted to bypass parliamentary scrutiny by crafty interpretation of the Acts under which it operates. It is attempting to compel answers from the people, without notifying the Parliament, on the grounds that it has already notified the Parliament about previous surveys that were made by another department, under a different Act and in any case were voluntary. This is the performance of civil servants that are no longer civil and no longer servants. Debate (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) adjourned. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL 1988 Consideration resumed from 30 September. (Quorum formed) The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —The Committee is considering the Industrial Relations Bill and Opposition amendment (19) moved by Senator Chaney. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(10.24) —This is an amendment to division 8, exclusive jurisdiction in relation to certain proceedings, dealt with in clauses 164 to 167. The Opposition has proposed the removal of this division, which provides for exclusive federal jurisdictions in certain cases, from the Bill. Clauses 164 to 167, division 8 of the Bill, provide for exclusive Federal jurisdiction in three situations: where there is a contravention of sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act by a union or an officer, employee or member of a union; in relation to industrial action by employees of the Commonwealth where there is conduct in breach of an order made under clause 127 of the Bill; and where there is conduct in breach of a bans clause made under the relevant provision to clause 125 of the Bill. Contrary to the impression given by Senator Chaney in his contribution to the debate when he moved the amendment, the exclusive jurisdiction provisions are limited to three distinct situations where a Federal remedy exists in relation to a particular course of conduct. Clause 164 makes it clear that inconsistent State or Territory legislation cannot operate validly in relation to conduct by a union or an officer, member or employee of a union which contravenes section 45d or section 45e of the Trade Practices Act. In such circumstances there is Federal legislation, the Trade Practices Act 1974, which provides comprehensive remedies in relation to the conduct. There is no requirement for State legislation covering the same conduct. To the extent that any State legislation has additional provisions or remedies to those provided by the Federal legislation, those parts of the State legislation will remain valid. The provision will operate only to invalidate legislation which covers the same conduct that is subject to the Trade Practices Act 1974 provisions. The Government has been advised that, to the extent that any such State or Territory legislation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Trade Practices Act, it is invalid. This provision merely clarifies that position. It should be remembered that the Queensland Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act 1984, which Senator Chaney suggested would be overridden by this legislation, was originally enacted by the Queensland Government to replace the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act when it was intended that those provisions be repealed. Those provisions were not repealed and, to the extent that the Queensland Act covers the same areas as section 45d and section 45e, it is probably invalid and, obviously, unnecessary. The particular advantage that the Federal legislation has over the similar Queensland legislation is that where action is taken under the Trade Practices Act, under the Federal scheme, there are available conciliation processes before the Industrial Relations Commission which may help resolve the dispute. It should also be noted that the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act now has a wider operation than the Trade Practices Act in those areas. It is unaffected by clause 164 of the Industrial Relations Bill. Clause 165 relates to industrial action taken by employees of the Commonwealth. It is reasonable for the legislation to provide that where the Commission has made an order under clause 127 of the Bill relating to industrial action by Commonwealth employees the only statutory remedies which should apply to that conduct should be Federal remedies. Clause 166 will operate only to exclude State or Territory legislation where the conduct involved is in breach of a bans clause in an award made by the Industrial Relations Commission. This provision will ensure that statutory compliance measures provided under the Federal legislation are not supplemented by inappropriate State laws which may exacerbate or hinder the resolution of a dispute properly dealt with in the Federal tribunal. It should also be noted that the exclusive effect of these provisions is limited. Actions under the common law or under other Federal legislation, for example, the Trade Practices Act, are not affected so there would have been no difference in the remedies available in, for example, the Mudginberri, Dollar Sweets or Plumbers cases. Under clause 167, actions under State industrial legislation for a contravention of an award, order or direction of a State industrial authority are not affected. Actions under State or Territory legislation for a breach of the criminal law are not affected. That is what I want to put in relation to the debate so far. I understand that I have approval from honourable senators opposite to incorporate in Hansard a statement which would more explicitly develop the point and which could, for the purpose of interpretation, be referred to for clarification of some of the objections raised. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Since the Industrial Relations Bill was introduced, representations have been received from the Confederation of Australian Industry about the meaning of the term ``an action under a law of a State or Territory'' in clauses 164, 165 and 166. These provisions prevent actions under State or Territory laws from being available in relation to certain industrial misconduct for which remedies are available under federal legislation. The CAI is concerned that the term ``an action under a law of a State or Territory'' either includes the common law or is so ambiguous that it could be so interpreted. If this view were correct, the provisions would also exclude actions under the common law. The Government has been advised, however, that the term could not, in the context of clauses 164, 165 and 166, reasonably be interpreted as including the common law. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel has pointed out that it is now established Commonwealth drafting practice to use the term ``a law of a State or Territory'' or similar expressions where appropriate to refer collectively to legislation, whether statutes, regulations, ordinances or any other forms of legislation. Accordingly, it should be clearly understood that clauses 164, 165 and 166 are not intended to, and do not, affect the common law. This reflects the Government's commitment made last year not to proceed with its proposals to have a limited exclusion of some injunctive remedies in tort which might otherwise apply to certain industrial action. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Patterson, K. C. L.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E.Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Harradine, B.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. McLean, P. A.Collins, R. L. McMullan, R. F.Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J.Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. J.Cooney, B. C. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devereux, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, A. R. Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Parer, W. R. Schacht, C. C.Archer, B. R. Beahan, M. E.MacGibbon, D. J. Maguire, G. R.Tambling, G. E. J. Burns, B. R.Chaney, F. M. Evans, GarethBoswell, R. L. D. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(10.37) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: (20) Page 83, after Division 3 of Part VIII, add the following new Division: ``Division 4-Directions Directions to stop industrial action ``187a. (1) Where it appears to the Commission that industrial action is occurring, or is threatened, impending or probable, in connection with an industrial dispute, the Commission may give, in connection with the exercise of conciliation powers or arbitration powers in relation to the industrial dispute, such directions as it thinks necessary or desirable to prevent or stop the industrial action or to prevent further industrial action. ``(2) A direction under subsection (1) may be given to: (a) a party to the industrial dispute; (b) a member, officer or employee of an organisation that is a party to the industrial dispute; or (c) any other person engaged in industrial action in connection with the industrial dispute. ``(3) The Commission may give a direction to a person not to engage in conduct that hinders, prevents or discourages: (a) the observance of an award; (b) the performance of work in accordance with an award; or (c) the acceptance of, or offering for, work in accordance with an award. Injunction to stop industrial action ``187b. (1) Where, on the application of the Minister, or of a person who is a party to the industrial dispute or is bound by the award concerned, the Court is satisfied that a person has engaged, or is proposing to engage, in conduct that constitutes, or would constitute: (a) a breach of a direction under section 187a; (b) an attempt to breach such a direction; (c) aiding, counselling or procuring a person to breach such a direction; (d) inducing or attempting to induce a person to breach such a direction; (e) being in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, a breach of such a direction; or (f) conspiring with others to breach such a direction; the Court may grant an injunction in such terms as the Court considers to be appropriate. ``(2) Where in the opinion of the Court it is desirable to do so, the Court may grant an interim injunction pending determination of an application under subsection (1). ``(3) The Court may revoke or vary an injunction granted under subsection (1) or (2). Damages for conduct in breach of direction ``187c. (1) A person who suffers loss or damage by the conduct of another person that was done in breach of a direction under section 187a may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against that other person in the Court. ``(2) An action under subsection (1) may be commenced at any time within 3 years after the date on which the cause of action accrued. Other actions not affected ``187d. Nothing in this Division limits a right to bring an action otherwise than under this Act. Conduct by officers, employees, members or agents ``187e. For the purposes of sections 187b and 187c, action taken in breach of a direction under section 187a by an officer, employee, member or agent of an organisation shall be deemed to have been taken by the organisation, unless the organisation establishes that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from taking the action.''. This amendment relates to Part VIII of the Industrial Relations Bill; that is, the compliance provisions. We seek to insert a new division, division 4, in Part VIII of the legislation. On page 83, at the end of clause 187, we seek to insert a new provision relating to compliance. The amendments that we are seeking to insert will introduce into the Bill a new division which incorporates the compliance provisions which Senator Chaney moved in his Conciliation and Arbitration (Compliance Provisions) Amendment Bill 1987 towards the end of last year. We believe that this detailed amendment with regard to compliance is necessary because the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 does nothing to remedy the impotence of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to enforce its decisions. The former Minister, the present Minister for Transport and Communications, Mr Willis, in his second reading speech on the first version of this Bill, the Industrial Relations Bill 1987, said on 14 May last year that the compliance provisions were an essential element of the industrial relations system. He went on to point out that the current bans clause procedure was disreputable and `substantially moribund'. The fact that not a single union has ever been prosecuted under the present bans clause procedure only goes to show how totally ineffective the current legislation is. Yet this Bill retains those existing moribund, useless provisions, so it does even less than the original Bill of 1987 to give the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission some teeth. In the 1987 Bill the range of penalties to be made available were to be tougher than those under the existing Act. They were to include fines, alterations to an organisation's eligibility rules to exclude specified groups from membership, and the imposition of conditions as to future industrial conduct. A serious continuing breach of a direction by an organisation or its members would lead to deregulation. However, when the Government shelved this Bill for its own electoral convenience last year, when it called the unnecessary early election, it also dropped these tougher compliance provisions. The Government is now blaming the employers for this but it is quite obvious that it was pressure from the Australian Council of Trade Union (ACTU) which forced the Government to back down on this question. The President of the ACTU, Mr Simon Crean, is quoted as saying: They can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. If that does not spell out the intentions of the ACTU, I do not know what does. Moreover, many employer groups, including the Confederation of Australian Industry, expressed opposition to the original Bill-that is, the 1987 Bill-on the grounds, among others, that it did not do enough to strengthen the enforcement provisions. The end result is that we are now faced with a piece of legislation which nominally gives the Commission a great number of powers but does not back up those powers with effective enforcement provisions. The policy of the Liberal-National Party coalition is that employers and employees should be free to make their own agreements on employment conditions and wages. But while we have a system of conciliation and arbitration in place, there must be some provisions to ensure that parties subject to the Commission's rulings comply with its directions. In a Press statement on 26 August Mr Bryan Noakes, representing the Confederation of Australian Industry, called on the Government to support the amendment which I am now moving. He said: The Government must act to equip the new Industrial Relations Commission with effective processes for disciplining trade unions which defy Commission decisions and rulings. The Opposition proposes that the Bill be amended to give the new Commission the power to direct that industrial action cease, a direction enforceable by injunction. The Government should accept this amendment. It must act to ensure that an institution as important as the new Commission has adequate powers to perform its functions. If it does not accept the amendment it will be an abdication of its responsibility to act in the national interest. It is because this legislation leaves the unions, or employers for that matter, free to flout the Commission's decision with impunity that the Opposition considers it vital that the amendments which I have introduced for effective compliance provisions be adopted by the Committee. A major thrust of the Liberal-National Party coalition industrial relations policy is to restore accountability to the industrial relations system. Unfortunately, all of the cooperative behaviour in the world can still be destroyed by the unreasonable behaviour of a few. Last year we saw examples in the building industry, with the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia, the actions of a minority of metalworkers in Victoria, and the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia in New South Wales. A feature of many of these destructive disputes was the fact that renegade elements of the trade union movement involved were frequently in conflict with the trade union movement generally and with the government of the day as well as with the employers. What has been lacking up to now has been an effective mechanism within the industrial arbitration system which enables those renegade elements to be made subject to the system of which they are so ready to take advantage. A system of conciliation and arbitration which binds only one side of the employer-employee relationship is clearly defective. The existence of this defect has been conceded by the present Government and we have introduced these amendments because the Government has made it clear that it has no intention of coming to grips with the problem which it admits exists. These amendments are designed to introduce effective compliance provisions into the conciliation and arbitration system. One of the most serious defects of the existing system is that there is no effective way of ensuring that the unions comply with the decisions and orders of the Arbitration Commission. For example, when the Commission arbitrates for a pay increase, that is written into the award and the employer is legally obliged to pay. Moreover, there is an effective system of sanctions to ensure that he does so. Employees who are members of a union may sue their employer for any payment due to them under an award. Employers can be and often are prosecuted by the Arbitration Inspectorate under section 119 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for monetary breaches of awards. Yet when unions disagree with the outcome of arbitration they are, in practice, free to indulge in industrial action to impose their claims with virtual impunity. The Australian Chamber of Commerce recently noted: . . . There is a widespread view amongst commerce and industry that the trade union movement practices only selective and optional compliance-and then only with regard to those decisions/directions that suit their interests. The Chamber went on to state its strong belief that any system of arbitration and/or adjudication must contain an effective system of sanctions for those who fail to comply with its orders, processes and requirements. Our amendments squarely address this issue. Under the existing system Commission directions to return to work are regularly flouted by unions. There are no effective means of dealing with this. A good example of the way in which unions treat Commission decisions is the 1985 Dollar Sweets dispute. In that case the union-the Federated Confectioners Association of Australia-engaged in a campaign of industrial action in pursuit of a 36-hour week. This claim was totally outside the Arbitration Commission's wages principles. The employers sought to resolve the dispute through the conciliation and arbitration system. Commissioner Bain held a hearing and conducted an inspection of the employer's premises. He then issued a recommendation that the picket lines imposed by the union be lifted. To quote the Supreme Court judge in the later common law action on this issue: It is apparent that the union and the defendants paid no heed to this recommendation. Instead they, as it was put, thumbed their noses at the Commission and continued with their picketing and illegal practices, apparently aware that the Commission is powerless to apply any sanction. It has to be recognised that the lack of effective compliance provisions not only prejudices the position of the immediate victims of industrial action; it also introduces a fundamental bias into the system. It is hard to deny that the Commission's inability to enforce its decisions and orders means that the Commission often has to weigh up what is right with what is acceptable to the unions. The question of acceptability to the employers, who will be obliged to follow the decision whatever the outcome, is barely of consequence. In fact, an arbitration system that is voluntary on one side but compulsory on the other will eventually lose its legitimacy. As the previous Minister for Industrial Relations pointed out last year to the ACTU Congress, the lack of effective compliance provisions in the system has led to an increasing resort by employers to remedies outside the system through either common law or the Trade Practices Act. The Government's ill-fated Industrial Relations Bill of 1987 recognised the inadequacy of the existing system. Earlier I referred to Mr Willis's remarks when he introduced that Bill but, in more detail, on 14 May he said: An essential element of any industrial relations system which provides benefits and protections to registered organisations and their members is that there should be an effective means of ensuring adherence to the principles on which the system is founded and compliance with the decisions of its institutions. The Minister announced: . . . the present bans clause provisions, which have long since fallen into disrepute and are now substantially moribund, will be replaced by a new direction and injunction process. In our view there were substantial defects in that proposed new process. Nevertheless, even with these defects, the new directions and injunctions procedures represented some improvement on the bans clause system. What was totally unacceptable, however, was the attempt to present these new provisions as a trade-off for major restrictions on employer access to common law and Trade Practices Act remedies. The result of these changes would have been to give unions even greater scope to engage in industrial action with impunity. Eventually, the Government backed down and on 6 June last year the then Minister for Industrial Relations announced that there would be no changes to employer access, common law actions or Trade Practices Act remedies. At the same time he announced that monetary penalties for non-adherence to compliance provisions in the Industrial Relations Bill would be the same as those currently applying in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. However, he announced that the range of non-monetary penalties in the Industrial Relations Bill would be retained. Thus the dropping of the proposed $5,000 a day fine was effectively presented as a trade-off for dropping the common law and Trade Practices Act changes. But three weeks later Mr Willis reiterated the Government's position: . . . the original proposals to prevent the use of Common Law and to require conciliation before trade practices action could be taken in respect of 45d and e . . . will not be gone ahead with, nor will the increase in monetary penalties. During the election campaign last year, Mr Willis was still telling the community that the Government was committed to introducing new compliance provisions based on a direction and injunctions process. But then of course Mr Crean came on the scene. On 17 August, after the election was out of the way, Mr Simon Crean was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying: Our position is that if the Bill does not touch Common Law or the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act then it must not increase or strengthen sanctions. They can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. So the ACTU had given its orders to the Government and Mr Willis again changed his position. On 10 September he stated: . . . in the absence of a willingness by the employers to make concessions in respect to penalties which can apply to unions outside the arbitration system, we don't believe it is appropriate to be amending the provisions within the arbitration system now. The Government completely backed down on doing anything effective in this legislation with regard to compliance by trade unions. We are now left with legislation which is totally inadequate in its capacity to deal with trade unions that will not comply with the decisions of the conciliation and arbitration system. Therefore, it is essential that the amendments which I move on behalf of the Opposition be supported by a majority of this chamber and that they become part of this legislation if it is effectively to retain an adequate balance in our industrial relations system. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(10.53) —This is an Opposition amendment to insert two new divisions in part VI of the Industrial Relations Bill. It is an Opposition amendment which is related to one of the most contentious areas of industrial relations; that is, when action that is engaged in is undesirable, what powers does the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission have to curtail such action? Thus it generates a fair bit of heat. We have seen an example of that today. As I think properly befits an area of great controversy, I will pick my way through it quietly and gently in a thorough and comprehensive way so that the logical remedies that the Government proposes are better understood. Under the first alternative system proposed by the Opposition, the grounds on which an injunction may be issued are vague. The court need only be satisfied that a person has engaged, or is proposing to engage, in conduct that constitutes or would constitute a breach of a direction; an attempt to breach such a direction; aiding, counselling or procuring a person to breach such a direction; inducing or attempting to induce a person to breach such a direction; being in any way directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in or party to a breach of such a direction; or conspiring with others to breach such a direction. The availability of direct and immediate access to such a process could well be used to thwart and frustrate efforts by the Commission to resolve an industrial dispute. Paradoxically, the proposed scheme might delay the availability of remedies for industrial action. If these amendments were to be adopted there is a clear risk that enforcement proceedings in the court could undermine attempts by the Commission to resolve the underlying industrial issues. Given the severity of the remedies and the lack of any sensible process for a cooling off period, it would be understandable if the Commission and employers treated directions as a process of last resort and were reluctant to use them for fear of inflaming a dispute. It is, I would suggest, self-defeating to introduce processes which will completely undermine the commitment of the trade union movement to the conciliation and arbitration process. For example, why would trade unions continue to give voluntarily no extra claims commitments when there was an unrestricted access on the other side to still use the big stick? As well, these proposals are quite contrary to the objective of encouraging commitment to sensible grievance procedures. The alternative amendment-that is, amendment (21) proposed by the Opposition in anticipation of the first proposal meeting flat rejection-is a direct lift from the directions and injunctions process included by the Government in the 1987 Bill, but with three very important differences. Firstly, under the proposal the court is able to grant an injunction to enforce directions given by the Commission without the requirement of the 1987 Bill that it be `satisfied that the respondent has breached the direction'. Secondly, there is no prohibition on action taken under other laws-that is, common law-if action is taken under the proposed provisions. Thirdly, the ordinary contempt powers of the Federal Court are not restricted in respect of an injunction granted under the provisions-that is, the maximum penalties laid down in the provisions are not necessarily the limit of the court's power. They are three flaws or differences from the 1987 proposals. In the 1987 Industrial Relations Bill we included a directions process quite fundamentally different from the process proposed by the Opposition. The main objective of the 1987 Bill was to establish effective machinery for the resolution of disputes by conciliation and arbitration. That is also the case in this Bill. At the same time, the Government saw the need to have a sensible, balanced and comprehensive set of compliance measures within the Federal industrial relations system. It is obviously preferable for the Federal system to provide its own remedies for conduct inconsistent with the aims of that system. Accordingly, the Government proposed a new directions and injunctions process with substantially higher monetary penalties for non-compliance as well as a range of non-monetary penalties. More efficient processes were also proposed for resolving secondary boycotts before sanctions were needed. The Government recognised, however, that it was simply neither practical nor reasonable to have a comprehensive set of compliance measures for the Federal system, all of which were designed to promote the resolution of disputes, while leaving open access to common law and other external legal actions which had nothing to do with dispute settlement. For this reason, the Government excluded access to some common law injunctions where an injunction was available under the Federal system. Damages were not affected. Overlapping civil remedies under State legislation were also excluded. The directions process envisaged in either of the two alternative proposals contained in the Opposition amendments does not achieve any of the objectives that were the basis of the Government's directions process. Either Opposition amendments (20) or (21) would introduce a compliance system heavily and inequitably weighted against the trade union movement and in favour of employers. The Opposition has simply forgotten the lessons it had to learn, not at its own cost but at great cost to the community in the 1960s when the coalition Government introduced processes for dispute resolution before access to the enforcement bans clauses was permitted. It expressly acknowledged that there were two main deficiencies in the existing processes which gave virtually immediate access to penalties. Those deficiencies were the immediacy of availability of enforcement measures and the fact that the process did not allow the court to take hold of the dispute between the parties and endeavour to assist them to resolve it. These fundamental weaknesses are reinstated by the Opposition proposal that is now before the chamber. Far from a prescription for improved industrial behaviour, these proposals represent a return to the discredited confrontationist approach to industrial relations of the Fraser Government. They will make disputes worse and, as has been said by one judge in relation to common law action in industrial disputes, leave a `legacy of bitterness between the parties'. It is for those reasons that the Government does not accept the amendment that has been moved. I might add that Senator Chapman, in supporting the amendment, made a couple of claims that I think ought to be rebutted. I am not sure of the order in which Senator Chapman made his claims but, according to the way I wrote them down, his first claim was that this Bill was framed in accordance with Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) direction. One of the fictions that the Opposition wants to try to embed in the consciousness of Australian electors is that this Government acts because the ACTU says so. Anyone who reads in the daily papers the arguments about the differences between the Government and the ACTU will clearly see the fallacious nature of that allegation. But the Opposition believes that simply by repeating that allegation at every opportunity it somehow will gain importance and somehow the electorate will believe it. The suggestion is, of course, fatuous. The Government reached its decision to modify the 1987 Bill's compliance measures in the face of the objections of the employer bodies. It consulted employers and the ACTU about possible modifications. The ACTU was prepared to accept the balanced package that was originally proposed. The employers wanted an amendment similar to what is being put now for unrestricted access to sanctions. The Government was not prepared to introduce legislation containing comprehensive Federal compliance measures and greatly increased penalties without there being proper processes which emphasised dispute resolution in the first instance or ensuring that those processes could not be upset by damaging intrusion of external legal remedies. It is a matter of public record that the ACTU would not accept a system which established a smorgasbord of Federal sanctions to supplement a range of common law and other non-Federal sanctions. That is understandable. It is absurd, however, to suggest that the Government's decision not to proceed with its original proposals or to modify them as the employers wanted was attributable in any way to supposed directions given to it by the ACTU. That fiction is not applicable. Senator Chapman —It is a truth. Senator COOK —No, it is just a fiction. As I have said, it is a fiction that, by continual repetition, the Opposition wants people to believe. It remains, however, a fiction and no amount of repetition will change that fact. In the few minutes that remain, I should reply to the remarks made by Senator Chapman that touch on what he alleges to be the inadequacy of the compliance provisions in this Bill. This Bill is not, as the honourable senator has suggested, virtually devoid of compliance measures. It is true that the Bill retains the bans clause processes established by the coalition Government in 1970 and revised by the coalition Government in 1972, but it also contains many other provisions for dealing with non-compliance with the requirements of the Federal system. Before I go to those, it is worth recalling why the bans clause processes have been retained in the first place. The 1987 Bill provided for a more effective compliance process involving directions from the Commission and injunctions from the proposed labour court to enforce such directions in cases of intransigence. These remedies, together with other remedies under the Bill and Federal law, were intended to comprise a comprehensive code of compliance measures in the Federal system. Various checks and balances were incorporated to emphasise the resolution of disputes and to prevent the relationship between dispute settlement and effective compliance from being disrupted by resort to some external legal remedies. Employer bodies, supported by the Opposition, objected in an extremely short-sighted and jaundiced way to the new system. They wanted all the sanctions but not the checks and balances that ought to go along with them. The Government agreed to defer the legislation for further consultation with employers and unions over the system. Despite very full discussions over some time, no agreement was reached. The Government decided, therefore, to retain the bans clause processes instead of introducing the directions and injunctions process and to proceed with the other principal non-compliance measures. The 1988 Bill, which is now before the Committee, contains a range of measures relating to industrial action, including a bans clause that can be inserted in an award, with monetary penalties for breach ranging from $500 to $1,000 a day-clauses 181 to 186. Stand downs can be authorised under clause 126. Awards can be set aside or varied: for example, the recent removal of the 4 per cent second tier pay rise for storemen and packers in dispute at the Nippondenso factory in Victoria-clause 113. Awards can be suspended or cancelled-clause 187. The hearing of claims before the Commission can be deferred where industrial action is occurring, as set out in clause 111 (1) (g). Deregistration can be sought with a range of remedies short of deregistration also available: examples are orders about the use of funds or property, changes to coverage of rights, and restriction of rights under the Act as set out in clause 293. Equivalent measures exist in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but the Bill's provisions are clearer and drafted so as to operate more effectively. A key point, however, is that the best compliance is voluntary. The dispute figures show the contrast between the approach backed up by these Opposition amendments and the Government's approach. One has only to look at who does industrial relations better in government to see that the overwhelming verdict of popular opinion and of the statistics is that it is this Government. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(11.08) —No-one would argue with the Minister's concluding remark that the best system of industrial relations compliance is that which is voluntary, and that is exactly what the coalition policy seeks to develop much more fully. But we live in the real world and we will not always get voluntary compliance. It is for that reason that the Opposition has moved these amendments. The Minister, in responding to this amendment, claimed that the issuing of a direction could undermine the potential for conciliation, but the opportunity for conciliation is available well before any direction would be issued. Indeed, it would be expected that all avenues of conciliation would be exhausted before a direction was sought, as our amendments provide. An injunction would be used only as a last resort when conciliation and arbitration had broken down. I refer the Minister to the comments of Mr Bert Evans, Chief Executive of the Metal Trades Industry Association, a gentleman whom the Government from time to time is fond of quoting in support of its arguments. Mr Evans said: In introducing in the Senate a private member's Bill on industrial relations- of course, that is the private member's Bill introduced by Senator Chaney last year, to which this amendment give effect- the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has done the community a service by focusing attention on the need for long-overdue compliance provisions in the compulsory conciliation and arbitration system. The Opposition's Bill has obviously been carefully drafted with the practicalities of day-to-day industrial relations in mind. It contains no provisions which any fair minded person prepared to abide by the rules of compulsory conciliation and arbitration could object to. On the other hand, it clearly would remove the imbalances which presently exist and which favour recalcitrant trade unions at the expense of employers who are trying to work within the system. That description of Senator Chaney's compliance Bill which he introduced in November last year applies exactly and equally to the amendment which I have moved today. This amendment would have the same effect on the Government's legislation as Senator Chaney's own Bill would have had on the situation last year. Senator Cook also referred to our amendments as being inferior to the provisions in the Government's 1987 Industrial Relations Bill. Our amendment differs from that proposed in the Government's Bill of last year in the following ways: first, it would not be necessary to obtain a certificate from a Full Bench before proceeding to obtain an injunction. In our view, and contrary to what the Minister said, such a step is totally unnecessary and would be likely to lead to substantial delays. Time is often of the essence in industrial disputes and in achieving an effective solution of those disputes. Under the procedures which were set out in last year's Bill employers could be financially ruined while waiting for the Full Bench to be convened. A second major difference from that legislation was that breaches of injunctions would be treated as contempt of court. There would be no arbitrary restrictions on the power of the court to decide the appropriate punishment. In the Industrial Relations Bill there was a limit imposed of $5,000 a day for breaches of injunctions. There is normally no upper limit for penalties for contempt of an injunction of the Federal Court or of a State Supreme Court. The penalty is related to the circumstances and the seriousness of the contempt. For example, in the plumbers' dispute last year a penalty of $10,000 per day per site was imposed. It is critical that penalties be set at a level sufficient to deter a large union. By way of comparison, it can be noted that breaches of the Trade Practices Act can result in fines of up to $250,000 in the case of a body corporate for each separate breach. A third major difference is that under our amendment a person who suffers loss or damage as the result of industrial action in breach of a direction can sue the responsible union in the Federal Court. This would permit aggrieved third parties as well as employers to sue unions for damage resulting from industrial action forbidden by the Commission. The extraordinary aspect of industrial relations in our society is that it is the only area where an organisation can wilfully set out to wreak damage and expect to escape responsibility. Those who operate within a system which provides extensive rights to go to arbitration in the event of a dispute can least of all claim that such action can be justified. It is a provision of our amendment that the new directions and injunctions procedure in no way override or limit any other legal rights a person may have in face of industrial action. Employers would retain their full common law rights. Nor would actions under section 45d or section 45e of the Trade Practices Act be affected. I reinforce the need for this Opposition amendment to be passed by the Committee and urge its support. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chapman's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, B. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. M. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Harradine, B.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. McLean, P. A.Collins, R. L. McMullan, R. F.Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J.Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. J.Cooney, B. C. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devereux, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, A. R. Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Parer, W. R. Schacht, C. C.Archer, B. R. Beahan, M. E.MacGibbon, D. J. Maguire, G. R.Tambling, G. E. J. Burns, B. R.Chaney, F. M. Evans, G. J.Lewis, A. W. R. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(11.20) —On behalf of the Opposition I move: (21) Page 83, after Division 3 of Part VIII, add the following new Division: ``Division 4-Directions Direction to stop industrial action or other conduct ``187f. (1) Where it appears to the Commission that industrial action is occurring, or is threatened, impending or probable, in connection with an industrial dispute, the Commission may give, in connection with the exercise of conciliation powers or arbitration powers in relation to the industrial dispute, such directions as it thinks necessary or desirable to stop or prevent the industrial action or to prevent further industrial action. ``(2) A direction under subsection (1) may be given to: (a) party to the industrial dispute; (b) a member, officer or employee of an organisation that is party to the industrial dispute; or (c) any other person engaged in industrial action in connection with the industrial dispute. ``(3) The Commission may give a direction to a person not to engage in conduct that hinders, prevents or discourages: (a) the observance of an award; (b) the performance of work in accordance with an award; or (c) the acceptance of, or offering for, work in accordance with an award. Directions and orders in relation to industrial action involving public sector employment ``18g. (1) Where it appears to the Commission that industrial action by persons engaged in public sector employment is occurring, or is threatened, impending or probable, the Commission may: (a) give such directions as it thinks necessary or desirable to stop or prevent the industrial action or to prevent further industrial action; or (b) make such orders as it thinks necessary or desirable by reason that the industrial action is occurring or is threatened, impending or probable. ``(2) An order made under paragraph (1) (b) is enforceable under this Act as if it were an award. ``(3) The powers conferred on the Commission by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the Commission by the rest of this Act. Provision relating to directions under section 187f or 187g ``187h. A direction under section 187f or paragraph 187g (1) (a): (a) shall specify the period for which it is intended to continue in force; (b) shall come into force when it is made, unless it is expressed to come into force at a later time; (c) shall be deemed to be an award for the purposes of section 143; and (d) may be varied or revoked at any time. Breach of direction under section 187f or 187g ``187j. (1) Where the Commission has given a direction under section 187f or under paragraph 187g (1) (a), the Commission: (a) shall, if it is satisfied: (i) that industrial action or other conduct in breach of the direction is not about to stop; and (ii) that there is no other appropriate step which the Commission could take to prevent or stop such industrial action or conduct promptly; give a certificate in writing to that effect and may, if it thinks fit, vary the direction; or (b) may, if it is not satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) and if it thinks fit, vary or revoke the direction. ``(2) Where industrial action or conduct in breach of a direction under section 187f or under paragraph 187g (1) (a) has stopped without a certificate under subsection (1) having been given, the Commission may, if it is satisfied that the giving of a certificate for the purposes of section 187k is justified having regard to: (a) the nature of the industrial action or conduct; (b) the circumstances in which the industrial action or conduct ceased; and (c) the terms of any settlement of the matter that gave rise to the industrial action or conduct; give a certificate in writing to that effect. ``(3) The powers of the Commission under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a direction given under subsection 187f (1) are exercisable on application by a party to the industrial dispute concerned. ``(4) The powers of the Commission under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a direction given under subsection 187f (3) are exercisable on application by a person bound by the award concerned. ``(5) The powers of the Commission under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a direction given under paragraph 187g (1) (a) are exercisable on application by the employer of persons engaged in the industrial action concerned or likely to be engaged in the threatened, impending or probable industrial action concerned. ``(6) The powers of the Commission under subsection (1) or (2) to give a certificate or to vary or revoke a direction shall be exercised by a Full Bench and not otherwise. Compliance with directions ``187k. (1) Where a certificate has been given under section 187j in relation to a direction under section 187f or paragraph 187g (1) (a), a prescribed person may apply to the Court to enforce the direction. ``(2) Where, on application under subsection (1), the Court may, if it considers it appropriate, grant such injunction as the Court thinks appropriate to prevent or stop the industrial action or conduct concerned. ``(3) Where the Court grants an injunction under subsection (2), the Court may, by order, declare the engaging in conduct in breach of the injunction shall be deemed to constitute a separate breach of the injunction on each day on which the conduct continues. ``(4) In dealing with a breach of an injunction granted under subsection (2), the Court may make any one or more of the following orders: (a) an order imposing on the party in breach a penalty as provided by subsection (5) or (6); (b) an order determining alterations of the eligibility rules of an organisation in breach to exclude from eligibility for membership of the organisation persons belonging to a specified class or group; (c) an order declaring that persons belong to a specified class or group, being persons who are eligible for membership of the organisation by virtue of an agreement of the kind referred to in section 202, are excluded from eligibility for membership of the organisation in spite of anything in the agreement. ``(5) The maximum penalty that may be imposed under subsection (4) in respect of a breach of an injunction, where the breach is a separate breach by virtue of an order under subsection (3), is: (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000. ``(6) The maximum penalty that may be imposed under subsection (4) in respect of a breach of an injunction, other than a breach referred to in subsection (5), is: (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000. ``(7) In dealing with a breach of an injunction granted under subsection (2), the Court may, instead of making an order under subsection (4), do either or both of the following: (a) accept an undertaking entered into by the party in breach relating to the party's future industrial conduct; (b) impose on the party in breach such conditions as the Court thinks fit relating to the party's future industrial conduct. ``(8) The Court may, on application by a party to a proceeding in which the Court took action under subsection (7), deal with a breach of an undertaking accepted, or a condition imposed, under that subsection as if it were a breach of an injunction granted under subsection (2). ``(9) An alteration of rules determined by order under paragraph (4) (b) takes effect on the date of the order or on such other day as is specified in the order. ``(10) In dealing with a breach of an interlocutory injunction granted in relation to the enforcement of a direction under this section, the Court may: (a) make an order of the kind referred to in paragraph (4) (a); or (b) do either or both of the things referred to in paragraphs (7) (a) and (b). ``(11) In this section: `prescribed person' means: (a) in relation to a direction under subsection 187f (1)-a party to the industrial dispute who has been affected, or an organisation that is a party to the industrial dispute whose members have been affected, by a breach of the direction; (b) in relation to a direction under subsection 187f (3)-a person bound by the award concerned who has been affected by a breach of the direction; or (c) in relation to a direction under paragraph 187g (1) (a)-an employer of persons engaged in the industrial action concerned or likely to be engaged in the threatened, impending or probable industrial action concerned, being an employer who has been affected by a breach of the directions; `respondent', in relation to a direction under section 187f or paragraph 187g (1) (a), means the person to whom the direction was addressed.''. This amendment has been moved consequent upon amendment (20) not being supported. Again, this amendment deals with compliance. It inserts a new division containing the compliance provisions which were contained in the Government's own Industrial Relations Bill 1987. It is presented as an alternative to the amendment which I moved previously and which was lost. The provisions which amendment (21) will introduce to the Bill are the very provisions which the Government supported in its own legislation last year. Undoubtedly, these provisions are not as satisfactory as those which I moved a few moments ago, but they are certainly far superior to the provisions in the Government's Industrial Relations Bill 1988. One of the arguments put forward by the Government against sanctions concerns double jeopardy-that there would be a danger of unions being subject to double jeopardy if the compliance provisions which we seek to have incorporated in this legislation were accepted. The Government says that it would be unfair to expose unions to sanctions within the arbitration system if they still faced sanctions outside it. That is a fairly recent argument that the Government has produced. We might ask why it was not produced earlier, particularly during last year's election campaign. Was it because at that time the Government did not want to admit to voters that it had no intention of doing anything about compliance, that its original compliance provisions in the 1987 Bill were simply a blind to con voters into believing that something would be done about introducing effective compliance provisions applying to trade unions? We should look at whether the argument about double jeopardy has any real credibility. It should be understood that this so-called double jeopardy would not be some new product of a system of directions and injunctions: it already exists. There is an overlap now between sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, the common law and the bans clause provisions of the old Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Indeed, there is an overlap between some of the industrial torts. The fact is that it is not at all uncommon for there to be more than one legal remedy available to deal with a certain situation. The courts are quite experienced in dealing with this and no new problems would be created by the establishment of a new directions and injunctions procedure alongside common law and the Trade Practices Act. Section 11 of the Crimes Act permits a person who has committed an offence that breaches more than one law to be prosecuted and convicted under either law, but not to be punished twice in respect of the same offence. For civil remedies there is no point in getting an injunction under more than one Act. The main differences between our proposals on compliance and those contained in last year's Industrial Relations Bill are, firstly, that it would not be necessary to obtain a certificate from a full bench before proceeding to obtain an injunction; secondly, that breaches of injunctions would be treated as contempt of court and there would be no arbitrary restrictions on the power of the court to decide the appropriate penalty; and, thirdly, that a person who suffered loss or damage as a result of industrial action and a breach of direction would be able to sue the responsible organisation in the Federal Court. In view of the unwillingness of the Government and the Australian Democrats to support our amendment (20), which sought to place what we believe would be the more effective compliance provisions into this legislation, I believe that it is even more essential that at least these less effective compliance provisions be incorporated in the legislation so that there is some opportunity for an even-handed approach to be adopted in industrial relations and for the new Industrial Relations Commission to have the power to enforce effectively the provisions and decisions which it makes. Therefore, I urge the Committee to support amendment (21), which seeks to insert a new division 4 in part VIII of the legislation. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(11.25) —I addressed this amendment in the body of my remarks when I was dealing with the earlier amendment (20) moved by Senator Chapman. In view of the remarks he has made there are a few points I need to re-emphasise. This amendment arises as an Opposition effort-to put it honestly and squarely-to embarrass the Government by lifting a clause from our 1987 Bill and attempting to insert it in the 1988 Bill. Indeed, that would be embarrassing if it were exactly the same in every respect. As I said before, there are three major differences between the 1987 Bill and what is now proposed. The first is that the court is able to grant an injunction to enforce directions given by the Commission without the requirement of the 1987 Bill that it be satisfied that the respondent has breached the direction. That is a very important difference between what is being proposed now and what we proposed then. The second difference is that there is no prohibition on action taken under other laws-that is, common law-if action is taken under the proposed provisions. The third difference is that the ordinary contempt powers of the Federal Court of Australia are not restricted in respect of an injunction granted under the provisions. That means that maximum penalties laid down in the provisions are not necessarily the limit of the court's power. I think that the first effort to embarrass us by copying us has not succeeded. If it were a comprehensive and complete duplication of what we are doing, it might have succeeded. It does not because of these alterations and differences. My second point relates to double jeopardy. Mr Willis made the point strongly that double jeopardy was part of our concept of improvement in the 1987 Bill. It is not a new idea. The idea of double jeopardy has been around for as long as section 51(xxxv) of the Australian Constitution has empowered the Commonwealth to make laws to prevent and settle industrial disputes. Under that head of power we have introduced arbitration and conciliation legislation. Ever since there has been arbitration and conciliation legislation in Australia there has been a concept that there are penalties built into that legislation, that area should be fenced off so that people behaving within that structure of a Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be dealt with within that structure and not have other penalties visited upon them from outside that disrupt or interfere with the ability of the Commission to, as the Constitution spells out, prevent and settle industrial disputes. So I rebut the double jeopardy argument that has been raised here with those remarks. The course we are proposing to take-it is consistent with what we have proposed to do all the way through-is that when there is a dispute in which the compliance provisions of an Act may be or should be invoked, it is far better for the management of industrial relations to involve the Commission at each particular stage to bring about a resolution of the dispute. If that fails, the compliance provisions work. Under this amendment they fast track the big stick and thus, from practical experience, exacerbate and extend the disputes. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chapman's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R Lewis, A. W. R.Archer, B. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Harradine, B.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Coates, J. McLean, P. A.Collins, R. L. McMullan, R. F.Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J.Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. J.Cooney, B. C. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devereux, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, A. R. Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Parer, W. R. Schacht, C. C.Walters, M. S. Beahan, M. E.MacGibbon, D. J. Maguire, G. R.Tambling, G. E. J. Burns, B. R.Chaney, F. M. Evans, GarethBishop, B. K. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(11.37) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 3, subclause 4 (1) definition of ``collegiate electoral system'' lines 13 to 27, leave out the definition (2) Page 7, subclause 4 (1), definition of ``one-tier collegiate electoral system'' lines 43 to 44, leave out the definition. (5) Pages 88 and 89 paragraph 197 (1) (a), line 39 (page 88) to line 2 (page 89) leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) shall provide for the election of the holder of each office in the organisation by a direct voting system;''. (6) Page 89, clause 198 (1), lines 36 to 39, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(1) Where a ballot is required for an election for an office, the rules shall also provide that it shall be a secret postal ballot.''. The Committee will be aware that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904, which is in place, and the Industrial Relations Bill, which is before the chamber at the moment, both provide for some unions to elect their office bearers by the indirect or, otherwise known as, collegiate system of elections. It is the view of the Australian Democrats, in fact it is the view even of some of those unions that employ the collegiate system of elections, that the collegiate or indirect system has always been a poor substitute for direct democracy. Honourable senators will be aware of the fact that it involves a process whereby the members of the union elect a group of people, generally referred to as `the college'; or it may go by another name in the case of some unions and be referred to as `the council'. It is a group of people who have been elected and from whom and by whom further representation will result. In other words, it is a two-tier or two-stage system of deciding who holds power. Historically, that system emerged when and where direct democracy was impracticable because of, say, lack of knowledge, remote location, inconvenience or lack of communication, et cetera; therefore, where representative democracy made more sense. Most people are probably most familiar with the collegiate system in relation to presidential elections in the United States. As I say, historically it came about when it was impracticable to have in place a system of direct democracy. Of course, we in the Australian Democrats argue that this is not acceptable in a day and age in which information and opinion can be transmitted instantly. I have over and over again cited examples of this where, for instance, any of us can go into a special place called a totalisator agency board centre and offer our opinion about the most irrelevant things and have that opinion processed virtually instantly with the aid of modern technology. This is a day and age when in fact any of us can procure or purchase commodities by means of using a Bankcard and the authority to use that card and the credibility of its use are established by telephone and telecommunication methods. In other words, we live in the day and age of instant communication in which the impracticability of elections no longer applies and in which therefore, a system of indirect democracy is unjustified in cases such as the election of union leadership. Therefore, in this context, it is no longer an acceptable alternative to direct democracy. Some unions retain this system because it allows them the opportunity to manipulate outcomes and to manipulate numbers on national conferences or national executives, et cetera. I am not saying that this is not in itself significant; I am simply saying that that is the reason why the collegiate or indirect system of elections is maintained or retained by some unions. Australia has a long history of supporting fair elections. We were the first country to introduce secret ballots. We were the second country to introduce votes for women. These amendments, if supported, would essentially reintroduce the Clyde Cameron amendments of 1973 when he proposed amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 to do away with the collegiate or indirect system of voting. Those amendments have certainly been good enough for the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which is now in government. They were certainly good enough for the ALP when Clyde Cameron was Minister for Labour. The ALP policy of that day stated: Labor will also ensure a system of democratic control of all unions, allowing the fullest participation by members in their union affairs, a system of participatory democracy. The Government recently put to a referendum a question which sought to ensure fair elections on the one vote one value system for all Federal and State elections. If that was good enough for Federal and State governments, as the Government was arguing at the time, it should be good enough for union leadership elections also. Of course, I realise and am sensitive to the fact that Senator Harradine would not be happy with these amendments, because if they were implemented they would negate his hard-won victory of 1976 when he negotiated with the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, in support of Mr George Crawford of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia and at the urging of Mr B. A. Santamaria and other members of the National Civic Council, to replace the Cameron system with the collegiate system. There is a history of vested interest for and against this system. On the one hand, we have had previous Labor Ministers and previous Labor policy opposing the collegiate system which is now in place and which is endorsed in this Bill and in place in the Act; and, on the other hand, we have a history of Independents in support of the Fraser Government putting it in place and therefore entrenching a system which, we argue, is inappropriate and unfair. Indeed, in September 1978 Mr Cameron wrote to Mr Crawford on this topic, amongst others. I quote in part from a letter which is contained in his book. The letter stated: I still have the telegram I received from you on 8 May 1973, calling upon me to withdraw my amendment to the Act which required that all union officers exercising powers to make or alter rules, impose fines upon members, expel members or to exercise the functions of union management, must be elected by a direct vote of all of the union members likely to be affected by those decisions. The letter continued: Tell me now, what is wrong with that? But your telegram informed me that my amendments were `causing concern' to your union and called for their withdrawal. The National Civic Council took the same line. Malcolm Fraser also supported the stand stated in your telegram and has obligingly amended the Act to repeal those democratic procedures which I put through the House of Representatives in 1973. In doing so, Malcolm Fraser had the full support of Mr B. A. Santamaria who, in `Point of View' published in the Newsweekly, 26 May 1976, demanded that the Parliament should not be permitted to end its 1976 Autumn Session without deleting those amendments from the Act. He went on to defend the collegiate system for the election of union officials and condemned direct rank and file elections on the ground that they would `ultimately hand over to the Communistic-extreme-Left coalition, behind the camouflage of an A.L.P. ticket'. In other words, the whole issue of collegiate elections in 1973 and 1976 was extremely emotive and real, one which deserved the attention of the Government and the Opposition, and one which we argue today still deserves the attention of the Government and the Opposition because it is an unacceptable second-best, unnecessary system of elections. Of course, the realities are that just as the collegiate system has, until recently, been used to entrench right wing union leadership, it could just as easily entrench left wing union leadership. Its effects, as applied now, entrench certain privileged leaders. It is a system that gives rise to entrenchment of certain privileged leaders. In that respect, it is a less than satisfactory and less than adequate electoral system. Merely as a consequential amendment, as all elections would be direct if the Australian Democrats amendments are successful, it should be pointed out that all ballots would, therefore, be secret postal ballots. The Bill does not ensure this with respect to those ballots that come under the collegiate system, although it does ensure it for ballots conducted under the direct voting systems. It is interesting to note that at the South Australian convention of the ALP, held between 12 and 14 August this year, the following motion was carried without dissent. I note the interest of the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) in this particular motion. I am not sure who the movers of the motion were, but the motion reads: That in accordance with the referendum proposal that in elections for political office the principle of one-person, one-vote apply, that the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 be amended so as to reflect the same principle in Union elections and in particular that the definition of `Collegiate Electoral System' in s. 4 (1) be amended to exclude the possibility of up to 15 per cent of members of Union Executives and Councils being not directly elected by members. That is a unanimously supported resolution of the South Australian branch of the ALP in August of this year having to be advanced as an amendment to the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 by the Democrats on behalf of that ALP branch. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's response. Under the proposed collegiate system, it is possible for up to 15 per cent of national union office-bearers in some unions to be elected without any direct input from their members. This is a patently unfair system of elections, and the intention of these amendments is that that entitlement be expunged from the Bill. The Australian Democrats urge the support of the Committee for these amendments. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.49) —I had hoped not to involve myself in this debate because I thought the debate would be conducted at the level at which it heretofore has been conducted. But since my name was mentioned in dispatches just a moment ago, I should think the Committee would allow me to make a couple of comments. I am surprised to learn from Senator McLean, a newcomer to this whole area, that certain things-which I am not aware of-happened long ago. Apparently I was somehow acting in concert with George Crawford and Bob Santamaria over some amendments to legislation. I inform Senator McLean that is mutually contradictory. The implication also is that the Government and the Opposition are now somehow acting in concert with those persons over this issue. I shall make my position perfectly clear. Current proposals in the Bill, for example, clause 197, preserve the importance of direct democracy. But clause 197 also acknowledges that certain unions have a branch structure that is jealously guarded by the particular States, and that is something that only a person deeply involved for many years in the trade union movement would understand. I could name quite a large number of federal secretaries and federal presidents of unions from smaller States who would not have been able to be elected as federal secretary or federal president of the union if a system of direct voting for those offices was in place-that is to say, if there were not a system which enabled persons to be directly elected to a national council, or whatever name the federal management committee is titled, who would then, amongst themselves, elect members of that body as federal office-bearers. When talking about democracy, it is important to understand that members of this Parliament are elected on a collegiate system. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was not directly elected by the electorate, was he? The Prime Minister was elected by members of his Party-members of the Australian Labor Party, members for whom the electors voted to represent them. They in turn elected their leader. Actually, they would have met beforehand to elect their leader. Let us take the Ministry. Ministers are elected by a group of party members. It is important to note that the principle of freedom of association should indicate that as far as is possible the rules and structure of an organisation of employees, or employers for that matter, should be left to the members of that organisation and not be imposed upon them by the dead hand of legislation or government. If certain unions choose to proceed along the lines of the collegiate system, that is their choice. There are provisions in the rules of all organisations for amendments to be made to the rules. If they want amendments made to those rules, they can change those rules-there is nothing to stop them. I should emphasise that the direct system of voting clearly operates at the branch level. For example, if a branch organisation has a State secretary and a State president and so on-I may be wrong, but I cannot think of any union at present that has a collegiate system at that level-- Senator Cook —At branch level? Senator HARRADINE —At the branch level. In any event, clause 197 provides that the collegiate electoral system in the case of a full time office is a one-tier collegiate electoral system. That important point should be recognised. I am opposed to the proposition put forward by Senator McLean not only because it is based on false premises, but also because it really is undermining the principle of freedom of association where that freedom would indicate that the members of the organisation should have the right to determine the type of organisation they are in, the structure of that organisation, and its rules. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(11.56) —The Opposition opposes these amendments which have been moved by Senator McLean on behalf of the Australian Democrats and which relate to collegiate elections. Prior to 1973, and since 1976, the courts have consistently found that the collegiate style election, when coupled with the statutory requirement that ultimate control of an organisation be in the hands of its members, is democratic. There are a number of cases to which reference can be made to reinforce that, among them the cases of Ford v. the Federated Municipal Workers Union 1954, Steele v. the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, Crealy v. the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association, Spence v. the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union of Australia, and Grove v. the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia. All these cases illustrate examples of where courts of review have approved the collegiate system and specifically found that the utilisation of that system in elections was not oppressive, unreasonable or unjust. It is very significant that this was the view of a wide range of eminent judges, whose assessment of what is just must be highly persuasive. The Australian Democrats, in moving these amendments, have completely overlooked the fact that the Industrial Relations Bill, like the existing Act, specifically provides that control of an organisation and its branches must be in the hands of its members. Thus, any council or committee which is elected is always subject to some approved system of control of its policies and actions by the members. The collegiate system is widely used to guarantee the rights of minority States and branches within a registered organisation. Coming from a small State like South Australia, I believe that is particularly important. A vote of all members of an organisation for each Federal position could mean that a majority State, a large State, could dominate elections and hence dominate the policy of a Federal organisation. In the case of Crealy v. the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association, which I mentioned, the Commonwealth Industrial Court, comprising of the Chief Justice Sir John Spicer, Mr Justice Dunphy and Mr Justice Morgan, stated: In the creation and maintenance of such a body- they were referring to a union- it seems to us not unreasonable that its members should seek to ensure by constitutional provisions that the numerically smaller divisions should have an effective voice in its federal conference and in its federal committee of management. In this particular case, if New South Wales had a majority of the members of the Association, as it conceded it may at times in the future have, it could, if all voting in the federal conference was to be strictly limited to membership strength, elect all the office bearers from that division and thus control the policy and activities of the whole Association. Senator McLean, in moving his amendments, made the point that the collegiate system emerged where direct democracy was impracticable because of lack of knowledge, remote location, inconvenience or lack of communication and, therefore, where representative democracy made more sense. This is incorrect. The system has flourished in the years right up to the present and has proved to be an effective and efficient democratic way of governing organisations in the contemporary environment. The honourable senator's description of the history of the collegiate system is simply incorrect. Senator McLean also claimed that `some unions retain it because it allows them the opportunity to manipulate outcomes and numbers on national conferences and national executives'. This is overlooking the fact that, both under the existing legislation, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, section 140, and the proposed legislation, clause 196, a member of an organisation has the right to have the rules of an organisation, or the actions of the officer of an organisation, scrutinised by the court at any time to rectify any Act which is oppressive, unreasonable or unjust to that member. The manipulation of elections, or the manipulation of numbers on executives, would clearly be conduct which would allow an aggrieved member to bring these matters before the court under the existing and the proposed legislation, the Industrial Relations Bill, which we are now debating. Senator McLean has also alleged that the collegiate system is capable of entrenching right wing union leadership or left wing union leadership. This misunderstands the collegiate system. The elected officers who engage in a collegiate system are elected by a majority of members of the organisation who prefer the political position of those candidates to that of other candidates. They are therefore reflecting the views of the majority when voting in a collegiate election. The collegiate system cannot therefore contribute to any entrenchment of leadership unless the majority of members want this. Senator McLean also stated that, if the Democrat amendments were successful, all ballots would thereafter be secret postal ballots. Both the Bill and the existing Act presently provide that all elections for office shall be by secret ballot, but additionally provide that elections, other than collegiate elections, shall be secret postal ballots. Senator McLean appears to misunderstand the legislation in this respect by assuming that collegiate elections are not presently required to be secret ballots. Senator McLean also said in his speech a few moments ago that `under the proposed collegiate system, it is possible for up to 15 per cent of national union officeholders to be elected without any direct input from the members. This is patently unfair'. The honourable senator is referring to subparagraph (b) of the definition of `collegiate electoral system' in clause 4 of the Bill. He does appear to have misunderstood this subparagraph. The subparagraph deals merely with the situation where the elected body engaged in a collegiate system is not composed in total of officers elected at the first stage of that particular collegiate election. They must, however, have been elected by a previous election pursuant to the Act, as any officer of a registered organisation must be an elected officer, except in the very limited case of casual vacancies, which exception is dealt with by a subparagraph of the definition. Their term of office is also limited by the provisions of the Act and of this present Bill. The honourable senator is wrong in alleging that there can be no direct input from members as to 15 per cent of national officeholders. The collegiate system of elections is well established and it has worked quite reasonably with regard to trade union elections. As Senator Harradine said a few moments ago, our Australian parliamentary system in many respects is virtually a collegiate system. He referred to the election of the Prime Minister by the members of parliament of the majority party. Of course, under a Labor government not only the Prime Minister but all Ministers of the Crown are elected by their parliamentary colleagues in what is virtually a collegiate system. I hope that Senator McLean would not regard our present parliamentary system as an undemocratic system and a system which entrenches leadership which is not supported by the electorate. It is for these reasons but, more particularly, for the points that I have made in response to Senator McLean's advocacy of his amendments that the Opposition will be opposing the Democrats' amendments. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(12.04) —Mr Temporary Chairperson, if I might use the Commonwealth's non-sexist language-- Senator Boswell —Goodness me. Senator COOK —That is proper usage, Senator Boswell. Senator Chapman —Get back to reality. Senator COOK —That is reality, Senator. Fifty-four per cent of the population happen to be women. I do not want to get into a side debate about this. There are several points that I want to comment on. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —I am sorry I started all this. Senator COOK —No, I did. There are several points I want to comment on in terms of the amendments moved by the Australian Democrats. Firstly, I accept what Senator Harradine has said about the alleged conspiracy involving him, George Crawford and the National Civic Council although, when I saw Senator Harradine's thin red leather tie today, I was tempted to believe the conspiracy theory might be true. But I accept the honourable senator's explanation about it. Senator McLean has asked me specifically to reply about the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party. As a member of the Labor Party and the National Executive of the Party, I can say that six States and two Territories constitute our national formation, and under our rules one State doing something does not constitute a majority. If it did, we would take more notice of a particular State that expresses a particular view on this subject. But one State expressing a view, five others remaining silent and the two Territories not commenting suggests that, although I certainly find an interest in what the South Australian branch does, I am not necessarily obliged to observe it, and I do not. Thus I do not support the amendments that the honourable senator has put forward. I am tempted simply to coopt the remarks of the other speakers who have opposed the amendments, but I think the Commonwealth's position should be stated. In referring to those remarks, I note that Senator Chapman frequently referred to secret ballots being held by unions. I say by way of observation that I am glad that at last someone from a conservative Opposition has said that unions hold secret ballots, because the impression that is often generated from the Opposition is that that does not happen. We have several objections on the issue of collegiate elections. First, a large number of employer and employee organisations already use the collegiate system. There is no major complaint about that: it is a commonly used device to determine how committees are elected. Secondly, the Confederation of Australian Industry has explicitly indicated that it does not support a change, and so has the Australian Council of Trade Unions. As a government that tries to find consensus among our social partners in this respect, I believe we are obliged to take account of those views. Thirdly, some years back we set up the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems to examine industrial relations. That inquiry reported early last year. It deliberated on the question of collegiate elections. It said that the frequency of amendments to a union election requirements was a `frustrating and costly' irritation for unions. Moreover-I think this is the more important point-it said: unions should have as much freedom as possible in designing procedures to meet their needs within the framework of encouraging democratic control. The bottom line has to be that it is democratic, but the proper format for democratic control is something that the unions should be free to determine for themselves. Fourthly, that is a view supported by the International Labour Organisation, which has said that the right of unions freely to elect their own representative is essential to enable them to act-these are again the important words-in full freedom and effectively promote the interests of their members. Public authorities should refrain from any intervention which might impair this right. Regulating trade union elections too closely may limit this right. I think it is a fair observation to make that one of the certain signs of a dictatorship emerging in any country is an immediate move to regulate and control the freedom of election within a union structure. I am not suggesting at all, by the way, that that is the honourable senator's intent. I respect the remarks he has made; I just disagree with them. There are other good reasons for retaining collegiate elections. Let me be brief about them. First, direct election is not in all situations a guarantee of democratic control. Senators Harradine and Chapman have argued on that point. Secondly, a one-tier collegiate electoral system gives adequate representation to the wishes of rank and file trade unionists. I believe that to be a true statement. But, more importantly, in a united gesture from Government to Opposition-I might say, hands across the chamber-I agree with Senator Chapman. Being from Western Australia, I come from a State with a small population as he does. Senator McLean comes from New South Wales, a State with a large population. There is a need, in structuring a democratic framework, for the consideration of States with smaller populations. Senator Boswell —I am glad you acknowledge that. Senator COOK —A collegiate system-exactly the one we are applying here, Senator Boswell-is more likely to do that. Collegiate elections can allow unions to have more democratic control over the elections of their officials. They make it easier for candidates to stand for office in national unions with memberships throughout Australia. For many unions with a highly mobile membership which is geographically dispersed throughout the country, the collegiate electoral system can ensure that the Federal officials of unions are properly representative of the entire membership. Simply to remove from the Bill the provisions which allow collegiate elections would be highly disruptive for organisations with rules which provide for such elections. No transitional provisions are provided in this amendment which would throw into disarray the smooth running of organisations under existing legislation. An amendment to the legislation in 1976 restored the ability for organisations to conduct collegiate elections. This amendment was made prior to the end of the three-year transitional period and many organisations were not required to change their rules. I understand that there is a contingent amendment, to be moved if these are defeated. I indicate now that the remarks I have made with respect to these amendments will also apply in that case. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(12.11) —The responses of the Government and the Opposition were anticipated, and it was probably the anticipation of those responses that caused certain unionists and unions to approach the Australian Democrats specifically in this cause rather than the Government or the Opposition. I concede the superior knowledge and experience of Senator Harradine and the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook), but I do not believe that has anything whatsoever to do with the principles about which we were approached by members of unions that are controlled by collegiate systems of election. I do not believe that has anything to do with the fact that the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party was forced to approach us to advance its cause in this chamber in relation to the Industrial Relations Bill. They are the realities of the vested interests that prevail, and they result from the fact that unionists were just as able to anticipate the positions that would be taken as we were. We reject the arguments that have been put forward about the freedom of association exclusion. We do not believe that a system of direct democracy is in any way threatening to the rights of association or is in any way a process of exclusion to those who partake of it. We still argue the principle that the direct system of democracy is superior to the collegiate system. We are therefore not surprised that unions that find themselves confronted with entrenched representation at their highest levels of control year after year, by a formula which gerrymanders the process of election, are dissatisfied. Nor are we surprised that they should have to approach the Democrats to advance their cause. I reject Senator Chapman's claim that we misunderstand what the Bill is proposing. We simply interpret it differently and we project different opportunities into it from what he may wish to project. I do not think it is reasonable to say that we therefore misunderstand it. The realities are seen in the case of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, which is one of the unions that approached us about their dissatisfaction in relation to the formula that applies in those unions. Fifteen per cent of its leadership can be elected and remain entrenched, year after year, without going back to the membership to be re-elected. There is no way of breaking that bind: it is all a matter of how the numbers fall out from period to period. It is all about numbers. It is quite legitimate to say that it is in the interests of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Government and some unions to have this system in place because the numbers fall out the right way. We are simply acknowledging that it is the limitations of the collegiate system which enable those games to be played. We do not apologise for having advanced, on behalf of some unions presently using the collegiate system, amendments suggested by them to us to rectify the inadequacies of the system they are confronted with. On their behalf I commend those amendments to the chamber. Question put: That the amendments (Senator McLean's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Coulter, J. R. McLean, P. A. (Teller)Haines, J. Powell, J. F.Jenkins, J. A. Sanders, N. K. Alston, R. K. R. Harradine, B.Archer, B. R. Hill, R. M.Aulich, T. G. Jones, G. N.Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. (Teller)Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bishop, B. K. McGauran, J. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. McMullan, R. F.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. J.Button, J. N. Newman, J. M.Calvert, P. H. Panizza, J. H.Chapman, H. G. P. Patterson, K. C. L.Childs, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G.Coates, J. Reid, M. E.Collins, R. L. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Sheil, G.Cooney, B. C. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sibraa, K. W.Crowley, R. A. Stone, J. O.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Foreman, D. J. Walters, M. S.Gietzelt, A. T. Watson, J. O. W.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Hamer, D. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(12.28) —I move: (7) Page 3, subclause 4 (1), definition of ``collegiate electoral system'', paragraph (b), lines 20 to 27, leave out the paragraph. I will be very brief. This is a contingent amendment. We are suggesting that if the Opposition and the Government are not prepared to accept the proposition that collegiate elections could be improved upon by direct forms of democracy which are quite achievable, readily available and quite appropriate, perhaps they will acknowledge the fact that it is quite clearly inappropriate that up to 15 per cent of the leadership of some unions using the collegiate system can be elected to their positions and remain entrenched in those positions indefinitely without reference to the membership. In proposing this contingent amendment we are again simply saying to the Opposition and the Government: collegiate elections now remain in place but there is absolutely no reason why 15 per cent of elected office-bearers should be elected by and from that college without any reference at all to the membership. Once again we are advancing this amendment specifically at the request of the unions to which it applies. Honourable senators know why those unions have not used the alternative avenues of access to this Bill. They have not done so because they have entrenched vested interests in the formula that prevails. So, they have come to us. It is now on the record that we have advanced a proposition which clearly simply says, `Let us be as democratic as is possible and let us scrub out from this Bill any opportunity for people to remain entrenched year after year without having to return to the members to have their positions endorsed'. Question put: That the amendment (Senator McLean's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Coulter, J. R. Dunn, I. P.Haines, J. Jenkins, J. A.McLean, P. A. (Teller) Macklin, M. J.Powell, J. F. Sanders, N. K. Alston, R. K. R. Hill, R. M.Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N.Aulich, T. G. Knowles, S. C. (Teller)Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McGauran, J. J.Bishop, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McMullan, R. F.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M.Button, J. N. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Puplick, C. J. G.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reid, M. E.Collins, R. L. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Sheil, G.Cooney, B. C. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sibraa, K. W.Crowley, R. A. Stone, J. O.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Walters, M. S.Giles, P. J. Watson, J. O. W.Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Harradine, B. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation in regard to my absence from the chamber on the previous vote. I was in my room in my suite of offices having an interview with a group of people from the Isolated Children's Association, and the bells rang in the room, but I ignored them because the colour that came up was green. My clock seems to have been connected the wrong way around. Hence, I was unable to be in the chamber on that occasion. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(12.36) —by leave-I move: (26) Page 100, paragraph 213 (2) (a), line 26, leave out ``or'' (last occurring). (27) Page 100, after paragraph 213 (2) (a), insert the following new paragraph: ``(aa) on application by or on behalf of a number, ascertained as prescribed, of the members of the organisation or branch; or''. These amendments relate to clause 213 of the Bill and refer to certificates of exemption permitting organisations to conduct their own elections. Our amendments would give a prescribed number of members of an organisation the right to apply to the Registrar for the revoking of a certificate of exemption which enables the organisation to conduct its own elections. Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act an organisation or a prescribed number of members of an organisation may request that the Registrar conduct elections for office with a view to ensuring that no irregularities occur. Such elections are usually administered by the Australian Electoral Commission. Of course, such elections have become very common. Under the present Bill elections for office are to be normally conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. Organisations may, however, request a certificate of exemption to enable them to conduct their own elections. Members of those organisations, however, under this legislation are given no right to seek the revoking of such exemption. In practice this means that, where an organisation is conducting its own elections and there is concern on the part of a number of members that it would be more appropriate for the Electoral Commission to conduct the elections because of the fear of irregularities, those members would no longer have the right to apply to the Registrar for this to occur. Our amendments therefore effectively restore the rights of the organisation's members-rights which this Bill would take away-to seek the revoking of a certificate of exemption which enables a particular organisation to conduct its own elections. I urge the Committee to support our amendments. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.39) —These amendments are not acceptable to the Government. I shall not go into all the details of what is in the Bill and why the amendments are not acceptable, except to say that there are a number of procedures which affect the environment in which the proposed Opposition amendments have to be considered. First, any irregularity in the conduct of an election or any experience of irregularity in the conduct of elections in an organisation would or could lead to the revocation of the exemption by the Registrar. That has happened. Secondly, members objecting to the granting of the exemption always have the right to be heard by the Registrar before any exemption is granted. Finally, should any irregularity occur in the conduct of an election for office, a member can apply for an inquiry into the election under clause 218 of the Bill. That is the procedure which has been there traditionally and which is preserved in this Bill. Having regard to this and a variety of other circumstances, the Government does not regard these amendments as necessary and opposes them. Amendments negatived. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.41) —by leave-I move: (5) Page 89, paragraph 197 (1) (c), line 8, leave out ``technically''. Page 89, subclause 197 (4), line 31, leave out ``technically''. (6) Page 128, subclause 261 (1), line 31, after ``employees'' insert ``under the eligibility rules of the organisation that relate to the occupations in which, or the industry in relation to which, members are to be employed''. (7) Page 169, after subclause 333 (4), insert the following new subclause: ``(4a) An organisation shall not take, or threaten to take industrial action against an employer because the employer is an officer, delegate or member of: (a) an organisation; or (b) an association that has applied to be registered as an organisation. Penalty: $1,000.''. (8) Page 169, subclause 333 (5), lines 43 to 44, leave out ``or (4)'', insert ``, (4) or (4a)''. (9) Page 170, after subclause 333 (6), insert the following subclause: ``(6a) For the purposes of this section, action done by: (a) the committee of management of an organisation or branch of an organisation; (b) an officer, employee or agent of an organisation or branch of an organisation acting in that capacity; (c) a member or group of members of an organisation or branch of an organisation acting under the rules of the organisation or branch; or (d) a member of an organisation, who performs the function of dealing with an employer on behalf of the member and other members of the organisation, acting in that capacity; shall be taken to have been done by the organisation.''. (10) Page 176, clause 344, line 35, after ``appeared'' insert ``, or are to appear,''. These are technical amendments which improve the wording and understanding, and I hope that the Committee will agree to them. Amendments agreed to. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(12.42) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: (32) Page 131, after subclause 264 (6), add the following new subclause: ``(7) Where a member of an organisation has not, for a period of 6 months, paid membership subscription that the rules of the organisation require members to pay, the person shall be deemed to have resigned from membership.''. This amendment relates to clause 264 and to resignations from an organisation. The amendment provides that, where a member of an organisation does not for a period of six months pay membership subscription, that person shall be deemed to have resigned from membership of the organisation. Under section 145 of the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act a member of an organisation is allowed to resign his membership by notice in writing if he ceases to be employed in or in connection with the industry or industrial pursuit in relation to which the organisation is registered. Alternatively, a member may resign by giving at least three months' notice of his intention to resign. These provisions are essentially retained under this Bill. Not only do members have to resign in writing, but the resigning member possesses the onus of proving that his resignation has been received by the organisation. Clause 264 (1) requires that the written notice of the resignation shall be addressed and delivered to a person designated for the purpose in the rules of the organisation or branch of the organisation. A resignation would not be effective if it were merely put in writing, addressed to the appropriate officer, and placed in the post. There must be proof of receipt by the organisation. In practice, this usually means sending the written notice of resignation by registered mail. All of this applies even if the person has left his job to which the union membership related. Thus, one would still remain a member of an organisation even after one ceased to do the work that made one eligible to become a member, unless one provided the appropriate written notice. In practice many union members do not know of these requirements. They simply cease paying their union subscriptions and possibly tell their union delegate that they are leaving the union. This means that many people unwittingly remain in the union. Unions may then years later pursue individuals for back subscriptions, usually amounting to hundreds of dollars. This of course is quite inappropriate, unreasonable and unfair. It is for this reason that we move our amendment relating to resignation from organisations. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.44) —There would be some merit in this proposal if it were to apply only in the case where a person ceases to be eligible to remain a member of a union by virtue of the fact that that member has ceased to be employed in an occupation or industry covered by the scope rule of the union. To that extent it would seem to me to have merit, but at present it appears that it would apply also to those persons who are eligible to remain in the union. Thus, it would create large administrative difficulties with organisations. If the Opposition intends to clear up the problem of persons who leave their occupation covered by the union rules, do not indicate to the union their intention and after six months are deemed to have resigned, I can see some merit in the amendment. But unless it is limited to that problem-and it is a problem-as it stands at present I could not support it, unless Senator Chapman is prepared to limit it to that aspect. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. To demonstrate how serious he and his Government are in their commitment to the environment, can the Minister explain why he personally failed to attend the last meeting of the Australian Environment Council and the last meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM)? Is it a fact that these two meetings are the peak meetings for Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for environment and conservation matters, and that the last meetings were set at a date to suit the Commonwealth's convenience? Can the Minister justify the Commonwealth's total lack of any ministerial representation at the latter two of these meetings? Similarly, if this Government is serious about support for sport in Australia, in addition to Budget cuts for sports funding, can the Minister say why he failed to attend the last meeting of the Australian Sports Ministers Council, and why that meeting was held without any ministerial representation from the Federal Labor Government? Can the Minister confirm that he simply failed to attend any of these three meetings-of the Environment Council, the Nature Conservation Council and the Sports Council-for which he is the responsible Federal Labor Minister, and that at least two of those meetings the Commonwealth had no ministerial presence at all? Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Puplick is correct. I did not attend the last meeting of the Australian Environment Council; I did not attend the-- Senator Walsh —Where's Ronnie today? Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Walsh cannot ask me where Ronnie is today: I do not know. I did not attend the last meeting of CONCOM and I did not attend the last meeting of Sports Ministers. Those meetings were not set at my convenience. In fact, they were set specifically at my inconvenience. Senator Lewis —Deliberately? Senator RICHARDSON —No, not deliberately, but that is how it turned out. The reason I did not attend those meetings was that I had already applied for leave and had received permission for leave and, therefore, took leave. I had a holiday with my family. Such things are very hard to achieve. Looking at the hours that I have put in during the last 16 months or so as a Minister, I am not ashamed of the fact that I-- Senator Boswell —You are not Robinson Crusoe. Senator RICHARDSON —I am certainly not Robinson Crusoe. Many people on this side have done the same thing. It is a great shame that honourable senators opposite have not done so. I took leave and had a holiday with my family. Unfortunately, it was interrupted three times because Senator Cook and I were having some discussion about a Tasmanian matter at the time. A Cabinet meeting was called and in the end I had to leave my 10-day break for three days. That is why I did not attend the meetings. I regret that I did not attend them, but these things happen. We were represented at the Australian Environment Council meeting and not at the others, because of the notice, by another Minister. We were, of course, represented by officials and by my staff. Senator PUPLICK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Was the Minister saying in the latter part of his answer that no member of the Federal Government was available to represent it at the Council of Conservation Ministers meeting and the Australian Sports Ministers Council meeting? Senator RICHARDSON —I will have to check on what happened at the Sports Ministers meeting. I am fairly sure that, while I could get someone to represent me on the day of the Australian Environment Council meeting, there was not a Minister available for CONCOM. I will check that for Senator Puplick. My recollection is that we were represented at one and not at the other two. Senator Colston having addressed a question to the Minister for Local Government- Senator Peter Baume-Mr President, I raise a point of order. I ask how this matter refers to the functions of the Minister and to the Minister's portfolio responsibilities. The PRESIDENT —I must say that it seemed from the question that it was only a State Government matter. I ask the Minister whether it falls within her area of responsibility. If not, I will have to rule the question out of order. Senator Reynolds-Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that I was asked a similar question late last year when the question related to the then New South Wales Government sacking the Sydney City Council. The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not think that the question falls within the Minister's area of responsibility. Therefore, I rule the question out of order. Senator REID —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer to the Government's recent decision to move the nutrition section of the Health Research and Services Division to the Health Advancement Division and at the same time reduce the number of officers in the section and, perhaps more significantly, reduce the section's scientific functions. Does the Minister appreciate the potential loss of scientific public health expertise which will result from this move, including the abolition of activities related to the development of national references and databases for nutrition, for which no other agency, government or private, has responsibility or the necessary expertise? Is the Minister prepared to sacrifice such important public health nutrition programs for the short term advantage to be gained from diverting staff to the production of glossy self-promotional brochures? Will the Government demonstrate a long term commitment to the nutritional well-being of Australians by guaranteeing that the scientific functions of the section will be maintained, including the development of nutrition databases? Senator COOK —After a long preface the honourable senator asked three questions, all of which could be classified as `When are you going to stop beating your wife?' type questions. I propose to seek a full reply to each of those questions from the Minister for Community Services and Health so I can answer in more detail. I put the matter on notice. Senator ZAKHAROV —I ask the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs whether he has seen a newsletter circulated recently by the Returned Services League (RSL) which claims: Australians have had a gutful of massive Asian immigration, and another gutful of blatant discrimination against British, Irish and European migrants. The newsletter also asks: Can any member of the Commonwealth Parliament inform me how migrants can arrive from South East Asia, with no knowledge of English, walk straight into welfare housing, which we all presumed once was for low income Australian families, then go straight onto the dole? Do these allegations have any basis in fact? Senator ROBERT RAY —I have seen the comments quoted by Senator Zakharov in an RSL publication. As far as I am aware, those comments reflect the views of the author and not necessarily those of the RSL. It is true, I think, that from time to time the RSL does have divided views over immigration. It is usually those with the more extremist or colourful approach that tend to get the publicity, and those with a more reasoned approach tend to be ignored in the press, although there are one or two exceptions. I reiterate that this Government will stick to a firm policy of non-discrimination so that no nationality or race is either favoured or disadvantaged. There are a lot of myths in the community as to the entitlement of migrants coming to this country. They do not get special treatment. Refugees do not get bumped up housing lists and they do not get a brand new car the moment they arrive. Many of them have to struggle and struggle very hard. But the actual level of achievement by refugees, no matter what part of the world they come from, having settled in Australia, is quite magnificent. I am disappointed from time to time when I see these particular articles appearing; they serve only to inflame prejudice. It is very easy in this community to spread misconceptions. Probably the worst offender is late night talkback radio but also via newsletters, et cetera, many of these particular myths become entrenched and are regarded as reality. It is very hard for government or political parties as a whole to dispel these myths. In the case of this one I say that there is no special treatment accorded to immigrants or refugees. The only government programs that are there to assist them are those in terms of access and equity to give them an equal chance within Australia for access to services. That is the way it should be. It will not be my position, as the Minister for Immigration, to try to condemn every article such as this. They are numerous. I do believe that in the long term government must look at some sort of educative program to put a lot of the facts on the record. I am not talking about a political campaign; I am talking about an information campaign that if properly based might enable us to have a more reasonable immigration debate in this country. We might be able to have a debate in which most of the facts are agreed. We can then get onto other judgments and debate those on a rational basis. Senator JENKINS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. My office is grateful for having had the response from Minister Hand that some 260 Aboriginal communities and leaders in Western Australia have been sent a package containing a copy of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) legislation which was first tabled in the House of Representatives on 24 August this year. As recent telephone calls to some communities have revealed that they have not all received the Minister's package, I ask: Is it a fact that Minister Hand gave an undertaking to give sufficient time to Aboriginal groups in Western Australia to study this legislation? Is it a fact that the Aboriginal land rights legislation for the Northern Territory, under the Federal Liberal Government in 1976, was available for public scrutiny after being introduced to the Parliament for nearly six months? To date, what suggestions for amendments to the ATSIC legislation has the Minister received from Aboriginal people? Senator TATE —I have been informed by the office of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that between 25 August and 6 September a videotape entitled `Aboriginal Australia: Special Edition' and an information kit comprising the Bill and explanatory memorandum, a guide to the Bill, the second reading speech and a covering letter from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs were dispatched to 987 Aboriginal organisations around Australia, including 268 in Western Australia. A map of ATSIC boundaries was dispatched on 20 September. The list of organisations which received the material was prepared on the advice of State directors of the Department. State directors and regional managers have also been provided with a supply of the material to ensure that information about the legislation is readily available to all members of the Aboriginal community. That is consistent with the Minister's undertaking that legislation and associated explanatory material would be widely disseminated to Aboriginals and Aboriginal groups. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976 was introduced into the Parliament on 4 June 1976. It achieved passage in the Senate on 9 December 1976. The Minister has been informed by the ATSIC task force that it is aware of only one formal request to amend the ATSIC Bill at this stage. This request was received from the Yugulmangi community government council from Ngukurr in the Northern Territory. Senator JENKINS —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. As there is pressure in this Parliament to bring on this legislation this session, I ask the Minister whether any special consideration is going to be given to the Aboriginal communities in the outer areas such as in the northern parts of Western Australia where it will take some time, if that package was sent on 20 September, to reach those groups. It will take a little longer for it to reach those groups. Is any special consideration going to be given as far as those groups are concerned to make sure that they are able to put in their returns? Senator TATE —As I indicated, State directors and regional managers have been advised which communities should receive these materials. I would imagine that some of them are in remote locations and that it would take more than an overnight postal service for the communities to receive them. I know from personal experience of trying to contact the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at various times that he is constantly on the move amongst many Aboriginal communities in the most remote areas of Australia. He has taken an active and exhausting role in conferring with them and ascertaining their wishes so they might be best represented in the legislation that comes before the Parliament. I am sure that he and his office will be taking every step possible to ensure that those in remote regions of Australia have an opportunity to make their views known as much as those who are in the more settled areas or even urban areas. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. What has been the impact of World Expo 88 on tourism in Australia? Is it true that Expo 88 has had a negative impact on domestic tourism? Senator RICHARDSON —Expo 88 has been an extraordinary success. By this week Expo attendance is running at 13 1/2 million and is expected to be 15 million by the end in the next few weeks. That is an extraordinary number of people. It shows the foresight involved by those who sought to bring it to Australia. Senator Brownhill —Who was that? Senator Tate —Llew Edwards. Senator RICHARDSON —I can confirm what Senator Tate has just said. Sir Llew Edwards has done a great job. According to the World Expo 88 Authority the Queensland market has contributed about half of the number of people who have attended which is, of course, significant. It shows just how often people in Brisbane have gone to see it. I am glad we have given them something to do. Apart from that, approximately one-third of the people have come from interstate. That figure has obviously varied dramatically depending upon holiday seasons. In holiday seasons that third jumps up enormously. The international market has been responsible for just under 20 per cent attendance. By looking at where people have come from, it can be seen that there has been a considerable spread. Obviously, the economic benefits are starting to emerge. That has happened pretty quickly. Business contracts worth about $100m have been signed up as a result of the Expo business centre. Qantas Airways Ltd has reported a 21 per cent increase in overseas visitors to mid-September. There is no doubt that Expo has had a very considerable impact on Australian tourism and all to the good. There have been some criticisms about domestic tourism and whether it has been made to suffer. All that could be said is that certainly a lot of people have chosen to ignore some other resort areas in Queensland and perhaps northern New South Wales and go to Brisbane for Expo instead. There have been some isolated instances where the local tourist market has suffered because of Expo. Having said that, there is no evidence as yet that domestic tourism as a whole has been harmed by it. I would be surprised if that evidence does come in at a later point. Obviously, that one-fifth of tourists or just under that I mentioned coming in from overseas has added to the enormous numbers coming in for reasons other than Expo. That being the case, the Government has just announced a $240m expansion at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to make sure that we can cope with those huge numbers which, by the way, were running at 1.2 million halfway through the year and will be about 2.2 million, we think, by the end of the year. Australia has many, many attractions. Expo in Brisbane has been foremost among them during this year. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Acting Attorney-General. I refer him to the Government's proposal to introduce a comprehensive tax file numbering system and the proposed accompanying privacy legislation. I ask: What is the status of the proposed privacy legislation being developed as a complement to the tax file numbering system? Is it a fact that this proposed tax file numbering system is estimated to yield additional tax revenue of only $340m by 1993-94? Senator Robert Ray —Only. Senator MESSNER —Wait for it. Further, is it also widely recognised in the community that the extent of the cash economy and tax evasion runs into many billions of dollars, perhaps as many as $10 billion? Of course, this has been admitted by the Treasurer to be at least $6 billion. As it is clear from this that the proposed tax file numbering system will have only a minimal impact on tax evasion, what justification can the Government make for the introduction of this system, other than that it is being taken as a first step in the Government's still deep desire to introduce a comprehensive identification system akin to the bungled Australia Card proposal? Senator TATE —Most parts of the question addressed to me by Senator Messner do not fall within my portfolio responsibilities; certainly, the last three of the four parts of the question do not. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that every step is taken to ensure that the revenues of this nation are protected and that they are available for the proper expenditures which the Government, elected by the people, decides should be undertaken. I think that most Australians, whilst aware that there may be other areas of evasion and the black economy which also have to be addressed, would support those simple straightforward steps which are foreshadowed in the tax file number legislation. As I say, they are not really within my portfolio responsibility. As to the figures put forward by Senator Messner, I am quite unable to comment on their accuracy or their comparative worth. As to the status of the privacy legislation, that legislation is intended in many ways to stand in its own right. Senator Hill —Separate and distinct! Senator TATE —It is important that privacy legislation be introduced into this Parliament. But the fact is that the community and, indeed, the Opposition and the Government see that the links between the general desire for privacy and the assurances that are required in relation to tax file number legislation are such that that privacy legislation should be introduced into the Parliament as soon as possible. That will be done. I would expect that to be achieved very shortly. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It is quite clear that the Minister simply does not know what the right hand is doing, let alone the left. The point is this: can he make representations to the appropriate Minister to provide the Senate with a cost-benefit analysis so that the economics of the tax file numbering system can be made clear before the privacy legislation is brought in? Senator TATE —It is quite obvious that that question is not within my portfolio responsibility. Senator DEVLIN —My question to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer relates to the matter of average living standards in Australia. In the adjournment debate yesterday Senator Messner argued that the family circumstances that he had described in detail in the Senate on 30 September represented a true average. Is the Government persuaded that the picture of average living standards given in Senator Messner's figures provides an accurate indicator of development in true average living standards in the Australian community since 1983? Senator WALSH —I have looked at Senator Messner's comments in yesterday's adjournment debate. He asserted again that the figures he presented to the Senate on 30 September related to `the average family in this country'. I have had a look at these figures. I know it is hard to understand these things or absorb them but I appeal to members of the Opposition at least to make an attempt to do so. I think that most of the Liberals anyway are probably capable of absorbing the information if they concentrate very hard. I am not so sure about the National Party. Senator Stone —We have to concentrate very hard to hear you. Senator WALSH —However, I am sure that Senator Stone is quite capable of absorbing it. Let me tell honourable senators about the particular family, to use Senator Messner's phrase, that the figures relate to. It is a family of four with dad, as Senator Messner puts it, being a full time worker and working as an employee; mum, as Senator Messner puts it, does not work outside the home and, apparently, has not done so at any time in the last five years; and there are two dependent children. That, says Senator Messner, is the average Australian family. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey of the labour force in fact found that there were some 670,000 families with a husband working full time, a wife not in the labour force and one or more dependent children. Therefore, it is a slightly broader definition, indeed a significantly broader definition, than Senator Messner's mum, dad and two dependent children. The ABS family is mum, dad and one or more children, which is obviously a significantly broader category. That survey also included the self-employed as well as the wage earner. There were 670,000 families in that category. Families with dependent children in which both parents were in paid employment numbered 948,000. Altogether there were 4.1 million families in Australia, which, of course, included families with grown-up children, retired couples, sole parents and so on. Therefore, Senator Messner's average family in fact at this stage is less than one in six of all families. Senator Messner's specific family is, indeed, a great deal more special because it paid private health insurance in 1983 and also managed to claim a tax rebate under the old concessional expenditure tax rebate system. In 1982-83 fewer than one in 10 Australian taxpayers claimed a rebate under that tax rebate concession. Therefore, what was one in six has now become one in 60, at least. Senator Michael Baume —No, that is not mathematically logical. Senator WALSH —Here is the expert on logic! He does not know whether his Party is going to phase in tax cuts over three years or one year. He got himself sacked from the front bench for his trouble. I was about to point out that that included all taxpayers, but there is no reason to believe that there would be a significant distributional difference between these particular taxpayers in Senator Messner's families and taxpayers in general. Therefore, one in six Australians has become about one in 60. Well over half of those people had taxable incomes in excess of $22,000 a year, which is well above Senator Messner's example of a typical family on a $19,000 income. So the one in 60 Australians is now one in 120. Of course, the breadwinner in Senator Messner's family is assumed by Senator Messner-- Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections from both sides of the chamber. I call Senator Walsh. Senator WALSH —This is the latest tactic of the Opposition. I thought it was the elephant juice yesterday when honourable senators opposite were making all their noise but now I can see that it is a deliberate tactic designed to protect them, I suppose, from the exposure of their intellectual sloth and moral humbug. Of course, Senator Messner's typical family is one that has received no benefit from the 3 per cent productivity-superannuation round. So the one in 120 Australians has become one in 240. Indeed, the number of typical families to which Senator Messner referred has now become so small that it surprises me he has not given us the names and addresses of all of them. The Liberal Party has put as much intellectual effort and vigour into this exercise as it put into its 1987 alternative Budget. Senator CALVERT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, and relates to the concerns expressed by many families in rural Tasmania and, I suspect, in all rural Australia. Can the Minister advise on the number of families likely to be affected by the Government's uncaring decision both to reduce funding of the assistance for isolated children scheme by 16.9 per cent and to impose assets tests on AIC recipients and their families? Is the Government aware that the low incomes currently experienced by rural families with respect to farm asset valuations mean that the Government, by its assets test, is condemning many rural children to a life on this Government's massive unemployment payroll? Further, is the Minister, on behalf of the Government, prepared to foreshadow any alternative measures to ensure that rural children are afforded the same opportunities for education as are those in metropolitan areas? Senator WALSH —If I recall correctly from the Senate Estimates committee hearing yesterday or the day before, that 16.9 per cent reduction in the total amount paid is partly attributable, and I believe mostly attributable, to the transfer of some people formerly receiving assistance under this program to another educational allowance program. I am sorry, I cannot remember the details of that. Moving on to the assets test, I point out, firstly, that the basic component of assistance to isolated children-that is, an annual payment of, I think, $980 a year-continues to be paid to everybody. Additional payments have always been income tested. This year an assets test has been added to the income test, and that will reduce the payments for some students from better-off families who would otherwise have qualified for the income tested additional benefits. It will, however, count for only 50 per cent of the value of the farm or business on or in which the owner works, disregard the value of the family home, as for a number of other cases, and allow mortgages or other encumbrances to be deducted in calculating the net market value of an asset. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall what the total asset allowance is. Senator Hill —It is $300,000. Senator WALSH —Some $300,000. I thank Senator Hill. I thought that was the case. The plain fact is that if anybody has a business asset of $300,000 and is getting anything like-- Senator Hill —You were a farmer. You know that some years they are not getting any income at all. Senator Boswell —You have been there. You know what it is about. Senator WALSH —Any more? If a person with a business asset of $300,000, and who is also working, were getting a reasonable income and a reasonable return on that asset, he or she would already have been income tested out of the additional allowances by a very big margin. On the other hand, if that person is not getting a reasonable return on the value of the business asset, the asset is either being mismanaged or is overpriced. Senator Boswell —That is rubbish. Senator WALSH —Here are the people who proclaim themselves to be experts in the operation of a capitalist system and a market economy. Senator Boswell says, `That is rubbish'. We know how much respect Senator Boswell's Party has for the operations of a market economy. That is why in Queensland one can grow sugarcane wherever one likes, but if one grows it on land that is not assigned one has to deliver it to the cane board; one is told what mill to deliver it to, when to deliver it, and so on. That is the operation of a market system Queensland National Party style. I repeat: anybody who is getting a reasonable return from an asset of that value plus recompense for his or her own labour would have been income tested out of the allowance. If that person is not getting a reasonable return, either he or she is managing the asset inefficiently or the asset is overpriced. It is not the business of governments to correct the overvaluation of an asset through some payments system, nor is it the business of governments to compensate people for inefficiency in managing assets. Indeed, to the extent that assets are mismanaged, it is to the advantage of society as a whole that the management of that asset be transferred from the current inefficient manager to some other person. Senator Boswell —What about the beef crisis? What about the wool crisis? Senator WALSH —I know that it is difficult to give people who sit opposite the most elementary lessons in economic logic, but the cost of drought, I point out to Senator Boswell, should be negatively capitalised in the price of the land. That is the proper market response-the system which Opposition members say they support but which none of them understands. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister for Consumer Affairs aware that unsuspecting consumers are being ripped off in get rich quick schemes sent through the mail, and can the Minister do anything to protect consumers from such schemes? Senator Puplick —Tell the post office not to deliver them. Senator BOLKUS —That thought did cross my mind. The question asked by Senator Childs involves not a postal strike but pyramid selling, which is a problem that has been endemic in Australia from time to time. It is a scheme which promotes the promise of getting rich very quickly-riches that never eventuate for anyone other than those at the top of the pyramid. Section 61 of the Trade Practices Act provides for such schemes and, in fact, declares them illegal. The financial reward does not eventuate. The section provides that people who promote those operations can in fact be prosecuted. So the short answer to Senator Childs's question is yes, the Government can do something about the get rich quick scheme that is currently floating in the community. The provision has been in the Act for some time, but it was only recently that the Trade Practices Commission in fact initiated proceedings, and has been successful in prosecuting the promoter of a pyramid selling scheme. This was the first prosecution in Australia and a successful one. The conviction is one of two important steps pursued by the Government and the Trade Practices Commission to make the public aware of the pitfalls of such schemes and also to stop them. In this particular case, the promoter had been promoting the Edward L. Green scheme. He was contacted by the Trades Practices Commission a couple of times. He did not desist from promoting the scheme. As a consequence, he was prosecuted and convicted, as well as having a penalty of $1,500 imposed on him. This is an important part of the Trade Practices Commission's attack on such promoters and such schemes. The other aspect is an educational campaign. It is a campaign that the Commission, in consultation with the Government, has been promoting in order to warn people-I think in this case the scheme operated in South Australia-and generally make people aware of the dangers encountered in schemes such as this. Senator KNOWLES —Can the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women inform the Senate of the cost of the preparation, printing and distribution of the new 17-page chapter on non-sexist language for the Style Manual of the Australian Government Publishing Service? Is further expenditure of public money to be committed for the purpose of butchering the English language? Does the Minister foresee that the term `manual' may soon be at risk as a consequence of the campaign for non-sexist language? Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Knowles has raised questions about the non-sexist chapter in the Style Manual. I believe that there has been a gross overreaction in some sections of the media to this particular chapter. On Friday John Laws directed a number of callers to my office to complain about the legislation that the Government was going to bring down to enforce the use of non-sexist terminology! It was obvious that John Laws was totally misinformed and exaggerating the intent-- Senator Knowles —That is not the question I asked. Senator REYNOLDS —I am coming to that, Senator, but I think it is important to raise the issue of how people have grossly overreacted to it. I think that it gives some indication of the power of John Laws when he can say to people, `Ring Margaret Reynolds's office and complain' and they ring and say, `I don't know what I am complaining about, but John Laws told me to do it'. I think that brings into serious question the responsibility of certain media commentators. To come to Senator Knowles's question: I can give her the exact costs of the consultancy for the chapter. The cost of this was $3,691 all up, including the consultancy fee, travel allowance, et cetera. Senator Knowles might be interested to know that on the basis of a population of 16 million this would mean that the cost for the Style Manual project would be 0.02c for the whole population or 0.04c per woman in the population. The answer to the second part of Senator Knowles's question is no and the answer to the third part of her question about whether the use of the word `manual' would be banned is also no. I think it important that honourable senators appreciate that the Style Guide is precisely that-a guide. It is important that the chapter highlights the way in which non-sexist language can be used to further promote equality of women in Australian society. No-one is going around saying, `Don't use the word ``manual'' '. No-one is saying that we must use the phrase `utility hole' rather than the word `manhole'. That is taking an extreme position in relation to the guidelines. It is a chapter relating to guidelines and it is anticipated that editors and authors should refer to it and think whether they can use another form of language whereby there is not the automatic assumption that one is talking about only men when in fact, one is referring to men and women. Senator KNOWLES —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. With relation to the consultancy, I ask the Minister: Was the consultancy publicly tendered? If not, who chose the consultant; and, if so, on what basis was the consultant chosen anyway? Senator REYNOLDS —As that question relates to a period before I was Minister responsible, I will have to take it on notice. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Parliament of Ireland, led by the Speaker of the House, Mr Sean Treacy. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you, Mr Speaker, and your delegation to Parliament House and to the Senate. I hope your visit to Australia is both informative and enjoyable. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! The PRESIDENT —I call Senator McKiernan. Senator McKIERNAN —Thank you, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —No commercials are allowed. Senator McKIERNAN —More appropriately, go raibh mile maith agat, a uachtarain. It is nice not to be the only Irish born politician in this place, but that is not going to last for too long. I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he has seen a report in last Saturday's West Australian newspaper quoting Mr Wilson Tuckey when he opened the Bellvue goldmine, north of Kalgoorlie, as saying: I made the clear point that our policy was not to impose a gold tax and in any party forum I would take a very very tough line on ensuring that our policy did not change. Given this opposition, and the opposition of Senator Crichton-Browne reported in the same article, will the Government still proceed with the removal of the exemption from taxation of income from goldmining? If it does proceed, does the Government anticipate any delay in the announced schedule for the removal of the exemption on 1 January 1991? Senator WALSH —I am sorry I do not have the right accent for our guests. Senator Richardson —You have the right name. Senator WALSH —I have got an appropriate name, yes. Senator Hill —Have you got the right answer? Senator WALSH —I certainly have the right answer. I have seen a copy of the article to which Senator McKiernan referred. Just for the record, it also quotes Senator Crichton-Browne as saying: My commitment is no different from that which I made in the campaign I conducted in the party organisation against the tax. I will strongly oppose it in party forums. Once again we have members of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party-a party which, if I may say so, has a well-established record of permissiveness, to say the least, towards dodgy tax practices-upholding the privilege of a particularly favoured group in the community who do not want to pay their fair share of taxation. They believe that, while every other industry in business in Australia pays taxation, people who hold shares in goldmining companies should not pay tax. I have been asked whether this opposition will make any difference to the Government's policy of removing the exemption. The answer to that is no, it will make no difference. I do not believe that these couple of people in the Opposition will have any effect because there are more important people in the Liberal Party-I know they are not terribly important people overall, but they are important people in the Liberal Party-such as the Leader. In comments on this matter reported from an investment seminar which was held in New York last week, he said that it would be very hard to justify the continued exemption of one section of Australian industry over another. I concur entirely. That comment was itself a reinforcement of a statement made by Mr Peacock in May that the Opposition would not be making recommendations to block it. For those reasons, among other reasons, I do not believe that the opposition of these particular couple of people will make any difference to the legislative program. It is possible and indeed, I understand, very likely that the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party is making a desperate appeal to the lobby to pay funds into the Liberal Party in order to fund its State election campaign. If it does that, that is its affair. Let me just say that it is wasting its money if it does. This is yet another example of the maverick Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party thumbing its nose yet again at a weak Federal leadership. Finally, it will be interesting to see which way Senator Chaney jumps on this-whether he supports the leadership of the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives or whether he makes the same sorts of noises that his Western Australian colleagues are making in order to ingratiate the Liberal Party with the tax dodging lobby in Western Australia. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. With the decision of the Government to replace the $2 note with a $2 coin, is the Minister aware that the pioneers of agriculture are being removed from the Australian currency? In view of this Government's record of continuing high inflation, when the Government is considering a $200 note will it arrange for a picture of Farrer, the father of the wheat industry, to be placed on that note in recognition of the industry's role in generating such a high proportion of Australia's export earnings? Senator BUTTON —I am very flattered to be asked this question, because I know absolutely nothing about the topic. It is very encouraging that Senator Bjelke-Petersen thinks I do. Being a more astute senator, I can understand her general position. I will certainly make inquiries of the Treasurer regarding this matter. On the point of whether notes or coins should commemorate particular figures of great scientific prowess in terms of their contribution to agriculture, I am not sure-it is a matter of opinion-that we should necessarily be stuck with Farrer, because some other very great Australian scientists have contributed enormously to agriculture in this country. Senator Puplick —Give us a few names. Senator BUTTON —Well, there are some in the divisions of plant and technology of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation who would fall into that category. I do not propose to answer the interjections of any of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's colleagues. She having directed a thoughtful question to me, I will supply her with a thoughtful answer in due course. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the fact that the Royal Australian Navy has planted unidentified observers at meetings of the Jervis Bay Protection Committee and the fact that the Navy's Commodore Matt Taylor has now initiated legal action against Committee Convener Sue Hanley for comments she made during a recent meeting. Did the Minister know of, authorise or order these espionage and harassment activities against the Jervis Bay Protection Committee? Is it a fact that the Government will be funding this legal action, either directly or indirectly? What involvement of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in this or any other aspect of the Navy's proposed shift to Jervis Bay has been initiated or requested by the Minister? Senator RICHARDSON —I think the first thing to say in answer to Senator Sanders is that it is not normally the case that all those who attend a public meeting identify themselves and declare that they represent an organisation. Senator Robert Ray —Like a Labor Party conference. Senator RICHARDSON —I hope it is not like the Australian Labor Party conference. If one walks into a meeting, one is entitled to sit there and mind one's own business and listen to the proceedings. Anyone at a public meeting who seeks to say more than he or she ought to say within the law on a question of defamation has to face the music. As far as the question is concerned, the Minister has not known of, authorised or ordered any espionage or the harassment of anyone in the Jervis Bay Protection Committee. As for legal action between Commodore Taylor and Ms Hanley, I can say that the Minister certainly has no knowledge of any action of that kind. As to whether the Commonwealth will fund such action directly or indirectly, one would imagine that it will continue to pay the Commodore concerned, so if he is to pay for a legal action out of his own pocket, I suppose we could draw a long bow and say we are funding it indirectly. Obviously, the Commonwealth will not be funding this legal action. As for ASIO being requested by the Minister to get involved, I think I can again issue a blanket denial. Senator AULICH —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article on the front page of today's Sydney Morning Herald business section referring to the activities of the long term audit teams of the Australian Taxation Office operating among Australia's top 100 companies? The article was headlined `Big business's most unwelcome guest'. The article reports that the Managing Director of Elders Finance Group Ltd, John Crosby, has written to John Hall of the Australian Merchant Bankers Association (AMBA) offering Elders' assistance in establishing a unit within the AMBA to conduct a propaganda war with the Tax Office. I ask: Would any costs incurred by Elders or other members of the AMBA in conducting such a propaganda war against the Australian Tax Office be tax deductible? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article, which reports that for every dollar spent in audit activity about $8 of additional revenue is raised. It also says that there have been 10 such auditors in Elders offices for the past six months and, on the basis of the 8 : 1 rule of thumb, that would have brought in about $2m extra from Elders. The article also says-I suppose as a result of that apparent outcome-that Elders is particularly upset by the Tax Office. Indeed, according to the article, the Elders letter to the Merchant Bankers Association says: It is apparent to us that the Australian Taxation Office, Canberra, which now has a public relations department . . . puts the ATO view in emotive language to the public and is now very active. It goes on to say: Further it is our view that from an ATO viewpoint this campaign has been an outstanding success because no one has publicly contradicted such statements at all, let alone in a calm and rational manner. I am pleased to see that Elders recognises that the Tax Office is winning the battle against tax evaders and tax avoiders and that there is little public sympathy for shonky notions that taxes are something for wage earners but not for silvertails. The views in the letter come from a company whose Chief Executive would be Prime Minister if he could only organise it. I say for any of Mr Elliott's shareholders who are listening or who read a report of this in the press that if he is going to use Elders shareholders' funds to run a political campaign targeting the Tax Office, which is impartially implementing the laws which have been passed by this Parliament, as I understand the taxation law, a contribution to a propaganda campaign of that sort will not be an allowable deduction from the company's taxable income. Senator VANSTONE —My question, which is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, relates to an article in last Friday's Age by Eva Cox questioning the achievements of the office of the Status of Women and indicating that it is often referred to as `The Office of Women of Status' and as being peripheral? First, is the article's author correct in saying that, despite some achievements, which are acknowledged, `In a time when economic outcomes override all other considerations, the office appears to be marginalised'? Secondly, as the main public activity of the Office is in the areas of domestic violence and images of women in the media and, as Senator Knowles points out, in style guides, how can the Minister defend the Office against the claim made in the article `that these marginal areas are seen as an appropriate playpen for a unit with limited legitimacy in the core areas of government'? Thirdly, how does the Minister propose to address the claim that the Fraser Government's National Women's Advisory Council was powerful, spoke out against Government decisions, and represented its constituency as opposed to the present National Women's Consultative Council, which lacks access to the media, and, more importantly, to the Prime Minister? Fourthly, do the remarks made by the new Office head imply a further restriction of the Council's role to that of a body which in reality is intended only to be a publicity arm of the Government rather than a genuine agent for change on behalf of women? Senator REYNOLDS —I will try to summarise as much as possible. I have read the article. I think that in her comments Eva Cox was fair in certain areas but perhaps not so well informed in others. First, in regard to her comments that status of women issues have been marginalised, I would say that she is not at all in touch with the process by which the Office functions. The Office monitors all Cabinet submissions and makes an input about the impact any major decision would have on Australian women. Secondly, her comments about the National Women's Consultative Council indicate that she is obviously further out of touch because when I addressed the recently appointed third National Women's Consultative Council at its first meeting I emphasised that that organisation was to be regarded as totally independent. Certainly, it is appointed by government but it is to be independent. I can arrange for a number of press statements already issued by the Council to be sent to Senator Vanstone. The Council is certainly speaking out in the media. Thirdly, let me indicate that the Council does have access to Ministers. In fact, the Prime Minister hosted the inaugural meeting of the National Women's Consultative Council a month or so ago. I think Senator Vanstone and a number of Opposition members, together with Government members, met Council members at a social function. Furthermore, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, will be speaking with the Council at its next meeting in November. While I am normally a great admirer of Eva Cox and pay tribute to a great deal of work she has done in the past, I think that perhaps she is not up to date in her understanding of how the Office of the Status of Women functions. The PRESIDENT —Yesterday Senator Lewis asked me to reconsider my decision that certain words used by Senator Walsh in answering a question from Senator Foreman were not unparliamentary. I have examined the transcript of the question and answer concerned. I believe that the words used by Senator Walsh to which objection was taken could not possibly be regarded as unparliamentary or as a personal reflection within the meaning of standing order 418. The PRESIDENT —Yesterday Senator Peter Baume asked me a question concerning protection of witnesses. I undertook to investigate the matter to which he referred. I am advised that the committee concerned is now looking into the matter, as it is obliged to do by the resolution of the Senate of 25 February 1988. I will therefore not take any further action until the committee has concluded its investigation. In response to Senator Baume's question as to whether witnesses are protected, I point out that improper interference with witnesses is declared by the resolution of 25 February 1988 to be a matter which the Senate may treat as contempt and is also a criminal offence under the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COOK —During Question Time Senator Reid asked me a question about alleged reduction in nutritional services because of staffing cuts in the Department of Community Services and Health. I am now in a position to answer that question. The Department of Community Services and Health is not reducing its priority for nutrition services. Nutrition is one of the five priority areas nominated in the better health program. This program is managed by the health advancement division of the Department of Community Services and Health. It is therefore sensible to amalgamate the work of the nutrition section with better health planning in nutrition within that division. While there will be some staff savings resulting from the amalgamation, the bringing together of better health activities in the nutrition area and the work of the nutrition section should lead to a more efficient and coordinated approach to the development of nutrition policies and programs within the Department. In summary, the proposed staff movements are essentially the result of organisational change to produce a more efficient bureaucracy while at the same time maintaining the Government's commitment to the nutrition services. Senator ROBERT RAY —On 29 September I replied to a question from Senator Dunn relating to assurances about nuclear weapon accident liability. In giving that answer I pointed out: Any claims for compensation resulting from a nuclear weapons accident would be dealt with through diplomatic channels in accordance with customary procedures for the settlement of claims under generally accepted principles of law and equity. Furthermore, in the case of the United States, I referred to settlement of claims taking place in accordance with article 12 of the agreement between Australia and the United States concerning the status of United States forces in Australia. I have since had drawn to my attention that this description of claims procedures derives from discussions between Australian and United States officials in 1976 following a request by the then Australian Government for an assurance regarding liability in the event of an accident involving a nuclear weapon that might be carried on a United States warship visiting Australia. The advice about procedures given to the Australian Government by the Government of the United States is the same kind of assurance regarding visiting warships as it has given to the governments of Canada, New Zealand and other allies. Details of the assurance are classified. As I made clear in my earlier reply, the question of assurances relating to the stationing of nuclear weapons on Australian territory does not arise. Senator REYNOLDS —On 29 September Senator Hill asked me about subsidies paid to non-government business colleges. I am now able to provide the honourable senator with the following information supplied by Mr Dawkins's office. As part of the recent Budget deliberations, the Government examined the position of private business colleges and decided to phase out subsidies for these institutions. Such courses are available in public institutions such as schools and technical and further education colleges. Providing the subsidy for only a limited range of private courses was inequitable and anomalous. Senator Hill —But they are not always available; that is the point. Furthermore, you need different qualifications to get there. Senator REYNOLDS —Perhaps Senator Hill can wait until I finish. Subsidised courses included those which were both substandard and out of step with modern office practices. The decision to discontinue the subsidy scheme from 1989 is consistent with the Government's policy on private higher education institutions set out in the White Paper. Students likely to be dependent on Austudy will have alternative courses available to them. Their opportunity for further study need not be curtailed. Of the 55 colleges only two are in rural centres. Other non-metropolitan colleges, of which there are 10, are in centres which have other further educational opportunities, for example, Newcastle, Toowoomba and Geelong. All existing eligible students will continue to be subsidised up to December 1988. Those who started courses before 23 August 1988 will be subsidised in 1989. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training is currently reviewing the situation of students enrolled to commence courses in January 1989 and to whom colleges had already made a commitment. Senator HILL(South Australia) —by-leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Honourable senators will be aware of the Parliament's initiative in regard to parliamentary education and of the work of its officers in preparing the two parliamentary education kits. These kits, one for primary students and one for secondary students, have now been distributed to all schools in Australia. I am pleased to inform the Senate that the primary school kit, called The Parliament Pack, has won an award for the best multi-media educational package of 1988. The award, given by the Australian Society for Education Technology, is especially pleasing, given that the Parliament's schools kit was competing against resource and training material prepared by experienced and well-known media organisations. I am sure that honourable senators will be gratified by this success and by the encouragement it has given to officers of the Parliamentary Education Office. They are currently working on schools based and parliament based projects to reinforce the success of the schools kits and to ensure that the role and the work of the Parliament are more effectively presented in the nation's classrooms. As a parliament we are committed to improving the quality and extent of parliamentary education for the future benefit of Australia and its democratic process and I know all senators will join me in congratulating the Parliamentary Education Office on this recognition of its important work. Senator DEVLIN(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation in response to an inaccurate and misleading report concerning me which appeared in today's edition of the Launceston Examiner newspaper. The article by Mr Barry Prismall, and based on comments made by the Tasmanian Deputy Premier, Mr Pearsall, sets out a grossly distorted and damaging picture of my personal housing arrangements in my home town of Burnie. The facts of the matter are that I have made several approaches to the Tasmanian Housing Department seeking to buy the departmental unit my wife and I occupy. This morning, in a conversation with the Tasmanian Minister for Housing, Mr John Beswick, I repeated that offer to buy. My previous requests had been rejected because the unit is one of six on a common title. Mr Beswick, in our conversation this morning, agreed that there were barriers in allowing the sale, and undertook to look at the situation again. Mr Pearsall, in making the statement yesterday, is guilty of the worst kind of gutter politics. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Devlin, when making a personal explanation you must not criticise; just correct. Senator DEVLIN —I withdraw that comment. His assertion that I can and should buy the property ignores the fact that I have attempted to do precisely that, and overlooks the difficulties which his own ministerial colleague acknowledges. I have occupied the same unit for approximately 12 years, eight of those years before entering Parliament as a senator for Tasmania. Just like other Tasmanian citizens, I joined the waiting list for a Housing Department unit as a normal wage earner. At the time I was working on the Burnie waterfront. I was allocated the unit when my turn came, I have paid rent for the past 12 years like any other tenant, and unless permitted to buy I will continue to pay whatever the Department decrees is an appropriate rental. During my 12 years' occupancy of the unit I have made a number of improvements and maintained the property in excellent condition. Mr Beswick has been made personally aware of this and of my desire to buy the property. I am disappointed that Mr Pearsall has allowed his ignorance of the facts and the desire to score political points to produce an inaccurate and offensive attack on my family and me. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —During Question Time Senator Walsh was uncharitable enough to reflect indirectly on my motive for opposing a tax on gold. My motive and position in respect of a tax on gold is identical to that of the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Peter Dowding, the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, Mr David Parker, and, as at the last Federal election, that of the Prime Minister, Mr Robert J. L. Hawke. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report marks the retirement of Professor Ralph Slatyer as Chairman of the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC). Also, during 1987-88 Dr Tegart took over as Secretary and Professor Martin as Chairman. I believe that the report shows that they have attacked their jobs this year in a very businesslike way. They have endeavoured through their four-theme program to make provision for the future. The first of the four headings that they chose is the health of Australian science. I would have to query whether this is healthy or not. The second heading is the role of science and technology in the economic and social development of Australia; the third is the management of technological change, the fourth is international trends and their relationship to science and technology. I would like to read out a passage from page 6 of the report: There is reason to believe that in several key areas there are deficiencies in this core capacity. The report is talking about the capabilities of science. It continues: The provision of adequate funding to maintain and develop the capacity has long been an issue of concern. There may now be a need for a substantial program to renew or replace existing facilities and equipment that has become obsolete and for additional trained personnel. It was brought to our attention last night when we were examining the estimates of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) that the capital expenditure for that body this year, next year and the following year has been cut by 50 per cent of what it was last year. Senator Button —You can say that at any time in the CSIRO's history, if you want to. You know that. It was four times the capital amount when they were building the animal health laboratory at Geelong. Senator ARCHER —The Minister is welcome to participate in the debate later, if he wishes. But, in the meantime, it does not do any good to pretend that there has not been a 50 per cent cut this year compared with last year in respect of the capital equipment allocation for the CSIRO as well as cuts in operating costs. ASTEC is the main body of advice to the Government-via the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-on science and research and development policy formulation. Honourable senators can see from what I have said that ASTEC has joined virtually every other reputable scientific or research and development body in Australia in raising the issue of the general inadequacy of government funding and our slow and sure decline in world ratings. The management of technological change, as proposed by theme three, raises some very important issues. Mention is made of agricultural chemicals, the ozone layer depletion and the greenhouse effect. But what has not yet been said and what the Government has not come to grips with is who is going to coordinate these massive problems. No coordinating authority has yet been set up in Australia to discuss or lead in respect of the greenhouse effect. Bodies such as the CSIRO's Division of Oceanography and the Division of Atmospheric Research, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the University of Flinders are all doing work independently. They discuss their work with one another. But the Government has done nothing to coordinate in any way a problem of this massive nature. I believe it is time that the Government decided who is going to do it and to get it organised. As the major science and research and development policy formulation and advisory body in Australia, I hope that the advice that ASTEC has given to the Government will at least be read carefully and accepted. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.18) —I am pleased to hear the remarks of Senator Archer because I will certainly be seeking that the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology take up the matter of the greenhouse effect in relation to the restructuring of Australian industry. In addressing my remarks to the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) report, I draw attention to the fact-not surprisingly when one looks at the composition of ASTEC-that not surprisingly and rather unthinkingly ASTEC has accepted much of the Government rhetoric. On page 14 of the report we find that one of the matters it is necessary for ASTEC is to address is the matter of increasing international competitiveness. On page 6 we find that what is required is the achievement of sustained economic growth. That is an oxymoron. It is depressing to find that an organisation which should be about taking a much broader view than the government and advising government is accepting without question many of these unthinking directions in which the Government is unthinkingly attempting to push the Australian community. If we want to make people more competitive I would remind the Senate that there are in several laboratories around the world massive attempts to totally describe the human genome. There are approximately 1,000 million bases in the human genome. Shortly, next century, that code will probably be totally described. We will know the total sequence of the human genome. Then, if we want to, we will be able to make people more competitive by genetic engineering. To unquestionably accept the idea that people should be made the instruments of economic indicators is to deny the basic premise of any sensible morality in our society-that is, that the government must be about making sensible choices. People are not and should not be made the instruments of economic indicators to be manipulated simply to make the economy grow or to make us more or less competitive. It is interesting to find on page 11 of the report that in comparison with different countries Australia is doing very poorly as measured by the science citation index. We are the lowest in earth and space research, second lowest in biomedical research, lowest in physics, and second lowest in mathematics. Having said that, I believe it is important to return to the point that, if as a society we continue to become more technically and socially complex and at the same time wish to retain, and hopefully enhance, processes of participatory democratic decision making, we must constantly achieve higher levels of broad education, producing citizens with a well-integrated understanding of these technical and social processes and interactions. The obverse of having a tenured position in a university, protected from the self-serving and job-threatening recriminations of either private industry or government, is the responsibility of holding before society an informed and critical appraisal of that society, its decisions, directions, processes and, importantly, its consequences. I do not believe that universities-and this applies to this report-have discharged this social responsibility as well as they might. To an extent a better fulfilment of this role in the past may have led to greater community support for the universities in their present hour of need. Comparing this approach to one important role of universities with the Government's thrust for greater economic relevance and the thrust of this report, honourable senators will appreciate my very great concern over the latter. We may well produce more narrowly trained whiz-bang engineers who will come up with more profitably competitive engines, but will there be those in sufficient numbers and with sufficient social prominence to raise the questions and inform the public about the social and environmental consequences of the application of these new technologies? Will the public be well enough educated to take these increasingly complex questions on board and make informed and caring decisions about them? If the Government has its way and if ASTEC, as indicated by this report, has its way, I am sure that the answer will be no. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.23) —I wish to comment briefly on the section of the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council relating to a study initiated this year by ASTEC dealing with the quality and potential of basic scientific research in Australia and entitled `The Profile of Australian Science'. I notice that in that section of the paper ASTEC provided figures for the amount spent in Australia on basic research for 1984-85. I will quote those figures briefly. In that year, Australia spent over $600m on basic research. Universities spent just over 50 per cent of this total; the Commonwealth Government 35 per cent; the States and private non-profit institutions about 5 per cent each; and private industry about 2.5 per cent. The Australian Democrats are deeply concerned about the continuing low level of funding for research in general but, most particularly, the diminishing funds available for basic research. When one looks at the amount spent on basic research by private industry-that is, 2.5 per cent-I believe that industry needs to become more involved in basic research. Of course, industry is often not interested in fundamental basic research. I quote from a comment made by a representative of Ciba-Geigy Australia Ltd which quote I also used when expressing concern during the debate on plant variety rights in February 1987. The representative of that major corporation said: I see research divided into the discovery phase, and the exploitation phase. I believe that most of the discovery work in plant breeding such as genetic resistance to disease . . . will continue in public institutions. Conversely, I believe that the exploitation of the research can best be done by private enterprise. As I said at the time, I believe that this amounts to a public subsidy of private enterprise, whereby private enterprise pulls in the dollars at the end of that exploitation phase. This critical issue of funding for fundamental and basic research was drawn to my attention again recently in a letter from Professor Lovett of the University of New England in Armidale, a person with whom I am frequently in correspondence on agricultural research in particular and on research into land degradation and alternatives in agriculture. Professor Lovett expressed very strong concern in his letter and stated: For sound commercial reasons, however- in relation to achieving funding for research from private industry- they are not interested in funding the more basic research from which application and commercialisation ultimately flow. We must bear in mind that comment from one of our very important agricultural researchers in academia. I know that the Government is also concerned about this question. An article in today's Age newspaper expresses that concern. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, Mr Barry Jones, is quoted quite extensively in the article, which points out that, despite incentives, including the 150 per cent tax concession for such expenditure, private industry expenditure is still unacceptably low. On behalf of the Australian Democrats I express that concern as a result of the annual report of ASTEC, particularly in terms of fundamental research in primary industry. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(3.26) —I wish to comment on the report so I seek leave to continue my remarks on the next General Business Thursday. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(3.27) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I support this report. So many of its recommendations have continually been stressed by the Opposition. As a senator who holds the title of Queensland's fisherman of the year-a title bestowed on me by the commercial fishermen of Queensland-I have many times brought fishing industry issues before the Senate. Senator Button —What did you get the title for, though? Senator BOSWELL —For disallowing a regulation that your Government brought up that would have wrecked the fishing industry. I have many times urged the Government to do something to encourage the development of our magnificent renewable and export earning marine resources. Once again, we have another report which backs the call for measures to develop our offshore fisheries. This report accepts that most established fisheries are now exploited at or near their maximum capacity. Pressures for structural adjustment within the industry are growing. The disparity between the fact that Australia imports over 60 per cent of its seafood and yet has thousands of kilometres of coastline and 8.6 million square kilometres of sea serves to show how little this Government has done, despite urging from the industry and various committee recommendations, to assist the Australian fishing industry to take its rightful place in the international marketplace. As well as encouraging fisheries research and value added processing, including marketing, the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) stresses the need for development of a fishing fleet with on-board processing capacity, willing and able to work in our deep waters, in isolated fisheries and outside the 200-mile zone. The potential for import replacement offered by these undeveloped fisheries must be explored. The dependence on limited products and limited markets makes it imperative for the Australian industry to explore options for increasing export opportunities. In 1987-88 the value of export of fisheries products was $775m, making fish the fourth most valuable Australian rural export. As the report correctly states: Further increases in export earnings will assist Australia's balance of trade. Development of new products and new markets may also create, directly and indirectly, employment opportunities, and some of these will be in regional areas where unemployment is highest. With regard to the contentious issue of foreign involvement in the fishing industry, ASTEC clearly states that increasing levels of foreign involvement in the catch and processing sectors of the fishing industry require further careful assessment. It observed that foreign capital was becoming increasingly available. If overseas countries can take an interest in our resource and profit handsomely from it, why is this Government not doing more to promote Australian fishing interests? This Government even now is negotiating with the Russians to allow them into our ports and waters. The Government is, in effect, discriminating against Australian fishermen. Senator Button —Don't talk twaddle, Senator. Senator BOSWELL —Well, it is. The report notes that there was strong support from industry representatives and from many government officers for facilitating access to Australian venture capital for fishing industry enterprises. The report also supports the recent Industries Assistance Commission recommendation urging that restrictions placed on importing second-hand fishing vessels be lifted in order to allow the fishing industry to extend its operations into new waters. Again, the question is whether the Government will listen to its own advice. In the past various measures were aimed at assisting Australian fishermen to modify their existing boats. There have been financial incentive schemes, Australianisation of foreign operations, and training provisions to equip our own people to explore and farm our marine resources. It is my sincere hope that this time the Government will do something about it for, as this paper says, larger vessels are essential for exploration of fisheries outside the Australian fishing zone and within the 200-mile area, and facilitating access for the Australian fishing industry to vessels capable of fishing such waters is important for industry development. At the moment Australian producers are disadvantaged in comparison with foreign vessels in terms of access to certain fisheries within our waters. The scope for growth of on-board processing needs to be further examined, and a program of upgrading existing vessels in some fisheries to include processing capacity may be appropriate. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.32) —I have not yet read the full report of the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC), but have read enough of it to see that it is another valuable unit in trying to increase the productivity of Australia's primary industries. The fishing industry has my great respect because there is no group in society that works harder under more difficulties, with more ups and downs and more uncontrollable issues to contend with than fishermen. We have to see that fishermen are adequately rewarded for what they do and we have to ensure that at all costs we preserve the resource. The best way to see that the fishermen can continue to make a living is to see that they get the best price possible for the product they currently handle. This is exactly what this volume is all about. It is an excellent project for ASTEC to be involved in. What surprises me is that its annual report, which the Senate has just dealt with, lists all the projects on which the Council was working and mentions all the reports it hopes to do this year and next year, but did not include this report. I do not know when the report suddenly sprung up, but it is a volume of some consequence. I hope that it will be read by the widest possible range of people in the fishing industry. It concerns me that it is now nearly 10 years ago that the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce conducted an inquiry into the fishing industry and a considerable amount of the material in that report is now repeated in the present report. This goes to show that, in spite of the fact that we recognised the difficulties as long ago as that, very little has been done about the matter since then. I hope that we will not have to wait another 10 years before something is likely to happen. There has been a lot of change in the industry over that time, particularly on the organisational and catching sides. I give ground on the fact that it was probably necessary for those areas to be improved first during that time. However, I look forward to seeing our better handling of the product and our use of the best technology. We must take on the issue of quality assurance and presentation and see that we utilise all the facilities that are available to make the industry better. The volume recommends better records, greater coordination and communication, better research, the development of quarantine and other procedures, by-product investigation and cooperative ventures. A lot of that will require changes, particularly to our attitude towards foreign fishing-onshore and offshore processing, the requirements on foreign fishing to process portions or all of its catch in Australia, and matters such as that. The facilities that are now available, including plant and equipment, for freezing and handling fish, are ever so much better than they were in the past, and I believe that we can increase considerably the status of fishing in our national Budget. I notice that the report states that last year Australian fisheries' production was valued at $850m and that fishing was the fifth most important rural industry in terms of value of production. I think that the industry can do a lot better than that. We ought to be looking at at least another 50 per cent in the next few years. This will involve our looking after the resource more carefully than we have in the past. As this chamber knows, we have been looking at the tuna question in the last month or so. I hope that we will not get into a situation with any other species as we have with tuna. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(3.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wonder why the Commonwealth Grants Commission believes that it is necessary to duplicate the work of the Local Government Grants Commission, in Queensland, which tours the State, inspects the shires to establish any disabilities which they might have, particularly in the far-flung parts of our State, and then brings in its report. This year I read in our local paper, the South Burnett Times, of how the State Grants Commission had recommended $71,000 less for South Burnett shires than they received last financial year. The Federal Government at that time had not accepted the Commission's recommendations and, as in 1987-88, decided the allocations itself. The Chairman of the Murgon Shire Council-one of the councils in South Burnett-Councillor Bill Roberts, said it was disappointing that, when councils prepared budgets on their 1987-88 figures, expecting a quarter share grant payment by 15 August, the Federal Government did not accept the figures proposed by the State Local Government Grants Commission. It would appear to me that the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission would prepare a more valid report than the Commonwealth, which does it from its own office, through its own consultant whom it asks to prepare another list of grants to councils. There is no doubt that making grants in this way places all councils in a dilemma. To say that they would all be confused would be an understatement of some magnitude. Local authorities were to be informed of Commonwealth grants by 15 August, but the councils were at least five weeks late in being advised. I had wanted to ask a question in the Senate about the delay in advising councils of their Commonwealth grants allocations but was unable to get the call for a question at that time. During the parliamentary recess the local government authorities were finally advised of their allocations by the Government. There is no doubt that the delay by the Commonwealth in forwarding official advice of grants to councils makes it very difficult for local authorities to budget. These Commonwealth grants are to make up the leeway while councils wait for revenue to come in. As honourable senators can imagine, councils budget for an anticipated grant from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Each year it seems to be getting less. Another problem for councils now is that the Commonwealth gives only one-quarter of the allocated amount in August, or five weeks later as happened this year, whereas once the whole amount was given to local authorities and they could invest it and obtain interest. Now the Commonwealth Government keeps the money for itself and invests it. I suppose with the financial problems that this Government is having with its foreign debt and balance of payments it is no wonder it has to resort to mean tricks like not giving the local authorities their grants in one lump sum. What I fail to understand is why, when the agreement between the Federal and State governments on allocating local government's share of personal income tax required the assessment work to be done by a grants commission, the Commonwealth Government does not accept the assessments provided by the local authorities State Grants Commission in Queensland. No doubt there was a problem between the Commonwealth and the Queensland State Government over the allocations, for the two governments again appear to have failed to reach an agreement, although the State Government in Queensland has made some amendments to the system used by the Commission in deciding grants. The way the money is decided and the delay caused by the Commonwealth has disadvantaged a lot of outback local authorities in our State. I think they have enough problems with severe droughts without the disadvantages I have outlined. These problems do not arise to the same extent in the big cities. Perhaps that is because votes are where the people are. Is it any wonder that councils view with concern the late notification of their annual grants and the confusion over the future role of the State Grants Commission if the Federal Government persists in distributing grants? Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report is an analysis of the findings pursuant to section 25 of the Grants Commission Act 1973. Many senators will know that the Grants Commission has done a great deal of work in relation to Australian Capital Territory finances in recent years with a view to bringing the ACT into line with the States in many respects and also so it is able to have its own budget as we move towards self-government. The earlier report, Part 1, was released this year. It was significantly a document that led towards the budget which was put in some weeks ago. This report provides a more detailed analysis of how money is being raised and spent in the ACT. The particular focus I want to refer to is in relation to health expenditure in Canberra. At present the health system is under scrutiny following the announcement by the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) that an inquiry would be conducted by Dr Kearney into Canberra health services. Regrettably, the Government has indicated that it should concern predominantly hospital services. It is rather timely today to look at some of the things the Grants Commission has had to say on the matter of health funding. Its report states: In the ACT hospitals staffing per occupied bed day in 1985-86 was above the metropolitan six-State standard for base hospitals by 4 per cent in relation to salaried medical officers (SMOs), 20 per cent for nurses, 6 per cent for diagnostic staff, 111 per cent for administrative staff- Compared with non-metropolitan based hospitals it was different again but it would be my view that we should be compared with metropolitan hospitals. There was a response today in the Canberra Times where the ACT Community and Health Service claimed that the administrative figure was closer-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Powell) —Order! The time for consideration of Government papers has expired. Do you seek leave, Senator Reid, to continue your remarks later? Senator REID —Yes. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 1266 SENATE 12 October 1988...Industry, Science and Technology Industry, Science and Technology...12 October 1988 SENATE 1267 1268 SENATE 12 October 1988...Industry, Science and Technology Industry, Science and Technology...12 October 1988 SENATE 1269 1270 SENATE 12 October 1988...Industry, Science and Technology Industry, Science and Technology...12 October 1988 SENATE 1271 1272 SENATE 12 October 1988...Industry, Science and Technology Industry, Science and Technology...12 October 1988 SENATE 1273 SENATE 12 October 1988...Industry, Science and Technology Industry, Science and Technology...12 October 1988 SENATE Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Senator Childs: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(3.45) —I would like to continue the remarks that were made the other day on the report Manufacturing Industry Revitalisation: Making it Together by the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I wish to add a couple of points to the comments he made. This report is a result of endless discussions with government, industry and trade union officials attempting to achieve a coherent list of recommendations with an aim to improving the efficiency and future prospects of the manufacturing industry. It must be noted that the time of the hearings was considered to be a period of a significant downturn in agricultural and mining markets. Therefore, the manufacturing industry would have to be relied upon as a saviour of the Australian economy. Times have changed and we are now experiencing a boom in agricultural commodity prices and a relatively promising outlook for the mining industry. Nevertheless, the manufacturing industry is still in crisis. We are currently involved in a major recession in the manufacturing industry. It is necessary to reverse this declining trend and to move speedily along the road to recovery. The downturn in manufacturing production raises doubts about the competitiveness of the sector with the Australian Bureau of Statistics recently releasing figures showing a fall in production for the industry of 2.5 per cent for the June quarter. That is of considerable concern to all members of this chamber. One of our recommendations was that manufacturing bodies must continue to encourage employees to undergo further training, either on the job or externally, through our efficient system of technical and further education colleges or universities and to increase their knowledge of improvements in technology and other aspects so as to benefit the industry as a whole. As patron of the Work Skills Australia Foundation for northern New South Wales I believe that participants in the Skill Olympics must continue to be given the public recognition that is due to them. In talking about further training for people in the manufacturing industries, I should point out that that competition covers some 42 skilled occupations in vehicle and automotive engineering, metal building and construction, electrical, hospitality and service industries. As a voluntary testing service it presents to young people an opportunity for reward and an incentive for the achievement of excellence. This is something that the manufacturing industries must strive for. Careers in the manufacturing industry must be depicted and promoted as sound and rewarding. I notice that there are a lot of young people in the gallery at the moment. I am quite sure that they would be happy to enter the manufacturing industry if it could offer them a rewarding future and a career path. That is one of the other problems we found when looking at the manufacturing industry. Sometimes there was not a career path to pursue for people of the quality and age who are now leaving the chamber. There must also be serious action taken to rectify the catastrophic situation on our waterfronts which is severely hindering the growth of industry. Only a few weeks ago industrial chaos erupted on the waterfront bringing all cargo traffic in Sydney ports to a standstill. It is interesting to note that the recent Industries Assistance Commission report on coastal shipping has identified that the industry is costing users in the proximity of some $450m per year. With the present over-regulated and militant union control of coastal shipping and the waterfront situation it is cheaper to ship cars from Melbourne to Japan than to ship cars from Melbourne to Tasmania. I am disgusted to admit that the higher costs and poor record of service have progressively reduced the industry to a position where the only goods currently shipped around the coast tend to be those for which alternative transport either is not available or does not represent a realistic proposition. The inefficiency and corruption particularly prevalent at Sydney ports and container depots is adding hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of dollars a year to the cost of imports and exports. One of the other recommendations in the report is that the Government should provide leadership and consistent policies in pursuit of a clear national objective. In that regard I mention people in the manufacturing industry who now see rising interest rates caused by government intervention, in what is meant to be a free market, in order to hold the value of the dollar, as is causing problems for the manufacturing industry too. Really, there is not the leadership or consistency of policies for the manufacturing industry which we would like to see. I believe that the Australian manufacturing industry has the capacity to restore its international competitiveness. I hope that, with serious consideration of the issues raised and the application of the recommendations of this report, a positive outcome will result sooner and not later. Other points in the report that I would like to highlight relate to the industrial relations side of manufacturing industry revitalisation. The report suggests that we have more individual company agreements. I think that that has to be looked on much more favourably than it has been in the past. Hopefully, some of the work practices that are now being fixed up in the Australian coalmining industry can also be fixed up in the industrial relations area of manufacturing industry. Another point that we made was that, in particular, management should aim for conciliation rather than confrontation. We suggest that management should introduce rewards for higher productivity. Of course, productivity is the key to profitability in manufacturing industries, as it is in a lot of other industries. We also suggest that labour take positive steps to improve its situation. In particular, we say that the labour force should aim for conciliation rather than confrontation. Would it not be nice if that were always the case on the shop floor rather than having demarcation disputes, stand-downs or interruptions of production? We suggest that the labour force should take the lead in negotiating the removal of restrictive work and management practices. We also suggest that the labour force accept that it may not always be possible to give precedence to the maintenance of wages and the protection of specific jobs. Of course, that is what has happened with the mechanisation of many of our manufacturing industries that want to compete with our Asian neighbours and countries in other parts of the world. We have suggested, in regard to the work and factory organisation side of things, that no single aspect of manufacturing industry revitalisation offers tangible results more quickly than does the reorganisation of the manufacturing systems. Some of the factories we visited around Australia demonstrated a need to look at some of the new systems put in place by some of the more successful manufacturers. I refer to the just in time policy of not carrying too much stock on the floor. Industries that have adopted those practices have definitely kept up with the times. We also recommended that the Commonwealth Government's direct expenditure on research and development through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and other agencies be maintained and, where possible, increased. Of course, that subject has been brought up here today in references to the cutback in funding for the CSIRO. It is of concern to me that the Government has not continued to increase funding for research and development in a vital part of Australia's industry, the manufacturing industry, which is needed to help all Australians to enjoy a better way of life and a better standard of living. If we could get the manufacturing industries to the stage of replacing a lot of imports we would solve some of our balance of payments problems. We have just had two months over which there was a $2.9 billion balance of payments deficit. We are likely to see a $1.2 billion deficit for the month of September. I commend this report to the Senate. I hope that the manufacturing industries grasp the nettle to help all Australians enjoy a better standard of living. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.55) —I hope that honourable senators will have noticed that as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which inquired into certain aspects of Australia's manufacturing industry revitalisation, I wrote a minority report. It was not that I found a great deal wrong with the major report, except that it really did not go far enough. It was, to use a mathematical expression, a necessary set of conditions but not a sufficient set of conditions to ensure a really human and humane society in the future. It is true that we need to make industry a great deal more efficient; nobody would agree with that at all. But the questions of where that industry is to be directed, how it is to be directed and so on were largely left out of consideration by the Committee. The prevailing view, both in the Government and the Opposition and in the Committee, was that that should be left to market forces and that the direction of society should be directed towards the economic benefits of industry. In my minority report I quoted from J. K. Galbraith's book The New Industrial State which, interestingly, was written in the late 1960s. That books seem to me to tell us a great deal about the state of our society today. It makes one feel very sad that we have not moved on from that understanding; rather, we have moved backwards. Galbraith wrote then: If we continue to believe that the goals of the industrial system-the expansion of output, the companion increase in consumption, technological advance, the public images that sustain it-are coordinate with life, then all of our lives will be in the service of these goals. What is consistent with these ends we shall have or be allowed; all else will be off limits. Our wants will be managed in accordance with the needs of the industrial system; the policies of the state will be subject to similar influence; education will be adapted to industrial need; the disciplines required by the industrial system will be the conventional morality of the community. It seems to me that in the Australian Science and Technology Council annual report, which was discussed only a short time ago this afternoon, one finds a similar expression of the narrowing of the goals of society towards the perceived economic needs of industry. Elsewhere in my minority report I drew attention to the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the human environment. After that conference the Swedish Government established a commission for the future. One hoped that when the Australian Commission for the Future was established it might have been modelled on that Swedish pattern; but, unfortunately, that proved not to be the case. The Swedish body is independent of government. It contains a research unit and opens up for public debate options for the future. Information is supplied to the public on where certain courses of action are likely to lead. The public can then decide whether that is where it wants to be 25 or 50 years into the future. The commission can then help in outlining what present actions need to be taken to ensure that those desirable objectives are approached and that undesirable outcomes are avoided. Interestingly, in relation to what our present Government regards as long term planning, the Swedish Commission has a mid-term horizon of 15 to 25 years and a long term horizon of 25 to 40 years. The processes in which it involves the public in decision making concern the public's own future. Therefore, it produces both a better educated population and a population more committed to bringing that future into existence. It also sets long term guidelines within which industry can develop. It is recognised that industry development is simply a subset of overall social development. This is the point that is missing in the major report of the Industry, Science and Technology Committee. It is notable that Sweden is performing much better than Australia, both socially and economically. One cannot help but contrast this approach with that of the present Government, of the present Opposition and of the majority report. Market directed, growth-oriented mechanisms are to be the approach, and where that may lead Australian society and Australian manufacturing is anyone's guess. People are to be part of the mechanism, but as pawns to be manipulated not as decision makers and ultimate beneficiaries of processes and goals that they have chosen for themselves. I shall refer to several examples to indicate the differences that would result from this alternative approach. Fossil fuel, which has been mentioned several times today with respect to the greenhouse effect, is used principally as an electricity generating fuel. Its production is a factor measured in the gross domestic product, and in a growth-oriented economy the increased production of coal will be seen as a benefit. In a market-driven economy effort will be put into finding ways of selling more coal. This is exactly what is being experienced at present. There have also been attempts to streamline the mining, transport and marketing of coal. The recent annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) places increasing emphasis on these market imperatives. For instance, the CSIRO's strategic plan for 1988-92 states: Coal is a vital contributor to Australia's exports and domestic electricity supplies. CSIRO research aims to reduce production costs and improve the range and efficiency of coal use through work on exploration, mining, product quality control, handling, fuel conversion and pollution. But coal is also a major source of carbon dioxide, and that, as we all know, leads to greenhouse warming and a number of other consequential effects. It follows that in a sensible society, if we intend to tackle this problem comprehensively and take into account the long lead times required for alternative technologies, we would be putting a great deal of research not into coal development but into energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. Such a society would not be solely market driven but would be taking the longer view. For similar reasons, one can criticise the Button car plan. The formulation of that plan paid no attention to the emerging desirability of conserving fossil fuel. Fossil fuel adds to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and is a non-renewable resource, and Australia's supplies of liquid fuel are very limited. We have been told that by 1991 Australia will have to import some $3 billion worth of oil each year. Instead of responding to the short term market forces, if that plan had responded to these longer term indicators, Australia would have developed different types of cars. It is significant that out of the Button car plan the latest Holden has a four-litre engine with an optional five-litre engine. In its advertisements, the company is claiming that that car will take it through the 1990s. That is totally out of keeping with the real needs as perceived by today's society. Whatever the shape and structure of Australian industry, it is desirable that manufacturing be efficient. That is necessary but is not a sufficient condition. To address the long term needs of society requires that society take a longer term and comprehensive view of fossil futures and then direct its energies, including those of its manufacturing industry, towards agreed goals. This is not happening, and nothing in this report will cause it to happen. Unless we lift our gaze and broaden our view in a period of rapid change, we will forever be developing technical solutions to last year's problems. We will become a society lacking direction and increasingly despondent over our own predicament. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(4.05) —In the short time I have available to speak on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, entitled Manufacturing Industry Revitalisation: Making It Together, I want to give credit to some of the people who have been involved in bringing the report to the floor of the Senate. Before I do so, I wish to comment on the title Making it Together-something we all aim for and strive for in life. That is a commendable objective in life, and the theme of this report, above anything else, is to bring the three major partners involved in manufacturing industry in this country-government, employers and workers-together, to make it together for the benefit of Australia. The stylised cover of the report portrays that goal we should be aiming for. We have had an unfortunate start in attaining the objective. The unfortunate start is the minority report that has been just spoken to by Senator Coulter. It would have been better if the Committee had brought down a majority report, but one can understand that individuals need to bring down minority reports from time to time. I make the point at this stage that Senator Coulter is a relatively new member of the Committee. He joined the Committee after the bulk of its work, including submissions, meeting with witnesses and public hearings, had been completed. The theme of the inquiry was well and truly set in concrete by the time the good senator joined the Committee. Therefore, there was some expectation that new senators who became members of the Committee would not necessarily be au fait with every aspect of the investigation. I recognise that members of the Committee, who represent all political parties in this chamber, have different views. The Committee sought, as much as was possible, to accommodate each of those views. But it is difficult to reach that accommodation when the objectives are already set in concrete and when individual senators are often unable to attend every meeting of the Committee to argue through their points. That is perhaps one area where Senator Coulter may have missed out. He may have been better able to forcefully put his view and obtain some accommodation of that view in the Committee's report. The Committee's investigations commenced following a reference by the Senate on 13 June 1986, so it was well and truly under way by the time the good senator joined the Committee. In commending other members of the Committee, I particularly commend the work undertaken by Senator Childs, the Chairman of the Committee. Senator Childs attended each and every meeting of the Committee and as an individual undertook a lot of background work that is not, and cannot be, recognised because this is a committee report. If the credit for the report can be individualised, it must go to Senator Childs because he did a lot of work on his own, above and beyond the demands of being a member of the Committee. I commend each of the other senators from all political parties who were members of the Committee. Those members have ideological and philosophical differences of opinion, but we were able to sit down in amicable surroundings, not only during hearings and meetings in Parliament House but also in the various forums throughout Australia, as the Committee visited a number of capital cities. Many other people also require commendation. I mention first of all the support staff, including Mr Peter Keele, who was the secretary of the Committee until 26 November 1987. He was later replaced by Ms Ann Stewart on 17 December 1987. Those people, together with the additional research staff, contributed an enormous amount to the report and in bringing it to this stage. A lot of work still must be done in this area, and I shall make some brief comments on the content of the report. In our introductory chapters to the report we examined where Australia was at. One very interesting point in the usage of statistics comes from page 10 of the report: we examined the position of Australia's manufacturing industry as it is at present relative to what it had been in previous years. A couple of statistics help to illustrate the point that I want to make: The percentage of Australia's work force employed in manufacturing industry fell from 26 per cent in 1966-67 to 16.2 per cent in 1986-87. That is a dramatic decline. To continue: Manufacturing industries share of GDP in 1986-87 was 17 per cent, compared with 25 per cent- that is 20 years previously- in 1966-67. It is a bit of a gloom and doom story when one looks at statistics such as that, but it is not totally doom and gloom. The reason it is not totally gloom and doom is that in March 1983 the people of Australia elected a Labor government to office. They have re-elected it on two occasions since then. Our Government has turned the situation around very well. For example, production levels in the manufacturing sector have increased by 20 per cent since the 1980 trough when this Government came to office. An increase of 20 per cent is not something to be sneezed at, but it is not something that we can relax on because a lot of work has got to be done, and hopefully that 20 per cent will be increased to 120 per cent. Production in the manufacturing sector is at record levels at the moment. It was 5.3 per cent higher in the last financial year, 1987-88, compared to the previous year. Manufacturing sales are expected to grow by 9.4 per cent this current financial year. Manufacturing exports, which above everything else are what the theme of the report is about, were 16 per cent higher in the three months to August 1988 than in the same period in 1987. In August alone manufacturing exports rose by 4 per cent in that month. That is something we can really build upon. I think the message is getting through, thanks to the words of the Government and spokespersons such as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. This is not something we can relax about, however, because there are many impediments to the redevelopment and revitalisation of the manufacturing industry in Australia. In this report, as much as we possibly could, we have sought to cover the whole range of the impediments that might be facing us. We have looked, in particular, at industrial relations. While not wishing to dwell on that at this point, it is a very important element in the revitalisation and redevelopment of Australia's manufacturing industry. One reason for those good figures I was able to enumerate a short while ago is that we have got relatively good industrial relations operating in the Australian workplace at the moment. As I said on a number of occasions, we cannot relax; it has to be built upon. We have put a lot of emphasis on training and retraining as well, as indeed the major players are doing; and quite rightly so. It is a pity that that emphasis had not come about earlier. I commend the report to the Senate and to the other major players in the manufacturing sector in Australia-the captains of industry, trade union leaders, and others. They should have a look at it. I am certainly not saying that we have got all the answers here, but certainly this report contains a lot of food for thought and matters that can be digested. Hopefully, we can all pull it together and we can, indeed, make it together. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.15) —I too would like to address some remarks to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled Manufacturing Industry Revitalisation: Making it Together. Could I say at the outset, on Senator Chaney's behalf, that he would have been participating in this debate as well had not problems of his throat and laryngitis prevented him from doing so. He did want that point to be clearly made. I cannot speak for Senator Chaney, but I think that he would echo some of the remarks that I will be making today. The report deals with a vitally important subject-the revitalisation of manufacturing industry. I was a member of the Committee in its early stages, but I have had no involvement over the last 12 months in the Committee's inquiry, having moved off the Committee. I was not heavily involved in the hearing of the evidence and had no involvement in the preparation of the report. The inquiry took more than two years to complete. That is a long time. Things can become outdated whilst inquiries of that length are continuing. We have seen that from time to time with numerous reports of parliamentary committees. I think it is clear that that has happened on this occasion. The time involved was partly because the terms of reference were very wide ranging and, because they were wide ranging, the Committee spent a considerable time considering just which aspects of those very wide terms of reference it should deal with. I remind the Senate that the terms of reference were worded as follows: Certain aspects of Australia's manufacturing industry revitalisation. Those are very broad ranging terms of reference indeed. The Committee, quite rightly, took some time to think through that and to determine for itself which aspects of manufacturing industry as a whole it wanted to concentrate on. It had a lot of pre-hearings and took evidence from and had discussions with a very wide range of employers, unions and others involved before finally coming down to believing that, given that it did not want to re-invent the wheel and all the other numerous reports into this industry that have been undertaken over many years now, it would concentrate on a particular range of issues and, in particular, on the questions of attitudes towards manufacturing industry in Australia of employers, the work force and the community at large. I think all of that added up to the report being overtaken by events and by the debate that has gone on in Australia in the last couple of years about the role and future of manufacturing industry and what ought to be done to revitalise it. To that extent, I think it is unfortunate-and it is not a criticism of the Committee-that the report comes out 2 1/4 years after the inquiry had first been conceived. As I say, that is not specific just to this report. I think that we should be looking at making more of our Senate committee inquiries shorter and more practically oriented. If we do not, then we can get involved in such a broad spectrum that we really produce nothing that is new and fresh. I think that this is an example of that. While congratulating the Committee on its work and for producing a very comprehensive report, I must say that I do find it somewhat disappointing for some of the reasons that I have already mentioned, but also for others. For example, it contains many motherhood statements and conclusions. There seems to me not to be a lot that is new in the report. Perhaps that is not surprising, given that there have been many other studies of manufacturing industry over many years. As I said, the Committee tried to get around that problem by concentrating on the area of attitudes towards manufacturing. Perhaps, with hindsight, that in itself made it difficult to come up with hard edged conclusions and recommendations. I think we would all agree that, whilst attitudes are terribly important, their nature is such that it is hard to make specific hard edged recommendations about them. I congratulate the Committee on some of the recommendations it has made in that area, but it is a very difficult area in which to be specific. The question of attitudes is critically important to the future of manufacturing in this country, particularly in the area of education, because the future of manufacturing is going to depend on the type of people we get into the manufacturing sector. Let me give the Senate an example of the sort of problem we have. I was told today of a group of Sydney school children who a couple of weeks ago were given a guided tour, at their teacher's request, of one of Sydney's most efficient and clean factories. At the end of the tour the teacher turned to the students and warned them that this was where they would finish up if they did not knuckle down at school. That is a very sad attitude, because manufacturing offers great scope and great opportunities for very rewarding and interesting employment. I think that is a good example of the attitudinal problems that exist in some sections of the community concerning manufacturing industry. I think the report misses many of the real issues, in addition to attitudes, that need to be addressed. For example, in my view the report correctly diagnoses Australia's main economic problems-the record level of debt which is rapidly bankrupting this country, the huge current account deficit that seems to be incapable of being properly brought under control, and the nation's underlying lack of competitiveness. Many of those problems are of the Government's own making through economic mismanagement and policy decisions that have greatly damaged the fabric of Australian industry and the economy over recent years, but the report does not make many recommendations in this area. Although it diagnoses the problems, the real hard problems that need to be solved, those I have just mentioned, get lost in the broader context of the debate over attitudes and other such issues. The report by and large comes down very heavily in favour of positive government intervention in the manufacturing sector, although that support is qualified by statements about the need to ensure cost effectiveness of programs, et cetera. It puts forward a basically prescriptive set of policy recommendations involving governments doing certain things across the gamut of manufacturing industry. I believe that is a fundamental problem with the report because, if we are to solve the problems of manufacturing industry in this country and really revitalise it, which I think everyone in this nation and certainly in this Parliament would agree is essential, we have to make our manufacturing industry more competitive, more hard edged, and more able to stand up for itself in a very highly competitive international environment. If we cannot adopt economic policies which enable it to do that, nothing that we do in the area of prescriptive measures for the manufacturing sector will solve its problems. Again, I congratulate the Committee and its staff on the work they have done. I think the Committee has produced a report that is worthy of detailed consideration. It is a very useful addition to the Parliament's literature and thoughts in this area. I hope that we will give it the consideration it deserves but, as I say, I find it a disappointing report. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.25) —I rise to make a few brief remarks on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled Manufacturing Industry Revitalisation: Making it Together. I wish particularly to make some remarks about the minority report put down by my colleague Senator Coulter. With all due respect to Senator McKiernan, his comments as a member of that Committee might be seen in some sense as devaluing that minority report. I refer in particular to his reference to the fact that Senator Coulter had become a member of the Committee relatively late, given that the Committee was set up with this reference in 1986 and that Senator Coulter did not come to this place until 1987. I think it is important to recognise that, as part of the democratic political process in this country, the people of this nation-thank goodness-quite often make changes to their representation in this place, and as a result there are changes in committee representation. I would not want, particularly on a broadcast day, any implication to be left hanging in the air that if a senator did not serve on a committee for its full length of time or did not attend every meeting of that committee, the contribution that senator might make would be of any less value. Indeed, of the whole of this report I find the minority report the most refreshing. As Senator Coulter said in his report, his dissatisfaction is not so much with what the report says but with those assumptions, which Senator McKiernan pointed out had been set in place before Senator Coulter actually joined the Committee. Senator Coulter subsequently found those assumptions to be unsatisfactory and chose to put down a minority report based on a holistic view of all of the elements of our activities as members not only of the Australian community but of the global community, and based on different assumptions about what is meant by development-industrial development in this case-and about the results of development. As I have said, I find this minority report to be a fresh and courageous approach in the area of industrial development, one which is based on a very deep concern not just for the survival and development of industry in Australia but indeed for the survival of our whole planet. I think the points that Senator Coulter made in his speech earlier and which are made in his dissenting report are very important for all of us in a broader context but also in relation to industrial development in Australia, which was the brief of this Committee. That is not to say that the body of the report does not bring forward valuable insights. I simply want to underscore the fact that, late though Senator Coulter's election may have been in the context of this reference to the Committee-I point out that he made earlier attempts to become a member of the Senate-the insights which he has been advocating outside this Parliament for some decades have been brought to this Parliament and subsequently to the Committee by courtesy of the voters in the democratic system in Australia, particularly those of South Australia. Not only do I find this minority report refreshing and quite inspiring, but also I have found the election of Senator Coulter to this place to have the same effect. I think it would be a pity if discussion on this report were to conclude leaving any cloud over the value of a minority report which is as important as this one. We are all concerned about the depletion of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect, but some of us have held that concern for very much longer than the current public debate would indicate all too many people have held it. These are issues which must be borne in mind in all areas of our social and economic development, and that is a very strong point in this minority report, which I commend here today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 28 September, on motion by Senator Aulich: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 28 September, on motion by Senator Giles: That the Senate take note of the report. Consideration (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 28 September, on motion by Senator Cook: That the following Sessional Order, contained in the Report, be adopted: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in a debate on a motion for the suspension of any Standing or Sessional Order a Senator shall not speak for more than 5 minutes, and if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the moving of the motion the question on the motion shall then be put. Consideration (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I present the twelfth report of 1988 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1988 and Taxation Laws Amendment (Tax File Numbers) Bill 1988. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 12 dated 12 October 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL 1988 Consideration resumed. (Quorum formed) The CHAIRMAN —Before lunch the Committee was considering the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 as a whole and amendment (32) moved by Senator Chapman on behalf of the Opposition. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Chapman be agreed to. Amendment negatived. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(4.35) —I move: Page 131, after subclause 264 (6), add the following new subclause: ``(7) Where a member of an organisation has ceased to be eligible to become a member and has not, for a period of 12 months, paid membership subscriptions that the rules of the organisation require members to pay, the person shall be deemed to have resigned from membership.''. This amendment is designed to facilitate the resignation of a member of an organisation who has left the job to which membership of that organisation relates. It provides that where a member of an organisation has ceased to be eligible to become a member of that organisation and has not, for a period of 12 months, paid membership subscriptions that the rules of the organisations require members to pay, the person shall be deemed to have resigned from membership. In that respect it picks up one aspect of amendment (32) which was the last amendment moved by the Opposition and which was not supported by the Committee. This further amendment would allow people who wish to remain members of the organisation they are no longer eligible to join to do so. A 12-month period of grace is provided to deal with seasonal workers who may work in a particular industry for only part of the year but who would normally retain their membership of the organisation. It would deal, however, with the situation of a person who has left a job without formally resigning his membership from the organisation in writing. We believe it is quite unfair to require him to do so. It is for this reason that we have moved this amendment. I believe it warrants the support of the Committee. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.37) —The Government opposes the amendment. We appreciate the spirit of the amendment and the motives for it being moved by the Opposition. However, as is often the case, even though something may appear to be attractive on the face of it, there are some inherent problems with the proposition being put forward. In fact, the Government believes that quite a number of practical problems would emanate from an amendment such as this if it were passed. The amendment's main aim is to provide an automatic system of terminating membership of an organisation. It does this whether a member wants this to happen or not. Persons who may inadvertently forget to pay their subscriptions to organisations while they are away or for some other reason-as many of us often do-will have their membership interrupted. On the face of it this may not appear to be much of a problem. But, as honourable senators involved in industrial relations may know, removing continuity of membership has consequent problems. For instance, qualifying periods for standing for office relate to continuity of membership. As well as that, rights of membership-rights to loans, grants, donations from the union, funeral benefits, legal services and so on-may depend on continuity of membership. So to have an automatic suspension of membership because of the circumstances encompassed by the amendment could cause problems for particular members who, as I said, may not want their membership to lapse. That is the primary problem. There are, of course, other problems. By having such a mechanism we may in fact find problems in respect of voting in union ballots. For instance, although union membership may have elapsed, the union records may not have been consequently amended. Organisations could be involved in expensive legal proceedings because of the direct inflexible approach of the amendment put forward by the Opposition. Eligibility of membership of an organisation is also something which is not very readily identifiable. In fact, the industrial law of this country is riddled with quite a number of cases of union members trying to organise within unions. Disputes can arise in regard to the eligibility of members within groups. As a consequence, an inflexible amendment, such as the one that is proposed, will have indirect effects on that regime of law and structure that is in place in the industrial system. All in all, therefore, the Government does not support the amendment. Finally, I should say that the term `membership subscriptions' is in itself inherently flawed in that we do not know whether the Opposition means by this all payments or whether it includes levies, partial payments and so on. So there is that problem as well. But mainly for the reasons of inflexibility and the dire consequences that could in fact flow from an inflexible amendment such as this, the Government is not moved to support it even though we do appreciate the motives behind the amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.42) —I congratulate Senator Chapman for raising this issue because it is a matter which is of concern not only to individual members of unions but also to unions themselves and, I have no doubt, employer organisations. The union movement tends to get a bad name when unions-and I have one in mind-attempt to chase people who have left the industry for back dues. I would think that most unions, most registered industrial organisations, take a realistic view of this situation. Clause 195(d) states: shall require the organisation to inform applicants for membership, in writing, of: (i) the financial obligations arising from membership; and (ii) the circumstances, and the manner, in which a member may resign from the organisation. Many people are involved in time consuming work and they may not always bear in mind what they were told when they made application for union membership. Of course, they may have made application many years previously. If they go out of their occupation they may think that they are not covered by the awards of the union which has coverage of the industry. Therefore, they may feel that they are not obliged to continue paying union dues. Most unions, including the one to which I belong, treat union membership on a practical basis. Many unions have what are known as the purging rules. These rules enable the committee of management of a registered industrial organisation from time to time to purge its register of members who are no longer in the industry. My recollection is that under those circumstances the member concerned is advised that his name is going to be purged from the membership records. He is given the opportunity of responding to that advice. The previous amendment proposed a period of six months. This amendment proposes 12 months. In answer to what the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) said, a member of an organisation may be interested in using the services offered by a union-for example, loans that may be made available. He may be interested in picking up his membership again after a period of 12 months. Seasonal workers, who may work for only three months, may want to remain members of an organisation. Clearly, the amendment which had a six months provision would not have covered that situation. Senator Chapman clearly understood the position and therefore changed the period to 12 months. In response to what the Minister said, 12 months seems to be adequate in that during that period a member who is interested in obtaining the services of a union or, indeed, standing for office or engaging in some other activity in respect of which he would need to maintain his continuity of membership, surely would be interested in making the appropriate payments. However, I think this matter has been aired before the committee today. Again, I appreciate Senator Chapman raising the matter. This is a matter which is of pretty broad concern. Perhaps I will await any undertaking that might be given by the Government before I vote on the matter. This is a matter that should be of interest to the National Labour Consultative Committee, the employers and the unions. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.48) —I think the point raised by Senator Chapman is a very important one. When I think back to the various unions of which I have been a member-truck drivers, storemen and packers, teachers and so forth-I cannot remember ever writing a letter to resign. Although the rules obviously require one to submit a written resignation, one assumes when one moves on that one does not need to pay any longer. I was just trying to think of some other instances. Senator Colston —You might get an account next week. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, I probably will. One tends to move out of most of the organisations in the community to which one belongs by not paying rather than by actually sending a formal written resignation as is required by this Bill. I wonder whether the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) is able to inform the committee of whether or not that aspect was considered when the Bill was being drafted. The provisions in clause 264, to which an amendment has been moved, seem to suggest a level of involvement and understanding of the rules that I do not think are possessed by an ordinary member of any organisation. Senator Chapman alluded to the problem of a union actually pursuing someone for back pay of $400, $500, $600, $700, or whatever, when that person wishes to come back into an industry on the basis that he has always in fact been a member of the union. That proposition seems to be a bit steep. The possibility does not seem to exist of getting out of a union by simply not paying. That is the reading that I have of the clause. If that is not true, probably the problem is dissolved. If a person does not pay dues after the three-month period that is mentioned in the clause, will that automatically mean that the person is no longer a member of the union? If that is the case, the problem dissolves; but, on my reading of the clause, the person hangs on to membership in some form or another, and that is where the problem arises. I think that it is a real problem, and the Opposition's argument should be answered. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(4.50) —I speak as a former full time union official and I see a problem in this area-a problem of which unions are aware. To my knowledge, most unions have not resolved the problem. Let me give the committee an instance where this provision could operate in the opposite way to that which is intended. As a member of parliament, as a senator, I am still technically eligible to be a member of the union for which I worked, and indeed for 17 years I have been a member of that union both in this country and of its parent body back in the United Kingdom. What happens if through no fault of mine I do not pay my union dues and subscriptions at the due date? Different unions have different time frames for payment; some require payment quarterly or fortnightly and others require annual payments. If through some delay in the post the account does not arrive or through neglect-and this happened on one occasion to me-the individual union member does not pay the subscription when due, that person will be cut out of the union even though that was not that person's intention. It may happen because those concerned were slack. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but I think that carriage of this amendment could raise many more problems than it would solve. However, I understand that the Government intends to oppose it. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.52) —I wish to respond to the contributions made by Senator Harradine and Senator Macklin. Senator Harradine asked whether the Government was prepared to take the issue to the National Labour Consultative Council. I am in a position to say that we will do so, and I hope that satisfies Senator Harradine's request. I recognise that his experience in this area gives the Government great cause to listen to his contributions on an issue such as this. Senator Macklin asked questions about the rights and knowledge of members. The Government was sufficiently concerned to include in the Bill clause 195, which makes it mandatory on industrial organisations to advise members of an organisation of their rights and obligations, and more particularly to make them aware of the method of resignation adopted by that industrial organisation. I think that answers the first part of Senator Macklin's question. Senator Macklin made a couple of points about his involvement in trade unions, but obviously he has not been followed across the country in pursuit of unpaid dues. I am in the same position as Senator Macklin. I have not been followed across the country by the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, of which I was a member for some time, or by any other organisation such as the shop assistants union. Clause 264 sets out the processes of resignation and tightens the existing provisions of the law but, in essence, the bottom line is that, if a person has not taken a positive act of resigning, he or she can be eligible for membership. The Government feels that, given the regime of industrial law, the Opposition's amendment is too inflexible. We recognise that problems have been raised in this debate to warrant further consideration by the National Labour Consultative Council. Accordingly, we are prepared to pass the issue on to that Council. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.00) —The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988 allocate payments to the States for the year 1988-89 as agreed by the Commonwealth and the States at the Loan Council meeting on 12 May. The allocation payable to the States and the Northern Territory is $621m. This is purely a machinery Bill and, as I understand it, the Opposition will support it without amendment. The legislation gives the Senate the opportunity to debate the Government's housing record. I am sorry to tell the Senate that it is a very sorry record indeed. There are 168,217 Australians on the welfare housing list; the first home owners assistance scheme is being dismantled; home interest rates are now at a record level; the cost of purchasing a home has nearly doubled since the Australian Labor Party came to power in 1983; 40,000 people are permanently homeless and another 60,000 are on the verge of homelessness; the average income does not qualify for the average home loan; and the Government's policy on capital gains tax on investment housing is acting to the detriment of people seeking welfare housing, rental housing or private housing. We have seen the priority given to pushing people into welfare housing and we have all seen a reduction in the quality and size of homes in the last five years. All of this proves unequivocally that this Government's housing policy has been and is in a shambles. It has abandoned thousands of young married couples with young families to high private rental or a three- or four-year wait in housing commission queues. Many of those people will never have the satisfaction or pride of being able to say, `That is our home. We can make improvements, add extensions or pass it on to our children when we go'. This policy is anathema to the coalition: it is totally against the ethos and philosophy of the National and Liberal parties. If I could draw a difference between those parties and the Government Party it would be the difference in their housing policies. The coalition is committed to seeing all young married couples have a home that they own-not a rented home or one for which they pay rent to welfare housing, but a home in which they can take pride and about which they can say, `This is our little home. We can build on it and extend it where necessary and when money becomes available'. We do not want to see people pushed into welfare housing. Five or six years ago a young couple with savings could go to a bank or, probably in those times, a building society and take out a modest loan to get a decent home in a reasonable suburb. Around 12 or 13 squares would have been the size of an average worker's home in those days in Queensland. It would probably have had three bedrooms, a dining room and a lounge room, have been on stumps and had car accommodation underneath. As the couple progressed and came into more money as time went on, they would put a cement slab under the house and extend the downstairs area by building a rumpus room and so on. In the end they had a nice, comfortable, probably 15-square home. I am afraid to say that nowadays the same worker's dwelling is around eight or nine squares in size. It is a small brick house on a cement base with little option of improvement or extension. It is probably built on a small lot, is badly serviced and is in an outlying suburb. That is what the worker has been reduced to under this Government's housing policy. Before I became a member of the Senate I was involved in the hardware and housing industry. I know that the standard of workers' dwellings has slipped abysmally over the last five or six years. Many people feel trapped in outer suburbs as they have no or very little transport. What the worker can afford now is certainly inferior to what he was able to obtain four or five years ago. The Government's housing performance is second to none in the damage inflicted against the 90 per cent of those Australians who work hard to own their own home. Under this Government the cost of buying a home has nearly doubled. In 1983-84 the average monthly loan repayment was $335, based on a loan of $33,000 at 11.5 per cent interest over 25 years. In 1988 the average home loan repayment is $620, based on a home loan of $55,000 at 14.5 per cent interest over 25 years. Home loan repayments have doubled; the standard of living has dropped by about 50 per cent; and the working man is in a far worse housing position than he was when the Labor Party came to office. I have taken out some figures from the Parliamentary Library which I believe should be read into the record. In New South Wales the repayments on an average housing loan have risen from $472 per month in 1984 to $857 per month in 1988, representing an increase of 82 per cent. In Victoria the average monthly repayment has increased from $405 to $710, an increase of 75 per cent; in South Australia from $415 to $598, an increase of 44 per cent; in Western Australia from $368 to $581, an increase of 58 per cent; in Tasmania from $293 to $475, an increase of 62 per cent; and in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) from $541 to $741, a modest increase of 37 per cent in four years. It is no wonder that the results of the Oxley by-election came out as they did when the working men and women of this nation have to pay such repayments and rents. They feel that they have been cheated. They cannot afford to meet their commitments and, correspondingly, they show their objection in the ballot box. The figures that I have obtained also show an increase in the cost of dwellings. In Sydney the cost rose by 80 per cent in two years; in Melbourne, 20 per cent; Brisbane, 23.7 per cent; Perth, 26.9 per cent; and so on. People just cannot afford to get into their own home. Let us examine some of the reasons, some of the policies that the Government has enunciated. It has changed its housing policy 23 times. Probably the worst example of why housing in Australia is in a crisis would be the Government's policy on capital gains tax. It has directly contributed to the escalating home price spiral which has led to an 80 per cent price increase in New South Wales in the past 12 months. The capital gains tax has actively discouraged investment in private rental housing. Why would anyone purchase a property to rent when the average return after paying for insurance, repairs, rates and land tax is 4 or 5 per cent and there is the disincentive of a capital gains tax? Therefore all those houses that were on the rental market have now been pulled off the market and sold. That has left a big gap in rental housing. No one in the Labor Party saw that when it introduced a capital gains tax. It did not heed the warnings of the coalition. We told the Labor Party that that is exactly what would have happened. Our worst fears were realised. Hundreds of rental homes were sold. People who relied on that rental housing were pushed into outer suburbs, pushed into welfare housing queues, went to stay with their parents, or paid exorbitant rents. It is clearly a policy introduced by the Labor Party that has brought this problem forward. Capital that should have gone into land development, subdivision, industrial and commercial property and rental housing, such as flats and units, is to be diverted away because of this Government's capital gains tax. This tax has distorted the natural growth and development of our building infrastructure. Instead of investing in these areas and relieving some of the housing demand pressures, funds have been channelled into expensive personal housing-on many occasions it is far beyond the needs of the owner-to avoid capital gains tax. That is what is firing the cost-spiral on housing in Sydney. People are buying homes that they do not really require and are using them as a tax haven. We warned the Government about that too and it never took any notice. It really turns up the heat on the market, prices escalate wildly and it is denying the low income families, the working class men and women that the Government is supposed to represent, the opportunity to own their own home. I think the Government ought to consider that because it is very important. It is one of the major issues that is pushing up housing in all capital cities in Australia today. Home ownership is less affordable today than it has ever been in the last five years. The situation is not improving; quite the contrary, it is getting worse as time goes on. The average annual disposable family income is around $34,500. An annual disposable income of $39,000 is needed to qualify for a loan to buy an average house. There are very few people who are on $39,000 a year. What about the process workers? What about the factory workers? These people are all entitled to own their own home. They are workers who normally vote for the Labor Party. They are the people that the Government is supposed to represent in this Parliament. Yet it has denied them the right to have their own home because of its policies that are just not working. A disposable income of $39,500 is required to own a home in a capital city today. If that does not particularly hit home honourable senators should think about the shortfall between the average home loan which the average family cannot afford and the actual median prices for houses in our capital cities today. I wish to give some figures from the Real Estate Institute of the ACT. These figures shocked me because I thought they were excessive. In Sydney today a home costs $170,500. In Melbourne the average home is $116,000, in Brisbane it is $77,000 and in Adelaide $82,500. Overall, the national average is $103,857. That is for an average home. The Government has reduced the maximum deposit under the first home owners scheme for a family with one child to $2,000. Under the coalition's policy, the Government would meet the cost of mortgage insurance. That would allow people to buy homes without paying a deposit. That policy was welcomed by the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. and the Real Estate Institute of Australia as innovative and trying to do something for the average person who wants to buy his own home. The Government has pushed funds away from private housing into the public sector. In 1981-82, Commonwealth funding was split 46 per cent for purchase assistance and 54 per cent for public housing. In 1986-87, Commonwealth funding was 27 per cent for purchase assistance and 73 per cent for public housing. The first home owners scheme has had its funding cut from $306m in 1984-85 to $222m in 1987-88 with individual grants being cut last May by $1,000. It is becoming increasingly apparent that home purchase assistance is pushing towards welfare housing. A magazine I have states: Recent studies have shown that greater benefits are arising from providing assistance to home buyers. The benefits include increased levels of employment among the families, a reduced dependency on welfare income, high levels of satisfaction with the housing and enthusiasm for home repairs and improvements which add generally to the quality of Australia's housing stock. More than two-thirds of a group that was surveyed had made some sort of alterations ranging from $1,000 to $10,000. The families reported greater security, independence, privacy and investment potential on their housing. When asked what this housing purchase assistance meant to them one respondent summed it up by saying it is like winning Lotto; own a bit of land, independence, something that will become ours and when we go it goes to the kids. It is basically what you live for, to own you own home and pass it on. All Australians would prefer to own their own home'. That is the commitment that this coalition gives. When returned to office we are determined that we will make that one of our major commitments. If a family has its own home and enjoys its own home it is clearly shown that their quality of lifestyle rises and they become part of the surrounding areas. They generally find that their kids get jobs and they are totally committed to that style of life. Most Australians have home ownership as their major ambition. Let us just look at Commonwealth payments to the States for housing and community amenities. These payments also have dropped significantly. There was a decrease of 14.5 per cent in 1987-88. There is a projected decrease of another 8.9 per cent in 1988-89. It does not really matter whether one is seeking welfare housing, rental housing or housing in the private housing market; no matter what sector one is in at present one is worse off since this Government came to power. Housing queues have continued to increase at record rates. In 1982-83 123,707 people were waiting for housing. In 1987-88 the number in those queues had increased to 185,000 people. The number of people on waiting lists for assistance under the home purchase assistance programs stands at 79,000. These intolerably long waiting lists are a direct result of the Government allocating insufficient funds to home ownership. I turn now to loan repayments as a percentage of family income. The Real Estate Institute found that in the June quarter of last year 31.3 per cent of the median family income was spent on monthly loan repayments. This was a rate of repayment well above the 25 per cent which is generally recognised as the amount a family can afford to allocate. The Australian ratio of average home loan repayments to median family income for loans approved in the June quarter was assessed at 28.4 per cent of the average worker's income. As I have mentioned, overall it is a sorry state of affairs. Under no circumstances is any sector of the Australian community better off under this Labor Government's housing policy. The Government has failed. It has failed every sector. The coalition rejects the Government's housing policy. We reject the forcing of people into queues. We reject the Government's bankrupting of the pride of hundreds of thousands of Australians who can see no light at the end of the rental tunnel. We reject the high inflation, high taxing and decreasing real wages policies of this Government. The Housing Industry Association has welcomed the coalition's response to the housing problem. It has described our pro-ownership policy as bold and innovative and a response to mounting housing affordability problems. The coalition policy transfers the emphasis from the provision of public housing by government to the provision of much more support for private home ownership. While the Opposition supports this Bill, let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that we are certainly not happy with the way Australians are being housed under this Government. Once home ownership for our young people is wiped out, there will be very few dreams left for our young married people. We do not support this Government's attitude of pushing people into welfare housing. On our return to government we will support a policy that will see many of our young people able to afford homes that they can call their own. Senator Reynolds —How will you pay for it? Senator BOSWELL —We will pay for it by increasing productivity, not by increasing taxes as the Government has done in the last five years. The Government has earned the title of the highest taxing government in Australia. That does not allow people to own their own homes. All it does is push people into welfare housing as they are forced to pay increasing taxes and become reliant on welfare housing and welfare benefits. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(5.25) —This afternoon we are discussing the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988, which, on the face of it, seems fairly inconsequential. The main purpose of this Bill is to obtain the approval of this Parliament for payments in 1988-89 of interest free capital grants to the States of $310,504,000 and loans up to the same amount which the States may nominate for any public housing purpose. It should be noted that this was the same amount of money given in 1987-88, although the grant component has been lifted from one-third to a half. Although the Commonwealth at the Loan Council meeting indicated that the States should apply the additional expenditures to public housing, there is no guarantee that this will occur. The criticism of this Bill really rests on the point which I have made on several other occasions this afternoon; that is, the flaws in the basic economic model which this Government is following and, indeed, which the Opposition would be following if it were the government. It is a naked, market-driven type economic model which inevitably leaves the poor at the bottom of the heap and less able to participate either in home ownership or in the taking up of the limited amount of public housing which becomes available. I would like to refer to that point again later. The relationship between poverty and housing costs in this country has been well documented on a greater number of occasions. It is important to realise that there is a significant difference in the way in which the incidence of poverty is measured before and after people have paid for their housing; that is, if one measures their income before housing and after housing. There has been a rapid rise in poverty in this country from the early 1970s right through to the present time. Poverty among children has increased, as has the poverty among people after housing costs have been paid. The increase is from 6.6 per cent to 11.1 per cent over that time. There has also been a shift in poverty from the elderly to the young, who are more likely to have children. We have all seen figures indicating that in fact the number of children in families living below the poverty line is now very substantial. It is well over 20 per cent. That is largely because the costs of housing for the young tend to be higher. Elderly people are more likely to own their own homes. Of course, one reason for that is that as populations increase, as cities expand, so the demand for housing, particularly given the speculative nature of the market system which both this Government and the Opposition support, disadvantages those people who enter the market late. It makes the costs of housing for those people much higher, compared with the cost for those people who entered that market system much earlier and who have already paid for their housing. The need for public housing in this country is indeed urgent. The figures indicate that some 40,000 people are now homeless and that waiting lists for public housing will number some 250,000 households in the year 1990-given the predictions from recent trends. Growing numbers of people cannot afford to rent in the private rental market or gain access to home ownership. I think Senator Boswell has given some of the figures indicating that area of concern. Some 150,000 people live in caravan parks. This Bill, which directs a significant amount of money to public housing, can only be supported. But if we are to address the problems of housing in this country we must go well beyond simple grants and loans to the States for public housing. We are seeing simply a bandaid approach to what is basically a flawed economic model. I stress again, if one assumes that the way in which the major economic development in this country is to be managed is simply to leave it to naked market forces in the belief, as was said many years ago by a famous economist, that it is an invisible hand, the invisible hand will demonstrably advantage the wealthy and will substantially disadvantage the poor. This is precisely what we have seen in recent years with an increasing gap between the few who are wealthy and becoming wealthier and the majority who are becoming poorer and less able to afford housing. An example of the operation of this market system was given last week in, I think, Friday's Australian Financial Review. A lead article on the front page suggested that the Government might have to tighten monetary policy, that is, increase home interest rates, to rein in the `overheated housing sector'. The operation of the market and the placing of a higher emphasis on economic indicators than on the welfare of people lead to the conclusion that the overheating of the market sector, which is consequent upon the increased demand, leads to the necessity of increasing interest rates, and that clearly impacts upon the poor rather than on the wealthy. The wealthy, or those above a significant income-Senator Boswell mentioned an income of $39,000 a year-perhaps can afford to pay at the higher interest rates. But if interest rate movements are used as an instrument of economic policy, ignoring the fact that large numbers of people are without housing, or have inadequate housing, in this country, the consequences will be that fewer people will be able to afford to buy housing and more people will be forced into the public housing sector. That is, of course, precisely where this bandaid approach of the Government, as indicated in this Bill, will apply. The fact that there is a shortage of housing in this country and that 150,000 people live in caravan parks does not seem to have any bearing on the thinking of economists who simply look at market indicators. As I have said, the less well-off are particularly disadvantaged by the increase in home interest rates. So, serving the dictates of economic indicators-and we hear this all the time from the Treasurer (Mr Keating), Senator Walsh and Senator Button, and considerably more often from Opposition spokespersons-does not serve the welfare of ordinary people. Governments can spend on housing in a number of ways. In 1984-85, $3 billion was spent directly on housing, for the construction of public sector rental housing, for assistance with rents and home purchase, and for special housing programs in the community. Housing subsidies are well targeted to low income groups but tax expenditures mainly benefit home owners and the rich. The average public sector tenant received $1,795 worth of assistance in 1984-85 while the average owner-occupier received $1,250. Private sector tenants, however, obtained benefits worth less than $300 per household. That indicates clearly how the present tax structure advantages, yet again, those who are better off and disadvantages those in the community who are less well off. It is well documented that the highest incidence of poverty is in households that rent on the private market. Since 1985 the trend has been to increase tax discrimination in favour of owner-occupiers, with the introduction of the capital gains tax on all assets except the dwellings of owner-occupiers. This exemption was worth about $1,500m to owner-occupiers. If this Government were a true Labor government and genuinely considered the needs of the poor and disadvantaged, it would consider a tax on realised capital gains by owner-occupiers, or a tax on net imputed rentals, and use those funds to increase levels of social security payments, especially to families with children. I remind the Government that it promised that no child in Australia would live in poverty by 1990. Another way in which this could be done would be for the Government to shift the tax burden to a land value tax system, which would substantially remove the speculative element from new land developments, one of those factors which militate heavily against young home owners, the young marrieds as Senator Boswell calls them, who wish to get their foot on the bottom rung of that very steep and difficult ladder leading eventually to home ownership. The International Year of Shelter for the Homeless report stated: Because these (ie non taxation of capital gains of owner occupied houses) and other tax concessions lower the cost of home ownership for many wealthy people, they serve to drive up the overall price of housing thus further disadvantaging those who do not benefit from those subsidies. More than half of the nation's private wealth is in residential property, much of which was accumulated through the generous tax treatments and subsidies for owner-occupiers. One must remember that this Government removed negative gearing and later reintroduced it on the grounds that it was supposed to provide more housing for low income families. It seems very difficult to collect reliable statistics on this, but there has not been a large increase in housing available at the lower end of the market for people in real need, as a consequence of the reintroduction of negative gearing. In fact, when negative gearing was introduced, it was pointed out that the Treasury White Paper on tax reform before the tax summit-this is when the Labor Government first came into office-in arguing the justice and equity case for the abolition of negative gearing, showed that in 1982-83 14 per cent of individuals with negatively geared property would have taxable incomes of more than $100,000 if negative gearing had then been disallowed, while less than 2 per cent would have had taxable incomes below the then average wage. It would be useful to merely assert that the reintroduction of negative gearing has disadvantaged the less well off; it has encouraged more speculation throughout the housing market rather than developing new housing; and to the extent that it has caused wealthy property developers to buy up low cost housing and to pull down those buildings and develop those areas for higher cost housing, it has made less lower cost housing available to those in real need. Another point bearing on Government policy and also on the policy of the Opposition is that infrastructure costs consequent upon the growth model that the Government and Opposition are both following are getting completely out of hand. It is a matter of fact that 80 per cent of the population increase in Australia since the Second World War has occurred in capital cities. It is a matter of fact that the maintenance of the infrastructure for those cities has not been properly allowed for. If one turns to the South Australian Government submission to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, one discovers that the infrastructure costs in South Australia for the five-year period from 1985 to 1990 are estimated to be $800m. Yet by 1995 and to the year 2000, because of the ageing of the infrastructure-the sewer pipes, the water pipes, the electricity, the roads, the curbs, the telephones and everything else-the infrastructure costs will amount to $3,000m. Those costs will totally account for all the public sector spending on infrastructure at that time, leaving nothing whatsoever for the expansion of cities and the provision of new services. Yet this Government and the Opposition are apparently committed to a program of increasing the size of cities and of the population, and that again can only disadvantage those who are less well off. Again, it is a matter of fact that the costs of electricity, water, roads and transport are increasing much faster than the inflation rate or the rate of growth of the gross national product. Of course, one might remark in passing that all these costs are added to gross national product. They are counted as benefits in the peculiar system of national accounting which this and most other industrial countries have adopted. I refer to a letter in the West Australian today pointing to the decrease in rainfall in Western Australia, possibly as a consequence of greenhouse warming. The article points to the need to impose water restrictions in Perth. Again, there will be a further increase in cost as water becomes more scarce, and a further decline in the quality of life. Who benefits from those developments? It is the very few who can afford to pay the higher costs. Who is disadvantaged? It is the poor, who are at the bottom of the heap and who are less able to meet those costs. It is also of great concern to many Australians-and I have noticed this particularly in Queensland and in Western Australia-that there appears to be increasing foreign ownership of Australian real estate, particularly speculation in real estate in Australia by foreign owners. This again, while it is encouraged by an emphasis on economic indicators rather than the welfare of people, is substantially disadvantaging those who are attempting to enter the housing market. I think it would be very interesting to have both the Government and the Opposition support the Australian Democrats' calls for a register of foreign ownership of Australian real estate so that we would get some indication of just what precisely is going on in that area. The Australian Democrats will support this Bill as it is, but indicate very forcefully that it and many other measures which this Government brings forward are in the nature of bandaids. A more fundamental approach is required which really would see the adoption of a totally different economic model. It would use different indicators of human welfare rather than the very broad and totally inadequate economic indicators which are not really based on human welfare at all. It must be said that this Bill will go some small way towards addressing very real housing needs of this country, but we believe that there must be this reassessment of taxation policy to ensure that the housing dollar is directed primarily at the poor and especially the families with children. This will ensure that the housing factor in poverty will be minimised. In conclusion, it is worth drawing attention also to a recent publication titled How Many Australians? and edited by two demographers from the Australian National University. On the matter of housing, if honourable senators would like to refer to that book, they will see that there is a very interesting paper which draws comparisons between Sweden and Australia. Sweden, which has had a substantially stable population for quite a long time and which is doing better both educationally and economically than Australia, is also doing substantially better in the housing area. Instead of simply building more houses, which Australia has been intent on doing, Sweden has been able to concentrate on building better houses and, because it is building better houses, it is able to sell that technology to other countries. So it has established a substantial overseas benefit from its emphasis on quality housing rather than simply building more houses. One other remark one might make in reflecting on the economic policies of this Government is that, in a market driven system where the creation of credit is left with the private banks, one sees enormous wealth accumulating in the centres of the major capital cities. If one looks around any of the Australian cities one sees cranes dotting the skyline and banks, insurance companies and other lending institutions building very vigorously. That is not where Australia needs to be building. Australia needs to be building in the suburbs, where people need housing. But the economic structure which this Government is accepting, the economic structure which accepts the dictates of those market forces and does nothing to turn them around, will simply again continue to benefit the wealthy and will progressively produce disbenefits for those less well off. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(5.47) —Today we are debating the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988. This Bill will authorise the payments during 1988-89 of capital grants to the States and the Northern Territory for the purpose of public housing. I suppose this is a particularly important Bill because there are so many people out there in Australia who are desperately in need of public housing and who, for one reason or another, are prevented from getting it. I think the great tragedy that we are now seeing is the waiting list. People have to go onto the end of the waiting lists for many months to try to obtain housing. That is made even more serious by the fact that many of these people have children and simply cannot get housing. This Government in its overall record has not assisted home ownership in Australia one iota. Senator Richardson —Nonsense. Senator KNOWLES —It is not nonsense. The facts that I will give in a moment will prove that it is anything but nonsense. Those people who are on the end of the waiting lists will not believe that is nonsense either. Today in this House we have had a further example as to why there are waiting lists: people who can quite afford to buy a house actually make sure that they occupy a house that those who cannot afford housing could occupy. They refuse to get out of public housing because of their own selfish desires. Despite the protests of people such as Senator Richardson, this Government cannot escape the basic fact that home loan repayments now consume 28 per cent of median family income, compared with 19 per cent when it took office in 1983. That is a dramatic increase when one stops and thinks that wages certainly have not been able to cope with that type of increase. There is absolutely no escaping the fact that the cost of housing is rising above the general rate of inflation. In Perth, my home city, we are told, home buyers are fortunate to be looking at purchasing homes, compared with those Sydney. The average price of an established home in Perth has risen 45 per cent over the past year. I do not think that that is any mean increase either. The average three-bedroom brick and tile home in Perth 12 months ago cost about $50,000, and one could get a pretty reasonable place for that. Only 12 months later one will be looking not at $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000, but at $72,500-for a very average brick and tile home. If a person wants a bit more room-and 12 months ago he would have been looking at $70,000-he will now be looking at over $100,000. I think that is a real reflection on what this Government is all about. A house selling for even $60,000 in September of last year would have cost $81,000 in August this year. But the dramatic increase in the last month would have made that $81,000 equivalent to $87,000. This is being felt across the board, with the cost of renting also rising. Once price rises of this nature occur there will also, of course, be rental increases. There has been an 11 per cent rise in the rental cost of a two bedroom unit in Perth over the last year. The pressure has been put on units particularly because units are now being sought by those who cannot afford the rise in the rental cost of houses. Increases in the cost of renting a unit have certainly outstripped inflation in all major cities except Sydney. I do not think condemning some people to very small, poky units in a high rise complex is necessarily giving them a ride on the gravy train for the rest of their lives. Statistics of the Real Estate Institute of Australia for the June quarter show a sharp decline in home affordability, reversing the earlier recovery that was evident in the March quarter figures. The ratio of home loan repayments to median family income is 28.4 per cent, up from 27 per cent only 12 months ago. So with the passing of every month the slice of income that is needed to afford housing is getting bigger and bigger. Quite honestly, I would hate to be a young person these days trying to break into the property market to provide security for himself and his family because, in the first instance, where can he raise enough for a deposit and, in the second instance, how can he afford the repayments and the high interest rates? In Western Australia in the June quarter of 1987-88 affordability tightened by 1.2 per cent and the total median price rose by 12.3 per cent, compared with an inflation rate of 6.7 per cent. So the rises are certainly outstripping inflation. We must bear in mind that the more recent figures I have quoted show that the rise has been far greater since then. From the March quarter to the June quarter the price rise in Western Australia was 5.5 per cent, while the general cost of living rose 1.8 per cent. Again and again the figures tell the story. Yet Senator Richardson can quite calmly sit in this chamber and say that that is not so. The Government's own figures prove it. During the June quarter the average Perth building society home loan increased by a staggering 14 per cent. Senator Richardson —Tell us about the first home owners scheme. Senator KNOWLES —I am glad Senator Richardson has raised the first home owners scheme. I will come to it in a minute. I am thrilled that he raised that because that will be another slap in the moosh for him. A study by the Department of Community Services and Health last August estimated that 700,000 Australians have been forced into poverty by increased housing costs-and Senator Richardson thinks that is a drop in the ocean. There is constant evidence that homelessness and the resort to such substandard accommodation as permanent residence in caravan parks are affecting a far wider range of Australians than previously. It is now estimated that an Australian family needs an annual disposable income of $39,500 to qualify for a loan to buy an average house, when the average annual family disposable income is $34,500. The average family needs $39,500, and we must bear in mind that `average' means that there are a heck of a lot of people earning less than $34,500. No wonder the average family needs to have both parents in the work force. It is a necessity rather than a choice. Average monthly repayments have risen from $335 in 1984, when the interest rate was 11.5 per cent, to $620 in 1988, with the interest rate up to 14.5 per cent. We must also remember that interest rates have peaked at even higher levels during this Government's term of office and that it is strongly hinted that they will increase again in the very near future. No Federal government can escape responsibility for interest rates that must inevitably affect housing loans. This Government has relied heavily on monetary policy rather than expenditure restraint to cure our economic ills. Housing interest rates are up a full percentage point this month, and the trend is ominous for Australian families in the very near future. The main responsibility of a Federal government to assist home affordability is through overall economic policy that restrains interest rates and increases family disposable income. But, no, this Government will not do either. It promised tax cuts this year but, of course, for pragmatic political reasons they have been put off until next year, because that is closer to an election. But heaven only knows whether we will get them next year. The average family certainly needs them now and not just when the Government decides to give them because it is more expedient to do it closer to an election. There is also a need for direct assistance, and here also the record of this Government is found wanting. I come to the first home owners scheme, about which Senator Richardson quite proudly said a moment ago, `Whacko! Haven't we done a good job?' This is what the Government has done with it: the 1988 Budget has cut another $44m from it. Over the last three years funds under the scheme have been reduced by 42 per cent, equating to $128m. Senator Richardson is deafening in his silence now. By 1991 the Australian Labor Party plans to diminish it by 75 per cent, and he is proud of that. He sits there with his smirking little grin, proud of that. He is not trying to get a grant under the first home owners scheme, is he? No. Senator Richardson —That makes two of us at least. Senator KNOWLES —I did not say for one moment that the first home owners scheme was good. No, I am not looking for a grant. The honourable senator is saying that the scheme is wonderful. The Government has almost demolished it. It is seeking to diminish it by 75 per cent by 1991. Despite the fact that the cost of housing is moving inexorably in the other direction, the Government is pushing the first home owners scheme down and out. Federal assistance to the States for housing is down 6 per cent in real terms in 1988-89, while public housing queues have risen from 123,000 to 185,000 since Senator Richardson's Government took office-an increase of 50 per cent. Fifty per cent more people are now in those public housing queues. I do not believe that the Government's action in the housing field is simply the result of incompetence and disinterest. Mind you, one is tempted to believe it. Only a Labor government would have entertained the despicable proposal that capital gains taxes or, far worse, a wealth tax should be levied on the family home. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and others who are hostile to home ownership should note that Australia spends 4.7 per cent of gross domestic product on housing while member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development spend 5.3 per cent. We are seriously lagging behind, yet this Government reduces the funds under the first home owners scheme by 20 per cent. A coalition government is pledged to tackle the overall economic problem of high interest rates and the taxation squeeze on the family that, I reiterate, are the root cause of Australia's housing problems. Any member of this Government could go out and ask anyone in any tax bracket whether he or she has a higher disposable income now than when this Government took office. The answer would be no. Those opposite should talk to people about their grocery bills, their lighting bills and their heating bills, but they would not be game. A coalition government will direct greater assistance to those low income families that this Government has progressively neglected and has been proven to neglect by the results of by-elections all through this year. Maximum deposit assistance has been reduced from $3,000 in 1985 to $2,000 today. That is another area where the first home buyer has been hit for six. We will assist those with incomes less than $15,000 by a $300m allocation to bridge the deposit gap and meet the cost of mortgage insurance. A far greater proportion of Federal assistance to the States for housing will be allocated to the promotion of home ownership rather than rental accommodation. We believe that the public housing crisis is best tackled by the sale of public housing stock to tenants and the direction of funds to provide accommodation for those in greatest need. Our policy is based on the ideal that home ownership is not just for middle income earners but also for those low income families who are now forced to rely on public housing. Under the policies of this Labor Government even the middle income family finds the cost of a home moving beyond its reach. There are dramatic differences between where a coalition Government would direct housing and what this Government is doing to diminish the affordability of houses and the chances of people to get public housing. Of course we are not opposing this Bill, because it is desperately needed by people who are in equally desperate straits to get public housing. The people of Australia must be very concerned at their chances and opportunities of ever being able to afford housing under this Government. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(6.01) —The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988 epitomises the continual hypocrisy of this Government in matters such as housing, living standards and the relationship between the two. The message that the electorate sent back to this Labor Government in the Oxley by-election last Saturday, in the by-elections earlier this year and in the referendums has been one which says, `We are not satisfied. This Government is lowering our standards of living'. Housing in the Australian ethos, in the Australian culture, is a most important part of the standard of living as we know it and recognise it. The great Australian dream of owning one's own home is acknowledged, even by the Government, as becoming more and more difficult to achieve. As I said, the message has been continually delivered by the electorate-most recently in the Oxley by-election-that it is dissatisfied with the way the Government is handling its policies. The message which came from western Sydney-that area most adversely affected by government policies-was truly sent home to the Labor Party in March when the Unsworth Government was unceremoniously thrown out of office and we won seats in west Sydney for the first time. The Greiner Government in New South Wales is committed to serving that area, where much of its policy initiative is being placed to ensure that those people who have been disadvantaged by having Labor representation for so long finally get an even break. The home regularly comes in for attention and attack from people that the Government likes to use in a consulting capacity. An example that comes readily to mind is Professor Gruen's continuing wish that we should somehow include the home within the capital gains tax. He makes the point-and there are many in the Government who follow the line-that investment in the home distorts the rest of the investment pattern. This goes towards the line of theory-and many Labor members like to propound the line-that somehow investment in housing is not true investment; that housing is a consumption good as distinct from a valuable investment which they would like to see used in some other way. Recent figures from a study in New South Wales have shown that for each dollar that the Commonwealth invests in housing the combined savings revenue benefit to the Government is $1.30 Very simply, the housing industry-the building of houses and the providing of homes for the people-is a generator of jobs and growth. It is a worthwhile generator of jobs. Housing is an important investment and ought not to be considered, as it is by many, as a consumption item. Professor Gruen is wrong when he wants to penalise people for investing in their homes and to include the home in the capital gains tax. But that of course is step number one in the march towards the wealth tax which is still on the Labor Party's agenda. Those people who feel that their homes or their savings are in jeopardy should well remember that the statistical research that is to be done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and that was so hotly debated in Estimates committees only yesterday could be used as a basis for establishing a test for a future wealth tax. The amount of material being sought in that questionnaire could be the basis of working out a scheme by which a wealth tax could be implemented. Of course, Australians who choose to invest a great part of their lifetime earnings in their homes would become prime targets for such a wealth tax. Senator Richardson —At least they can rest safely in the knowledge that not even you believe that. Senator BISHOP —Indeed, I do believe it. The Labor Party has, fundamentally, in its agenda the march towards such policies. Pragmatists Opposition senators may have been for the last five years but nonetheless the ideological thrust is there. Indeed, the result of the Victorian election means that the Left of the Labor Party is again in some ascendancy in the Victorian Government. It will be interesting to see the policy changes that emerge. It will also be quite significant finally to see whether the successor in the Australian Council of Trade Unions will be Mr Halfpenny. If it is, we will again see a shift and a return to the policies of wealth tax, capital gains tax on housing and taxes that are basically designed to bring people down to the lowest common denominator. Despite the policies and despite research showing that for each dollar invested by the Commonwealth there is a return in a savings revenue benefit of $1.30, there is nonetheless a very long waiting list of people in need of homes. In New South Wales we have inherited some 75,000 such people from the previous Labor Government. The policy that was implemented by Treasurer Keating of getting rid of negative gearing for a time, until he realised the error of his ways and reinstated it, distorted the providing of rental accommodation and has added to the burden of the need for public housing. Following that period when negative gearing was phased out of the taxation benefits that could be accrued, uncertainty as to whether the Labor Government will adhere to the change that is has now made has meant that the return to the building of rental accommodation has not been quite as speedy as some would like. If there is one thing that upsets the market more than anything else it is uncertainty. I was interested to hear Senator Devlin's personal explanation today at the end of Question Time. It dealt with the fact that he is living in public housing, subsidised rental accommodation. It highlighted the hypocrisy that I mentioned earlier. We have a member of this chamber whose salary is well known to all of us because we share it-- Senator Reid —A Labor member. Senator BISHOP —A Labor member in Tasmania has been living for 12 years in public housing for which he pays the grand sum of $74 a week. In his personal explanation Senator Devlin said that, having been in this chamber for four years and being paid as a senator, the only reason that he was still in public housing paying $74 a week and keeping some other needy person out of public housing was that the Tasmanian Government would not sell that particular accommodation to him. He said that the Government would not sell the accommodation to him because the title to it was a joint tenancy. Somehow he was asserting that he had a right to buy that apartment. Yet he has been a senator for four years. The article to which his personal explanation drew my attention disclosed that he was employing his wife. There are two incomes coming into that one household from the public purse, which means that for that four-year period he has been rorting the system. We hear a lot from Treasurer Keating about people who rort the system. Somehow there seems to be one rule for Labor members of parliament and one rule for everybody else. The rules for Labor members of parliament seem to be these: Treasurer Keating is allowed to rort the system and abuse the travelling allowance system to the extent of some $17,000 per annum. He is also allowed to rort the system by having a special relationship with Mr Boucher. It is no wonder he went to his defence the other day when people had the temerity to attack Mr Boucher for not behaving in accordance with the laws of the land and for putting himself above the Parliament. It is no wonder Mr Keating went to his defence because when Mr Keating's tax return had not been filed he did not get, as any ordinary taxpayer would have got, a notice, a penalty and a fine. He got a nice little note which said, `Please, would you mind awfully if you put in your tax return because we have not had it yet?'. Now we have Senator Devlin paying $74 a week for public housing in Tasmania when he and his wife are on the public payroll. The only excuse as to why they are still in that accommodation is that the Tasmanian Government will not sell him the accommodation. I have heard from many a Labor politician the argument that goes this way: no public housing should be sold; all public housing should be kept as a reservoir from which those in the community who are needy should be given preference. Senator Reid —Labor stopped selling public housing in Canberra when it was elected in 1983. Senator BISHOP —I thank Senator Reid. It is interesting to know that the Askin Government in New South Wales was able to sell housing in the public sector to tenants who had been in that accommodation for a considerable time. But the Wran Administration also ceased to sell public housing when it took office. Yet, we have Senator Devlin claiming that it is his right, that the Government ought to sell him this accommodation. As I said-hypocrisy and duplicity. There is one rule for Labor members of parliament and there is one rule for everybody else. And the two rules are very different. I note further that Senator Devlin's accommodation was brought to the attention of the Tasmanian Parliament because a new income related housing rent policy is being introduced during the Tasmanian Parliament's Budget session. It is interesting to note that the Labor Party in opposition in Tasmania has come out and said that this is inequitable, that rental in public housing should not be income related, that some people would have to move out of their homes. Under that new scheme Senator Devlin's rent would go from $74 a week to $450 a week. I do not think he will find that too many of his constituents will think that is inequitable. Yet, once again, the Labor Party in opposition in Tasmania is defending one of its own, saying that it is all right for him to stay there at $74 a week and asking why he should have to pay $450 a week. There is a very good reason, is there not? He and his wife are both being paid very well by the Commonwealth Government and they can afford to pay income related rentals. Those examples of the way in which the Labor Party rorts the system and then stands up and cries and says that it is everybody else who is rorting the system really show how dishonest it is. It is interesting to look at the message that the electorate is sending to this Labor Government. When I see that the New South Wales Government will make available some $690m for home purchasing programs which will represent nearly 10 per cent of the total volume of anticipated lending throughout the State, I say that there is a strong State Government-the Greiner Liberal Government-which is in office to defend the people and to apply policies for the needs of the people. The west of Sydney has been badly served by years of Labor rule. An article in today's Daily Telegraph deals with the task force of inquiry into the health and housing plight of people in the west-an inherited situation. The article is headed `From country town to pre-planned housing estate' and is written by Jim O'Rourke, a man who was born and bred in the west and who cares for the people of the west. He says that many people in the Macarthur area have lived there on average for only five years. He also says that years of neglect because of health policies, nutrition policies and housing policies under strong Labor administrations have meant that these people are disadvantaged. Well, they are now going to get a fair go. The people of the west deserve a fair go and, under the Greiner Government, they will get it. When a Howard government returns to the Federal treasury bench we will start to see a fair go in economic policy for all the people of Australia that will affect this area of housing. The rhetoric that we hear about pulling in our belts, the lecturing that we get continually from the Treasurer-the would-be Prime Minister, Mr Keating; the man who thinks that the position of Prime Minister is his mantle and that he should have it before the next election; the man who thinks that Mr Hawke's time is over and he should move over and give Keating a go; the man who rorts the travel allowance system; the man who rorts the tax system-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Bishop, I have not pulled you up before, but standing order 418 says, amongst other things, that all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly. I think you probably will be able to make your argument without transgressing standing order 418. I ask you to do so. Senator BISHOP —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think the message I want to get across is this: the hypocrisy of the Government is shown up-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Many Presidents have ruled-and I am only being guided by previous rulings-that `hypocrisy' is not a word that we should use in this chamber. Would you please proceed. Senator BISHOP —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I find that an amazing ruling in light of some of the things that are allowed to be said in the chamber-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Bishop, I invite you to read Australian Senate Practice. If you do you will find that what I am saying is correct. I ask you to proceed. Senator BISHOP —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will try `duplicity'-it has more syllables in it but I think the meaning is clear. This Government has two standards-one for itself, for its own members, and one for everyone else. The electorate has seen this Government for what it is. This Government has had the message from the electorate, most recently delivered from Oxley. That message says that the Government is not a caring government, that this Government is using its powers not in the interests of the people. When we go forward to the next Federal election, there will undoubtedly be a change of government because the people deserve a fair go. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(6.18) —The Senate is debating the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988. As the short title is not necessarily indicative of the contents of the Bill, I will read out the long title: An Act to grant financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory in connection with expenditure of a capital nature, to make loans to the States and the Northern Territory for public housing, to authorise the Commonwealth to borrow certain money, and for related purposes. The question of public housing invites an examination of the balance between public and private housing in Australia today. It seems a fair assumption that if people can afford private housing they will take that option. The very sad fact that we face-and I would allege that this is as a consequence of this Government's policies-is that, as a percentage, fewer and fewer Australians can afford to go into private housing. The great Australian dream that used to become a reality some time in early adulthood is now staying a dream. I noticed recently an article in the Adelaide Advertiser headed `Land release call to hold down prices' in which the point was made that a recent report indicated that 60 per cent of Australians might soon be unable to afford to buy their own homes. The so-called Australian dream will stay simply that, and no more. It will not become a reality for 60 per cent of the Australian population. Only 40 per cent of Australians, it is predicted at the moment, will be able to shift from the private rental market or public housing, wherever they may be in the early stages of their lives, into private housing. That is certainly a damning indictment of Government policies. I am surprised to read that, as a consequence of that report, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said that `at this stage' Australia's level of home ownership remained amongst the highest in the world. He continued: It may be the case that as you go into the future that people will want to make different decisions, different priorities and allocate more of their income to non-residential purposes. The Prime Minister is saying that he expects Australians may want to shift away from private home ownership. I suggest the reason he says that is that he knows that under this Government only 40 per cent of Australians will be able to go into private home ownership. One does not need to be a gifted bookie or person who knows the figures to see that it is best to go with the 60 per cent-60 per cent of people will not be able to afford private home ownership. It is a sad statement that, as a consequence of those figures, the Prime Minister is prepared to say that perhaps we should give that away anyway-give away the hope that a lot of Australians have when they get married and want to start a family that they will be able to afford their own home. I take that as an indication of the Government's commitment, or lack thereof, to trying to ensure that young Australians who have that aspiration are able to meet it; in other words, that young Australians who want to get married-or even if they do not-and who want to buy their own home will be able to do so. I see a lack of commitment from this Government towards that goal. The Prime Minister's remarks mean a lack of commitment towards private home ownership and that it is okay for a group of people to own the housing stock and for the majority of people to rent from those people-and the people who own the housing stock are the wealthy. That invites reference to a genuine concern held by many in the community about the wealthy friends that this Government and senior Cabinet members allegedly have. One does not need to rely on rumours. We all hear the rumours about the Prime Minister and his rich mates and favours alleged to be done or otherwise. One does not need to rely on those to look at the point I am making about this Government's commitment to average Australians being able to afford things. One can go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Bureau will indicate that the share of gross income held by the top 10 per cent of the population has increased, while the average income of middle income groups has fallen in real terms. In other words, under this Government the rich are getting richer relatively and the poor are getting poorer. In those circumstances it is absolutely no surprise that the Prime Minister believes that people may want to shift their priorities and not go into private housing. Because the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer, fewer people can go into private housing. A comment that indicates that Australians should be happy with that situation means that we should all be happy that a limited number of people-not a small closetted group of friends of Cabinet Ministers, but the so-called rich: a very small proportion of the population-should be entitled to own the rental housing stock and that everybody else, every average Australian, can simply rent from those people. That is not what I call a fair vision for the housing situation. It is particularly sad because those income adjustments have been particularly felt by young workers and people in the older section of our community, those least able to accommodate economic changes. When one considers housing questions and the views of people who are interested in housing and who write about it frequently, one sees that what I am saying is commonly acknowledged: Australians are finding it harder to put a roof over their heads as costs rise. Robert Hadler, in the Australian on 31 May this year, indicated that the fact that people were finding it harder to find the money to put a roof over their heads raised doubts about the effectiveness of government housing assistance. We have been told that there has been a recent report by the Department of Community Services and Health. I believe that what I have said is the case, as do writers for different journals and daily papers. Now I wish to refer to what the Government believes to be the case on the basis of a report it has had undertaken through that Department. That report shows that a large number of Australians cannot satisfy their housing needs at a price they can afford. At least 60,000 people, the report alleges, are crowded into government accommodation designed for the otherwise homeless which has a capacity for only 11,000. Some 60,000 people are shoved into homes with a capacity for 11,000. It further shows that more than 165,000 applicants were listed on the public housing waiting lists of State authorities as of June last year. Between 200,000 and 400,000 families could have applied for public housing in 1984 but were unaware that they were eligible. Perhaps a speaker on the Government side might indicate what the Government has done about making people who are in a position to obtain government assistance aware of it. It is not good enough to come into this House and pass laws providing for assistance if the people who are to benefit from those laws are not aware of the assistance that is available: it is just shallow talk in a chamber and shallow words in a Bill. If it does not touch people, if there is a low take-up rate of any sort of benefit offered by the Government, the Government has not done its job. We are told that over 700,000 households at that stage were in a position to apply for assistance but simply did not know they could do so. We are also told that, of those, 400,000 were renting privately, 180,000 were owners or purchasers, and 110,000 were public tenants. There is probably no need for me to add, so I shall not do so, to the comments of Senator Bishop with respect to a Tasmanian senator in this place who, on a senator's salary and with his wife as a staffer, is still availing himself of a public housing benefit, undoubtedly to the detriment of someone else-just one of the 700,000 households waiting for assistance. Senator Devlin is taking up a space. However, the situation has got far worse. In July, again in the Australian, Robert Hadler, a journalist obviously interested in this area, told his readers that the public housing waiting list had increased by 60 per cent in the past six years. It is difficult to think of some other indicator that would have risen by 60 per cent in that time. I am not an investor so I cannot say whether the price of diamonds, coffee or something else has risen by that amount, but I am reasonably confident that the consumer price index has not; yet the waiting list has. That information was provided through a draft report to the Economic Planning Advisory Council-EPAC-which states that the number of people unable to find rental accommodation in that period has risen by 65,000 from 97,000 in June 1981 to almost 162,000 in June 1987. It is abundantly clear that, while the Government seems to have little commitment to private home ownership, the public rental situation is no better; in fact, it is getting worse. If one said, `It might be worse overall but at least we are looking after the poor', one would be telling a lie. A study was done by Professor Cliff Walsh of the University of Adelaide in my State as part of the national priorities project. The findings, which were released in May this year, indicate that the Government's social policy has failed because it effectively discriminates against low income private tenants. That is a very difficult finding for anybody in this chamber to be comfortable with-that Government policy effectively discriminates against low income private tenants. The study revealed that more than 15 per cent or 48,000 of 300,000 families in public housing and 210,000 families in the private rental market were below the poverty line after meeting housing costs. One can see that this nation's housing problem is not being addressed by the Government. It is clear that it is not doing enough to encourage people into private housing. Numerous authorities have been cited not only by me but also by other speakers earlier in this debate, indicating that 60 per cent of Australians cannot now dream of having their own home. All the authorities say that, in respect of the other 40 per cent, both the private and public rental markets are in a gigantic mess as well. So where does a person go if he wants to put a roof over his head? Young Australians at secondary school, either going straight out to get a job or going to university before getting a job, and planning their lifestyle-how they will be living when they are 50 or 60-will not be planning to have a private home; they will be desperately worried about how they will rent one. Senator Newman —They pinch the money out of your pay packet. Senator VANSTONE —As Senator Newman says, the Government pinches money out of their pay packets. Young people will be worried about how they will get a roof over their head because they will not be able to afford one. The odds are 60 to 40 against them in that respect. If they are in the 40 per cent they will have real trouble sorting themselves out. The balance between public and private housing also raises the question of those who do not hope to have a roof over their head; namely, young homeless Australians. Government policy in this area has been universally ineffective. We have reached the stage where a lobby group called the Youth Homeless Allowance Reform Group has been established to put the view to the Government that the youths of Australia are not receiving the youth homeless allowance because the guidelines are peculiarly narrow, and that something has to be done about it. In my State of South Australia an inquiry into homeless children headed by the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Brian Burdekin, was told a number of things. It was said that there were no simple answers to the growing problem of homeless children in South Australia but that if stopgap solutions were implemented now the problem could be dealt with. But nothing is being done. The narrowness of the Federal Government's job search allowance was said to be inadequate, and the young homeless allowance was said to be difficult to get. In other words, a creditable inquiry into the problem of homeless youth in South Australia indicates that Federal Government policy is not touching the mark. Some comments were made in that respect by the Service to Youth Council Director, Mr Mark Henley, who said that many of South Australia's estimated 500 street kids were missing out on the youth homeless allowance because of the guidelines laid down by the Government and, therefore, were living in poverty. All of the articles to which I have referred are from earlier this year, but we see that the Government has taken little heed of the warning that has been offered. The Housing Industry Association has warned of yet another crisis for renters. It tells us that the Federal Government is risking the creation of another housing rental crisis in Sydney and Melbourne if it proceeds with a further tightening of monetary policy, and backs up those comments by statistics that it has released. It says that governments need to recognise that Australia is experiencing an unparalleled demand for housing following the buildup of pressure created by the combined effects of the abolition of negative gearing and the downturn in building activity in previous years. A Government speaker following me may care to address whether the Government agrees with the Housing Industry Association that we are facing another crisis for renters or whether the Government alleges that the Housing Industry Association is ill-informed, or perhaps acknowledge the problems raised by the Association and indicate some manner in which the Government is going to respond to the problems. Having dealt with questions related specifically to housing problems, I conclude by making a few remarks about living standards in this country. Quite obviously, living standards affect people's capacity to go into private housing-that is, home ownership-and whether or not, if they cannot afford to own their own home, they will be in the private rental market or in public housing. Much has been made in recent weeks of the amount of money required to restore Australian families to their real disposable income level as it was in March 1983. This Government has had an increased tax take. That necessarily means less money for Australians to put towards housing. The family allowance and the dependent spouse rebate have fallen by about 40 per cent in real terms, so no assistance has been offered there to compensate for the problems with which Australians are faced. Average youth unemployment has increased since March 1983 and that necessarily means there are more young Australians still at home, without a job and not paying board. Perhaps if they had a job they would be paying board or, better still, out making their own way in the community. Increased interest rates, home loan repayments and housing waiting lists have all come about since March 1983 and, more particularly, the number of families below the poverty line has increased since that time. Let me give some figures on unemployment because unemployment levels obviously affect a person's capacity to buy a house and keep up mortgage payments. Under the Fraser Government the average monthly unemployment level was 403,000. Under the Hawke Government it is 631,000-a gigantic jump. If one does not want to look at specific figures but at rates, one sees that under Fraser the average monthly unemployment rate was 6.1 per cent and that under the Hawke Government it is now 8.5 per cent. The average monthly youth unemployment level has risen from 115,000 under Fraser to 130,000 under the Hawke Government. Perhaps we can be grateful that it is a rise of only 15,000, but it ought not be a rise at all: fewer young Australians should be unemployed. The average monthly youth unemployment rate went up from 18.6 per cent under Fraser-an unacceptable level, I admit-to 23.3 per cent under the Hawke Government. The number of people unemployed for more than a year went up from 143,000 in February 1983 to 153,400 this year. These figures indicate what has happened vis-a-vis employment and unemployment under this Government. That necessarily impacts upon the capacity of Australians to buy a house. It impacts upon their capacity to shift into either the private rental market or into the public housing area. Obviously, the number of people who are employed in a household effects the household income and what can be put towards housing. If those who are unlucky enough to become unemployed think there is an easy way out they might like to consider this figure. If they think they can keep up with the mortgage payments, get a job reasonably soon, get back on the straight and narrow and keep their mortgage payments up they might like to consider that in March 1983 the average duration of unemployment for people seeking full time work was 35 weeks. This is not a good figure in itself. The concept of being unemployed for 35 weeks would be attractive to no-one. What is even less attractive is that in January 1988 under this Government the average duration of unemployment for people seeking full time work has risen to 56.2 weeks. Not only is the unemployment and employment situation a matter of concern, vis-a-vis the capacity to enter different sectors of the housing market, but also the duration of it has got far worse. If people think the payments have gone down they should consider the figures with respect to home loan repayments. In March 1983 average monthly loan repayments were $545. The repayment, expressed as a percentage of income, was 19.2 per cent. This is quite a substantial amount. But what we see under this Government is that average monthly loan repayments have gone up from $455 in March 1983, when this Government came to office, to $666. The repayment as a percentage of income was 19.2 per cent when the Liberals left office. It has jumped to 27 per cent of income under this Government. Those figures basically tell the story of why there is a crisis in accommodation in this country. It is a sad story. We hear much of how well our economy is going from the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He takes plenty of time to go overseas and tell people not only how good our economy is but also how they ought to run theirs. He might like to consider that the inflation rate has obviously had an effect on the capacity of people to enter into private housing. The inflation rate in 1987-88 was 7.1 per cent. The lower that gets the better. Anyone in this chamber would undoubtedly applaud the Government's attempts and achievements in reducing the inflation rate. Let us not forget that Australia's inflation rate is nearly double the average of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, that average being 3.8 per cent. It is more than double the rate of our major trading partners except for New Zealand While the Treasurer may have much to say about how well he thinks we are doing when we look at the situation on a comparative basis, we certainly have some problems. We hear much of the Hawke Government's social justice policy and how it is going to take people out of poverty. The Government says, `If you are out of poverty you can afford to enter the private housing market'. What we do not hear from the Government is that the proportion of households living in poverty has risen from 11.5 per cent in 1982-83 when we last had a coalition government to 12.4 per cent in 1985-86. We do not hear the Government telling us that 60,000 people now live on the verge of homelessness and 40,000 people sleep in the open or in refuges. We do not hear it telling us that 28 per cent of people who are living below the poverty line have mortgages. The Government is very keen to tell us the good news but perhaps not so keen to tell us what the reality is. In summary, what the Hawke Government has done with respect to housing is this: it has driven home ownership beyond the reach of low income families. It has invested heavily in public rental accommodation at the expense of home ownership assistance. It has completely disregarded the plight of low income private renters and it has created financial havoc in the State housing authorities with its incessant demand for more public rental units. On that basis one would have thought there would have been more Government speakers in this debate on the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill who would have taken the opportunity to address some of these problems and tell us how the Government is going to resolve them. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(6.46) —As previous speakers have said we are debating the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988 which follows on from the decisions which were made at the Loan Council meeting on 12 May between the Commonwealth and the States. It will provide $310.5m for capital grants to the States and the Northern Territory as interest free loans and loans with an interest rate of 4 1/2 per cent repayable over 53 years of a similar amount of $310.5m. The concessional loans at the 4 1/2 per cent interest rate must be used for public housing purposes. Whilst the Opposition will not oppose this Bill we must nevertheless take this opportunity to look at the problems that are facing the housing industry in the light of the Government's so far unsuccessful attempts to remedy them. We have seen 23 changes to the housing policy under this Government. Not only has this caused a lot of anguish and concern amongst young people but also it has provided for a very volatile and unstable situation in the housing area. As has been said by many previous speakers it is obvious to anyone who has examined the matter that there are now fewer young families who are able to afford to enter the private housing market. This has been caused by the rapid escalation of prices Australia-wide and naturally a similar rise in interest rates. The promises of the Keating-Hawke Government have not worked. In June this year housing interest rates rose from 13 1/2 per cent to 14 1/2 per cent. It has been widely agreed that since we have the Victorian election and the Oxley by-election out of the way we will find that that is just the tip of the iceberg and rises to the order of 15 1/2 per cent will soon become apparent. This will place a huge burden on young families who may be contemplating buying their own home at a time when they are rearing a family and having to cope with inflation which is pushing up the cost of living. It has also been said earlier today that the concept of owning one's own home is not new to Australia. It has been an ambition of the ordinary man and woman in the street. It seems to have been forgotten by this Government. It is not an ambition that is motivated by greed or excessive want for capital possessions. It is merely an expectation of what people can readily believe they should be able to obtain through honest work and endeavours. It is this dream of expectation which is being shattered. When interest rates go up by the amounts which I have specified it will cost the average home owner $9 a week or $40 a month. To some of us that may not seem excessive but to many in the community that is going to be the final nail which will send them to the bankruptcy court and see them being forced to part with their most valuable asset. There has been a lot of talk about the average family. It has been said that the average family is $56 a week worse off than when the present Government came to power. At the same time as we consider the plight of those who may be wishing to enter the private housing area we must also consider the 170,000 Australians who are now waiting to get onto the public housing lists. They face a wait of at least two years, and in many cases up to five years. They face that wait because they simply cannot afford to enter the private housing market. Amazingly, the Government has chosen to combat this problem by reducing the amount of money which is spent in the private housing market and increasing the amount which is spent on public housing. In 1983-84 we saw 67 per cent of Commonwealth funds spent on public housing and 31 per cent on private housing. By the time we got around to 1986-87, 77 per cent was spent on public housing and 22 per cent on private housing. It seems to me that the Government is making an ongoing rod for its own back by forcing people to become dependent on government handouts. We have in this community proud, independent Australians who are prepared to support themselves and to be their own masters. Yet they are being forced to become dependent on the Government at a cost which must be borne by the Australian taxpayer. There is a need for public housing. That need will always be there, and the coalition acknowledges that need. What we do question is why that group which needs public housing should be an evergrowing one because of this Government's policies. I come now to the first home owners scheme, which has been touched on by other speakers in this debate. This is a most worthwhile program. However, here again the Government's record is abysmal. The Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry has ascertained that over the last three years new housing starts have fallen 60,000 to 70,000 homes below the demand for new dwellings. At the same time the latest survey on home ownership affordability by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Housing Industry Association shows that the annual disposable income of the average Australian family is now $5,000 below the disposable income needed to qualify for a loan to purchase the average home. I would now like briefly to take the opportunity to address the housing dilemma as it applies to the people of Tasmania. There has been a lot of discussion here today about one of our colleagues from Tasmania. I would prefer to talk about the situation as it occurs in Tasmania today regarding our Tasmanian Government policy. It is a problem which I am proud to say the Tasmanian Liberal Government has been prepared to face head on. It has bitten the bullet and has introduced a scheme whereby Housing Department rents are now related to income. While there may be many people in public housing homes with a genuine need, circumstances change. The Tasmanian Government, through its initiatives, has sought to ensure that only the most needy receive assistance and that those people who can afford to do so pay market rents. The Tasmanian State Liberal Government also is actively encouraging Tasmanian families to purchase previously rented public housing-as it appears Senator Devlin has tried to do. The Tasmanian Liberal Government is providing every support in that regard. To me it seems ironical that the Tasmanian Labor Party Opposition has been very critical of this scheme. One has to ask why that is so. Those brave measures that our State Government has taken will free up additional funds to assist those people in genuine need. I commend the Tasmanian Government for these decisions because I believe that they are the right ones to make. It seems peculiar that in Question Time today when I asked Senator Walsh a question about the assistance for rural children in education he said that he felt it was only fit and right to apply an assets test to rural families-I think with assets over $300,000-so that those families would not be seen to be rorting the assistance that was given by the Federal Government. However, on the other hand, we do not hear anything about an assets test for those people who are going into public housing. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement the unique nature of Tasmania's situation has been acknowledged previously by an allocation of special funds. This meant that in 1981-82 Tasmania's share was around 6 per cent. Unfortunately, since that time this uncaring Federal Government has introduced funding on a per capita basis. This will culminate in 1991. Therefore, Tasmania's share of funds has been reducing. In 1987-88 it was $26.2m and in 1988-89 it will go down to something like $24.4m. I do not need to remind Tasmanians that over the last 12 months the Federal Government's assistance to them has reduced by something like $424m. The Federal Government has made a lot of bleating noises acknowledging that the per capita basis disadvantages Tasmania, but as far as I am aware it has not been prepared to do anything about it. I would think that it would be up to the Government senators from Tasmania to inquire why that has not happened. It is about time the Government took into consideration the special needs of Tasmania because its record in that regard is certainly not a proud one. There are now approximately 4,000 people in Tasmania on waiting lists for government housing. Compared with the numbers in some of our larger States, that number does not seem to represent a lot of people. However, let me say that for Tasmania's population this is a very depressing number of people. I know that, since my election to this House, one of the most disturbing aspects of my work has been the ongoing number of people who contact my office seeking housing assistance. I know that my colleague in the other place Bruce Goodluck has nearly 50 per cent of his time taken up with assisting people in public housing as much as he can. Many of these people have been forced out of the private market. Certainly, they would be more than happy to pay their own way if they had the opportunity. The other day I heard of a person who went into a private bank in Tasmania and asked whether he could make an appointment to discuss borrowing funds to build a house. The bank manager said, `What col- lateral have you got?'. He said, `I have not got any, but I have a very good job'. The manager said, `Where do you work?'. He said, `I do not work. I am on unemployment benefit and have four children, so I pull in something in excess of $500 a fortnight tax free. My wife gets an invalid pension which brings in another $270-odd a fortnight. Of course, that is tax free. Therefore, I think that I am a pretty good risk'. Unfortunately, he did not get the loan. But he went to one of our government institutions and received the money at 8 per cent so that he could go into private housing. That is a ludicrous situation when we have young families on average incomes who cannot raise the extra few dollars to enable them to go into private housing. It must be heartbreaking for them, when they scrimp and save, to see unemployed people, unfortunate unemployed people, who have a very good opportunity to own their own homes, or at least to get a subsidised rental. Finally, I must say that I am extremely proud to be part of a coalition which has as its housing policy a commitment to assist the many thousands of young Australian families who are prepared to have a go. It is a policy which unashamedly seeks to remove an unnecessary burden from the government coffers by helping those people who need that little bit of assistance to get on their feet. Our policy today has been spelt out very well by Senator Bishop and previously by Senator Vanstone. Our policy is not a sell-out of those people who genuinely need public housing, because our commitment to them remains. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.59) —in reply-I do not propose to delay the passage of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(7.02) —The Governor-General Amendment Bill 1988 will increase the salary payable to the Governor-General designate when he takes office in February 1989. That salary has been set in the Bill at $95,000, which will be tax free in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It is interesting that in the second reading speech the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) noted that there has been a substantial increase in salary since the first salary was fixed at $30,000 in 1974. In 1977 the salary was amended to $37,000 by the then Fraser Government. It was increased to $70,000 in 1983. The Opposition has no complaint about this procedure in the sense that it is necessary by the Constitution to set a salary level in order to provide for the cost of living increases during the term of office of the incoming Governor-General. That means that the salary first decided upon, which is provided in this Bill, must equate with the salary level of the Governor-General at the time his term of office expires, which is some five years hence. Consequently, because of cost of living increases over that period, it is clear that the averaging of that salary requirement must be determined in a way that may seem to be at a level somewhat higher than usual at the outset to meet that constitutional requirement when the contract expires. On behalf of the Liberal and National parties, I take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the service of the present Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, and Lady Stephen in their time in office since early 1983. I am sure that all Australian citizens have been encouraged by the activities of the Governor-General and Lady Stephen since they took up that position. They have travelled this country, made themselves known to citizens at all levels, and have taken a deep interest in the affairs of the nation. It is clear that they have earned the profound respect of all Australians, and by their dignified and yet informal and friendly presence have generated a very deep feeling of warmth from the Australian people. Certainly we here in Canberra, who have some opportunity of coming into personal contact with them on a number of occasions, can testify to the warm regard that people in political circles have for the present Governor-General and Lady Stephen. The Opposition thanks them for their service to Australia in this most important position since 1983. We believe they have established beyond doubt a very high level of behaviour on the part of the Governor-General which all Australians should take as an example and seek to emulate in every possible way. The future of the Governor-General designate, Mr Bill Hayden, is yet to unfold as he will take office in the early part of 1989. The recent by-election in the seat of Oxley, which was brought about as a result of Mr Hayden's vacation of that seat, bore testimony to the popularity of the Hawke Government and showed a 13 per cent swing in favour of the Liberal candidate and against the Australian Labor Party. I guess that says something about the Government's actions in seeking to take advantage of a political position that existed in order to set down a new set of standards for the appointment of a Governor-General. There is no doubt that the recently announced trip of the Governor-General designate overseas, at a cost to the Australian taxpayer, of some $80,000, had something to do with the result in the Oxley by-election, but it was probably not the total impact. There is no doubt that the Hawke Government's policies on living standards and driving down real wage levels in this country had a deal more to do with that. Nevertheless, the Opposition would be remiss in its duty if it did not note the widespread concern among the Australian people not only in Oxley but all over the country about the rampant rort, if you like, of granting a taxpayer funded trip to wherever the Governor-General designate may choose to go in the next few months. I am sure many Australians are concerned about that, and that it remains very much in their minds as they think about the political and other activities of this Government. It is interesting to note that in an article that appeared in today's Sydney Morning Herald the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was reported as having no knowledge of the itinerary that the Governor-General designate was seeking to undertake in his overseas tour in the next few months. Apparently a journalist inquired of the Prime Minister what he thought the Governor-General designate would be doing, and Mr Hawke was unable to provide any details of Mr Hayden's schedule during his seven-country tour. In fact, despite already having had 42 trips overseas as Foreign Minister, he appears to have a personal itinerary, and very few arrangements have been organised by our missions overseas for Mr Hayden to engage in official business. That is something about which Australian concern should be, and is properly being, generated in the light of Mr Hawke's encouragement of Mr Hayden to take this trip, and his granting of it, apparently to satisfy his own feelings of guilt about having stabbed Mr Hayden in the back in 1983 by taking the leadership of the Labor Party from him. I think that remains a very severe doubt in the minds of the Australian people as they see about $80,000 going from the public purse in respect of a trip overseas being engaged upon by the Governor-General designate, Mr Hayden. It is clear from the article today in the Sydney Morning Herald that the Australian High Commission in London has been told that the visit to be undertaken by Mr Hayden is a semi-private one and that, while he will be meeting the Queen as the Governor-General designate, he will be undertaking private matters and functions after that. So there appears to be very little official reason for his undertaking this trip overseas. I again reiterate our gratitude to the present Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, and Lady Stephen for the service they have given Australia in their 5 1/2 years in office. They have served this country well. We wish them all the best for their retirement after concluding their term of office in February and hope that they enjoy a long and happy time together from there on. We hope and pray that the incoming Governor-General will indeed provide us with the kind of example provided by Sir Ninian and Lady Stephen, and we look forward to a continuing relationship with the Governor-General when he takes up his office in February, as of course we intend to form a government after the next election and will need to cooperate and work with him after that time. The Opposition supports the Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(7.13) —We are debating the Governor-General Amendment Bill, which deals with the salary of the next Governor-General. It must seem somewhat odd to quite a number of people in the community that these types of Bills appear here. It is the case that the Governor-General, in the absence of the Queen overseas, is the head of state and, as the head of state, obviously functions in a way which is quite different from the way that governments, political parties and other people function. In that regard I think it is important to note that the Governor-General's salary is set once and once only. Hence, as Senator Messner has already said, it tends to get struck at a level which seems to be somewhat excessive at the beginning but of course at the end tends to look slightly low, particularly for a person such as Sir Ninian Stephen, who has served so long and so well in that office. The method by which the Governor-General's salary is set is essentially to get some type of parity with that of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice's salary is set through the Remuneration Tribunal method, in which various items are taken into account, including the cost of living, amongst others, but also the high office that the Chief Justice of the High Court holds. I think it is appropriate, therefore, that the salary for the head of state should be reflective of the office, that is, the highest office in the land. Looking back over previous increases, since 1974, when the Act originally came in, the salary has been increased three times-the first time, under the Fraser Government in 1977, by 23 per cent. It was next increased in 1983, again by the Fraser Government-an increase of 89 per cent. Now we are dealing with an increase of 35 per cent. The percentage increases are always somewhat staggering in comparison to others, but I think it is important to bear in mind that the Governor-General's salary is increased once and once only. The Governor-General's salary will be of the order of $95,000. That is slipping somewhat compared with the parity arrangement that was originally intended, because the salary of the Chief Justice of Australia is now in excess of $123,000. We now find ourselves in a situation in which, next time round, there is probably going to have to be another significant increase in the Governor-General's salary. As Mr Bill Hayden is the Governor-General designate, I think it is probably relevant, certainly to the community, in looking at these matters to note that the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act also comes into play, because the Governor-General is indeed classified as an office of profit under the Crown. Some people may find it somewhat difficult to understand how the Crown ends up as an office of profit under the Crown, but indeed it is, according to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act. The fact of the matter is that, since the amendments which were made a couple of years ago, the Governor-General has not been able to have the full benefit of the parliamentary pension for the period that he remains in the office. A person who has served as a Minister for as long as Bill Hayden has obviously would be on a fairly high level in terms of the pension he would be able to draw. This matter has been one of some contention within the general community. It is for that reason that I wanted to outline where this salary has been struck, the reasons it was struck at that particular level, and why my party will be supporting the legislation to enable that salary to be struck at what has to be, in the general community's terms, a high level, but one which surely must be seen to be appropriate for the highest office in the land. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(7.18) —I wish to commence by paying tribute to the outstanding service provided to the nation by Sir Ninian and Lady Valerie Stephen. I entirely endorse the remarks of my colleague Senator Messner. Without doubt, over recent years the nation has been very well served indeed by the fine work that has been undertaken by Sir Ninian and Lady Stephen. In very difficult circumstances, and certainly in almost onerous physically circumstances, I think they have performed wonderfully well. The salary of the Governor-General would normally not be a matter of controversy. However, one can only be concerned that the recent behaviour of the Governor-General designate is putting at risk the traditional bipartisan community support for this high office. Indeed, Mr Hayden's indecent pursuit of the perquisites of office and his desperate anxiety to turn a last dollar before next February raise the question of what standards of conduct should accompany such a substantial increase in salary. It is imperative that the Governor-General, or anyone about to assume that high office, be like Caesar's wife-not only above suspicion, but seen to be so. The office of Governor-General should be occupied only by someone whose conduct and standards of ethical behaviour are beyond reproach. In this context I consider it singularly inappropriate for Mr Hayden to persist in a defamation action which he has recently brought against Wesgo Communications Pty Ltd, the licensees of radio station 4KQ. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune often assail politicians. Those who have been in the kitchen for almost 30 years, as has Mr Hayden, inevitably get their fair share, not least when they are being remorselessly pursued and denigrated by an aspiring Prime Minister who, in his immortal assessment of his then leader, not only accused Mr Hayden of mendacity, but also predicted a very limited future. This was an accurate assessment of Mr Hayden's prospects of holding onto the office of leader. Perhaps it also led to pangs of guilt sufficient to offer the choicest of plums to a mortally wounded comrade. But would the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) suggest that the current reputation of Mr Hayden has in any way been tarnished in recent months so as to hold him up to hatred, ridicule or contempt? Could it be seriously suggested that Mr Hayden's reputation needs restoration by an award of damages? Otherwise, presumably, the Government would never have considered appointing a person with a diminished reputation to such an exalted office. I do not for one moment want to debate the merits of the litigation, but Mr Hayden's determination to pursue the matter clearly puts the court and his soon to be assumed office in an impossible situation. Even Mr Hayden's own legal advisers concede that it would be inappropriate for a Governor-General to give evidence in any court of law as the titular head of the judicial system, hence their successful application for a speedy hearing. It is just as inappropriate for Mr Hayden to put his own credibility on the line shortly before assuming office. It puts the courts in an impossible situation. If a judge disbelieves Mr Hayden or rejects even part of his evidence, Mr Hayden's fitness for office will be fatally undermined. If the judge finds in his favour, there is very real risk that there will be a widespread public perception that the courts had little choice. This is unfair to the litigants, to the judiciary, to the monarchy and to the Australian community. Mr Hayden should, therefore, immediately discontinue this indecent pursuit of one last dollar, as if $95,000 net is not enough. If not, the Prime Minister should order him to do so. I am also concerned that, instead of undertaking the proper preparation and fam- iliarisation procedures, Mr Hayden is seeking access to sensitive Government documents concerning his terms as a Minister in the Hawke and Whitlam governments, with a view to writing his memoirs. Mr Hayden has given no public undertaking not to publish or use this material during his term of office. Anyone who can jettison deeply held anti-monarchist sentiments of a lifetime for 30 pieces of Yarralumla silver cannot be trusted to resist the temptation to make use of such material, at least in retaliation for real or imagined wrongs. Instead of swanning around the world, Mr Hayden has had the perfect opportunity to spend six months at home putting pen to paper. Instead he has chosen to put his snout in the trough, in a manner so offensive to public sensitivities that he has now been seized upon as a convenient scapegoat by his erstwhile organisational colleagues such as Mr Hogg and Mr Loosley. Indeed, Mr Hogg said last Sunday: . . . if we are asking for restraint and co-operation from the community, we have to ourselves, as a government and as individuals, behave similarly . . . So I think bluntly, people appearing to be putting their snout in the public trough gets a bit wearying and I think we deserved an element of the response we got this weekend. Mr Hogg was even driven to concede: I think there was a lack of sensitivity displayed by the people in even contemplating it. That is quite clearly a direct reflection on Mr Hawke's judgment because, as we know, a Governor-General or a Governor-General designate is not allowed to leave this country without the express approval of the Prime Minister, and the expenses associated with that travel would similarly need to be approved by the Prime Minister. Mr Hogg, by way of delivering a stinging rebuke and looking for a scapegoat, is suggesting that it was an appalling display of insensitivity on the part of the Prime Minister. Mr Loosley, who no doubt is also regarded as an electoral guru, said that the adverse publicity had `caused us greater damage than anything else'. No doubt that is the classic rationalisation, hoping to find some sort of one-off explanation for a result which is otherwise a devastating indictment of the Labor Government. The fact remains that these people in senior positions in the Australian Labor Party, and therefore in the party of government, have chosen publicly to bag the Governor-General designate. I regard that as a reflection of the esteem in which he is no longer held and of the concern, even in an electoral sense, that Mr Hayden has become lead in the saddle bags. His outrageous and self-indulgent rort makes Mick Young's Qantas appointment appear a mere peccadillo. We know that a number of officials from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet expressed concern to the Secretary to the Department, but we do not as yet know whether that concern was communicated to the Prime Minister. The dissembling nonsense that has been used to justify Mr Hayden's trip has, I think, been exposed very graphically in recent days. It is clear from what my colleague Senator Messner had to say about the piece in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, that there are very many unanswered questions. We do not know, for example, who authorised the detail of the trip. It would seem it is simply an agenda chosen by Mr Hayden at his own instigation. We do not know what proportion of the visit, if any, constitutes official engagements other than, presumably, a cursory visit to Buckingham Palace, which one would have thought could occupy less than a day. The drover's dog has become a grubby gold digger. The recent Oxley by-election result is a deafening public demonstration of outrage in Mr Hayden's latest savage assault on the public purse. I believe that the Prime Minister's actions in giving carte blanche in this manner are an outrageous abdication of responsibility, a further display of monumental arrogance. This is not just another demonstration of jobs for the boys but, indeed, the ultimate perk. I believe the Government, in allowing Mr Hayden to carry on in the way he has, has done a great disservice to the very high office of Governor-General. The Australian people can only hold their breath in the hope that somehow Mr Hayden is going to reform before it is too late. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(7.26) —I want to take only one or two minutes to speak on the Governor-General Amendment Bill 1988. I commence by passing on my gratitude, and that of many South Australians, for the work done by Sir Ninian and Lady Stephen. My heart is warmed by the remarks of Senator Alston, which on those matters I am familiar with I wholeheartedly endorse. We now have the spectre of someone who was a republican jettisoning his views for, as Senator Alston says, 30 pieces of Yarralumla silver, and going a bit further to put his snout in the trough for yet another overseas trip to familiarise himself with that which we assume he is already familiar. In that process he has become a convenient scapegoat for Labor with respect to its loss in Oxley. I believe that the vote in Oxley is in part an indication of what Australians think of this whole tawdry affair. I want to draw attention to some historical matters. A similar Bill was debated in this chamber in 1977, when Senator Button, now Leader of the Government in the Senate-and I invite the Minister at the table, the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Senator Robert Ray), when he responds to address these points-had this to say: My point is that it is a very large sum of money to pay for a figurehead when I, speaking as one member of the Senate, do not really know what he does. Perhaps Ministers of the Government now do know what the Governor-General does. Senator Button went on to say: Perhaps the Government had to pay $37,000- as it then was- tax free to get the new Governor-General. Perhaps nobody was prepared to accept at the lower salary. It may be an attraction rate, but in terms of cost-benefit consideration, a great deal of the taxpayers' money is being expended to maintain the institution. Perhaps the Minister would like to respond about whether he thinks that view is now appropriate, or is Labor now prepared to pay more money because one of its mates has the job? Senator Button went even further. He said: I think that, as a result of the presentation of this legislation which gives a handout- that was Senator Button's description- to the office of Governor-General, honourable senators opposite- that is, my party- who are so sensitive about decadent institutions in this country, including the office of Governor-General . . . I invite the Minister now in charge-the tables have turned-to address the remarks made by Senator Button at that time. Do they now represent the view of Government Ministers? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(7.29) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. Whilst I did not hear Senator Messner's contribution in full, I join with him and other speakers in their sentiments towards the current Governor-General and his spouse for the job they have done in this country in the last seven years. They have brought great distinction to the role they have played and they have made many friends for Australia in their activities in that position over those seven years. A few matters have been raised. Senator Alston raised the fact that Governor-General designate Hayden is involved in a defamation case. I do not believe anyone should have to forgo his rights, if he has been defamed, to have his record properly corrected. It is always awkward in circumstances such as this when an appointment is announced well in advance-- Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Powell) —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator ROBERT RAY —I was reflecting on the comments of Senator Alston about the defamation case. It is never an easy task to say that someone has to forgo all his rights. Senator Alston-Does he really need the money? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Alston interjects that he needs the money. That is his assumption, not mine. Senator Alston criticises Mr Hayden on the basis that he might like to do some writing in office. My memory tells me that Sir Paul Hasluck did some writing when he was in office. He was a superb historian. I think the Governor of Western Australia also does writing in office. I hate to see people not occupy what is spare time-not other time-without following those particular pursuits. Senator Alston-A part time Governor-General. Senator ROBERT RAY —When one is as thick as Senator Alston one probably has to work 18 hours a day to keep up with it. Some people can manage to do their work in 12 hours and then, in three or four spare hours before they go to sleep, write a diary or a book. It is a form of relaxation. I accept some of his criticism but I think he is being extreme in some of the criticisms that he has voiced tonight. The Opposition bleats that Bill Hayden has his snout in the trough and that he is swanning around the world. What a load of hypocrisy coming from those opposite! I remember only a year ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-- Senator Alston-Are you disowning Bob Hogg's words? Senator ROBERT RAY —No, I am not supporting what Bob Hogg said on this. Clearly I am not; otherwise I would not be on my feet saying this. Senator Alston, as has Senator Vanstone by imputation, has thrown up the snouts in the trough argument. I recall that only last year the instability within the Liberal Party meant Mr Howard had to forgo his trip as Leader. As Minister, what did I get? I got a pleading letter which said, `Please, can I have two trips next year?'. Honourable senators opposite talk about snouts in the trough. What a bunch of mealy mouthed hyprocrites they are. On the basis of precedent, he had the right to take that trip. Senator Alston has the right to criticise it but when he gets to the point of talking about snouts in the trough he ought to look at his own side of politics. I have no idea how he can say it without being red faced. Senator Alston referred to this job as the ultimate perk. (Quorum formed) Labor governments have, I think, appointed four Governors-General-three of them in controversy. When we appointed Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General our conservative opponents opposite-the Liberal Party's political forebears-bitterly attacked us, saying that we should never have had someone who was Australian born. We set the precedent. Senator Alston-Are we guilty of the sins of our forefathers? Senator ROBERT RAY —Of course you are. History repeats itself. I am just pointing out that the conservatives were bitterly critical of Sir Isaac Isaacs, who went on to perform an excellent job. Sure, he was actively involved in politics in the early 1900s and then went to the High Court of Australia. Senator Hamer-He was not a Liberal. Senator ROBERT RAY —He was a conservative. He was not particularly liberal in any of his views, not as liberal as Justice Higinbotham. When we then appointed Governor-General McKell-- Senator Alston-We have not quarrelled with that. Senator ROBERT RAY —But the then Opposition criticised him at the time. There was another storm when we appointed him. In fact when one looks at Sir William McKell's history as Governor-General, we see that he served this country well. He went by the precedents; he did not embarrass us. All criticism at the time would no longer be heard. We then appointed Sir John Kerr to the position. Honourable senators opposite did not criticise us. We should have known we were wrong when they did not criticise us. We should have woken up at the time. We have now appointed Bill Hayden and again they are critical. They say that this person has been active in politics. He has been no more active than Lord Casey and Paul Hasluck were. People have criticised, to some extent, the salary rise. When Sir John Kerr was appointed he received a 50 per cent pay rise; three years later Sir Zelman Cowan received a 23 per cent increase; five years later Sir Ninian Stephen received an 89 per cent increase; seven years later Mr Hayden is to receive a 35 per cent increase. Of course, there were differential inflation rates in those days thanks to those opposite. That would explain the 35 per cent compared to the 89 per cent Senator Alston-We have not quarrelled with that. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Alston says he does not quarrel with that so I will leave it there. The final point, that raised by Senator Vanstone, was about Senator Button's views. She did not give the date on which he expressed those-- Senator Vanstone-It was 1977. Senator ROBERT RAY —This is the strange thing about politics: honourable senators opposite never change their ideas; we do. We go through a maturation period. It is not a matter of lack of principle: we adapt with the times. Our views on a whole range of matters have changed since 1977. Big surprise! None of their views have changed. At the time Senator Alston was still swanning around dozens of seats looking for preselection. It took him about 10 years because he was not adaptable. He never changed his views. There he is on the side of the chamber where life after death prevails. I do not believe that Senator Button would be embar- rassed by his comments in 1977. He changes his views from time to time. They are not holy writ. I do not hold Senator Alston to his views on McKell or, for that matter, Isaacs. I just point out that when there is controversy in the initial period the results are quite often different. In my view, Bill Hayden is well qualified to be Governor-General. This Bill is necessary. By the Constitution, we must set a salary in advance. We all agree that salaries should not be altered during the term of office. We agree with the rough differential in our salary and that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. We are not disagreeing on much. Honourable senators opposite have just used this debate as a vehicle to have another go at resurrecting the Oxley by-election. I have been sitting in the chamber for a couple of days hearing all about the Oxley by-election but I have never heard about the Victorian State election. Whilst I would like to give honourable senators a long and detailed analysis on the Victorian State election, I would be abusing my position if I did so. I would hate to do that. Maybe I will come back at the end of the four adjournment speeches to give a speech on that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL 1988 Consideration resumed. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 as a whole. Before the Committee reported progress, it was considering an amendment moved by Senator Chapman to clause 264. The question is that that amendment be agreed to. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(7.41) —Mr Chairman, I seek leave to withdraw that amendment to clause 264 and substitute an alternative amendment. Leave granted; amendment withdrawn. Senator CHAPMAN —I move: Page 131, after clause 264, insert the following clause: Liability for arrears ``264a. (1) Where a person has ceased to be eligible to become a member of an organisation and that person has not actively participated in the affairs of the organisation since that time, those circumstances shall be a defence to an action by the organisation for arrears of dues payable from the time when the person ceased to be so eligible. ``(2) Where such a defence is successful, that person shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member from the time that the person ceased to be so eligible.'' This alternative amendment achieves the goal which the Opposition was seeking in the earlier amendment which we were debating when debate was interrupted and progress was reported. I will not reiterate the arguments that I put at that time. They are well established. I simply urge the Committee to support this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.43) —I move: Page 38, clause 93, line 29, at end of clause add ``but nothing in this section shall prevent the Commission from making such decisions or taking such actions, under this Act, as are necessary to protect females with regard to the lifting or moving, with or without assistance, of heavy weights or things in the course of their employment.''. Clause 93 provides: In the performance of its functions, the Commission shall take account of the principles embodied in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 relating to discrimination in relation to employment. Because of the time, I do not propose to go into this matter in any great detail. But honourable senators will recall that I have previously raised in this chamber my concern that the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act could possibly affect industrial awards and the provisions of State legislation relating to the protection of women in regard to the lifting of weights. At the moment provisions in certain State legislation limit to 16 kilograms the lifting of weights by women. My concern, therefore, is that the new Australian Industrial Relations Commission's awards will not override the Sex Discrimination Act in this regard. As I said, there are State regulations in respect of the lifting of weights, which provisions protect women. Those regulations exempt that legislation from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act. I might say that there is an urgent need for the Government to make this exemption definite in legislation because I think those exemptions operate until only about August of next year. I was concerned that the new Commission may not be able to award a protective provision for women in respect of the lifting or moving of weights. Therefore, my amendment reads: Page 38, clause 93, line 29, at end of clause add ``but nothing in this section shall prevent the Commission from making such decisions or taking such actions, under this Act, as are necessary to protect females with regard to the lifting or moving, with or without assistance, of heavy weights or things in the course of their employment.''. I am now advised-and the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) may well confirm this-that that is not necessary, particularly as this provision is now contained in this legislation. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(7.46) —We note Senator Harradine's concerns about protecting the occupational health and safety of workers. That concern is, of course, both recognised and applauded. The Government is not inclined to support the amendment-in fact, we will oppose it. We believe that the amendment is based on the wrong premise that the provisions in the Act will bind the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The advice that we have, which I can pass on to the Committee, is that the Sex Discrimination Act will not bind the proposed Commission in the carrying out of its primary functions. A number of general obligations set out in clauses 90 to 98 of the Bill provide that the Commission will act, for instance, in the public interest, and take into account State and Territory occupational health and safety legislation and so on. But they do not bind the Commission. The principle the Government is following is to allow the Commission in the fulfilment of its primary functions under clause 89-those functions being of course, to prevent and settle industrial disputes and associated matters-as much flexibility as possible. To that extent, Senator Harradine's concern is not well founded. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.47) —Mr Chairman, in view of the Minister's explanation, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. Leave granted; amendment withdrawn. Bill, as amended, agreed to. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1988 Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(7.48) —I move: Page 43, Schedule 2, proposed amendment of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, after proposed subsection 53 (2), insert the following new subsection: `` `(2a) Until provision to the contrary is made by an Act, the powers of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission do not extend to employment in respect of which a tribunal established by an enactment before 1 July 1978 has power to hear and determine disputes, claims or matters relating to the terms and conditions of the employment.'.''. Our amendment will restore the existing legal protection to the Northern Territory police and prisons tribunals. I understand that the Government will accept this amendment. Therefore, in view of the lateness of the hour, I do not believe that there is any need to develop the argument further in support of our amendment. Amendment agreed to. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(7.49) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 44, Schedule 2, proposed amendments of the Postal Services Act 1975, proposed amendment to subsection 3 (1) (definition of ``organization''), leave out the proposed amendment. (2) Page 45, Schedule 2, proposed amendments of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, proposed amendment to subsection 3 (1), leave out proposed definitions of ``academic staff'', ``college of advanced education'' and ``Commonwealth institution of tertiary education'', insert the following definition: `` `Commonwealth higher education institution' means a higher education institution established by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory (other than the Northern Territory);''. (3) Page 46, Schedule 2, proposed amendments of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, proposed amendment to subsection 3 (1), leave out the proposed definition of ``university'', insert the following definition: `` `higher education institution' means an institution that is a higher education institution within the meaning of the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988 (other than an institution declared by the regulations not to be a higher education institution for the purposes of this Act), and includes any other institution declared by the regulations to be a higher education institution for the purposes of this Act;''. (4) Page 46, Schedule 2, proposed amendments of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, after proposed amendment to subsection 3 (1), insert the following new amendment: ``Subsection 3 (1) (definition of `institution of tertiary education'): Omit the definition.''. (5) Page 46, Schedule 2, proposed amendments of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, leave out the proposed amendment to paragraph 3 (4) (q), insert the following amendment: ``Paragraph 3 (4) (q): Omit `an institution of tertiary education', substitute `a higher education institution (other than an executive education office)'.''. (6) Page 46, Schedule 2, proposed amendments of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, proposed subsection 6 (2a), leave out ``institutions of tertiary education other than Commonwealth institutions of tertiary education'', insert ``higher education institutions (other than Commonwealth higher education institutions)''. (7) Page 46, Schedule 2, proposed amendments of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, proposed paragraph 7 (9) (ad), leave out ``institutions of tertiary education'', insert ``higher education institution''. (8) Page 48, Schedule 2, proposed amendments of the Telecommunications Act 1975, proposed amendment to subsection 3 (1) (definition of ``organization''), leave out the proposed amendment. These amendments, which are of a minor technical nature, are pretty well self-explanatory. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bills reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.52) —One of the reasons I wish to speak is to find out whether I still have a voice. I also wish to thank Senator Grant Chapman for stepping into the breach and for dealing with the balance of the Bills during the period that I found speaking rather difficult. If I might comment on the position we have now reached, it is clear that we have now concluded our substantive discussions on the industrial relations legislation. It is a matter of regret that the Government refused to accept 40 of the 41 amendments moved by the Opposition. It seemed to me that this was the fairly standard attitude, that the legislature has no role in shaping appropriate laws, in this case industrial relations laws. The basis of the Government's approach was that all wisdom resides in the Government. That attitude clearly is nonsense, although I must say in fairness that history suggests that governments have often taken that view in the past. The Australian public should be aware that both the Government and the Australian Democrats, in the course of the committee debate, voted against voluntary unionism and an end to the closed shop. They voted against giving the Industrial Relations Commission effective powers to enforce its decisions, yet the Government was even voting against the measures it proposed last year. They voted against preventing the payment of strike pay. They voted against preserving State anti-strike laws. They voted against direct dealing between employers and employees at the enterprise level. They voted against having as an object of the Act the promotion of industrial harmony and cooperation between employees and employers. They voted against having as an object of the Act maintaining the rule of law in industrial relations. They voted against having in the Act provisions that would encourage the promotion of single enterprise bargaining units. They voted against employees having a greater say about the structure of unions which represent them. That is a fairly gloomy list. If I may say so more cheerfully, I think that pressures on the Australian economy are producing some of the necessary changes to industrial relations. The Opposition amendments would have facilitated the enterprise-based approach which must inevitably emerge and which I believe many Ministers in the present Government understand must emerge. An opportunity for substantial reform has been lost. The Government precluded effective scrutiny by the Senate by threatening the Democrats that the Government would withdraw the Bill if any substantial amendments were carried. It is a pity that the Democrats succumbed to this crude blackmail. I am sure we shall have further debates on industrial relations in this chamber. There is no matter which is more vital to getting Australia out of its present debt and to ensuring that we can get Australian living standards on the rise again. I regret that the opportunities for substantial reform proposed in the Opposition amendments were lost. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(7.55) —I wish to talk about multilateralism. I am glad that Senator Chaney is still present in the chamber because I am directing my comments at Senator Chaney-not exclusively at him but also at various of his colleagues who continue to misrepresent my position as a unilateralist. They seem to take delight in calling me by that label, so I want to talk a little about the definitions of multilateralism as opposed to unilateralism. I hope that I can clear this up. If I continue to be misrepresented in this matter, I shall respond with the following explanation in full each time it occurs. Multilateralism, so far as I understand it, in the sense of disarmament is about mutual and verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons. That is the position that I support, and what I am working towards. I am not working towards unilateralism, which is an expectation that one side will lay down its arms regardless of what its opponents do. That makes no sense whatever to me, just as it makes no sense whatever to Senator Chaney and his colleagues, so we would have to agree on that. Unilateralism in disarmament is a nonsense. Multilateralism obviously is best dealt with in international fora such as the United Nations, in particular the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, which is specifically set up for that purpose. It involves the two superpowers, but of course is not exclusively the domain of the nuclear powers. It involves 42 countries, and it is very appropriate that many countries in both the two major power blocs and outside are involved in the multilateral disarmament discussions. It is there that the details are fleshed out and conditions are put upon the various powers as they move towards disarmament. I am very pleased that the first real nuclear disarmament agreement in history has been signed and is now under way. I refer to the intermediate-range nuclear force agreement. That came about in the Conference on Disarmament, where all those nations were working together for that purpose. Obviously Australia has a role to play in that, and at the Conference on Disarmament the Australian Government is very well represented by its disarmament team. We have been instrumental in helping in that process. That is a very appropriate role for Australia to play. We need to be careful of the two major players in the nuclear stakes-the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States-working on disarmament agreements exclusive of all other countries. Even though they have the greatest stake in this or the greatest nuclear arsenals, certainly everybody in every country of the world is involved. There is a real need for other countries to be involved. There is a place for unilateral initiatives. This is where Senator Chaney and his colleagues need to be very clear. I support some countries taking unilateral initiatives, which is quite different from saying that one supports unilateral disarmament. Unilateral initiatives have been very effective when one side or the other has taken a position and enacted a disarmament procedure and has then been followed by the other side. The best known example would be the United States decision to stop testing in the atmosphere in 1963, which led the Soviets to follow and the partial test ban treaty was put in place. Also, in 1972 President Nixon of the United States decided to stop biological weapons production, and this also was followed by the Soviets. There is a real place for independent initiatives on one side or the other, which often lead to the adversary following suit. In the case of Great Britain unilateralism makes some sense because British nuclear weapons were originally designed to be a status symbol, largely because the United Kingdom was frozen out of the nuclear weapons development program after World War II. It was much the same with the French. So those countries believe very strongly in their independent nuclear deterrents. In the whole balance of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of East and West, if the French and the British were to decide on unilateral disarmament initiatives it would not make a great deal of difference to the power play between the two major players. It is also important to note that those two countries are not holding on to their nuclear weapons as a deterrent, because the real deterrence, if one believes in that-and I do not believe in that theory in regard to nuclear weapons-has to be played out between the two major players. Every country could argue, as do the United Kingdom and France, that it has a right to have nuclear weapons. We would see a massive proliferation of nuclear weapons if other countries followed suit. I think that there is an argument in both those countries for those countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons. The problem globally is that the unilateralist position is absolutely nonsensical. So my position is to argue that we must work for step by step verifiable reduction on both sides. I want to talk for a moment about the regional situation. I am often accused of being anti-American, so I need to talk about ANZUS to clarify that position. ANZUS was designed as a strategy of denial which has been remarkably successful since 1951 in keeping the Soviet Union out of the Pacific, although I do not know whether it had great designs on this region of the world until more recently. The Soviets had no bases in the Pacific until Cam Ranh Bay after 1979, and that would not last 48 hours in a total war as it is surrounded by China, Association of South East Asian Nation countries, ANZUS, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force and the United States Navy. The Soviets test their weapons in the North Pacific at sea, they largely refuel at sea, and their Indian Ocean squadron is moored at sea off Socotra. Failure to acquire facilities in the Indian Ocean region was not through want of trying. The Soviets certainly tried to get facilities there and ended up with Aden and Dahlak Archipelago in the Red Sea. But there is not anything like the presence in either the Pacific or the Indian oceans, particularly the South Pacific Ocean, as there is with the American presence. So the peace movement is obviously concentrated on the overwhelming United States presence in the region. The same goes for warships and bases in Australia itself. The Australian peace movement calls for the closure of the base at Cam Ranh Bay and we will be joining with the regional peace brigades going to the Philippines in December and January calling for the closure of all foreign bases in the region-that is, the United States bases in the Philippines and the Soviet facilities in Vietnam. The overwhelming object is to remove all foreign bases from the region. No country should have to suffer foreign bases of another country on its soil. I now turn to the function of peace movements in this whole scenario. I believe that the work of peace movements in any country is to apply pressure domestically on their own government, if that government is involved in nuclear alliances or in providing nuclear facilities to any nuclear nation in any way. That, of course, is the position in Australia. The European nuclear disarmament movement argued for the removal of both the cruise missiles and the SS20s, the Soviet versions. There is evidence in Europe of both of the superpowers having nuclear weapons on various countries' soil. We do not have that situation in Australia. In trying to bring pressure to bear on disarmament talks, the peace movement argued for the removal of both kinds of missiles-the American cruise missiles and the SS20s, the Soviet versions. It is a very slow process indeed, but it needs constant pressure being applied by the peace movements, East and West, and it is absolutely pointless if it is one-sided. Non-aligned groups in the West worked with and had dialogue with Eastern bloc independent and unofficial peace groups in the 1980s. For the benefit of the Opposition I will mention a few of those groups. Opposition member seem to think that there is no independent peace movement in the Eastern bloc. Of course, it is much more difficult for people there to be part of the peace movement, but they are there and they need our support. To name but a few, the groups included the Moscow Trust Group, the Freedom and Peace Group in Poland, the Dialogue Group and 4-6-0 in Hungary, and Charter 77 and the Independent Peace Association in Czechoslovakia. Particular support is given to those who are gaoled in their countries for having been bold and brave enough-they have to be much bolder and braver than we are-to make criticisms of their governments, given their political situations. Those groups are bitterly attacked by the Soviet Peace Committee and the World Peace Council, so they can hardly be described as pro-Soviet. The fact that they exist at all in some of those countries is quite amazing and, as I have said, they need our support. It is interesting that a three-day seminar in Prague in June, to which people from all over Eastern and Western Europe were invited, was broken up by the authorities and the participants were expelled. It was just as much a threat to the East as to the West. Those in the East allege that the peace movement is sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency, just as the conservatives here allege funding from the Soviet Union, as Senator Crichton-Browne intimated in an earlier debate. He would feel quite at home in the Soviet Union, blaming all dissent on outside funding. People such as Senator Crichton-Browne who see everything in black and white never take account of the various shades of grey; in other words, they have a very simplistic philosophy-`If you are not for us, you are against us'. They do not seem to understand that some people can be opposed to nuclear weapons no matter which country holds them. That kind of thinking divides the world's people into enemy and allied categories, which is not very helpful in the process towards peace. It is important to notice also that War Resistance International, a group of which I am a member, protested in 1968 in the capitals of eastern Europe against the Soviet Union invasion of Czechsolovakia and, at the same time, against the United States war in Vietnam. The eastern European authorities simply could not understand that position, just as the conservatives here are unable to see it the other way round. They were saying, `If you criticise the United States you must be pro-Soviet'. That is what we are told. In the Eastern bloc people were told that, if they criticised the Soviet invasion of Czechsolovakia, they must support the United States war in Vietnam. Of course, War Resistance International opposed all militarism. War Resistance International now actively supports conscientious objection movements in Eastern Europe. A recent conference along those lines was held in Finland with people from Poland, Yugoslavia and Hungary invited and able to be there, which was good. The European nuclear disarmament movement has the same trouble. Critics found it hard to accept the support for independent groups in the Eastern bloc and meetings and seminars held together. Yet for the non-aligned movement-the principle has always been basic-one cannot expect to get rid of the United States military presence unless one also works to get rid of Soviet occupation forces out of Eastern Europe. That is very much on the agenda of the European peace movement. But we cannot alter geography. The people in Europe see the Soviets in Europe and the Americans over the sea. So recent consideration of defensive defence and civilian-based defence is on the agenda for the peace movement in Europe, rather than what is now emerging in Germany and France-a new concept of a nuclear defence outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which seems to be a danger sign. Many people, particularly the peace movement, are looking at a new concept of security which is in non-military terms. That goes for some governments in western Europe, including the Swedish and the Dutch. There is even a pocket of people in the French Defence Department looking at non-violent civilian defence as an adjunct to their other defence activities. Finally, I want to say something about disarming the seas, which is the campaign that is taking up most of the attention of the Australian peace movement at the moment. In the Pacific and Indian Ocean region we must now demand naval arms control and security talks. I commend the Government-in particular, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden-for raising this question in several fora both in Australia and internationally, at the United Nations and with Mr Shultz in June this year. When I attended the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in New York recently, the United States blocked all mention of the naval arms race at sea. It would not allow it to be included in the document which ultimately fell into the wastepaper basket at that meeting. That the United States would not allow the naval arms race to be mentioned was one of the major stumbling blocks, yet the naval arms race is the most destabilising area of the escalating arms race at the moment. The danger of submarine launched cruise missiles is a nightmare for arms controllers because they are not counted, are not easily identifiable and are mobile. The United States started the deployment of these cruise missiles in 1984 and the Soviet deployment started in January this year. It is a typical scenario in which one superpower follows the other and we are all put further at risk. A campaign in the Pacific must be directed not just against the United States and the Soviet Union but must involve regional powers such as Canada, Japan, South Korea and China. So the nuclear free and independent Pacific movement and the Pacific campaign to disarm the seas have taken strong stands against not only the overwhelming United States presence but also against Soviet sealaunched cruise missiles and Cam Ranh Bay. It is very important that this international aspect is understood clearly. But the fact remains that in Australia we have only United States bases and mostly United States warship visits, with occasional visits from the Royal Navy and the French. Senator Newman —They are joint facilities. Senator VALLENTINE —Senator Newman might call them joint facilities, but I think that they serve the purpose of the United States military command amply. They do not serve our defence arrangements at all; they make nuclear targets out of us. They do nothing for the defence of Australia whatsoever with the one minor exception of the Australian control room at North West Cape. That is the only possible argument that can be made that any of these so-called joint facilities serve Australian defence. The others are nuclear targets and they do not serve our purposes one little bit, but they serve the United States very well. It is obvious that the peace movement in Australia is going to be directed against our Government's compliance with the United States military. This is not a unilateralist position but obviously our best efforts can be directed at changing public opinion in this country. That is where our efforts are going to be most effective. That is why we concentrate on Australia's involvement. It is much more sensible for us to concentrate our efforts on Australia's involvement and to try to stop that rather than working on the details of crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the disarmament agreements. That is the job for the people who are involved in the disarmament discussions at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. Our job is to give our governments the push in the direction that we want them to go. The facts remain: the peace movements internationally support each other in their efforts towards multilateral disarmament. Peace movements obviously concentrate efforts on the foreign affairs and defence policies of their own countries. We have to focus on working to denuclearise and demilitarise our own patches-that is, our own territories. We can affect public attitudes in our own countries, bringing pressure to bear on our own Government's policies. For example, we have seen the Australian peace movement's efforts to extricate Australia from its contribution to the arms race. They are now very well known but they relate to American bases on Australian soil, the constant presence of warships in our harbours and the mining and export of uranium. Those are the things that the Australian peace movement still focuses on but we do have the international aspect of our work which is mostly concentrated on the arms race at sea. If the Australian Government is pushed by the peace movement and public pressure in this country it will work hard and more effectively in international fora like the United Nations General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament. Ultimately then individual countries, pushed by their own people, bring pressure to bear on the nuclear powers and then it is appropriate for those countries, working with the other countries in the conference on disarmament, to make sure that it is mutual and verifiable disarmament that takes place. That can hardly be called a unilateralist position. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.13) —I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time tonight to support the moves that have been taking place for some considerable time, without success to date but being intensified at the moment by various groups in Victoria, and in particular by the Calder Highway Improvement Committee, to have the Calder Highway between Melbourne and Bendigo upgraded by it being reclassified under the road classification system to a classification of national arterial road. Those members of the Senate who know the Calder Highway will know that it is a very busy road. Indeed, it is the major transport route to the northern part of Victoria and to the increasingly busy areas of regional Victoria around the Bendigo area. It is also very heavily connected with the development in traffic, tourist and otherwise, associated with the growing use and tourist potential of the Tullamarine Airport. The highway is one that I have had familiarity with virtually throughout my life. As a boy I grew up in Bendigo and spent a great deal of my time travelling on that highway between Bendigo and Melbourne. As a senator for Victoria in the last four years I have spent a great deal of time travelling the highway as well. One thing that can be said of it with great certainty is that it is a very dangerous road. The accident statistics from the Road Traffic Authority for the last three years show that in 1985 there were 286 accidents on the Calder Highway between Melbourne and Bendigo. In 1986 there were 274 accidents and in 1987 that figure increased by 100 to a figure of 373. Last year alone of those 373 accidents 13 fatalities were involved. Much of the road is still single lane. There have been some considerable improvements made to it over the last 20 years. But despite those improvements much of it is still single lane and even in the areas where there have been improvements they have been done in a way which has shown that they have suffered from a lack of adequate funding. One of the areas that have recently been made into a double lane highway, resurfaced and had more signposts put up to warn of dangerous curves is the section from the Black Forest through to Ravenswood near Bendigo. The local police figures for road accidents and fatalities show that since that section of the road has been upgraded those accidents and fatalities have declined very sharply. The record of this Government in terms of road funding is appalling. Under Labor road funding has dropped by more than 20 per cent in real terms. In this year alone the Government slashed $50m from the road funding program on top of the other savage cuts that occurred in recent years. The regional and rural communities bear the brunt of these slashes in road funding. I accept the point that it is certainly not an automatically positive correlation between the condition of roads and the accidents on roads. I think one can draw to simplistic conclusions from that relationship but there is no doubt that there is a relationship. In the case of the Calder Highway, particularly with its increasing usage over recent years, there is no doubt that if the highway is not upgraded and if it does not obtain national arterial road classification, and therefore the eligibility for greater funding, particularly from the State Government then we are going to see many more accidents on that highway. In view of what has happened in recent years I ask the Government how many more accidents and fatalities do we have to have on the Calder Highway before it will sit up and up take the necessary notice which will lead to the upgrading of the highway? I congratulate the Calder Highway Improvement Committee for the tireless efforts that it has made in recent years in attempting to get governments to take the necessary steps to improve the highway between Melbourne and Bendigo. It has done a mighty job. It has not been successful up to date but I am sure that its efforts certainly deserve to be rewarded and I hope they will be in the very near future. If they do not the effect will be to hold back the development of that region of Victoria which is a very important part of my State. I want to join with those who over a period of time have been seeking to upgrade this highway. It is well overdue and I hope that the efforts of the Committee and others will prove fruitful. Just before the Victorian State election the new Federal Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, Mr Bob Brown, visited the area to open a bridge in the Shire of Newstead. But he took the opportunity, so I am told, while he was there to look at the question of upgrading the highway. It seems to me that he had a funny sense of priorities. He got them round the wrong way. It was probably due to the politicking that he was associated with in the State election in Victoria. I hope that that politicking will not mean that now the election is out of the way the apparent interest of the relevant Minister fades away. I am confident that my Labor colleague, the Federal member for Burke, Mr O'Keefe, who has been very active in this area will keep his Minister and the Government up to the mark on it as well. He will certainly have my support and the support of many other people in doing so. Senator DUNN(New South Wales)(8.20) —I am generally known as the `honourable senator for warships', but tonight I am going to take this opportunity to speak on something that I do not speak about very often-that is, royalty. Although I have been a republican since I first fainted at the Sydney showground during the Queen's visit in the early 1950s, I must say that I had a great deal of sympathy for the plight of one of the Queen's youngest offspring, the Duke of York, Prince Andrew, during his recent visit to Australia. His Royal Highness was severely embarrassed and inconvenienced by the breakdown in the hydraulic equipment of the variable pitch propeller of the ship on which he was travelling, the nuclear-armed HMS Edinburgh. As a result, his very busy schedule in the former colony was interrupted on several occasions and his planned meetings with his charming wife, the Duchess of York, were almost disrupted. I imagine he was concerned about the astronomical costs of the extra helicopter flights to and from Lizard Island and, potentially, down to Tasmania and extra costs of the security services that the breakdown of his ship caused, not to mention the blow to the reputation of what was once regarded as the world's finest navy-the Falklands War notwithstanding. Of course, the Duke of York is, like most of his countrymen, a stickler for punctuality. But he seems to be having little success with meeting appointments while in Australia because his ship is running out of steam-not a good sign for what is supposed to be one of the most advanced ships in the British Navy. The failure of Prince Andrew's ship to take him to his royal spouse on time must surely have been a great test of his royal patience. However, His Royal Highness's patience was not the only patience to be tested during the bicentennial naval salute-in regard to the Edinburgh in particular. Certainly the patience of various members of the Federal Government seemed to be tested. Certainly the patience of the New South Wales Premier, Mr Greiner, and various members of his Government was tested. Their irritable remarks yesterday in State Parliament about me and various peace groups are evidence of that. Interestingly enough, those who had the most reason to complain about the activities and the cargo of the Edinburgh showed most restraint. They confined their activities to peaceful protest, orderly meetings and candlelit vigils. They were the thousands of Sydneysiders who, like Prince Andrew, did not welcome the news that the Edinburgh had to return to Sydney to have its propeller fixed. Neither do I think that the waterside unions in Sydney welcomed the news of the return of the Edinburgh, which was taken straight to the fleet intermediate maintenance base at 23 Woolloomooloo where only navy personnel are permitted to enter. It was probably just as well that the navy divers were able to repair the ship's propeller underwater and to repair it sufficiently to enable the ship to leave Sydney under its own steam. Had it not been able to it would, according to the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, speaking in the lower House yesterday, have been offered dry-docking facilities at Garden Island. Garden Island has been a very vexatious issue, particularly in relation to the dry-docking which Mr Beazley has offered to the Edinburgh. Dry-docking facilities were requested by the nuclear-armed ship Invincible which also developed propeller troubles on a visit to Australia in 1983. At that time the Minister for Defence, Gordon Scholes, refused it permission to dry-dock on the basis that it was contrary to government policy. He said that nuclear weapons were not allowed on Australian soil and that this included nuclear weapons on board a vessel in dry dock. It seems that government policy has changed since then or, rather, government policy has been changed for the Government. I seek leave, Madam Acting Deputy President, to table a document which shows exactly how this policy was changed and when. Leave not granted. Senator DUNN —Madam Acting Deputy President, I would like then to quote from the document. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Powell) —That is your choice, Senator Dunn. Senator DUNN —I quote from a statement that the United States Secretary of State, George Shultz, prepared for the Australian Government. Paragraph 2 of that statement reads: Visitation by allied vessels is perfectly consistent with our obligations as a sovereign nation that has voluntarily entered into mutual security agreements to protect fundamental interests. The provision of necessary repair facilities is an implicit obligation under these agreements. The version finally drafted by the Australian Government is remarkably similar, with only sufficient changes to retain some shreds of an appearance of independence. Paragraph 2 of the Australian Government's version states: Visits by allied vessels are fully consistent with our responsibilities as a sovereign nation which must protect fundamental interests, as is the provision of necessary repair facilities. Again, paragraph 3 of the Shultz document states: Regarding the use of Australian repair facilities, further clarification is in order. Whether our facilities would be appropriate for use in a given situation would depend on technical and safety requirements of both the RAN and the allied navy and would vary from ship to ship. The Australian Government dutifully prepared a statement that is almost an exact paraphrase of the original. It states: 3. (On) the question of an allied or friendly warship possibly needing to dry dock in an Australian port in the future, it was agreed that each request would have to be considered on its merits taking into account technical and safety factors. Therefore, it seemed that the way was indeed open at that time for the Government to consider a request for dry-docking on its merits. It has now decided that the Edinburgh's request was worthy of merit. On what basis was this done? I wonder whether Mr Beazley is aware that in order to dry-dock a nuclear-armed ship one has first to first take off the weapons. The Edinburgh carries nuclear depth bombs which are launched by two Lynx anti-submarine helicopters. How will the nuclear bombs be lifted off the ship? Will they be lifted off by standard crane or helicopter? Where will they be stored? Will they be stored on the wharf? What about the security surrounding the weapons on the wharf? Does Mr Beazley know that accidents have occurred with the handling of such nuclear weapons? Does he really want to take the risk? It seems that he does. Senator Vallentine has aptly named him the Minister for nuclear risks. I hope that he is not unlucky enough to go down in the history books as such. There are other questions that have to be answered too. Will Mr Beazley be prepared to allow dry-docking and, therefore, the de-arming of the Edinburgh without first asking the British whether they have their nasty nuclear weapons on board? Senator Tambling —Are you asking questions in Estimates or just on adjournments? Senator DUNN —These are rhetorical questions. Is Mr Beazley really prepared potentially to breach the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty by having unconfirmed nuclear weapons on Australian soil? How is the attitude of Mr Beazley and the Australian Government different from that of the Opposition, which holds that peace through security and deterrence can be achieved by welcoming nuclear-armed ships to our ports? Like Senator MacGibbon, I condemn the Soviet Union for using nuclear-powered satellites in total disregard of the safety of the citizens of the earth. How is the presence of nuclear-armed ships any different? To go back to the subject of Prince Andrew: just think of the royal annoyance if, during the de-arming of his ship, perhaps in Hobart now, one of the nuclear depth bombs were to catch fire or be accidentally dropped. That would truly cause an international scandal and taint the royal reputation somewhat. Therefore, although I am not a royalist, I would certainly seek to protect His Royal Highness from further embarrassment by suggesting that the Australian Government reverse its decision about dry-docking to save the royal son from further inconvenience and allow him to enjoy his married life in peace. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.29) —It is not my practice to speak very often on the adjournment. Certainly, out of consideration for other senators it is not my practice to speak at length on the adjournment-although I think the adjournment is a very important time if an honourable senator has an issue which he needs to raise on behalf of constituents or generally. I make no apology tonight for speaking for the first time in many months on the adjournment. I do so because I wish to raise the question of the discrimination being experienced by injured Commonwealth workers in regard to the expenses they are paid for travelling to and from places of treatment. I say `discrimination' because they are severely discriminated against in comparison with workers covered by State workers compensation legislation. I shall refer to the provisions of legislation relating to the reimbursement of costs incurred. I refer specifically to section 37 (7) of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971-1973, which states: Where compensation in respect of the cost of medical treatment is payable by the Commonwealth under this section, the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation to the employee of an amount equal to the amount of the expenditure reasonably incurred by the employee in making a necessary journey in connexion with the obtaining of that medical treatment or in remaining, for the purpose of obtaining that medical treatment, at a place to which he has made a journey for that purpose. Until 1 July of this year the payment made for the use of a private motor vehicle with an engine capacity of 1501 to 2000 cc was 11.01c a kilometre. But from 1 July this year that was slashed to 6c a kilometre, which caused a great deal of concern to injured workers, many of whom are already under considerable stress. That rate was announced in circular 1988/3 from Comcare dated 3 June 1988. Tonight I shall provide an example of how this problem is impinging upon, and is a burden to, injured Commonwealth workers. I refer to a constituent of mine, Mr John Glynn of 30 Hinsby Road, Taroona in Tasmania. Mr Glynn works for Australia Post, and is an injured Commonwealth worker. He was required to have daily treatment for an injury sustained in his place of employment. He was required to travel daily from his place of residence to the Dockside Clinic, a return trip of 22 kilometres a day. He made 66 daily trips and was reimbursed at the rate of 11.01c down to 6c a kilometre, which was a dramatic reduction. Actually, Mr Glynn sought information about it, and was informed that by using his own mode of transport he would be paid 30c a kilometre. Subsequently he made a claim for reimbursement for the period 19 April 1988 to 8 August 1988, a total of 66 days, at 22 kilometres a day. Mr Glynn was reimbursed for 42 days, that is, from 19 April 1988 to 30 June 1988 at 22 kilometres a day, or a total of 924 kilometres at 11.01c a kilometre, which amounted to $101.73. But from 1 July 1988 he was paid for 24 days at 22 kilometres a day, a total of 528 kilometres, at the rate of 6c a kilometre, which was a mere $31.68, for an approximate total of $134. This gentleman could not use public transport because of medical reasons. Had he been able to use public transport for the same period he would have been paid $2.40 a day for 66 days in bus fares, which would have totalled $158.40. However, he was unable to use public transport. If he had used a taxi for that period, the cost would have been $20 a day for a return trip, so the cost to Comcare for 66 days would have been $1,320. In using his own mode of transport because of medical reasons, he is being discriminated against, especially if one compares injured workers covered by State workers compensation legislation. Incidentally, Mr Glynn received a further cheque for approximately $25. Although the reason is not mentioned in my documentation, I presume that was a reimbursement for the equivalent bus fares. The point is that Mr Glynn had been told he would be reimbursed at a much higher rate-that he would be paid 30c a kilometre for using his car. Mr Glynn used his vehicle, but the amount that has been paid to him is insufficient to cover the running costs and petrol used by his motor vehicle. It is most unfair that this situation should have arisen, with the kilometre rate being slashed from a low 11.01c a kilometre to 6c a kilometre. That is a disgrace. It is something that the Government should examine and rectify. I also understand that another change to the rate will occur on 1 December this year which will further exacerbate this problem. It is important that the Government respond to this matter in the interests of Commonwealth workers who are injured on the job. Over many years as a trade union officer I have dealt with persons who have had serious injuries and have had to have treatment. I think it is very important that those of us who represent these persons in this chamber-and I suggest that all of us represent these people because we are to oversight the activities of the Government, for whom these persons are working-take the responsibility for ensuring that these people get a fair deal. They are not getting a fair deal now. I submit this particular example to the Senate for two reasons: firstly, to give honourable senators an example of the difficulties experienced by injured Commonwealth workers and the discrimination that is suffered by them by comparison to injured workers in private employment who are covered by State workers compensation legislation; and, secondly, for something to be done for Mr Glynn, who was given to understand that he would be receiving a certain reimbursement but is now out of pocket because of that advice. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(8.41) —As I sat here listening to the adjournment debate, it suddenly occurred to me that Senators Vallentine and Dunn have turned the adjournment debate into the pacifists half-hour. I wonder whether they realise that pacifism is hardly attractive on an empty stomach, and certainly the force of their arguments, if any, becomes less and less attractive as the hours progress. They are not old enough to remember what previous pacifists did to the world in the 1930s with disarmament. They certainly have not learned from the history books what happened to the world after those people, their predecessors, saw that the democracies of the world were disarmed just in time for World War II. I wanted to speak only briefly, because in Senator Vallentine's speech she made much of the criticism of unilateral initiatives that she has been attracting. I think that Senator Vallentine, Senator Dunn and their colleagues have got to be judged by their actions, not by their words. They clearly spend their considerable efforts on unilateral initiatives against our friend and ally, the United States. That, as we all know, includes stunts; and in Senator Vallentine's case it includes gaol. I think that the Senate should be aware of Senator Vallentine's conduct in Estimates Committee D, which deals with the Department of Defence, where she appears briefly every time the United States is mentioned in the explanatory notes and, having asked her question, then disappears. She is not at all interested in the defence of Australia; she is simply concerned to see that the joint facilities in Australia are closed and that the bases in the Philippines are closed to our ally. She has no care for or appreciation of the need that this country has for strong friends. She and her colleagues pay practically no attention at all to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the need to deal even handedly with the United States and the USSR. For all their protestations, we have to look at the conduct of Senators Vallentine and Dunn and their colleagues. We on this side of the chamber-and also I, acknowledge now, the Government-believe that Australia and the world will stay at peace only through having strength against aggressors. That is now accepted by both the major parties in this country. It is the dangerous naivety, or even worse, of Senators Vallentine and Dunn that could lead us to war. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.45 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1988 MQ25/88-High Quality Beef EEC-1989 Quota Administration Scheme. MQ26/88-Sheepmeat and/or Goatmeat to EEC-1989 Quota Administration Scheme. MQ27/88-Buffalo Meat to EEC-1989 Quota Administration Scheme. M39/88-1989 Performance. Australian National University Act-Statutes- No. 202-Law Reform (Admission and Enrolment). No. 203-Limitation on Admission to Degrees Amendment No. 1. Banking Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 233. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1988- No. 12-Export Control (Dried Fruits) (Amendment). No. 16-Export Control (Fees) as amended (Amendment). Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 241. Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 242. Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 244. Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 236. Fisheries Act-Agreement between the Commonwealth and East Australian Development Fishing Co. Pty Ltd dated 20 September 1988. Grain Legumes Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 235. Health Insurance Act- Determinations (2) made under subsection 3C (1) dated 2 June and 3 June 1988. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1) of the Act for specified public purposes. Meat Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 243. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1988-No. 7-Meat Inspection (Fees) as amended (Amendment). National Health Act- Authorisation made by the Delegate under subsection 40AA (6), for the purposes of paragraph (ce), dated 19 August 1988. Determinations made by the- Delegate under subsection 4 (1), for the purposes of paragraph (dc) dated 29 July 1988 and paragraph (dd), dated 1 September 1988. Minister under subsections- 4A (8), dated September 1988. 40AH, for the purposes of paragraph (b), dated 15 June 1988. Principles formulated under the following subsections- 40aa (7), dated 29 June 1988. 40afa (3), dated 29 June 1988. Naval Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 234. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 238-240. Public Service Act-Determinations 1988-Nos 193, 197, 205, 207, 208, 210-213 and 215. Remuneration Tribunals Act- Determination 1988 No. 9-Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Offices. Report 1988-No. 1-Justices and Judges-Remuneration and Allowances. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Approval and Variation to the Public Rental Housing Assistance Program, made by the Delegate of the Minister, under the Housing Assistance Ordinance, dated 10 August 1988. Determinations 1988 listing fees and/or rates made under the following Ordinances: ACT Institute of Technical and Further Education, dated 3 August 1988. Agents, dated 22 August 1988. Architects, dated 22 August 1988. Building, dated 22 August 1988. Building and Services, dated 22 August 1988. Cemeteries, dated 22 August 1988. City Area Leases, dated 22 August 1988. Co-operative Societies, dated 22 August 1988. Dangerous Goods, dated 22 August 1988. Dog Control, dated 22 August 1988. Hawkers, dated 22 August 1988. Lakes, dated 22 August 1988. Machinery, dated 22 August 1988. Motor Omnibus Services, dated 22 August 1988. Motor Traffic (2), dated 4 August and 22 August 1988. Nature Conservation, dated 22 August 1988. Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board, dated 22 August 1988. Pounds, dated 22 August 1988. Rabbit Destruction, dated 22 August 1988. Racecourses, dated 22 August 1988. Real Property 2, dated 22 August 1988. Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages, dated 22 August 1988. Registration of Deeds, dated 22 August 1988. Sale of Motor Vehicles, dated 22 August 1988. Scaffolding and Lifts, dated 22 August 1988. Stock, dated 22 August 1988. Surveyors, dated 22 August 1988. Taxation (Administration), dated 12 August 1988. Unit Titles, dated 22 August 1988. Water Pollution, dated 22 August 1988. Weights and Measures, dated 22 August 1988. Shipping Registration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 237. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 204) Senator Newman asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) Would the Treasurer advise what definition is being used by the Australian Taxation Office for the terms `Religious Orders' and `Minister of Religion' under the Fringe Benefits Assessment Act 1986. (2) Will `Religious Orders' be regarded as a broad general and descriptive term to embrace `denominations', `societies', `ministries' etc. of a religious nature. (3) Will individual religious institutions be allowed to nominate those they regard as `ministers'. (4) Must such `ministers of religion' be limited to those who are formally ordained by a particular denomination. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The fringe benefits tax law exempts benefits provided by religious institutions in respect of the religious duties of employees who are ministers of religion or full-time members of a religious order. The exemption also applies to employees who are in training to become ministers or members of a religious order. The intention is to exempt benefits provided to clergy and other members of a religious order by reason of their membership of the religious order, but not benefits provided principally in respect of employment activities that are not religious duties. For that purpose, religious duties are taken to be pastoral duties or other duties or activities directly related to the practice, study, teaching or propagation of religious benefits. `Religious order' and `minister of religion' are not defined in the fringe benefits tax law. They are, nevertheless, terms that are generally well understood in the community, and the Commissioner of Taxation has advised that they will be interpreted in that light, having regard to relevant judicial decisions. He would see the term ``minister of religion'', for example, as including priests, pastors, rabbis or other persons recognised by a religion as having authority in matters of doctrine or religious practice, but not the ordinary adherents of a religion. In the Commissioner's view, a person who belongs to a religious order, whether known as a nun, brother, monk or by some other title, would generally be one of a community of persons sharing the same religious beliefs and bound by vows to live according to the rules and discipline of the order. (3) The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act requires each employer to determine the annual liability to fringe benefits tax, and to lodge a return with the Commissioner disclosing taxable fringe benefits and declaring the amount of fringe benefits tax payable. For that purpose, each religious institution would need to determine those of its employees who qualify as ministers of religion or members of religious orders. Taxation officers are available to assist any such institution that is in need of advice as to whether the exemption should apply in a particular case. (4) The question whether a person is a minister of religion is one of fact which needs to be determined according to whether, on the one hand, the particular religion requires a minister to be formally ordained or, on the other hand, authorises a person to carry out the duties of a minister based on a specified level of theological or other relevant training or experience. (Question No. 328) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 1988: (1) What rules apply for each country with which Australia has an international tax agreement or the equivalent in (a) Australia; and (b) the source country, to the taxation of pensions paid by a country to former residents of that country now living in Australia. (2) Where there is no international tax agreement or equivalent between Australia and a source country, what rules apply in (a) Australia; and (b) the source country, to the taxation of pensions paid by a country to former residents of that country now living in Australia. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australia has concluded twenty two comprehensive taxation agreements with other countries. Such agreements contain rules to avoid the double taxation of income flowing between Australia and its treaty partners and also allocate taxation rights in relation to certain classes of income. The attached table outlines the taxation position with respect to the taxation of pension income under each of these agreements. The general principle, subject to the listed variations, is that pensions derived from sources within one country by a resident of the other country are taxable only by the latter country. (However, where Australia, as the country of residence, has the sole right to tax a pension, certain pensions such as foreign war invalidity pensions may nevertheless be exempt in Australia under specific provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936). (2) Under Australian income tax law, where an Australian resident receives a pension from a country with which Australia does not have a comprehensive taxation agreement, the gross amount of that pension income is included in the recipient's assessable income for Australian income tax purposes. A credit, up to the amount of the Australian tax attributable to the pension income, is allowed against that tax for foreign tax paid on the pension income. The foreign income tax treatment of a pension received by an Australian resident from a country with which Australia does not have a comprehensive taxation agreement would depend upon that country's domestic income tax law. Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Taxation Agreement Partner Country Pensions other than those referred to in Columns 2, 3 or 4 Government service* Certain war service pensions Social Security pensions Austria ... R S (1) S (1) Belgium ... R S (1) (7) Canada ... R and S (2) Denmark ... R R and S (3) R and S (3) Finland ... R R and S (3) R and S (3) France ... R E West Germany ... R Ireland ... R Italy ... R (4) Japan ... R D Republic of Korea ... R S (1) Malaysia ... R R and S (7) Malta ... R E Netherlands ... R R and S (7) New Zealand ... R Norway ... R Philippines ... R (5) Singapore ... R D Sweden ... R R and S (3) R and S (3) Switzerland ... R E United Kingdom ... R United States ... R (6) S (1) S + The agreement with Austria enters into force on 1 September 1988 and will apply in Australia in respect of pensions derived on or after 1 July 1989. * ``Government service pensions'' are generally pensions paid in respect of services rendered to a government (including a State or local government). R : Taxable only in country of residence of pension recipient. S : Taxable only in country of source (i.e. country from which pension is paid) R & S : May be taxed in both the country of source and the country of residence with the latter country giving a tax credit for the source country tax on the pension. D : Government pensions paid to retired Government officials are expressly excluded from the agreement and are taxable in accordance with the respective domestic laws. E : Exempt from tax in country of residence as long as exempt in country of source. NOTE: (1) Taxable only in the country of source where the pension recipient is a citizen/national of that country. (2) The source country tax is limited to the lesser of 15 per cent of the pension received in the year, and the tax that would be payable in respect of the pension received in the year if the recipient were a resident of the source country. (3) May be taxed in the country of source where the pension recipient is a citizen/national of that country. (4) Australia exercises, with effect from 1 July 1987, its right under the convention to tax Australian residents on Italian pension payments. (5) Pensions paid by a Philippine enterprise under a pension plan not registered under Philippine law may be taxed in the Philippines. (6) The treaty with the United States allows for the continued operation of United States domestic law taxing rights over certain income, including pensions other than government service and social security pensions, derived by United States citizens. Where this right is exercised in respect of a pension derived by a United States citizen who is a resident of Australia, the United States is required to give a credit against its tax for any tax imposed by Australia as the country of residence of the pension recipient. (7) However, pensions paid in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by one of the countries are taxable only in the country of residence of the recipient. (Question No. 441) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: Does the Sanitarium product `So Good', described as a non-dairy soy drink, attract sales tax; if so, why and at what rate is sales tax applied. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The product `So Good' is considered to be soy milk for sales tax purposes. Prior to the 1988-89 Budget all soy milk was subject to wholesale Sales tax at the `general' rate of 20 per cent. This was consistent with the sales tax treatment of other fruit and vegetable juices. The Government reviewed the sales tax treatment of soy milk in the lead-up to the 1988-89 Budget. After taking into consideration the fact that soy milk had come to be regarded as a substitute for dairy milk and was frequently chosen for medical reasons the Government announced in the 1988-89 Budget that, with effect from 8.00 pm 23 August 1988, plain soy milk would be exempt from sales tax (as is dairy milk) and flavoured soy milk would be taxable at the concessional rate of 10 per cent. (Question No. 472) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 25 August 1988: (1) Was the National Crime Authority (NCA), consulted before the sudden decision in Queensland to end the public proceedings of the Fitzgerald Inquiry into organised crime in that State on 1 December 1988. (2) Will the NCA be given full access to all documents revealed to the Fitzgerald Inquiry, either publicly or privately during the course of its investigations. (3) Will the Minister ensure that every document garnered by Mr Fitzgerald and his team is preserved for Federal perusal. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Commissioner Mr Fitzgerald is directly responsible to the Queensland Government. I am advised that the National Crime Authority has had continuing liaison with the Fitzgerald Inquiry since its establishment and will of course be discussing matters of interest with the Commissioner and his staff before the cessation of the Inquiry. (3) While it is a matter for the Commissioner to determine within the terms of the relevant State legislation what information should properly be passed on to State or Federal agencies, all appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that matters of interest to the Commonwealth arising out of the Inquiry are made available to relevant agencies. (Question No. 474) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 25 August 1988: Can the Minister outline the various procedures that surround so called `joint funding' arrangements between the Federal and State Governments in respect of the following: (a) roads; (b) welfare housing; (c) health facilities; and (d) employment creation projects with respect to financial years 1986-87 and 87-88. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) ROADS In 1986-87 and 1987-88 the Commonwealth provided financial assistance to the States and local government for construction and maintenance of roads under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 and the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985. Under this legislation the Commonwealth accepts full financial responsibility for funding maintenance and construction of the declared 16,000km National Highway System. It also provides significant base grants to State and local government to assist in meeting their responsibilities for arterial and local roads. In 1986-87 and 1987-88 Commonwealth assistance to the States for the three categories of roads totalled $1245 million and $1244.5 million respectively. Commonwealth road funding accounted for around one third of annual expenditure on roads by all levels of government. Responsibility for Commonwealth road funding legislation rests with the Minister for Transport and Communications. The administrative procedures relating to the two Acts are set out in more detail in Notes of Administration, which are available from the Department of Transport and Communications. (b) WELFARE HOUSING Under the terms of the 1984 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA), the States and the Northern Territory are required to match, on a $ for $ basis: Commonwealth funding provided under the untied component of the CSHA (for general rental and home purchase assistance); and Commonwealth funding provided for the Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme (MRRS) a special purpose program funded through the CSHA. In 1988-89 $530.6 million will be provided for the Commonwealth as untied CSHA funds to be matched by States, and $26.4 million under MRRS. Sources of funds eligible for States matching expenditure under the 1984 CSHA are: surpluses from rental programs and revolving funds from home purchase assistance programs; allocations for housing from State consolidated revenue funds, loan funds, trust funds and other special accounts, borrowings by State instrumentalities and appropriations from State Authority and instrumentality surpluses; amounts agreed between the Federal Minister and State Minister. (c) HEALTH FACILITIES Provision of Hospital services is a State responsibility, but Commonwealth funding is provided. In 1986-87 and 1987-88 this was in the form of Medicare Compensation Grants (which reimbursed the States for revenue forgone by providing free public hospital treatment to Medicare patients) paid by DCSH and Identified Health Grants (general revenue assistance to the States) paid by Treasury. Commencing in 1988-89, new specific purpose hospital funding grants are to be made to the States over five years. A total of $3036 million was provided in the 1988-89 budget. The Commonwealth and the States/Territories assist the Red Cross Transfusion Services on the following basis: recurrent costs States/Territories, 60% Red Cross, 10% of appeals and donations Commonwealth, the balance capital costs Commonwealth and States/Territories, 50% each. Under the terms of the Commonwealth/State Agreement, the States/Territories are responsible (in conjunction with the Red Cross) for determining the level and extent of operation of their respective Blood Transfusion Services. Each year the Red Cross submits an operating budget to its State health authority, which in turn vets it, adjusts it if necessary and submits an endorsed revision to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will then make advances to the State during the year and acquit at the end of the year on the basis of meeting its designated share of those final costs accepted by the State/Territory. An itemised capital program is jointly approved by the Commonwealth and each State/Territory each year. In practice the State/Territories submit endorsed programs for the Commonwealth's consideration. After vetting and adjusting it if necessary to accord with the Commonwealth's health and financial priorities, the Commonwealth advises the program it has approved and the level of funds it will provide. Under current arrangements the Commonwealth reserves the right to restrict its level of funding in any year. The Commonwealth and the States/Territories assist the Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) on the following basis: recurrent costs the Commonwealth matches the States/Territories up to a maximum of 90% of net operating costs. The RFDS meets the balance capital costs the RFDS and the Commonwealth each meet 50% of an agreed program. The States/Territories are only involved with the Commonwealth in funding the recurrent costs of the RFDS. To this extent the States/Territories have primary responsibility for determining the level and extent of RFDS operations, within a general constraint imposed by the Commonwealth to the effect that a sustained and significant increase in the level of operations over the 1985-86 level of operations requires prior Commonwealth approval. The individual RFDS Sections submit the proposed annual operating budgets to their respective State/Territory health authorities for approval. Capital budgets are also referred to State/Territory authorities for comment in relation to the possible effects on recurrent costs. These are vetted by the States/Territories, adjusted if necessary to accord with the States/Territories health and financial priorities and submitted to the Commonwealth through the Federal Council of the RFDS. Advances made during the year are acquitted at the end of the year and adjusted if necessary in accordance with the agreed formula. (d) EMPLOYMENT CREATION PROJECTS For the period 1986-87 and 1987-88 two employment creation projects were in place with ``joint funding'' arrangements between Commonwealth and State/Territory governments. These were the Community Employment Program (CEP) and the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS). The CEP, which was formally abolished on 13 May 1987, was jointly administered by State and Commonwealth officers, with the majority of funding from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth provided all the program funding and an administrative subsidy to the States/Territories. The State financial contribution was that part of the administration not covered by that subsidy. The procedures surrounding the joint project involved formal agreements between the Commonwealth and each State/Territory specifying the division of responsibilities, financial arrangements and project management procedures. The procedure for the conduct of the program was that the State/Territory was responsible for administration of program funds, entering agreements with program sponsors, obtaining audited accounts and providing financial information to the Commonwealth. The State/Territory and Commonwealth were jointly responsible for monitoring progress in the project. The Commonwealth, in conjunction with a State/Territory committee was responsible for the approval, variation and rescheduling of projects. The object of the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme is to create new employment opportunities by providing income support, capital assistance, access to small business advisory services and training to persons who have the capacity to establish and conduct small businesses. The NEIS is jointly funded, in that the Commonwealth provides funds for both income support and training, while the State/Territory provide loans for the setting up of small business enterprises. Both the State/Territory and the Commonwealth contribute staff to the project. The scheme is arranged through a ``Memorandum of Arrangement'' signed by the Commonwealth Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs, and the relevant State/Territory Minister. The memorandum outlines the operation of the program, the contributions to be made by the State/Territory and by the Commonwealth, and the necessary exchange of information. The allocation of tasks between the Commonwealth and State/Territory is complex, as the project is jointly administered. (Question No. 485) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 29 August, 1988: For the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88, what were the total moneys paid out by your department and authorities within your portfolio in the form of grants of ex-gratia payments to consultants, corporations, or other non-employees of the Commonwealth. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1986-87 Nil; 1987-88 Nil. (Question No. 501) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: (1) How many employees under the Public Service Act were encouraged to retire during the months of May and June 1988? (2) How many accepted the proffered packages? (3) How many of those were retired as a result of job abolition? (4) What was the mean age of those officers accepting packages? (5) What was the average cost of each package? Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 10 employees under the Public Service Act were offered early retirement during the months of May and June 1988. (2) Seven (3) Four (4) 52 Years (5) $42,929 (Question No. 505) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: (1) How many employees under the Public Service Act were encouraged to retire during the months of May and June 1988? (2) How many accepted the proffered packages? (3) How many of those were retired as a result of job abolition? (4) What was the mean age of those officers accepting packages? (5) What was the average cost of each package? Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No employees under the Public Service Act were offered early retirement during the months of May and June 1988. (2) Not applicable (3) Not applicable (4) Not applicable (5) Not applicable (Question No. 523) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: (1) How many positions in each Senior Executive Service and administrative service category were abolished and how many in each category were created in 1987-88 in the Minister's portfolio. (2) Of those created, how many have the same or similar functions as one or more of those abolished. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Creations* Abolitions Those with the same or similar functions SES Level 6 ... 0 0 - SES Level 4 ... 0 0 - SES Level 3 ... 0 0 - SES Level 2 ... 0 0 - SES Level 1 ... 1 0 - Sub Total ... 1 0 0 ASO Class 8 ... 17 12 7 ASO Class 7 ... 15 7 5 ASO Class 6 ... 15 11 8 ASO Class 5 ... 3 6 3 ASO Class 4 ... 10 13 6 ASO Class 3 ... 20 6 5 ASO Class 2 ... 16 18 13 ASO Class 1 ... 9 14 9 Total ... 106 87 56 * Approximately 20 positions were created in consequence to the introduction of revised administrative arrangements, and in particular, the abolition of the Public Service Board. AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT BENEFITS OFFICE (AGRBO) Creations* Abolitions Those with the same or similar functions SES Level 5 ... 0 0 - SES Level 4 ... 0 0 - SES Level 3 ... 0 0 - SES Level 2 ... 0 0 - SES Level 1 ... 0 0 - Sub Total ... 0 0 0 ASO Class 8 ... 2 2 1 ASO Class 7 ... 3 - - ASO Class 6 ... 7 - - ASO Class 5 ... 13 - - ASO Class 4 ... 9 2 - ASO Class 3 ... 22 2 1 ASO Class 2 ... 64 9 - ASO Class 1 ... 14 16 5 Total ... 134 31 7 * The majority of positions created represent those which will eventually be incorporated into a revised organisational arrangement within the major operational areas of AGRBO. These positions are being phased in over a period of time. As new positions are staffed, positions from the `obsolete' structure will be abolished. In the long-term, once fully implemented, the establishment of AGRBO will in fact contract. Senator Walsh —On 28 April 1988 (Hansard, page 2062), Senator Panizza asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the obligations on banks or finance companies to disclose the full cost of various forms of borrowings to their customers. I undertook to seek an answer from the Treasurer. The Treasurer supplied the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: For the lending of banks and finance companies which is subject to the State Government Credit Acts, disclosure of loan contract details is required. Borrowers must be given copies of contracts or proposed contracts at all relevant stages. Similar protection is given to guarantors and proposed guarantors. Special emphasis is places on the disclosure of the interest costs of the loan on the basis that cost comparisons should be made as easy as practicable for the borrower. The members of the Australian Bankers' Association (ABA) have recently agreed to a disclosure standard to govern the provision to customers of information on interest rates and charges for both bank loans and bank deposits. The disclosure standard has emerged from prolonged discussions among the banks and follows a survey initiated by the ABA at the end of 1987 to ascertain consumers' information needs. In the case of loan contracts, the disclosure standard identified three distinct stages where the consumer would be provided with specific information. These are: (i) prior to the loan being made-at which time the consumer will receive information which would enable a full comparison of all elements of the cost, and other terms and conditions, of loans from competing institutions; (ii) at the time the loan is made-when much of the information previously disclosed will be repeated, and the picture completed by the consumer receiving information on: any additional charges to apply to pre-payments of loans or full clearance of loans; any charges to apply in relation to arrears; and any provision for the contract's terms and conditions (including the interest rate) to be varied; and (iii) during the term of the loan-when consumers will receive appropriate notification in the event that the interest rate varies. The ABA has indicated that for competitive reasons some aspects of the proposed disclosure standards would not be introduced unless competing non-bank financial institutions were also willing to adopt similar practices. The development of the disclosure standard is a positive step by the banking industry, notwithstanding that some aspects (eg enforcement) remain to be clarified. The Government supports efforts to improve the information disclosed to consumers to allow them to make more informed comparisons and choices, and thereby benefit from competition among financial institutions.