Friday, 2 March 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cross,Mrs Darling,Mr Hawker,Mr Keogh,Mr McGauran,Mr Mildren,Mr Porter and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commence with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Mr Connolly,Mr Cowan,Dr Harry Edwards,Ms McHugh,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Mountford and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectively showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard,Mr Cross and Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: That because television and radio (a) affect our social and moral environment, (b) are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and (c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national ABC and commercial sectors. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate (a) for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public, (b) for a ''Dual System of Regulation'' enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control, (c) for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and (d) for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Australia, Division of Dawson, shows- That Australia is basically a Christian nation-as shown by figures from the last census. That the Queen of Australia is recognised as head of Australia's Parliamentary System. That no mandate has been sought from or given by the Australian people to alter our Oath of Allegiance, the proposal to amend the Citizenship Act not being publicised prior to the last Federal election. That removal of references to God and the Queen is the first small significant step towards Republicanism. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government does not remove references to God and the Queen from our Oath of Allegiance and that it be allowed to remain unchanged. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (a) that the Australian Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women in Copenhagen in 1980; (b) that the Convention came into force on 3 September, 1981; (c) that Australian women suffer serious disadvantage in employment, education, accommodation, membership of licensed clubs, provision of goods and services including services relating to banking, insurance and the provision of grants, loans, credit or finance; (d) that this disadvantage could be overcome by (i) making unlawful certain discrimination on the grounds sex and marital status, (ii) eliminating discrimination on the ground of sex and marital status and (iii) promoting affirmative action for women in employment; Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Parliament pass the Sex and Marital Status Discrimination Bill 1981. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We as members of a school Parent Club object to legislation that calls for the payment of the Bank Debit Tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in Government Schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Exemption from the payment of Bank Debit Tax will be granted to School Parents' Clubs in Government Schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Captial Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Captial Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposal of Telecom Australia to close the Manual Assistance Centre at Parkes will severely disadvantage the Parkes community by: 1. The loss of current employment and future employment opportunities and consequent loss of income to the district 2. The loss of a local 24 hours emergency service 3. The loss of local knowledge of telephonists being available to telephone users when traffic is routed to an exchange anywhere in the State 4. The loss of a local and personalized service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that those of the Honourable House will call on the Government to halt the closure pending a full and open inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the closure on this district, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Millar,Mr Porter and Mr Tuckey. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Patersons Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) Act to implement the biological control of Patersons Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Kaleen and Giralang, and other concerned retail traders, and citizens (electors of the Divisions of Fraser and Canberra) strongly object to the inclusion of the retail component (a shopping centre of some 2,500 sq. metres) in the Development Plan for Sections 27, 28 Kaleen, on the basis that there is not, and never will be, sufficient populace in the area to justify such a development. Your petitioners do therefore pray that this retail component is abandoned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria sheweth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that: Parent clubs being set up by Government regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that : 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Snow. Petitions received. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the Prime Minister's attempts to reduce unemployment by the appointment of panels of inquiry, and (2) regrets his inability to place in profitable employment, those 1,000 staff members of the Department of Social Security initially employed to handle the discredited pensioner assets test. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern that despite frequent requests the Australian Bureau of Statistics has decided not to include a direct question on participation in adult education courses in the 1986 census; (2) notes with concern that by including an item on attendance at an educational institution, and excluding adult education, the 1986 census is potentially saying that adult education is not education, and (3) urges the Bureau of Statistics to reverse its decision and include a direct question on participation in adult education courses in the 1986 census. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) supports the establishment of a National Aviation Museum, to be completed for the bicentennial year, 1988; (2) recognises that such a museum will attract much national and international interest, will have many supportive industries located in the vicinity of the museum, will provide significant job opportunities and will protect many unique aircraft; and (3) affirms its commitment to the increased tourism that will be created by the establishment of the museum; and (4) recommends that the most suitable site to meet the conditions of employment creation, export management and the greatest tourist potential would be to establish the museum adjacent to the RAAF Base, Richmond, NSW. Mr SPEAKER —I have received advice from the National Party of Australia Whip that he has nominated Mr Adermann to be a member of the Standing Committee on Expenditure in place of Mr Hunt, Deputy Leader of the National Party. Debate resumed from 1 March, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Macphee had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst welcoming the intention of the Bill to remove discrimination against the people on the basis of sex, marital status or pregnancy, the House is of the opinion that: (1) the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; (2) Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women should not be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth; (3) the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid workforce or alter their view of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children; (4) no decision or action by any educational or child care or other body established for the education of students or the care of children in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed or in accordance with stated principles should be affected where that decision or action has been taken in good faith to enable the body to conform with those doctrines or principles; (5) nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving those articles of the Convention which are not implemented by the Bill, and (6) the clauses of the Bill should be re-drafted accordingly'. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.06) —Last night I made some brief comments on the Sex Discrimination Bill with reference to remarks made earlier on this Bill by some Opposition speakers. I attributed to the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) statements in support of traditional families and in support of women doing traditional jobs. On reading the Hansard proofs this morning I see that I erred in ascribing to him a position in terms of traditional jobs. I apologise to him. The Bill gives effect to certain provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It eliminates discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy and promotes the recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of equality of women and men. As a previous Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. E. G. Whitlam, pointed out on numerous occasions, national governments in Australia have traditionally used the excuse of recession or economic downturn to stifle and postpone necessary social reforms. I am proud to speak in favour of this legislation not only as part of a government which has pursued with integrity and dedication its objectives of social reform, but also as part of a government which has, at the same time, turned the tide of economic recovery in this nation . It would be fair to say that the Bill has two major purposes: Firstly, to raise the status of women in our community; and, secondly, to provide certain pre- conditions for the establishment of equality between men and women. Some years ago the then Australian Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. When signing that Convention on behalf of the Australian people, Mr Ellicott stated: It is a question of treating each woman as an individual with her own dignity and self respect and the power to make decisions about her destiny. The preamble to the United Nations Convention is highly relevant to this legislation. It states: Discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their communities. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity. In that context, it is worth examining the current situation of women in Australian society. The following facts compiled by the Office of the Status of Women indicate very clearly how deeply entrenched economic and employment related inequalities are in Australian society today. Sixty-three per cent of women workers are concentrated in three occupational groupings-clerical, sales and services. Women represent 78 per cent of all part time workers. Women's measured unemployment rate is at least half a percentage point higher than the rate for men and the measured unemployment rate for women aged between 15 and 19 years is almost 25 per cent. Women's participation in Federal Government training and short term employment programs is significantly less than that for males. Ninety-one per cent of single parent families are headed by females. Women make up only 15 per cent of the administrative, executive or managerial occupational groups and, finally, women represent less than 6 per cent of all Australian apprentices. If we take out hairdressing, women represent less than 2 per cent and in fact the accurate figure is around one per cent of all apprentices in Australia. A further relevant example of the inequality or lack of representation of women in economic and political life in Australia is evidenced by some statistics about parliamentary representation throughout Australia. Since Federation a total of only 29 women have served or are currently serving in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Only 110 women have served in all of the parliaments of Australia since their foundation. While it is encouraging that those numbers are increasing, it is still essential that government, particularly the Federal Government, promotes the recognition and acceptance of the principle of the equality of men and women. There are those in this Parliament and members of the public who claim that this Bill is opposed by most Australians. It is true that, as the member for the provincial Victorian seat of Bendigo, I have received more representations on this Bill than on any other aspect of Government policy. Opposition to the Bill has come from two identifiable groups. One group represents people in my electorate, and I think broadly throughout Australia, who have expressed a genuine and reasonable concern at some earlier aspects of the Bill, which in my view have now been satisfactorily resolved by the amendments in the present Bill before the House. The other group consists of a coalition of conservative interests whose political objectives are certainly to undermine democratic government in this country, who have conducted a well financed, well orchestrated and concerted campaign against this legislation based on intimidation, fear and, finally, outrageously dishonest public advertising. Last September the supporters of Call to Australia conducted a public meeting on this issue in Bendigo. The meeting was held on a Saturday evening and some 200 to 250 people attended. The chairman of the meeting was Mr Eddie Hann, State MLA for Rodney, and the guest speakers were Mrs Babette Francis, the national and international co-ordinator of Women who Want to be Women, and Professor Michael Levin, Professor of Philosophy at the Manhattan Institute of Political Research and author of the book Feminism and Freedom. Mrs Francis in particular is well known for her ability to display at meetings posters allegedly produced by extreme feminist groups which she suggests are publicly displayed in schools throughout Victoria, at the instruction of the Department of Education, and which are, she says, by their very nature poisoning the minds of our young people. But on every occasion Mrs Francis is challenged on that point of view and about the posters she produces, she is unable to name a single school in Victoria where the posters are on public display. More recently, Mrs Francis received additional publicity over her decision to resign from the Liberal Party of Australia and to join a newly established metropolitan branch of the National Party of Australia. Professor Levin is better known for his ability to express extreme right wing views which have little or no support in Australian society. His book Feminism and Freedom, is hardly a best seller. In fact, I visited Melbourne recently and went to five bookshops but was unable to find a single bookseller who had sold a copy or even heard of his book. Perhaps Professor Levin is far better known for his article in the 7 June 1982 issue of Newsweek in which, with some flair and obvious passion, he advocated the use of torture by government authorities. In the lead-up to the public meeting in Bendigo a number of prominent advertisements were placed in the Bendigo Advertiser. Leaflets were distributed throughout letterboxes and households. The paid advertisments were titled 'Sex Discrimination Laws Affect Your Life' and contained sub-headings such as 'The Way You Act and Think' and 'Farms and Country Industries'. The text of the advertisements contained statements such as this: Will the Bible and Christian teaching become illegal in public places? An article under the heading 'Marriage and Family Life' stated: Traditional ideas and laws in these areas are to be of no legal effect. Other material distributed in Bendigo and throughout Victoria at that time talked of 'foreign control of our schools' and 'foreign attacks on our wives'. Mr Ian Cameron —What? Mr BRUMBY —That is what it said. That is the disgraceful nature of the material that was distributed and which was aimed at misleading innocent people. Without labouring the obvious, I point out that on every occasion over the past 100 years in which governments have acted to provide measured improvements in the rights of women they have met with concerted and misleading campaigns from vocal and privileged generally minorities aimed at maintaining the status quo. In 1883 the British Government introduced the Married Women's Property Act. Prior to that time a woman who married was forced to hand over all the property to her husband. If she earned income, the money became his. In the case of divorce, the husband retained all the property and income she had earned. When the British Government introduced this legislation it was claimed by opponents that it would destroy marriage, invoke nervous breakdowns and, of course lead to infertility. Some years later when the British and other Western governments allowed women equal access to education with men, a similarly conducted campaign of fear and ignorance was waged. Medical practitioners protested that if women were permitted to study subjects such as maths and science among other things it would cause atrophy of the uterus, it would inhibit lactation and, again, it would produce infertility and nervous breakdowns. Needless to say, when Western governments introduced the right for women to vote and be elected to Parliament, it was strongly argued that women would not want to vote and that the time was not quite right. The argument that the time is not quite right is always an effective and seemingly reasonable argument. It is used to deny women equal rights with men. In the case of the Bill before the House, the time is right and many would argue that it is well overdue. This Bill is not the monstrous instrument that certain people in our community, certain unscrupulous and dishonest people, have suggested it is. It will not weaken the institution of the family, nor will it prejudice in any way the practise or preaching of religion. The Bill is a very moderate and indeed balanced measure to give effect to that time honoured and, I think, respected Australian belief in a fair go for all. I commend the Bill to the House on that basis. I wish to make one final point in response to some of the comments made yesterday by members of the Opposition in the debate on this Bill. They all said that they were opposed to discrimination but that we did not really need a law to ensure that discrimination was ended. I believe there is a very good answer to that in certain of the booklets produced by the Office for the Status of Women. An article entitled 'Why we need laws to protect women's rights?' states: People sometimes argue that the law has no role in solving problems based on attitude and questions both the need to have laws to give equality and their effectiveness. While laws alone will never be enough-law is only one of many ways of responding to social change-they are in many respects very important. Laws stand as a clear statement of public policy and have an effect on conduct by protecting people against discrimination and giving redress to those who have been discriminated against. Anti-discrimination laws also offer support to people who may have been discriminated against due to social pressures, or mechanically, as part of a pattern of behaviour, and give them a practical reason to change their behaviour , think about what they have been doing and perhaps change their attitudes. Laws based on conscience are likely to be obeyed, and even if they are not they still establish a standard of behaviour to serve as a model or image of what conduct ideally should be. Finally, of course, Mr Speaker, a law offers to those who are discriminated against a source of courage and an awareness of rights, and this legislation is particularly vital in that respect. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.21) —Mr Speaker, it is a shame that this debate is not being broadcast, but never mind. I would like to compliment most of my colleagues from my side for their contributions. I had many calls last night and again this morning about certain aspects of the debate that made a lot of people raise a lot of queries. I have come to this Parliament trying to hate the women opposite, but really I have not found it in my heart to hate them because they are all so different for me. They are all so different in their ideas and what they believe the role of the woman should be, et cetera. I have tried to be objective. I listened to them intently last night. I probably interrupted a few times. I think one lady said that the Catholic Church supports the Sex Discrimination Bill. Well, I thought to myself: 'I am a Catholic and I don't support this Bill. I am the Catholic Church, not a bishop up in Queensland or a bishop in Hobart. I am a member of the Catholic Church so I am the Catholic Church and there are many other Catholics who do not support the Bill'. Really we get down to a political point. I have argued right from the very beginning that we should have opposed this Bill and not had anything to do with it at all because it is an Australian Labor Party Bill. I have come here determined to fight the Labor Party because-and I will be narrow-minded and bloody-minded about it-it has overridden the State of Tasmania. It has suppressed it. We are worthless down there because of a certain decision. I feel very strongly about that. But that is not me. I do not really want to be like that; one has to listen to the other point of view. I interrupted one of my colleagues during his speech and he said: 'You will have your turn very shortly, Bruce. I feel very strongly about it'. I thought under my breath, 'I feel very strongly about it also', so I am going to put my point of view. I hope honourable members do not mind my saying that the Liberal Party really should have opposed this Bill, but that is my point of view. We should have opposed it right from the very beginning. We are equivocating; we are mucking around with it. This Bill was signed by Mr Ellicott, but it never reached the party room of the Liberal Party. If the Liberal Party had listened to a few of my ideas it might still be in government. Anyway, it never reached the party room. I never discussed it or had a chance to talk about it and a lot of my colleagues did not . It was ratified by the Labor Government and then I started to think: 'Now where did this originate from?' It originated from women-mostly from the Women's Electoral Lobby. So I thought to myself: 'Well, it may have originated from some people on my side too-poor, misguided people'. Anyway, I thought I would have a good look at this Women's Electoral Lobby and I would study a few of the appointments to it to find out what it is all about. I read a few editorials and listened to a few people and I formed my own opinion , nobody else's opinion, just mine. I am a pig-headed coot and I like to think I am right all the time. I talked to my wife, I talked to other wives in my electorate, and to other women in my electorate, and I could not get any views that coincided with the view of the Women's Electoral Lobby. I started to do my research on this Women's Electoral Lobby. Most of the members of it were given- up Catholics. They are all women who had had problems, et cetera. They were women who had something against men. I thought to myself, 'Boy, what a nucleus from which to form a Bill; what a nucleus for us to follow', when in fact the silent majority of women did not have very much to say about this Bill at all. They used the word 'discrimination' and they talked about the yokes of the past . They talked about all the things that happened hundreds of years ago. I thought: 'We are living in the 1980s. My wife is not disriminated against. The women I know are not discriminated against'. But I know that there is discrimination and we all fight it vehemently. We try to right the system by fighting certain things that are happening within the system. Single mothers have problems and I support them in facing those problems. I have to. I would be a hypocrite if I did not support easing the problems of single mothers. I am an anti-abortionist so if single women have babies who am I to say that that is wrong? We have to fight for them and help them. We have heard talk about the mothers at home looking after their children, doing the right thing, being subservient to their husbands, being chained to the sink, always afraid to go outside because someone might say they are poor forgotten women who have to look after their children and things like that. We know that those women have an important role to play but they are not mentioned in this Bill. Women who rang me last night said: 'Bruce, they are trying to put down the women who stay at home and look after their children. They are not trying to say that such women are part and parcel of the world of women'. Women who stay at home have an important role to play. I really think the Women's Electoral Lobby hates women who stay at home and look after their children, if honourable members do not mind my saying so. They seem to have some axe to grind against such women, believing that they are not fulfilled, that they are not achieving their purpose in life and that they should leave the home. That is probably why we hear so much mention of a network of child minding centres. Certainly, we need child minding centres; we all know that. Many women are left by themselves. Many women are divorced or lose their husbands. Regrettably, men die a lot earlier than women and many women are left by themselves to look after children. We know that we have a role to play to improve their lot. We know that as legislators we should do more for women with those problems. But we will not do it with this stupid Bill that most women do not understand. The Bill was probably the product of the Women's Electoral Lobby. It has an axe to grind and thinks that this Bill will achieve it. I am afraid some of my Liberal Party colleagues hold their views similar to those of those women. They are called trendy. People say to me: 'Bruce, they are getting very trendy, some of your fellows. We cannot distinguish them from the Labor Party'. I have looked at the four women on the Government side. They are nice ladies. I have nothing against them, I have talked to them. We talk to each other. But they are all the same. They are always campaigning to save the cats, save the dogs and save the whales. They are anti-nuclear and pro-abortion. I do not mean that nastily. But they are all the same. They are anti the flag and anti the dam . Everyone knows that I am right; they are all the same. That is predominantly what Labor Party women are like. But they can talk; they are dashed good talkers . We have a few Liberal women who cross those lines and who are called trendy. But the majority of Liberal women are quite and do not say very much. They support their husbands, although I am not saying that Labor women do not. I have to be careful what I say. The majority of women that I know do not want to go into politics. They do not complain about having to look after their families or talk about those sorts of things. I have nothing against Labor women personally but they all seem to take up this role and I am afraid that everybody is starting to think that that role is the norm. I had a go at one of the women in the Women's Electoral Lobby. I will mention a few of them. I mention, for instance, Wendy McCarthy and her appointment to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I have studied her very carefully because she threatened to sue me. What I say here I would be prepared to say outside. All honourable members know that. I asked myself: 'What makes this woman tick? She has a very important role. She has been appointed to the Board of the ABC by the Labor Government. She has a very important role to play within the ABC. I think she is unusual, this woman. She has a particular axe to grind. I aked myself what really makes her tick. I read that she had launched a book. She is apparently involved with the Family Planning Association in New South Wales. In the book Ms McCarthy says that she thinks it is very good for children between the ages of five and 11 to have sex education. She thinks that it is great to talk about certain things. Mr Holding —It did something for you, that's for sure. Mr GOODLUCK —The Minister will get his turn with the skeleton later. We have to fight back. These women have it all their own way; if we do not fight back they will take over. About a month after Ms McCarthy launched a pro-abortion group in Sydney she raised the possibility of compiling lists of politicians who have used family planning associations and other agencies for abortion referrals for wives and daughters. Immediately my hackles came up. I thought: 'The cheek of her!' For this woman in the very important position of Deputy Chairman of the ABC to make such a statement I thought merited watching. I have watched her all the way and have tackled her as my colleagues would know. She is one example of those who have come from the Women's Electoral Lobby. I have also watched Susan Ryan, another one of these Catholics who have regrettably given up their religion. They seem to be all the same. Mr Maher —That is terrible. Mr GOODLUCK —That is all right, she says it all the time. I get sick of reading about it. That is the way they carry on. Mr Holding —You are a hypocrite and you know it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will come to order. I remind the honourable member for Franklin about the matter of referring to members of another House. I do not want to interrupt his line of argument, but he should make it referrable to the Bill. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I am sorry if I offended the Minister. It was not meant to be offensive. It was just a normal thing that one would say. Mr Holding —It was offensive. Mr GOODLUCK —The Minister is able to dish it out, but he cannot take it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Franklin get on with his argument about the Bill. Mr GOODLUCK —Anyway, Senator Ryan has a lot to say about sex education and discrimination in education. I thought: 'She does not line up with my way of thinking. I am entitled to say what I think'. She is another one who comes into the category I mentioned. Dr Anne Summers has been appointed to a position within the Office of the Status of Women. I have nothing against Dr Anne Summers . She is probably a very capable woman, but she is a radical feminist. She did her grass roots training within the Women's Electoral Lobby. She has had a lot to say about certain aspects of what will influence our young women of tomorrow. Therefore, of course, one needs to have a look at it. It is necessary to determine whether that fits in with my way of thinking. As Liberal Party members we should ask ourselves whether what Dr Summers says is right and whether we really believe in it. Of course, we should object to what is said if necessary. That is the reason we should scrutinise this Bill more carefully. We should not take everything for granted and agree with every aspect of this Bill. We should not let it go through for the sake of harmony or because it would stop problems within our Party. We should start to say where we stand on certain matters, see where other people stand and fight accordingly. Surely that is what it is all about. Without being nasty about the Bill or the people who have created it, we should be firm on where we stand. Many people have said many things about the Bill, including the fact that certain groups do not object to the Bill. An editorial in the Sydney Sun which is headed 'The Way for Women' reads: The Government's Sex Discrimination Bill is notable for some fancy red herrings it will have to climb over. And for one whale of an objection. One phony criticism is that in trying to give everyone a fair go, the Bill slurs stay-at-home women. That seems overly defensive. Women at home will be as secure as ever. It's when they step outside that the Bill seeks to remove a system of often silly, illogical but hurtful prejudices against them. The Bill has some edges which need smoothing. The editorial also referred to private schools and then continued: Another red herring stems from the Bill being based on the Government's external affairs power to ratify and implement international agreements. Australia, the story goes, will be invaded by UN public servants poking their noses into our affairs. The Bill, in fact, will create more than enough public servants of our own, and their final supervisors will be the courts. What should cause concern is how often the Federal Government intends to rely on external affairs powers to override or overlap States' powers. It did this with Tasmania's Franklin Dam. It is doing so again with discrimination law which goes much further than State laws. If merely by signing an international agreement Canberra can concentrate more power at the expense of the States, the States face a whale of a problem. The States can introduce legislation to take care of such problems if they want to. This has failed in many States. An attempt was made to introduce legislation in Tasmania, but it was decided not to do it. Why in the dickens are we getting ourselves involved in such a Bill when the States can deal with this matter if they want to? Why did we sign ourselves up with the people whom I have mentioned ? They are the people who have created the Bill. They are the people who are continually trying to tell everyone in the community that things are wrong for women, but they never talk about the fundamentals which I mentioned before. If such people were to give these fundamentals a fair go, one could understand them , but they have not. I do not support the Bill and I will continually fight against it because I am particularly worried about some of the people who are getting involved in women's affairs in Australia, and I have every right to expose them just as they exposed me. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.37) —Despite the hysteria of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the Sex Discrimination Bill is really a minor part of the Government's legislation program. The Government was elected to stimulate the economy, to improve education and to introduce a Medicare scheme. The introduction of the anti-discrimination legislation which has disturbed many members of the Opposition in many respects, even emotionally, is just a part of the legislative program arising from a treaty which the previous Government signed in 1980. It is unfortunate that the word 'sex' appears in the title of this Bill because I believe this has drawn the attention of members of the Opposition and many fringe groups to this legislation which might have had a much smoother and easier path through this House and in another place if that word had not appeared in the title. The legislation has nothing to do with child care facilities and nothing to do with women who want to stay at home. I was quite saddened by the comments of the honourable member for Franklin about Ms Wendy McCarthy. I met Ms McCarthy during the Lowe by-election at a meeting of the Women's Electoral Lobby. The Liberal candidate at that time did not even attend the meeting. I found Ms McCarthy to be a very intelligent, charming woman. I do not agree with some of her views, but I found her extremely articulate and a very pleasant person. I notice that there are still no women on the Opposition benches in this House. Apparently no women in the Liberal or National Party have any ability or are intelligent enough to obtain selection for a seat which they can win. The attack by the honourable member for Franklin on Dr Anne Summers, who is present in the chamber, is one of the most insensitive things that I have witnessed in 10 years of parliamentary service both here and elsewhere. If Dr Summers is a feminist, the honourable member for Franklin is an insensitive chauvinist. I have never heard such an appalling tirade from a member of parliament. I think that the honourable member should be asked to apologise. He should be ashamed of what he said, and I am ashamed to learn that he is a fellow Catholic. The Bill before the House deals, first, with the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Having read several letters to the editors of various newspapers stating that members of parliament were unaware of the actual Convention, I took it upon myself to read it. I found this document an extremely sensitive and thought-provoking work, obviously aimed at women throughout the world. It had little application to Australia because many of its aspirations and intentions are taken for granted, as they should be, in our nation, where women are not discriminated against except in fringe areas. As one who had been a solicitor for many years I was aware of the areas in which women possibly were discriminated against. Many of them have been identified during the debate last night and today by honourable members on this side in particular. The Convention was signed by the previous Government. I believe that any person of good will, upon reading the Convention, would see what it was aiming at, what it was aspiring to; that it was trying to raise the status of women in the Third World and also perhaps in eastern European and communist countries. Last year, as a member of a parliamentary delegation, I had an opportunity to visit some of our Pacific neighbours. I found that in Papua New Guinea and other countries there was an attempt to improve the status of women, although there is a long way to go. In our neighbouring nation of Papua New Guinea, which has a Federal Parliament and 19 regional parliaments, only one woman has actually been elected to Parliament. To every regional parliament a woman has to be appointed, and I met some of those appointed. There is a great hope that women will emerge into active political life in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and other countries we visited. The Opposition keeps making the point that very few other nations have ratified this important treaty. Other Western nations, such as Canada and Austria, have done so, but admittedly their numbers are not large. Australia is taking the lead among Western nations in ratifying it. The United States of America was moving in that direction but the present Administration, for reasons that are quite well known, slowed down the process. I congratulate the President of the Catholic Women's League in New South Wales, Mrs Esther Doyle, a good friend of mine, for supporting the ratification of the treaty. Mrs Doyle took a lot of abuse and a number of hysterical letters appeared in church papers and elsewhere attacking her and attacking the Catholic Women's League. The League took a world wide view. It looked at the situation around the world and consulted with international bodies of Catholic women. I believe that the international Jewish women's organisations also supported ratification of the treaty, which they saw as an important step to lift and improve the situation of women. I wish today to pay tribute to Mrs Doyle, who is a constituent of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). The second objective of the Bill is to eliminate as far as possible discrimination against persons on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods , services and facilities, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs, and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It is a tragedy that in Australia in this day and age there has to be anti-discrimination legislation of this type. However, I believe that this will clarify, in the minds of the public , the need to be aware that a situation may discriminate against one sex or the other. It will enhance the situation of women who wish to have a family and will stop employers giving a hard time to women who return from pregnancy leave, whether paid or unpaid. Every honourable member has heard stories about the difficulties women face when they return from maternity leave. As a solicitor, I was stunned on one occasion to find that when a client had negotiated a loan with a building society his wife had been asked to sign an undertaking that she would not fall pregnant for a period of five years, so that the loan could be repaid. The woman was a teacher and was quite outraged by the proposal. Nevertheless, she signed the undertaking to obtain the loan from the building society. That happened 10 years ago when I was in practice. I believe that now no building society would be so insensitive and appalling as to require a woman to give an undertaking not to start a family for a certain number of years. The Right to Life Association in New South Wales put out a most interesting paper by the well known lawyer Mr Greg Smith concerning the Bill. That paper raised worries about the possibility of the legislation being used to facilitate abortions. The church hospitals also lobbied about this situation to ensure that no abortions were performed in Catholic hospitals or other church hospitals. I congratulate the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) for introducing clause 32 which provides that the Bill relates only to services that can be provided to members of both sexes. Therefore, any fear that the legislation has anything to do with abortion-which of course, it has not-has been removed. The difficulties that were worrying people in this section of the community have been removed. In relation to education, one of the modern phenomena is that girls are staying at school longer than boys. In 1972, 35.7 per cent of males but only 28.9 per cent of females stayed to the final year of schooling. However, in 1982 these figures, whilst not being reversed, showed that 32.9 per cent of males and 39.9 per cent of females stayed to the final year. So nearly 40 per cent of girls compared with only 33 per cent of boys stayed at school. It may be that State governments are encouraging boys to undertake apprenticeships. Apprenticeships which were in the doldrums in the early 1970s have been stimulated by the introduction of schemes for employers to offer indentures. Nevertheless, the fact is that more girls than boys are going right through high school. The situation in regard to university admissions and university study is quite unchanged in that women are very much in the minority in the highly paid professions. The figures that have been very kindly supplied to me by the Parliamentary Library are for 1981 but they show that in the faculties of economics, commerce and government there were 8,000 males to 3,600 females. In the faculty of medicine the gap is not quite so marked but there were some 6,500 males and only 4,300 females in Australian universities. The statistics show that more girls than boys stay on at school. When it comes to studying engineering the difference is even more exaggerated. The figures show that 8,800 young men and only 560 young women were studying engineering or technology. It is in such fields as chemical engineering that employment is assured to young graduates. It is unfortunate that the women are channelled into the areas of teaching and social or behavioural sciences-areas in which there is a majority of women-and areas where employment is risky or problematical. The situation in colleges of advanced education is not quite as alarming as it is in the universities. The figures indicate that 27,000 females and 11,000 males undertake teacher education in the colleges of advanced education throughout our nation. There is no reason why males should not be teaching in all phases of education-primary school, pre-school and kindergarten. There is no real significant and genuine reason why females should be selected over males in these areas. The figures also indicate that at technical colleges, 28,000 males as against 11,000 females undertake commercial and business studies. Female students dominate in respect of music and liberal studies which I imagine include fine arts and the humanities. This issue is of some great significance to me because I have four daughters. I believe young women should have the opportunity to undertake exactly the same courses as young men, particularly if they have the ability to do so. I feel that if our society has an expectation that women will be the teachers and that men will be the engineers, the scientists, the doctors and the lawyers our society needs changing; it needs reforming and it needs a stimulus. I hope and trust that this legislation will be part of that process. I do not wish to delay the House because a number of honourable members wish to speak on this legislation. However, I wish to say something about the third part of the legislation which deals with sexual harassment. I would have thought that the Opposition would welcome this legislation, that it would see this legislation as a marvellous step forward in Federal law to protect young people, be they young men or young women who might be distressed in the work place. I would have thought it would support legislation that is designed to stop people harassing young people, to protect privacy, to promote personal modesty and personal chastity for that matter in the work place. However, members of the Opposition such as the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) make hysterical attacks on women who are not able to defend themselves in this chamber. The objections go to the Human Rights Commission. I must say that I was very attracted to the comments of Mr Justice Staples calling for the abolition of quasi-legal bodies like the Human Rights Commission because they waste taxpayers ' money to a certain extent in terms of cars, pot plants, publications, et cetera. Nevertheless, the Human Rights Commission was established by the previous Government and the infrastructure is in place. While I, too, believe it would be better to abolish such organisations and give the money saved as legal aid to people who wish to approach an ordinary court-that is, one of the long established courts-nevertheless, we have the Human Rights Commission. I believe that under the chairmanship of Dame Roma Mitchell, a most eminent and distinguished jurist, that commission will be administered in accordance with the rule of law and the processes of the law that have long been established and upheld in this nation. I wrote to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on behalf of a solicitor in my electorate who raised perhaps the different point that the Human Rights Commission is not a court of law and therefore should not be accepting complaints. That solicitor's objection to this legislation is that the findings made by a body which is not a court are then confirmed and a respondent could unfortunately be stuck with the findings of that body which is not judicial. The Attorney replied. Someone must have pressed the wrong button on the word processor and a letter came out saying that Archbishop Carroll's objections had been noted. However, that is another issue entirely. Nevertheless, I have great faith in Roma Mitchell. I believe she will ensure that the Human Rights Commission is run in accordance with the accepted rule of law. The fourth part of the legislation is aimed at promoting recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women. I only draw the attention of people in the community who object to this legislation to the great British Chancellor Saint Thomas More, a man who certainly stood firm for his beliefs; a politician who went to the block rather than change his views. He was a man who espoused education for women. He was criticised and talked about. He educated his daughters in Latin and Greek in a mediaeval age when it was regarded as out of place for women to be educated. I believe there is really very little need to say anything about the need for the community to accept the idea of equality of men and women. It is quite sad for me to think that we have to debate in this House the principle that women and men are equal. This principle ought to be taken for granted by all Australians. I trust that the House will support the legislation. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.55) —May I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I think it is significant that you should be in the chair at a time when a very important piece of legislation of relevance to women is being debated by the chamber. Quite clearly there is a fairly general belief among honourable members on both sides of the House that the Sex Discrimination Bill should pass although I emphasise that there are honourable members who quite rightly feel that certain aspects of the legislation may not, in their opinion, be either necessary or wise. However, on balance, I think the point needs to be emphasised that, in my experience in this House, no social legislation has ever been perfect, and I doubt whether it will ever be. Therefore, it is the role of this Parliament to set in place principles and objectives which we would like the Australian people to follow. The power rests with this House ultimately to determine whether the legislation, as implemented, meets the requirements of the Parliament. The Sex Discrimination Bill aims to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status and pregnancy. The Liberal Party supports these worthy aims. We are pleased that the legislation before the House today is a substantially rewritten Bill to that which was originally proposed because the original Bill was very poorly drafted. It did not consider conflicting individual freedoms and , in some circumstances, it stepped well outside the proper boundaries of a federal system as we see it. I am pleased that the Opposition, particularly my colleagues in the Senate, and many interested community organisations and individuals throughout Australia were successful in achieving a substantial redrafting of the Bill. As a result, I think we have a piece of legislation which, by and large, will meet most of the requirements of the objectives which are set out within it. It is important to emphasise that the purpose of the Bill is to make unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy in the areas of employment, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. The Bill also prohibits discrimination involving sexual harassment in the work place and in educational institutions. Among the objectives I believe the most important of all is the final one; that is, to promote recognition and acceptance in the community of the principle of the equality of men and women. The Liberal Party, for many years, has based its philosophy upon the belief that the role of government is to provide a climate which encourages the greatest possible diversity while protecting the rights of individuals. We are fundamentally opposed to discrimination on the basis of colour, race, religious belief, handicaps and sex. We believe that governments have a responsibility to set standards and to enact laws which support those principles. The Government has a responsibility to enact such legislation with care and in a manner which does not impinge upon the individual freedoms of others. That is a problem that one faces with legislation of this type unless it is very carefully drafted to ensure it meets the objectives which have been set for it. The 1974 Liberal-Country Party platform stated that: . . . the parties are dedicated to the pursuit of social freedom and the maximisation of equality of opportunity and status for men and women in the Australian community. Any form of arbitrary discrimination of a social, economic , legal and educational nature is inconsistent with the philosophy of the Liberal and Country parties. Where such discrimination is seen to exist it is the policy of the parties to strive concertedly for its elimination. We went on to say: Certain differences in status continue to exist between the roles of men and women in the Australian society. These exist in both institutional and attitudinal terms. Where these differences are seen to arise from unfair discrimination or inequality of opportunity, a Liberal and Country Party Government is pledged to work actively for their elimination. The policy continued: A Liberal and Country Party Government will promote, as a basic responsibility, those conditions in society that will enable all individuals to achieve their full potential. . . . . The first step towards the achievement of equal rights must obviously be to create and develop in the minds of all Australians a consciousness of the degree to which sexual discrimination continues to exist, the reasons why it continues to exist, and the means necessary to accelerate its eradication. Despite the progressive changes initiated by the Fraser Government, however, the fact is that many women in Australian society have been discriminated against in the past and many continue to be discriminated against to this day. These points were all well documented by my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). It is important to emphasise, as is covered by this legislation, that women-and as a result, often their children-suffer disadvantages with credit, finance, banking services, insurance and in seeking accommodation. Therefore, in these areas in particular, all governments have a responsibility to eradicate these disadvantages. The point has been made by my colleagues that, in some States, notably Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, legislation already exists directed at overcoming these problems. I applaud that fact. Furthermore, I hope we will see in the future that other States establish legislation with the same objective. The emphasis today, however, is on this Parliament; certainly in the Fraser Government's term of office, it wished to apply in the Federal jurisdiction a similar set of criteria to ensure that women were not being discriminated against in areas of federal administration. I believe there is a need for anti- discrimination legislation for women in the work force. In January this year 37 per cent of the Australian work force were women and 57 per cent of them were married. Despite these figures less than one per cent of women hold managerial and executive positions. Over the last two years the Joint Committee of Public Accounts carried out an in-depth investigation of the Australian Public Service, which is obviously a federal jurisdictional matter. We found that women comprise approximately 2 per cent of the Second Division of the Commonwealth Public Service. This is despite the fact that in 1981 women represented 35.3 per cent of all public servants. On the basis of past policy, which, I emphasise, was changed by Liberal- National Party governments, there were factors such as the marriage bar in place . This required that all women in the Public Service prior to marriage were required to resign on getting married. That bar was removed back in 1966-67. Nevertheless, despite the improved situation, there is still evidence that women have had somewhat limited opportunities compared with men to advance to senior positions within the public sector. Studies carried out by the Public Service Board in 1979 suggested that other factors were still impeding women's careers. Studies of officers appointed to the base level of the Third Division after the removal of the marriage bar showed that, of those who remain in the Service, non -graduate men were more likely to reach the more senior positions than non- graduate women, and the same trend could also be seen among graduates. A further study in 1980 showed that the proportion of women in many departments was still low, some 11 per cent to 24 per cent, and that 14 departments employing 53 per cent of the Public Service had no Second Division positions occupied by women. In addition, occupational segregation was breaking down faster and with less assistance for men than for women. There were still 20 designations where no women were employed but none where no men were employed. When women had moved into traditional male areas such as meat inspectors, air traffic controllers and flight service officers they had done so with the active assistance of the Public Service Board and of the departments concerned whereas men had moved into nursing and social work, et cetera, without any evident assistance. We must appreciate that women are in the work force not only because they desire it but because, in many cases, they are forced there through economic and social circumstances. The point has been made by some of my colleagues that more should be done to assist women at home. I applaud that view. I am of the belief that we must do all that we can to ensure that women are given a full range of opportunities to choose to stay at home or to choose to go into the work force. If they stay at home there must be a social welfare arrangement and a taxation system which encourages families to stay together and which encourages mothers, if they wish, to remain at home longer and to conduct the activities of a normal mother relationship with their children. But this legislation does not in any sense prevent women from staying at home if they so wish. The essence of this legislation in terms of anti-discrimination is to ensure that women who do choose to go into the work force for whatever reason-whether it be for economic or social reasons or because they simply want a change of environment and lifestyle-are given at least equal opportunity on the basis of their ability. Similar opportunities should be given to any person regardless of sex. It is in these areas that a government has a responsibility to legislate, to ensure that women are not actively hindered from attaining positions and salaries to which they are capable. Government alone does not have the power to overcome all of these problems. Many of them relate to personal prejudices, although that does not provide an excuse for a government simply to opt out of legislation. We do have a legitimising and leadership role to play; we do have a responsibility to set a standard for the community to follow and we also have the jurisdiction to make discrimination illegal, especially in areas of federal responsibility. It is in this context that we must examine the Sex Discrimination Bill now before the House. As I said earlier, the original Bill introduced by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) was regarded with concern, and legitimately so, by many members of society and equally by many members of this Parliament. I am pleased, therefore, that the amended Bill reflects most of those concerns. I refer specifically to matters which have arisen in that context. There is the question of whether the Act would have any impact in a negative sense upon restricting religious beliefs, particularly in relation to education. Some of the provisions in the original Bill concerned freedom of religious schools. These will now be preserved and religious orders and educational institutions conducted by religious organisations will not be affected. Similarly, single sex schools are also exempted. Similarly, this Bill cannot now be used to force unwilling persons to participate in abortion procedures or in any other activities with which, as a matter of conscience, they believe they should not in any sense be associated. There were also concerns relating to whether the Bill would undermine the traditional family unit. I must emphasise, as I said earlier, that nothing in the Bill prescribes action which in any way undermines established moral beliefs . It does not dictate a standard of behaviour which all women should follow. It does not advocate de facto relationships but recognises that they are a fact in our society, whether we approve of them or not. Nevertheless they are recognised in a range of social welfare legislation. This Bill does not threaten the position of women who do not need to enter the paid work force or who do not choose to do so. It does not force children into government controlled child care centres but it does recognise that women deserve greater freedom of choice and seeks to eradicate barriers to that freedom. It is pleasing to note that the Government has decided not to include affirmative action in this legislation. It is my firm belief that affirmative action in matters such as this should be seen as the last step along the road and not the first. The first step must be, through legislation and through a widening debate within the community, to encourage individual citizens, corporate bodies, institutions and of course government departments to do what they can on a voluntary basis to ensure that problems relating to discrimination are eliminated. However, the dangers of going down the road of affirmative action are real. They have been demonstrated in the United States of America and they will certainly be shown in Australia if we reach the position where changes in a negative sense are imposed on individual rights of citizens in an effort to improve the rights of some by discriminating against others. This is certainly a danger which could arise if such legislation were to be applied in an insensitive manner within the public and private sectors. When I referred earlier to some statistics of government employment opportunity certainly there is a clear responsibility on it through the Public Service Board to ensure that women are encouraged to take courses and training available to all public servants to ensure that they are fully qualified to submit themselves for promotion, in due course, to the highest positions in the Public Service. But the essence of promotion must be equality of opportunity; it must not be on the basis of giving some people more opportunities than others by eliminating one evil we may well be creating another. This Bill has recognised the importance of community discussion through the preparation of a Green Paper on the question of affirmative action. We will be watching that matter closely. We would like to see it debated in this House and certainly I will want to examine in particular detail the implications of affirmative action in the context of employment. I must also refer specifically to the external affairs powers in the application of the Bill. Many of my colleagues and I have been concerned about the inclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in a way which could, in a sense, reduce the obvious responsibilities of State governments. The last Liberal-National Party Government ensured that Australia was represented at the Stockholm conference. It was that Government which signed the Convention. The Fraser Government, in its last few months in office, considered legislation which related to the convention and the application of its principles throughout the federal jurisdiction. I emphasise that we must take the States with us along this route and not try to bludgeon them into actions which, for various reasons, they may not wish in areas where the States have primary responsibility; the power must rest with their legislatures. I am convinced that much of this legislation does rest on legitimate heads of Commonwealth power and that it will apply throughout Australia in specific areas of Commonwealth constitutional responsibility. The Opposition in the Senate was able to ensure that some of the more unsatisfactory provisions of the United Nations Convention-for example, the provision calling for supervision by a United Nations committee-will not be implemented. My colleague the honourable member for Balaclava has furthered this work by proposing significant amendments which will ensure, firstly, that the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power and, secondly, that Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women should not be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth. In conclusion, I reiterate that no social legislation has ever been perfect, and certainly this Bill is not. We will watch its application carefully to ensure that it will not be used in a manner which conflicts with the interests of all Australians for, as I said earlier, it must be the responsibility of this Parliament to safeguard the rights of citizens, as well as involving every citizen in accepting the responsibilities of all Australians, whether that person be male or female. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(11.13) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I first of all formally congratulate you on your election to your high office. I cannot imagine a better time to see you sitting there. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Thank you. Ms McHUGH —There was a delicious moment last night when one of the members of the Opposition actually called Mr Speaker madam, having become so used to seeing you and your colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) sitting in that position. I want to congratulate all concerned with the bringing in of this legislation, most particularly my own Party of which at this moment I am enormously proud. I endorse the comments of many honourable members opposite and thank them for the way in which they have put their views. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who has just spoken, said very well the things that we all feel, but I want to single out for particular mention the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) for his introductory remarks. Most particularly-I never thought I would be so profuse in my admiration for him-I thank the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), who made a most magnificent and, dare I say, beautiful speech. I want to try to understand some of the opposition to the Sex Discrimination Bill which, unfortunately, still remains. There are two forms of opposition to this Bill. The first is from those who have been mischievously fear-mongering. The second is from those who have been misled. Those mischievous fear-mongers, despite their prostestations of caring for defenceless women, have set about frightening little old ladies. I think that the most sad opposition to this Bill has come from little old ladies who have been terrorised into wondering how this country will continue once the legislation is in place. They have been totally misled by malicious fear-mongering. Whilst it has been recognised by most members of the community and many honourable members opposite that this legislation will not force people into changing roles, some people still try to terrorise the community into believing that that will happen. The greatest fear and the worst misunderstanding relates to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. A Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women was established. Much has been made by critics of the Convention that Australia is not a member of that Committee. Because Australia had not ratified the Convention we were not eligible for membership of that Committee. Critics of the Committee claim that it has power to influence what happens in Australia. Under Article 17 the role of the Committee is to consider reports by member countries about progress in implementing the Convention. The Committee cannot in any way alter anything that occurs in Australia. Many people were distressed because they believed Australia would be ruled by, as one person described it in a letter to me, 'bloodthirsty foreign communist countries'. They were concerned not only about the Committee but also about the possibility of a country taking a case to the International Court of Justice. People do not seem to understand that the role of the International Court of Justice is limited to the international sphere only. Cases can be taken to the Court only when there is division between member countries. Australia has always accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice whereas Eastern bloc countries do not. Therefore, whilst Australia might be able to take someone with whom we disagree to that Court, certainly the people who are feared could not take Australia to that Court. I wish to deal with some of the more extraordinary things that have been said by some honourable members opposite just in case someone believes them. The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) spoke about the sexual harassment provisions. He actually said that these provisions could induce situations of blackmail. Does he not understand that sexual harassment is itself a form of blackmail? He said that there could be threats of accusation. It seems to me a most extraordinary distortion of the word 'blackmail' that one could threaten a thief who committed an offence that he would end up in gaol for committing a theft. The honourable member actually said a person who was suffering sexual harassment could choose to work elsewhere. The whole point of this provision in the Bill is to prevent workers having to change their jobs because of sexual harassment. For that reason this provision is a very necessary step. There are very valid socio-economic reasons for bringing in this Bill. Some people seem to have an inability to understand, because they have not experienced the problems which have been faced by many women. Certain affluent ladies who have either experienced all their lives or have acquired, through fortunate circumstances such as an extremely good marriage, advantages denied to so many of their sisters should disallow themselves from commenting on this Bill and should not voice their opinion in opposition to it. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) said that there had been no room for discussion. There have been years of discussion on this Bill. He talked about unnecessary interference and said that three States already have legislation in this area. First let me say that the dreadful things which some people forecast would occur in those three States have not come to pass. We as a Commonwealth Government have the moral responsibility to take on the role to assist disadvantaged people in those States which do not have the legislation. It is, in a sense, out of a kind of generosity to those who are disadvantaged, particularly in Tasmania and Queensland, that I believe we have a responsibility to take on this role. The honourable member for Wakefield made a comparison with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It seems to me that one reason women are not represented enough in the higher levels of the ACTU is that they have not been able to take a sufficient role in the work force. If more women have equal opportunity at work more women will become involved in the trade union movement, certainly at the higher levels. I am reminded of a film which I wish every member of the Opposition who opposes this legislation would see. That film is called Rosie the Riveter. The film is quite extraordinary. It depicts the sort of propaganda that was put out during World War II. An enormous propaganda machine was put into gear to get women out to work in the factories while the men went off to war. Those women who were employed in munitions factories were told that unless they worked as hard as they could, unless they made enough bullets and guns, they could be endangering the lives of their husbands or brothers or someone else's husband or brother. It was the most extraordinary propaganda. Of course, as soon as the war ended those women who had become used to working and earning a crust had to leave their jobs so the men could take over. A propaganda machine was put into operation to tell those women that if they stayed in the work force they would be taking jobs from their men. The whole beautiful story about being at home with the children as a national effort was given much prominence. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) seemed to think in some way that this was elitist legislation. He spoke of the international feminist movement and elitist radicalism. Let me comment on what some people have said about that movement. All honourable members know that one of the greatest opponents of this Bill, from Victoria, has said that she has thousands of signatures of people who are against this Bill. I refer to Mrs Babette Francis. She toured the country with Professor Michael Levin. On a radio program Professor Michael Levin, referring to the international feminist movement, actually said that New York had more feminists than anywhere else in the world; so it was, in his opinion, just the place for the neutron bomb; the buildings were nice, the people were not. On that program the Reverend Fred Nile agreed with Professor Levin. Those are some of the things that have been said about the feminist movement by opponents of this Bill. There seems to be terrible confusion in the Opposition about just how those who oppose the Bill should approach it. On the one hand, members of the Opposition talk about its being unnecessary. On the other hand they say that it is going too far-indeed, it is dangerous. Then again, some of them say that it does not go far enough. I think the honourable member for Braddon epitomised the confusion of his colleagues when he talked about the legislation forcing a choice. I am still wondering what he could possibly have meant by the words ' forcing a choice'. Mr Groom —I did not say that. Ms McHUGH —Yes, the honourable member did. I wrote down the words and put them in inverted commas to make sure I had them exactly right. The honourable member for Braddon asked again and again: What do we do for women at home? Let me remind the honourable member that Article 5 (b) of the Convention stresses the value of maternity. This legislation is being put in place to deal particularly with disadvantages to women in certain circumstances. I will tell honourable members opposite just what we are doing for women at home. For a start, we are going to try to keep their husbands in a job. We have brought in Medicare, which will relieve a great deal of the financial anxiety felt by mothers of young children. I do not think anyone who has not experienced that anxiety can understand what it is like to be the mother of a young child who suddenly gets sick. One has no idea whether that child will be extremely ill by evening, beyond help, or better in a couple of hours. Children can display the most extraordinary symptoms. If a mother has to decide whether she can afford to go to the doctor or not, because there may be nothing at all wrong with the child, that is an immoral situation. Medicare has totally rid women at home of that anxiety. Through other legislation the Government will provide better housing, better public transport, better education for kids. It will also provide, for the woman at home, occasional care so that she is not imprisoned all the time at home with her children. Mr Groom —Imprisoned? Ms McHUGH —Do not talk to us about what we are doing for women at home. I was imprisoned at home for years with children. I had no outlet at all. That problem does not exist now because governments have understood that it is possible to be imprisoned at home with children. I will not take this matter further, except to say that there is no person more grateful than I for the experience of having had my children and spending the years that I did with them, but there were periods when I was imprisoned. Any woman who is looking after an elderly person or young children at home needs an occasional outlet. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) was worried that the legislation deems individual rights to be of supreme importance. That is an extraordinary statement to come from a member of his Party. I would have thought he was pushing that idea most of the time. If he thinks that moral issues are endangered by this legislation, let me point out that the only moral issue taken on in this legislation is that of justice versus injustice. If he thinks there is no injustice in the world for women, I will quote just one small set of figures: 'Women are 50% of the world adult population; 1/3 of the official labour force ; perform nearly 2/3 of all working hours; receive only 1/10 of world income; own less than 1% of world property.' How is that for individual rights? The honourable member also said that we on this side of the House were being patronised. Because we have equality with our male colleagues on this side of the House somehow he can turn that into being patronised. He accused us of an arrogant use of our numbers in pushing this legislation through against the wishes, he thought, of 50 per cent of the Australian population. If there was one thing the Australian population knew before the last election it was that the Australian Labor Party would bring in this legislation. As for the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck)-I suppose I have to mention him-I first of all repudiate his disgraceful attacks on Dr Anne Summers and Wendy McCarthy, but I will not say any more about him. Everything that he says helps our cause and helps the cause of all Australians of common sense. The honourable member for Braddon, like many others, spoke about the impossibility of legislating to change attitudes. Of course we cannot legislate to change attitides but we can legislate to prevent injustice. The courage and stamina and common sense needed by women to be recognised for their full worth as people, despite reactionary attitudes will be supported by this legislation. Anti- discrimination laws offer support to people who may have been discriminated against due to social pressures or mechanically as part of a pattern of behaviour and give people a practical reason to change their behaviour, to think about what they have been doing, and perhaps to change their attitudes. I thank my Party and the Government for bringing in this legislation. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.30) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity, and I think it is appropriate in view of the fact that we are discussing the Sex Discrimination Bill, of congratulating you on your historic appointment. One of the natural tendencies in Australia today is to recognise women for the positions they occupy, and I extend my sincere congratulations to you. In response to one comment made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), I believe that the confusion over this Bill is not limited to the members of the Opposition. I suggest it is also rife among Government members. Confusion is certainly rife throughout Australia about the intention of the Bill and, more importantly, how it will operate. We have no monopoly on confusion on this side of the House. I believe that if the people of Australia were asked what their views were on the Bill, 14 million or 15 million would say: 'What is it all about? Why is it necessary?' As I read the Bill, it is basically a broad-brush approach to a very sensitive issue. The Opposition has through its spokesman, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading, and I want to concentrate on my reasons for opposing the Bill and agreeing with the amendment. Clause 3 (a) of the Bill states: The objects of this Act are- (a) to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Paragraph (1) of our amendment states: the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; Paragraph (2) states: Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women should not be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth; Paragraph (3) states: the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid workforce or alter their view of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children; Could I define that as meaning the family. Basically, my first objection to the Bill is that attached to it as a schedule is the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I see that as being a provision that can be extended and interpreted in various ways. More importantly, it would allow the Government in Canberra to exercise rights over sovereign States. We have to appreciate that there are three States of Australia -New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia-which have legislated against the type of anti-discrimination that is covered by this Bill. Queensland is one exception. Tasmania looked at it in 1979, I understand, but then decided not to introduce a Bill. Western Australia also has no legislation, and the Northern Territory is covered by our own legislation. In view of the fact that three States have that legislation and three do not, is there any obvious evidence that the people of Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia are any less enlightened than the other three States? I must say that as a resident of Queensland, I can see no evidence of it. If I was asked for evidence of any feeling between the States, I would point out that those three States that have anti-discrimination legislation are at the moment losing population to Queensland, although I would not say that there is any obvious conclusion to be drawn from that. This Bill should not do anything that the States do not want. I am afraid I cannot trust the assurances given by the Government that the external power will not be used. We have already had the example of an international convention being used in the Franklin Dam case where the judgment from the High Court was on the basis of 4:3. We have already seen many examples of the Commonwealth exercising powers over the States by other subversive means. The restriction on export licences has meant the cancellation of uranium developments in the Northern Territory and some in Queensland. These types of things are happening all the time. As I say, I cannot trust the Government of the day, in introducing this legislation, not to go further in connection with its purported views on affirmative action, religious orders and education. All those are relevant to this Bill. There is no evidence in the State from which I come that women are any less deprived or more deprived than those in other States. I have tried to speak with Government members about the Bill to ascertain their real feelings. They think it is a broad brush approach and will not affect the legislation in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. But a dangerous precedent can be set for other States. I like to think that society sets its own pattern of change. As I have previously mentioned, the pattern of change has seen you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in a chair which has not been occupied in that fashion since 1901. Speeches from Opposition members indicate that over the past 30 years society has forced its own changes to a large extent. I refer particularly to changes in the work force , in particular in executive positions, in the Public Service, in teaching and in so many other areas. With regard to boarding schools, I take the instance of Brisbane Grammar School which probably did not have a woman educator on the staff 30 years ago. We had a group in here yesterday with four teachers, two of whom were female. Society has asked for and dictated those changes. I am not saying that I agree with the changes but, if society wants them, well and good. I do not believe it is the position of any legislator to encourage or try to divert society in another direction. I have seen too many pieces of legislation pass through this place whose resulting decisions do not meet the expectations of people outside. That is my fear here. It happens in so many cases. Change has been taking place. I take the example of the last 30 years as the period that I have been in the work force. If I had to mark on a scale out of 10 the change of the role of women in our society, in the business world, in the work force and in so many other ways, I would say that the improvement over the past 30 years, compared with the past 300 years, has been eight on that scale of 10. While we have moved far in those 30 years, I have no doubt that society will move us further in that direction. I must confess that the National Party of Australia may be represented as being more conservative than most on this issue. Maybe that is because we represent rural interests and what might be called Victorian values. But if that is a fault in my election to this place, it is something that I am prepared to abide by. I am naturally conservative, and I am naturally conservative to the extent of looking at this legislation and wondering what effect it will have on those traditional values. People may call me moralistic or anything they like but it is important that we should be able to express these views. I have a deep faith in the family and I have a religious conviction. This Bill, in many aspects of its interpretation and application, could cause the beliefs in my life to be altered in so many ways. That is why the Opposition, in bringing forward the amendment, seeks to try to keep the spouse, the children and the husband or the person in the work force together. We have seen the family placed under attack by so many pieces of legislation from this House in the past that I fear the result of this fresh attack. By consensus or otherwise, I believe that the nation of Australia will be strong and great only when it starts acting as a family. The Australian family will be built from the multitudes of small families within each State and each community to make Australia greater and stronger. That is the very fabric I do not want to see destroyed. Let us look at the present laws, which I do not necessarily attribute to the present Government. They are laws from Federal governments over many years. The taxation law discriminates against the single income family. It is a fact that a single income family earning $50,000, compared with a double income family earning the same amount, will pay more tax. We have seen the spouse rebate, which is some means of encouraging women to stay at home and provide the family atmosphere, actually depreciate in value over a number of years. It is also income tested. We have seen the Family Law Bill introduced on a non-party basis. I am afraid that I have to say of the Family Law Bill that, whatever its necessity, the no fault clause has probably caused more marriages to deteriorate than ever before. In saying that, I would not like to go back to the old alternative. But it is a fact of life that that legislation, passed through this House, has caused the element of marriages now to be marriage of convenience and not marriage for life . I believe that the Bill before us has a further element of destruction. I mention a third aspect of the way in which this Parliament leads the rest of Australian opinion. I refer to the comment of Dean Shilton of Sydney only two weeks ago. He spoke rather forcefully against this Parliament's and this Government's attitude of allowing de facto spouses of members of parliament to travel overseas on parliamentary passes. That, in its own way, is leading decision making and opinion making in Australia. I am very happy that it has caused this type of comment from one of our religious leaders, that perhaps in this one instance we should stop and say to ourselves: 'Enough is enough. Let us go back and try to establish the family as we have known it and as it has made Australia so great'. I know that within the community there are complaints with regard to housing, superannuation and lending. But let us look at the other side of the coin. Many males in society are not regarded as good tenants, good borrowers or good risks in the areas of health or anything else. Let us look at the other side of the coin-the discrimination that exists in pension entitlements. It places the woman in the position of receiving an age pension at 60 and the man at 65. Will adjustment be necessary as a result of this Bill? The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who is in the House at the moment, laid down the fundamental concept that I have in connection with this legislation. We should legislate for Commonwealth authorities or responsibilities only and not take the broad brush approach that I have mentioned. I refer to notices of motion Nos 212 and 213 laid down by the honourable member on 8 November which would restrict this type of legislation to areas of Commonwealth responsibility within the Public Service or within the Territories. This is where I believe such legislation should commence and finish . While it has the ingredient of going to an international convention, the present legislation does not give me the opportunity of saying that we are legislating here for our own responsibilities. In fact we are trying to supplement that to put ourselves above the powers of the States. The overseas experience on this is rather interesting. I mention claims that are being made in courts in the United States of America at the moment where the whole system is choked up. More of these cases are being heard outside of the jurisdiction of the courts than within them. There is also the threat in the American situation that any litigation or complaint makes it impossible for the innocent in such a situation to remove the stain of such a complaint which might have been mischievously motivated. These are the problems being experienced overseas. I am glad that a previous speaker from the Government side mentioned the harassment aspect and said that we have not given great credence to it. From what I have been given to understand, harassment will be viewed by the Commission on the basis of a decision by the person offended. Clause 52 of the Bill allows a complaint to be made to the Commissioner. It reads: A complaint relating to an alleged unlawful act is made to the Commissioner under section 50; Inquiries of the Commissioner may then commence. That clause refers to an 'an alleged unlawful act'. As has been indicated, it is quite possible that a person may believe she is being harassed and that the person who is causing that harassment could be innocent of having any motivation. I give as an example the case of a man with a medical complaint, a nervous twitch in the left eye, walking down the street. If he happens to be facing a lady at that time he could be had up for sexual harassment. That is how narrow the definition could become. I further believe that inquiries by the Commissioner may not necessarily result in an objective decision being made. We have seen this situation so often in the courts in Australia. I mention the High Court decision on the Franklin Dam. That decision resulted in four judges being against the dam and three for it. These decisions will be made by a Commissioner-- Mr Groom —One person. Mr BRAITHWAITE —By one person. It is difficult to ask that person to make that judgment. The judges of Australia today are being criticised constantly for the type of judgments they bring down, yet the Bill provides for one person to make a decision. We in the Opposition are being asked to take this at its face value and to believe that everything will be all right because the Government has good intentions. I have seen too many pieces of legislation which, when put before the appropriate authorities, have resulted in rulings quite different from what was intended. I have seen it happen in many cases. I have approached this Bill in the most objective way I could. I have been approached by many organisations and ladies, both for and against this Bill. Much personal reflection has been cast in this debate and that is a grave pity because the people who support the Bill are well motivated. Those people who do not support the Bill are equally well motivated. They are following their principles and want the moral conduct they maintain continued not only for themselves but also for society. My one basic complaint is that I believe the passage of this Bill will introduce influence of an external power. If that is not the intention now, eventually this legislation will be amended bit by bit until the objective is accomplished. My Party and I believe sincerely in the right of the State to cover the jurisdiction. If we legislate we should legislate on purely Commonwealth responsibilities, those within the Public Service and outside with respect to the Territories. If we want to remove the discrimination that is said to exist in the area of housing, superannuation and lending, let us do so by passing specific Bills. If discrimination exists only in those three areas of Australia today-as I have said, society is fast changing even in these respects- perhaps we should introduce legislation piece by piece. Unfortunately, too few Government members and Opposition members, and perhaps all the people outside, do not know the effects and ramifications of this Bill when it is put into place . I call on the Government to look very closely at the situation and the experience of the United States where I believe they are probably trying to go beyond this type of legislation and get back to what I referred to earlier as the conservative and Victorian values that I am happy to espouse. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Speaker has received a notice. As a result of industrial disputation in the Government Printing Office, the daily Hansard for yesterday will not be available to members before next Monday. Publication of the daily Hansard for today-- Mr McGauran-Who is running this country? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —and for the early part of next week also will be seriously delayed. When the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is standing, honourable members will remain silent. I hope that the message will be heeded by the honourable member for Gippsland. Debate resumed. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(11.52) —I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill. As honourable members will know, the legislation is a direct result of the need for the Australian Government to adopt appropriate legislation, including sanctions where appropriate, to prohibit discrimination against women. This follows the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which took place on 28 July last year, the Convention being initially signed on 17 July 1980 during the term of the former Liberal-National Party Government. The legislation is to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention and to eliminate as far as possible discrimination against persons on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, and in the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs . It is designed to eliminate as far as possible sexual harassment in the work place and in educational institutions. It is designed to promote recognition and acceptance in the community of the principle of equality of men and women. The main objectives of the Bill, as I have outlined them to the House, are quite appropriate. It is very important to note that before this legislation really becomes effective at all levels in Australia where discrimination presently exists, it must be the subject of complementary legislation in each of our Australian States and in the Northern Territory. Fortunately such legislation has already been adopted by New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The other States still need to act on this matter. I could not predict when that might happen, particularly in Tasmania and Queensland. Honourable members would have heard earlier in this debate the contribution of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). If his attitude to this Bill reflects the attitude of his Party in Tasmania-that Party controls the Government of Tasmania-I am sure that nothing will be done in that State until there is a change of government. Likewise, unfortunately, nothing can be expected in my State of Queensland. Despite the suggestion of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) that this legislation is really unnecessary and that it is the responsibility of the State govenments to legislate against discrimination in this nation, I have no doubt that Queenslanders will also need to change their Government in order to get effective legislation on sex discrimination. One needs only to consider the publicly declared attitude of the Queensland Premier to realise that. In the middle of last year when some sections of the administration of the National Party were forward thinking enough to suggest that it was timely that the Queensland Government give consideration to removing the areas of discrimination from legislation in that State, the Premier said: We have to be careful we don't find ourselves in a situation where we are forced to do something just to beat Canberra. He went on to say: Besides, in Queensland we already give people equal opportunity in areas where they qualify to be equally qualified. The Premier may be able to explain what he means by that statement. I am sure that is not very reassuring to the people of Queensland. He further said: This situation applies right across the board. Then to reassure the people of Queensland that he was genuinely interested in giving equality of opportunity to them, he said: For instance, the Government aircraft pilot is a woman and many of the Ministers have private secretaries who are female. Leave this to the Government and the party executive. We all know that Canberra is trying to force us to do things that we know we should not be doing. We have freedom and opportunity without tying it up in red tape, controls and committees. He continued with the greatest reassurance of all: We are looking at the matter but I don't think we can do anything this year. There won't be any initiatives before next year . . . We have to tread carefully and not rush- I am sure that honourable members will appreciate that, apart from what the people of Queensland gain from the enactment of this legislation, they will have to wait for a change of government to deal with areas of discrimination which exist within that State. I felt obliged to enter this debate principally because of the illogical and deliberately distorted propaganda which has become widespread and has been frantically perpetrated in my electorate. The campaign has been led by two women who, for reasons best known to them, have in many instances put fear into the minds of a number of people, principally women, who on receipt of information on this legislation were, I believe, somewhat genuinely concerned. The opposition, led by these women, has been highly organised and vigorously pursued. Over a period of many months, depite my efforts to reassure anybody who contacted me, by sending people information, by consulting with the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), by getting answers to people's questions, by speaking to them on the phone where necessary, this campaign has continued. It has continued to the point where I believe that it is necessary for me to take up the time of the chamber and enter this debate and reassure those people not only on my behalf but also, I am sure, on behalf of the Government that this Bill will have no effect on or force any benefit on any woman who may choose to stay at home and perform the duties that she has performed in the past in caring for her family. No benefit will be forced on her or on anyone else. No greater direct benefit will be available for any woman who chose to enter the work force and wanted to secure a position last week than there will be for another woman next week or the week after. Equally there is no penalty on such women and no penalty on a woman who may choose to continue her existing lifestyle as the mother of her family, looking after her children at home. The Bill will not have an effect on the lifestyles of most Australians. It simply allows people to exercise their free choice, protected from any discrimination which may exist in the activities in which they are involved or in the interests in which they may participate. This Bill in no way whatsoever forces a change in the lifestyles of those genuinely concerned women to whom I have spoken. The Bill does not enact any compulsory matters which will be forced on any Australian. In no way does it do such things as have been suggested to me and are highlighted on a sheet which I have before me. This sheet is part of the propaganda which has been put out by this vicious lobby which has quite maliciously distorted the likely effects of the legislation. The sheet is headed : This Bill opens the door to such things as no freedom of choice. It says that mothers will be forced out to work. It pleads with the women of Australia in the following terms: You have no choice, you cannot stay at home except for short maternity leave. The women are asked to act against this Bill. How ridiculous! How obsessed in their opposition are these people! The second point made in the sheet is that children will be put into State-controlled creches. The third point states that women will be forced to do heavy labour and the fourth point is that homosexuals and lesbians will have the legal right to marry and raise children. That is typical of the arguments which have been raised by this very highly organised group. Unfortunately, these arguments have had the effect, in many instances, of convincing people that they have a reason to be genuinely concerned about the effects of this legislation. I am sure that when the legislation has been in effect for some time and when its operation achieves the necessary results in the areas in which it is intended to exert its influence on discrimination problems which exist today, those concerned people will know that what I have told them, what they have been told officially by the Government and what has been said by many honourable members who have spoken in this debate is true. The legislation is intended for the benefit of those people in Australia, women particularly, who today suffer problems as a result of discrimination which I am sure no one can honestly deny exists. I can confidently assure all who have honestly any basis for fear of the likely effects of the legislation that when it becomes law, as I have no doubt it will shortly-it is now being considered by this House and it was passed by a big majority of the Senate late last year-it will have no adverse effects whatsoever on the lives of a great majority of Australian people, both men and women. In fact, I am sure they will be able to go about their daily lives without noticing any changes in their lifestyles being brought about as a result of this legislation. For those whom it will affect, the reforms are long overdue. I can cite many examples of areas where discrimination exists, where women who do the same jobs as men are today still paid less for that work. I refer also to women who find that the only reason a job opportunity is not available to them is because they are women. These are the areas at which the legislation is quite correctly directed. I say to those whom the Bill will affect and to those who have experienced discrimination at a personal level that they will know of and welcome the changed circumstances that will result from this legislation. I support this legislation and would be very pleased to see it being carried in this House by a vote of an overwhelming majority of honourable members. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —There seems to be a slight hiatus in the proceedings of the House. I will call the honourable member for Lilley. Mr Groom —Mr Deputy Speaker, this might be a convenient time to raise a point which relates to a matter mentioned earlier. It concerns the question of the Hansard reporters being on strike. I wonder whether you could indicate what approach you and Mr Speaker are taking to this problem because it is a very difficult situation for honourable members to find that they do not have the record of what has been said in the House for the previous day. We need to check the record. Perhaps you could indicate what is happening in that regard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. I will refer the matter to Mr Speaker. There is a slight hiatus and I called the honourable member for Lilley. Perhaps, since that has been overcome, she will not object to the Chair following the normal pattern of calling. Mrs Darling —Mr Deputy Speaker, please go ahead and call a member of the Opposition, as it was the turn of the Opposition member to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(12.08) —I thank the House and the honourable member for Lilley for her co-operation. I recognise in speaking to the Sex Discrimination Bill that many things relating to discrimination against women or men simply cannot be protected and promoted by legislation alone. However, it is important that where discrimin- ation against women can be discouraged or prevented by legislation that such legislation should be supported. Policies and practices which condone the continuing existence of discrimination, by regulations and practices in society are, in my view, at odds with liberal values. The essence of liberalism, as I see it, is genuine equality of opportunity and genuine freedom of individual choice. In my view, the Liberal Party believes that discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or creed must be removed if the whole community is to have equality of opportunity and a maximum level of freedom of choice. It was, after all, a Liberal Government in Victoria which introduced the first equal opportunity legislation in Australia. At the Federal level equal opportunity was supported in a joint policy statement issued by the coalition Opposition in contesting the 1974 Federal election. That policy statement made firm philosophical and practical political commitments to achieve the maximum equality of opportunity and status for men and women in the Australian community. It states: Any form of arbitrary discrimination of a social, economic, legal and educational nature is inconsistent with the philosophy of the Liberal and Country Parties. Where such discrimination is seen to exist, it is the policy of the Parties to strive concertedly for its elimination. Then, in 1980, the coalition Government made a commitment to introduce a sex discrimination Bill. Its aim was to render unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, to complement legislation introduced in Victoria and South Australia by Liberal governments. To me the record is clear. The Liberal Party and the National Party have had a long record of commitment to the elimination of discrimination in Australian society. We have a record of achievement. This Bill first came to the notice of the Parliament in an unacceptable form. In its original form the Bill was ill-considered and poorly drafted. While the Opposition firmly supported the original Bill's objective of removing discrimination against women in Australian society, it had strong objections to some of the methods that the Bill was advocating to achieve these objectives. It is vital that excesses such as those contained in the original Bill not be enshrined in legislaton. Excessive methods can outweigh the most laudable objectives. The Opposition fought hard to have those unacceptable methods eliminated from the Bill. In its present form the Bill incorporates 50 changes. That, in itself, indicates how unacceptable the original Bill was. Those changes reflect, I think, the successful representations not only by the Opposition but also by many concerned organisations and individuals. These representations included objections raised on important matters of principle. As a result of pressure from both the Opposition and others in the community, the freedom enjoyed by religious schools in relation to staff appointments will be preserved and the original provisions infringing civil liberties have been removed. It was absolutely fundamental that they should be before I could give any support to the measure. Also, substantial progress has been made towards rendering the Bill more capable of achieving the objective of eliminating discrimination against women in many areas of everyday life in Australia. I believe that it represents a major step towards meeting that objective. There remains in the community some justified concern about aspects of the present Bill. The Opposition has noted those concerns and my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) has moved six amendments. He will move others at the Committee stage. I support those amendments because they will rectify some of the remaining defects. I make it clear that I believe the amendments in no way obstruct the achieving of the agreed objective of eliminating discrimination against women. They will augment the legislation before us. They will reaffirm and protect other important objectives in Australian society. The amendments uphold the Federal system and reaffirm the necessity not to abuse the external affairs power. Every honourable member should see the need for that amendment. The amendments uphold and further protect the right of parents and children who choose to participate in the religious school sector of the Australian education system. These are important matters which should be dealt with in the Bill and I urge all honourable members to support the amendments. The Bill will reduce some of the glaring examples of discrimination against Australian women but it does require amendment. Even in amended form, legislation in respect of such areas as this is bound to contain elements of controversy reflecting different personal points of view, which is why, at least on this side of the House, we acknowledge that those who have reservations should have the opportunity to follow their consciences. It is an important recognition of the right to follow one's conscience on an important principle which clearly sets this side of the House apart from the other. I believe that legislation is only part of the answer to the continuing problem of discrimination. Legislation can be seen as only one step, albeit a major step , in what is a continuing process of allowing all Australians to achieve their full potential and enjoy genuine freedom of choice. As well as legislation, social and education policies are a quite crucial part of the complex process of removing discrimination of all types from Australian society. I believe this legislation can do a great deal to make less difficult the personal circumstances of women who wish or need to work. Many women must work out of sheer economic necessity, especially those who are the sole breadwinners for dependent children. Sometimes this occurs because of the death or unemployment of a spouse. It also occurs as a result of marriage breakdown. It ought to be borne in mind that one-parent families, as I recall it, now make up over 10 per cent of all families and 90 per cent of those one-parent families are headed by women. There is obvious cause for real concern about the breakdown of family life in Australia, but if we are really concerned about this social instability we will not contribute to its solution by making it more difficult for those women who absolutely need to work. This merely places added strain on their families. What are required, and I think most would share this view, are policies and attitudes, as well as legislation, that reduce strain on Australian women, not add to that strain. The greatest contribution to the position of women in Australian society is made by those who recognise the fundamental point that until women's issues are acknowledged as social issues, discrimination against Australian women will continue to exist. The greatest breakthrough for women in this country would occur if the whole of Australian society could come to understand the basic equation that so-called women's issues are in many instances children's issues and children's issues are society's issues. Children are the responsibility not only of their female parents but also of their male parents. What would help women so much in this country would be a greater recognition than exists at the moment that many of their problems relate to the absence of adequate attention to the problems of children and adequate policies for children. While Australian women represent more than half of our human resources, children represent the whole of our future adult population, and together women and children must be considered the responsibility of society as a whole. In many ways women's issues should no longer be so called. This legislation will not in itself remove all the forms of discrimination against Australian women, but I believe it will reduce some of the glaring examples of serious discrimination suffered by many women in their access to goods, services and facilities such as bank loans and rental accommodation, as well as in employment and working conditions. I trust that this legislation will be adopted in the amended form foreshadowed by the honourable member for Balaclava, and I have noted that there will be further amendments. It will require close scrutiny and careful monitoring of its operation, in whatever form it is adopted. The Opposition will be vigilant in exercising its responsibility to the Australian community to ensure that any negative impact of this legislation is identified and, if possible, redressed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Before the Leader of the Opposition spoke on the Sex Discrimination Bill, the honourable member for Braddon asked me to advise what was being done in respect of the delayed publication of Hansard. Unfortunately, there may have been some confusion in this matter is respect of the notice that was originally read. I should have made it clear that it is not the Hansard reporters who are on strike. The strike is in the Government Printing Office. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(12.21) —In supporting the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 I would like to outline a couple of areas of concern to me as a result of listening to the contributions from members of the Opposition. Overall, I have been delighted by the enlightened attitude from members on both sides of the House towards this most important legislation. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) set the tone, which was taken up and reflected in the speeches of most Opposition members, and I take great comfort from that fact. However, in looking both at the legislation and at the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which backs this , it appears that certain attitudes based on misinformation have been reflected by the legitimate concern of some honourable members and by people in the general electorate. I join those honourable members who have condemned a minority of people who, for reasons best known to themselves, have distorted both the Convention and the legislation and instilled fear into a number of ordinary Australians. I think all the misinformation and the wrong attitude stems from the definition of discrimination. Who would reasonably speak against any legislation or convention which has as its basis the elimination of discrimination against anyone? ' Discrimination' means injustice perpetrated against someone. It cannot mean anything else, and therein lies the protection for the Australian people. Something which is not discriminatory and which does not constitute an injustice is not within the bounds of either the Convention or this legislation. This legislation is about discrimination on the basis of sex. It is ludicrous to suggest, as some people have, that if we bring forth such legislation we will see women wrenched from their knitting and forced into front line combat duty, our children frog-marched to the compulsory state-run child care centre, and thousands of us dragged screaming from our kitchens into forced labour on the nearest building site. It is tantamount to saying that in Nazi Germany if legislation had been brought forward to deal with discrimination against Jews by providing that people would be penalised if they so discriminated that legislation would have forced everyone to adhere to the Jewish faith. There is no logic in that argument. People have spoken of the danger of this legislation. I think it is important to point out to people who have such an attitude festering in their minds the danger of fostering that type of argument because it is very unhealthy. I would like to deal with the Convention alongside the legislation. One could say that the Convention is symbolic whereas the legislation on sex discrimination and the proposed affirmative action, with which we will not now immediately proceed until we have an input from the community and until the community says what it is that it wishes, are practical measures of implementation. This legislation is designed to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy. It covers many areas, including employment, education, accommodation and credit. It also contains clauses on sexual harassment. I say to those people who are concerned that subjective judgments must be made in areas of sexual harassment that that is so also when one is working out whether an accident is the result of drink driving. It is so in many areas. One has to try to eliminate injustice. To realise the need for such legislation, honourable members would have to see their daughters caught in the trap in which I have seen many young girls caught, particularly in relation to unemployment. No parent wishes to see that happen. Maybe that would change a few minds regarding the necessity for such legislation which, admittedly, has to be handled with delicacy and with sensitivity. Through women's participation in the political processes we have been able to change the perception by government of women's needs. A direct relationship between women and government has produced the greatest pressure on the Government to act. It is not simply enough to say that there should be equal employment opportunity. We need to be able to show employers that there are certain things that they need to do to make sure that they have a deliberate policy on employment of women and to make sure that recruitment and permanency policies take account of women. We are not talking here of a woman's marital status or of any of the many details that are behind the decision of a man or a woman to enter the work force or to stay at home. People should not be discriminated against when they decide, within their own family circle, that that is the step they must take. There is a need for a set of proposals which are reasonable and realistic which employers will see as being in their interests to implement. The Government does not expect employers to become involved in policies which it does not implement itself. The proposed reform of the Australian Public Service which is presently under consideration sets out guidelines for affirmative action for employees of the Australian Public Service. A number of large companies in Australia such as Esso Australia Ltd and CSR Ltd are already implementing affirmative action programs and are doing their part to redress some of the disadvantages women have suffered in the labour market in the past. Those employers are not afraid. They know that they and Australia will benefit from such action. Women must achieve true equality of access to the power and decision-making structures of our society if they are to be able to make the fullest possible contribution to the welfare of our nation. I turn now to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Convention calls for equal rights for women regardless of their marital status, in all fields, economic, social, cultural, political and civil, and has also called for national legislation to ban discrimination and recommends action to modify social and cultural patterns that perpetuate discrimination. The Convention also sets up machinery for the international supervision of the obligation accepted by countries. Australia signed the Convention on 14 July 1980 and ratified it on 29 July 1983, the fifty -first country to sign. At that time, another 42 countries had signed it but not ratified it. I would like to clarify another misconception that arose regarding the power of the International Court of Justice. My colleague the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), has already touched on this matter. Article 29 of the Convention enables a nation to opt out of the jurisdiction of the International Court. Australia has always accepted the authority of jurisdiction of the Court. A number of actions and principles have been put to the Court and Australia has accepted this. Nothing drastic can happen within Australia. The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) was concerned because he wished to see an Australian parliament tell Australians what to do. This is precisely what will happen. When the United Nations suggested that the Queensland Government take note of certain racist policies and condemn them, it was striving to shame that Government into changing its attitudes towards Aborigines and making those changes law. It cannot suddenly come into Australia and throw the entire Government in the clink. It made a statement of principle requesting the Queensland Government to adhere to a policy. That Government did not do so and I am afraid it is still thriving. The same applies to this Convention. Some honourable members and some members of the public are concerned that some communist countries may try to influence Australia, but those countries are the very ones which have opted out of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Any signatory to the Convention may, under Article 29, sign a reservation saying that it will not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court. Ironically, it is most of the Eastern Bloc countries which have done so. That means that they cannot take Australia to the Court and we cannot take them to the Court. They have opted out entirely from those provisions. People who are concerned that there could be some influence placed on Australia by those communst countries are concerned to no avail. There is entirely no basis for their concern. I intended to speak further on the legislation but I think considering this Convention and considering some of the nasty implications that have been fostered in people's minds regarding the Convention, particularly in relation to the family, I would like to point out a couple of things which the Convention says. It says: 'Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women'. Usually people have not read what I see as a beautiful document. Some people sit quietly while legislation based on materialism is put forward. That legislation gives the goodies, maybe to the elite, but will cut out economic justice for the little people who are the majority. The sad thing is that here we have legislation and a Convention which put forward ideals for higher values and for justice within a society. They are distorted and an uproar is created. That is a sign of a materialistic society. The Declaration states: Considering that discrimination against women is incompatible with human dignity and with the welfare of the family and of society, prevents their participation, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their countries and is an obstacle to the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity, Bearing in mind the great contribution made by women to social, political, economic and cultural life and the part they play in the family and particularly in the rearing of children, Convinced that the full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of women as well as men in all fields, Considering that it is necessary to ensure the universal recognition in law and in fact of the principle of equality of men and women, Solemnly proclaims this Declaration: Article 1 Discrimination against women, denying or limiting as it does their equality of rights with men, is fundamentally unjust and constitutes an offence against human dignity. Article 6 sets out the ideas and standards set down in the Convention. It states: 1. Without prejudice to the safeguarding of the unity and the harmony of the family, which remains the basic unit of any society, all appropriate measures, particularly legislative measures, shall be taken to ensure to women, married or unmarried, equal rights with men in the field of civil law, and in particular: (a) The right to acquire, administer, enjoy, dispose of and inherit property acquired during marriage; (b) The right to equality in legal capacity and the exercise thereof; (c) The same rights as men with regard to the law on the movement of persons. 2. All appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure the principle of equality of status of the husband and wife, and in particular: (a) Women shall have the same right as men to free choice of a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent; I point out the difference between our comparatively privileged society and many of the developing nations where women do not have even the basic right to choose a spouse. The Convention continues: (b) Women shall have equal rights with men during marriage and at its dissolution. In all cases the interest of the children shall be paramount; (c) Parents shall have equal rights and duties in matters relating to their children. In all cases the interest of the children shall be paramount. 3. Child marriage and the betrothal of young girls before puberty shall be prohibited, and effective action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age for marriage and to make the registration of marriages in an official registry compulsory. This document actually supports many of the concerns which honourable members have put forward regarding the family. It backs those things; it does not detract from them. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), among others, is concerned about this legislation on the basis of moral and religious beliefs. This is an excellent opportunity for people with faith or who want a high moral standard in the nation to put those beliefs into words and to support concretely a document which sets down for their nation the very ideals which they hold. A small group of people has suggested that the Bill completely neglects the career of women in the home and that this imbalance leads to further discrimination against women who choose to be full time mothers. In no area does it do that. There is no way I would strongly support legislation or a convention that did that because I am in a very good position, having spent nearly 20 years of my life since marriage at home with the children, to undersand precisely the problems and the lack of status which has in the past pertained to women at home . This legislation is a step towards stopping that sort of discrimination against women in the home. Some women will always be able to assert their equal rights in all circumstances but there is a need for this legislation to ensure that all women have that right irrespective of their position in our society. For instance, Queensland has no State anti-discrimination legislation. The Bill seeks to enhance the position of women who have chosen to seek a career outside the home and also to reinforce the rights afforded to all women either working or in the home. It does not seek to denigrate the role of women in the home or to destroy the institution of mariage. The legislation is aimed at eliminating discrimination against women in the economic, social, cultural, civil and political spheres and at providing equality of opportunity. Of course this does not mean that men and women are the same or that women will be forced to take on roles they may not wish to take on. The legislation recognises the importance of motherhood in the family unit, the great contribution of women to the welfare of the family and to the development of society-so far not fully recognised-and also the role of both parents in the family in regard to the upbringing of children. Many fathers enjoy being with their children. In the past, because of a set stereotyped role, they would have felt that people would smirk, as the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) is now doing, if they suggested that they would like to stay home with their children. Those men do exist. The Government has a commitment to equal access in its job creation scheme and is implementing its policy of appointing women to areas of key government activity. An amount of $4m has been provided for the establishment of a national women's emergency service which will help secure continuity and certainty in the funding of women's refuges, and $376,300 has been allocated for consultation, research and information programs on the status of women. The Office of the Status of Women itself has been upgraded and is back in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This Government believes in putting its money where its mouth is. We believe in acting on behalf of women, both in the work force and in the home. A women's shopfront information service is to be established by the Office. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr Harry Edwards —Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I am sure the honourable member for Lilley did not intend to imply that the honourable member for Wakefield was smirking at the suggestion that men enjoy being with their children. I am quite certain that he, as a devoted father, very much enjoys being with his children. Mrs Darling —Following the complaint, Mr Deputy Speaker, I offer my apology to the honourable member for Wakefield. If, indeed, he was not smirking but smiling , I am sorry. Mr Barry Jones —With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, while one respects the gentlemanly attitude of the honourable member for Berowra in acting for his colleague, if honourable members wish to complain of some aspersion that has been made it is the normal practice for the honourable members themselves to rise and not leave it to somebody else. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The point is taken. Mr Andrew —I wish to respond, with your indulgence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is being very magnanimous. Mr Andrew —I point out that I am sitting with the honourable member for Franklin , and that is a good reason for smiling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no need to be frivolous. I call the honourable member for Wilmot. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(12.42) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the thrust and the objectives of the Sex Discrimination Bill but I must admit that I still have some reservations about certain aspects of it. I understand that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) will be moving amendments during the Committee stage to tidy up some of those loose parts of the Bill. I do not believe that any member of parliament could come into this place and actively and aggressively advocate that there should be purposeful discrimination against women. I do not think any of us would advocate that. Logically, if we do not believe there should be discrimination against women, we have a role and responsibility to make known through legislation, our point of view that no discrimination should occur. We are talking about discrimination that is perpetrated against women in the community. We have a responsibility to make it known that we do not condone that discrimination in any way. We must bear in mind that individual people in society discriminate against other individuals and legislation that this Parliament might pass will not in itself eliminate that situation. It will not change the attitude of bigoted individuals; nor will it change the attitude of some other people in society. I believe, though, that the legislation will give a lead to the community by showing what we as a Parliament believe the attitudes of the community should be . In that way I believe we are acting responsibly. Certainly some anomalies will become evident when this legislation comes into operation but I hope that the Parliament, whoever may be in government at the time, will be broad-minded enough to correct those anomalies as they emerge. I have listened to and have read some of the opposition to this Bill but, quite frankly, I cannot see where such opposition has any foundation. It is said that the Bill will lead to a breakdown in the family unit but I cannot accept that if we offer equal status to both men and women to follow their particular courses and ambitions this will in any way lead to a breakdown in the family unit. Surely offering equal status and equal responsibility to men and women must lead to a closening of the ties within the family unit and help to weld the family unit together. It seems to me that some of the opponents of this Bill believe that if we go back to the stereotyped role of men and women of the Victorian era that will in some way help to improve family relationships. I for one cannot accept that course. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —I remind the Prime Minister that after evading for so long the question whether there will be an assets test, he finally confirmed yesterday that there will be an assets test. At the National Press Club last week he also evaded the question whether there will be a capital gains tax. As a significant number of senior Ministers have called for taxes on savings, such as a capital gains tax, will the Prime Minister advise unequivocally whether or not such a tax is to be imposed? Will such a tax be the first victory for the new centre left faction? Mr HAWKE —When the Leader of the Opposition can sort out his own economic policies in the relevant areas of taxation, wages and other matters he will be entitled to inquire of the Government what its policies are. Mr HAND —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy inform the House how much nuclear waste is currently stored in Australia? Where is that waste stored? What plans does the Government have for the disposal of that waste? Mr BARRY JONES —The bulk of the nuclear wastes in Australia arises from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission operations and is stored at Lucas Heights. Most State authorities have small repositories of wastes which they have accumulated over the years. In addition, a small quantity of wastes from Commonwealth departments is stored at the munitions filling factory at St Marys in New South Wales. A joint committee of Commonwealth and State officials has been established to review national radioactive waste management arrangements arising from the industrial, medical and research use of radionucleides. In the first instance the committee is developing general criteria for the safe storage and disposal of radioactive wastes and is assessing the need for establishing national or regional waste repositories. Material such as that currently secured at St Marys will receive more permanent treatment as soon as detailed requirements have been agreed with State governments and the necessary facilities developed. The honourable member would not expect me, in answering a question without notice, to have the precise quantities available, so I will take the rest of that question-- Mr Hawke —Why not? Mr BARRY JONES —Because I am only representing the Minister. I will take the request for precise quantities as being on notice and ensure that the honourable member is provided with an answer as soon as possible. Mr PEACOCK —I remind the Prime Minister of his promise on 15 February last year that fewer than one per cent of Australians would pay higher taxes under a Hawke Labor government. Is it a fact that the worker on average weekly male earnings is now paying income tax of 46c on every extra dollar earned? Is it a fact that by mid-1984 the Government's tax policies will mean that the worker on average weekly male earnings will be at least $17 a week worse off? Has the Government done any calculation as to how much a week the increase in the lump sum superannuation tax will cost the average wage earner? Mr HAWKE —As perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will be aware, because of the composition of the average weekly earnings figure something like 75 per cent of the workers are below the figure which he chose to use. If he is going to be stringently honest about this, he will reflect and indicate how many people are affected at that level of earnings. Let me say this so that we can get the whole thing into its proper context: I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would want to put this behind him. I make it clear that when we gave the undertakings that we gave in February last year as to what would happen in regard to tax, we did so on the basis-obviously it has been shown to be an unjustifiable basis-that the present Leader of the Opposition, the then Treasurer and the then Prime Minister were telling the truth to the Australian people. Obviously it was an unjustified assumption on our part to believe that they were capable of telling the truth on such a fundamental issue. When we came into government we found that we were $3.6 billion worse off than the present Leader of the Opposition, the then Treasurer and the then Prime Minister were telling the Australian people. It would have been an act of gross irresponsibility if, faced with that different deficit situation to the tune of $3.6 billion, we had said: 'What is $ 3.6 billion? We will not take any account of that. We will not modify our economic program. After all, $3.6 billion is minimal'. Of course we did not do that. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as I will continue to remind him as he goes down this fruitless path, that before the election date I said in this national capital that if we found, as some people suspected, that the then Government was not capable of telling the truth and we inherited a different situation, we would have to modify our position accordingly. I am pleased to say that the people of Australia obviously understand and accept what we are doing. They certainly derive no comfort in this area of tax from the Opposition because we still have the situation of the Leader of the National Party saying, as reported on 18 January, in respect of the flat tax concept: 'Of course, I do not think you can ignore it'. The Leader of the National Party of Australia was saying at the beginning of 1984 that we cannot ignore that. The right honourable member looks surprised. I am sure the report was not forged; I am sure that it is an accurate report. Is he questioning the accuracy of the report which appeared in the Australian Financial Review? It reported that he said that one cannot ignore the flat rate concept. If the people of Australia are trying to find out what is likely to happen to them in the tax area in the totally impossible event that the Opposition would have anything to do with it they would have to understand that typically and consistently with the Opposition's concept of taxation principles it would have brought in a taxation system which would impose a significantly greater burden upon the lower and middle income people of this country at the advantage of the people the Opposition really represents. I conclude by saying that this Governmnt, now that it is in control of and knows the fiscal and budgetary situation, will do the best it can in the next Budget to bring about reductions in tax, consistent also with its desire and intention to reduce the Budget deficit. Mr KEOGH —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to his recent visit to the Philippines where he made representations for Father Brian Gore and his co-accused who are on trial on charges of murder and incitement. Has the Minister been able to obtain any confirmation as to whether undertakings given by President Marcos that a speedy trial would be guaranteed have been met? Mr HAYDEN —The trial of Father Brian Gore and his co-accused resumed in Bacolod city yesterday. At the resumption the judge announced that the court would sit for five days each week rather than intermittently, as it has in the past, and that there would be the introduction of more order and formality into the proceedings and, consistent with that, attendance in the court room would be limited to its seating capacity and there would be no unnecessary movement of people during the hearing. Honourable members will recall that excess crowding in the court room in the past had been a cause of disruption. It has also been reported that additional stenographers will be provided for the court. All these measures are in accord with the undertaking which President Marcos gave to me that the processes would be expedited. I understand that the measures have the agreement of the defence lawyers. In respect of a proposal of the Philippines Government that Father Gore and his co-defendants might enter into conference with government legal advisers, I understand that Father Gore has rejected that proposal. However, that is a matter in which the Government of Australia is not involved. Our exclusive interest was in trying to achieve an expedition of the court hearing processes and obviously that has now been put in place. Mr HOWARD —My question is also directed to the Prime Minister and it follows the answer that he gave a moment ago to the Leader of the Opposition. How does the Prime Minister continue to justify the repudiation of his tax cut promise given in the last election campaign on the basis of his claims about the prospective size of the deficit when the truth is that he made the promise about tax cuts eight days before the first public reference I made to a possible deficit of $6 billion? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, after the pathetic display of the last few days, today- Friday-was to be the day we were going to get it in the neck. This question from -who is it?-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is based on the proposition that the only way the people of Australia would have of knowing what the proposed deficit was was what came out of the mouth of the honourable member. In the weeks and months of preparation leading up to our election policy we had the material that was available-what was being said-and all of Australia was operating, not just in the last few days the honourable member was talking about , on the basis that it was possible to work out that the deficit was going to be of that order. We accepted what was put out of the honourable member's mouth prior to that day about what the figures were showing. Mr Speaker, it is well known-- Mr Howard —You are lying. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member knows that is not right. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —You are lying. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, if the honourable gentleman wants to pursue this I suggest that it would be interesting to do it next week. Next week, after the publication of certain material, we will know what was going on in the ranks of the former Government; that is, that he knew what the truth was. He knew that those around him-including himself because he would not come clean-were lying to the Australian public. He pleaded with the then Prime Minister to tell the truth to the people of Australia and, Mr Speaker, his pleas that the truth be told were repudiated. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Can the Minister for Aviation provide any information on the success of the 45 per cent discount air fares introduced by Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia Ltd? Is it true that the greatest benefit or utilisation of these air fares has been afforded to those travelling on long haul routes-for example, those travelling from Western Australia to the eastern States? Is there any prospect that further discount fares will be introduced by those airlines to provide increased travel opportunities and to utilise seats which would otherwise be empty? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. As honourable members would be aware, on 1 July last year the two major airlines introduced a scheme of discount fares offering, over selected routes and under certain conditions, a discount of 45 per cent. The objective of the airlines then was to make use of surplus capacity. We welcomed that as a step in the right direction in providing air services to the great bulk of the travelling public and overcoming what is very much a problem in the Australian aviation industry, the very difficult cost structure for the airlines. That 45 per cent discount fare has been a great success. About 300,000 passengers have travelled on it since last July. The honourable member will be particularly interested to learn, given the basis of the question he asks about long haul routes and particularly those from the east to the west, that approximately 50,000 of those passengers have used the fares to travel between Perth and the eastern States. I am sure that many thousands of those passengers would not otherwise have flown on Ansett or TAA. The advice provided by the airlines indicates that the 45 per cent fares have increased aircraft loadings by approximately 5 per cent, which has been a very good result indeed. Given the success of these fares, I hope that the airlines will go on to investigate the scope of making available to members of the travelling public other forms of discount fares that will encourage them to travel and bring about, apart from anything else, a very substantial boost to our tourist industry. I have had some correspondence with the airlines on these matters and on certain features of that 45 per cent flexi-fare which have been found by the travelling public to create some area of difficulty. In particular, problems are imposed for travellers from northern ports. I cannot report any joy in that direction, but we will keep pressing the point with them. I will be encouraging the airlines to look at other fare types which might stimulate greater travel demand throughout their networks, such as discount fares for children and family fares. It has to be recognised that the Government has no authority to set or approve domestic air fares. Under the two airlines agreement, established by the previous Government and due to run at least until the end of 1986 and probably until the end of 1989, there is an independent body responsible for approving air fares in accordance with air fare setting formula. That body is the Independent Air Fares Committee. It operates not on government direction or even on government submission. It operates on submissions from the airlines. In the first instance it has to be the airlines themselves that make submissions to the Committee. Over the months, I and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism , very effectively I think, have suggested options to those airlines. Those options, we understand, are always being seriously considered by him. Mr HOWARD —Does the Treasurer recall that when the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System was tabled in November 1981 it was greeted with blind antagonism by members of the then Labor Opposition, thus making the implementation of some of its more sensitive recommendations that much more difficult for the then Government? Now that the Australian Labor Party is in office, the report of the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System has confirmed the general thrust of Sir Keith Campbell's vision for the Australian financial system and, most importantly, the present Opposition will support the future deregulation of the Australian financial system, will the honourable gentleman undertake to the House that he will now allow this unique opportunity to achieve a lasting reform of a bipartisan kind to the Australian financial system to slip through his hands by, inter alia, delaying a decision on the Martin committee's recommendations until the mid-year conference of the Australian Labor Party? Mr KEATING —The Government has regarded it as important that those parts of the Campbell recommendations which it saw as being of value-the whole impetus of change and the evolving dynamic change in the Australian financial system-were in fact kept moving by the commissioning of the Martin report in the first place . The Government did not have to commission the Martin report. We could simply have let the Campbell report lie on the shelf. But we did commission the Martin report for good and cogent reasons. I think the difficulty with the Campbell report was that rather than simply produce a report which looked at the social and economic priorities of a particular government, as indeed Mr Martin and his committee were asked to report, the Campbell report was very much a theoretical approach, looking at a model for change in the financial system, one against which other changes could be compared. So I do not think the late Sir Keith Campbell and his colleagues ever had in their minds presenting to the government of the day an easily digestible report or, in political terms, a report which was easy to implement, but rather one which was regarded as a model for change in the Australian financial system. In that sense, given its philosophical standpoint and the dramatic nature of the recommendations, particularly as it was the first report of its kind after so many years of the operation of our system in such a regulated way, it obviously created a major debate in this country. In respect of many of the recommendations, there was an adverse response from the then Opposition. Let me make this point clearly. The Australian financial system has been in pretty much the state it is in now since about 1946 barring some of the changes the former Treasurer made and indeed some this Government made, including the floating of the currency. I do not see any compelling reason why the Australian Labor Party in government has to trip over itself to try to implement overnight every recommendation of the Martin Committee or the Campbell Committee. What I have promised my party, I think quite properly, is a full debate within our Party and within the community on what are very far reaching changes in the Australian financial environment. This Government and this Cabinet do not have to work on the basis on which the former Government worked of government decisions being handed down from Cabinet on high, to be read by Party members in the newspapers. We are prepared to use our party procedures and, where the Cabinet makes a recommendation, to stand up and argue for it. Even more importantly, we are prepared at least to make the Cabinet's point of view available. The Government has no intention, having established the Martin inquiry specifically to make recommendations in the context of the social and political objectives of the Government, to walk away from its report. We will not walk away from it. However, the timing of the national conference has nothing to do with the recommendations or their implementation. Ms McHUGH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government has made a decision on the South African visitor's visa applications by Mr Durr, National Party member of parliament, and Mahmoud Rajab, Indian member of the President's Council? Mr WEST —The Government has made a decision on those two visitor's visa applications. The Government, after consultation between the relevant Ministers, has decided not to issue visas. The stated purpose of the visit was for Mr Kent Durr, a National Party member of parliament, and Mr Mahmoud Rajab, a member of the Indian Members Presidential Council, to address conferences, arranged by the South African Embassy and entitled 'South Africa Today and Tomorrow', in Canberra, Sydney and Perth between 23 March and 31 March. I have a copy of a letter from the South African Ambassador to various people in Australia which sets out some of the topics to be covered by Mr Durr. Presumably this is an outline of the addresses to be given. Mr Durr was to address the conferences on questions such as the importance of the Cabinet Committee on Blacks, South African policy towards South West Africa, or Namibia, the Republic of South Africa's defence capability, its sporting scene, and South Africa's internal priorities. It asks whether Australians can make a contribution. Quite frankly, I am not sure what contribution any Australian could be expected to make to the South African Government's Cabinet Committee on Blacks. I have been informed by my Department that, if visas were granted, it would be the first visit by South African members of parliament for many years. I understand that the former Government did not grant any such visas. Indeed, that would be consistent because the attitude of the former Government towards sporting contacts was well known, as is our attitude in government. Our policy on sporting contacts is well known, as revised last year and as explained by the Foreign Minister. I put it to the House that it is entirely consistent with that policy to refuse entry to members of parliament who have responsibility for the devising and implementation of South African policy. We do not think that it is appropriate to allow such people into Australia to promote South African Government policy. I conclude by informing the House that every application concerning controversial visitor entry, including such matters as the entry of members of parliament from South Africa, will be treated on its merits in future, according to the purpose of the visit. Mr Ruddock —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was very clearly reading from a document. I ask that it be tabled. Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister reading from a public document? Mr WEST —I was speaking from my own notes, and any paper I referred to is confidential. Mr COLEMAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to reports that the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation has recently been rebuked by the United States of America State Department for his repeated public attacks on the United States? Was the Ambassador in fact rebuked? If so, in making those attacks has the Ambassador been following instructions from the Australian Government? If not, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the Ambassador follows his instructions? Mr HAYDEN —I suggest that, knowing the Australian Ambassador to UNESCO, if the American State Department, or even the Secretary of State of the United States, sought to rebuke him he would retaliate rather vigorously and unambiguously and make it clear that he was not answerable to any foreign power, albeit a very friendly one. It would be most improper to suggest that any other power would seek to rebuke any Australian representative in the terms which the honourable member has suggested. I can assure the honourable member that in respect of Australia's very distinguished Ambassador to UNESCO that has not happened. More than that, from what I can establish from checking records and making contacts through my Department, the Australian Ambassador to UNESCO has not contradicted or failed to fulfil the instructions issued to him by the Australian Government. We have expressed our concern at the stated intention of the United States of America to withdraw from UNESCO. We regard it as a very genuine and certainly a very serious declaration of intent. We wish the United States to remain in UNESCO. We acknowledge that there have been some defects in its administration and operation in the past. That is true of many institutions, including the previous Government of this country. However, we also wish to use our good offices to encourage the Americans to change their attitude. The Australian Ambassador to UNESCO, Mr Gough Whitlam, has been asked to do that and, according to the accounts I have received, has sought to do that. Mr REEVES —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of Press reports that Australian Government and Northern Territory Government authorities are investigating the misuse of brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign funds in the Northern Territory? Are these reports accurate? If so, what is the nature of the funding misuse being investigated? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory for his close interest in the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. In fact, at the end of last year he spent three days in the Northern Territory going into all aspects of that campaign. I am aware that allegations that government funds are being misused in the Northern Territory have been made. Allegations have also been made that there is insufficient control and supervision and that there appears to be collusion between property owners, meatworks, and some government employees. There was an earlier allegation that one of the cattle properties that had been destocked with government money had been restocked with dirty cattle. In general, I am sure that the Minister for Finance shares some of my worries and doubts about the administration of funds generally in the Northern Territory. There are allegations that that Territory is run by some rum-soaked cowboys. When I see that the Chief Minister up there wants to come down here to knock off the devout and reverent right honourable member for New England, I raise my eyebrows. The Territory and Commonwealth governments are investigating the allegations and whether there is substance to the claims of fraudulent corruption in the use of funds. The Australian Federal Police have been involved . They have contacted the Northern Territory police officers. Officers of my Department have been to the Northern Territory. The stage the investigation has reached is that the Northern Territory police and the Northern Territory Attorney-General should receive a report on the allegations in the near future. The brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign is funded by cattle producers, the Commonwealth, the States and the Territory. The Commonwealth Government would be particularly concerned if there were any substance to allegations that the Northern Territory, due to our incompetence and maladministration, is not expending those funds in the way that the other States do and the way in which the Commonwealth feels those funds should be spent. The program itself is entering its final phase in order to have both those diseases eradicated from Australia by 1992. The Commonwealth and I particularly would regard it as a real problem if the Northern Territory Government, due to its own maladministration and the incompetence of its Chief Minister cannot expend the funds properly and cannot engage in proper conduct of the campaign. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. I refer to the apparent intention of the New South Wales Premier to act on the New South Wales corruption tapes by holding an election instead of an investigation. Can the Minister assure the House that at least an interim report from the task force set up to examine the New South Wales corruption tapes will be made public before 24 March, the date today tipped for a New South Wales election? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —A question as to the intentions of the New South Wales Premier is a surprising one. I do not know what his intentions are. It is very evident from a reading of the Press in recent weeks that the Liberal Party and others in the New South Wales Parliament have set up a barrage of questions suggesting massive graft and corruption in New South Wales. I do not know what the honourable gentleman is frightened of. I can see no better judge of what should be happening in New South Wales than the people of New South Wales. If there is to be an election it would be one way of clearing the air. I do not think there would be any problem. There has been no suggestion of any illegality. Mr Peacock —There certainly has been. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Every suggestion has been refused. Mr Peacock —The Attorney-General said it himself. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Not in terms of what we can now identify as being the situation . Let me make it very clear. A task force has been set up between the respective police authorities and any question of illegality would not in any way be inhibited by the holding of an election. Mr Peacock —You are shifting your ground. You said there was no suggestion of illegality. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition has had some legal training in the past. The issue is very clear. If there is any illegality there will be a prosecution whether there is an election or not. So why is the Leader of the Opposition so concerned that there might be an election in New South Wales? The only reason he is worried about an election in that State is that he will lose it. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and Technology. Why is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examining Australia's science and technology policies? What is the aim? What form will the examination take? Who are the members of the OECD team? Mr BARRY JONES —The reason that they are coming out is that they believe that the rest of the OECD nations may have something to learn from our science and technology policies. The OECD sends out examiners on request. The last time that an examination was carried out was in 1974 under the Labor Government. Certain recommendations were then made which, needless to say, were disregarded by the Liberal Party and the National Party when they came into government at the end of 1975. So we have had a long time to catch up. Since that last examination Australia, like other industrialised countries, has been facing unprecedented challenges. This is especially so in Australia's case where it can be seen that our traditional areas of trade are not sufficient. We have declined in our primary exports relatively speaking and we are increasingly dependent on the import of high technology goods from other countries. At the moment an OECD rapporteur is visiting Australia on a fact-finding mission in advance of the OECD mission. The three-member examiners panel will be led by a Canadian, Mr James Mullin, Chairman of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy, currently Vice-Chairman of the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa. The other two nominees are Mr Lars Malmros, the Deputy Chairman of the Volvo Group Management Board, and Professor Emma Rothschild, daughter of Lord Rothschild, and a noted authority on science and technology policy. She also holds chairs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Sorbonne and has an international reputation in this area. The report prepared by the examiners on Australia's science and technology policy will be finalised in an OECD meeting in early 1985 and it is anticipated that the report will be published towards the end of 1985. Because of the many aspects of Australian life affected by science and technology policies, involvement in the examination is expected to come not only from Commonwealth and State agencies, but also from industry and labour organisations. Mr STEELE HALL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In the light of his statement in the answer to the last question that there had been no suggestions of illegality, I ask him whether he is aware of a report in the Age of 25 February concerning police allegations that a Minister's office had improperly intervened in a case concerning the return of a passport to a convicted drug pusher? Is the Minister aware that in May 1974 Raymond Sala was allowed to leave the country and that this departure followed an instruction from a Minister's office? Is it a fact that this matter has been the subject of ongoing controversy within the Australian Federal Police ever since? Has he or his investigating officer spoken to the former Federal Minister concerned in this matter? Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Attorney-General stands by his statement that preliminary reports suggested to him that there was a clear explanation for the course of events and no foundation for any suggestions of impropriety by anyone? Is there also another matter of like kind being investigated? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This is the first information I have had about this matter but I will certainly check the position with the Attorney-General. If there is any information which I can give to the honourable member later this afternoon, I will do so. Ms FATIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology. Is it a fact that women have been seriously under-represented in top jobs in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation? If so, what steps will the Government take to ensure that CSIRO becomes an equal opportunity employer and will this be treated as a matter of urgency? Mr BARRY JONES —What the honourable member for Canning has said is perfectly correct. Women have been seriously under-represented in top jobs in CSIRO. That is the result of the way in which the education system has been slewed against women in scientific and technological areas. It is taking a long while to catch up. On 9 February the Executive of CSIRO released a report of a review which had been undertaken in 1981. Women were asked to express their views in a confidential questionnaire. The investigation revealed that women in CSIRO are treated less favourably than men and are seriously under-represented in senior positions. Analysis of the data suggested that within CSIRO there is a significant degree of sex labelling of occupations and sex stereotyping of the female labour force. These are views which would be very congenial to the honourable member for Braddon and the honourable member for Franklin. There is also an urgent need both to change the present attitudes in CSIRO and to ensure that those in so-called feminine occupations are given the opportunity, if they wish, to gain experience in other areas. The CSIRO Executive has unanimously accepted the survey's 49 recommendations for change in the status of women. It is strengthening its efforts to adopt the full principles of an equal opportunity employer. All vacancies will now be advertised on the basis of defined criteria which will preclude decisions regarding recruitment and promotion being determined on the basis of sex. A training course in selection principles and techniques will be introduced, with an emphasis on equal opportunity. Mr Cadman —It sounds like brain washing. Mr BARRY JONES —No, it is the overcoming of an historic injustice. CSIRO will act to ensure an increase in the representation of women in the trades area. Other grounds of discrimination in CSIRO, wherever established, will be removed, and, yes, we do regard it as a matter of urgency. Mr NEWMAN —I refer the Minister for Defence to an article written in the December/ January 1984 edition of the Pacific Defence Reporter in which he said: The Government expects the Army of the future to be a leaner, more mobile, better co-ordinated and harder hitting force. Is it true that the basic fighting formation of the Army-the regular division-is at only two-thirds strength? Is it a fact that of the nine battalions in the division, two are on light scales, four are about 200 men under strength, and the remaining three do not exist? Is it a fact that these reduced strengths severely limit the ability of the major units to train effectively over sub-unit level? Is it a fact that the tactical ground and air mobility of the battalions is practically non-existent? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bass is stretching the tolerance of the Chair. I ask him to conclude his question. Mr NEWMAN —Whilst the Minister has certainly achieved his aim of making the Army leaner, how does he propose to make it more mobile and hard hitting? Mr SCHOLES —When the present Government has been able to correct the neglect over a number of years of the previous Government, the necessary reorganisation will be able to be undertaken through the whole of the Defence Force. We have just gone through a period of seven years with governments which promised, promised, promised and did not deliver anything. Commitments were made before this Parliament and cancelled. If the figures given by the honourable member are correct-and I do not dispute them-they are exactly the figures which existed at the time when he went out of office as a Minister of the Crown. They are the result of the total and utter neglect and the double standards of the Opposition , which has spoken consistently about its support for defence without ever actually supporting it. Mr GAYLER —My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry, who is known in the House to be an excellent Minister. Is the Minister aware of some of the difficulties present in areas of the sugar industry, particularly those in what is known as the 'super wet belt'? If so, can he outline to the House what action the Queensland Government has taken in relation to those difficulties? Secondly, notwithstanding that this Federal Government is the first Federal Government in 15 years to give financial assistance to that industry, will it consider giving further assistance? Mr KERIN —The Australian sugar industry which is carried on in Queensland and northern New South Wales is traditionally divided into four regions: The north, the Burdekin, the central and the south, and the south includes part of New South Wales. There are differences in the agronomic characteristics of the various sugar producing regions. Year in and year out, if one looks at the super wet belt, which is in the northern region of the sugar producing area-- Mr Steedman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Casey is raising a point of order. I warn him that it had better be a point of order. Mr Steedman —My point of order refers to standing order 58 and the constant interjections from the honourable member for Maranoa, who is not in his seat. He has just moved back there very quickly. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member for Casey should admit that in bringing forward a frivolous point of order he has interrupted an answer being given by one of his colleagues, the Minister for Primary Industry. He should consider himself appropriately rebuked. If he does it again, he will be named without further warning. Mr KERIN —I was referring to the various agronomic characteristics of the sugar growing regions in Australia. The situation faced by growers of cane in the super wet belt, which is in the northern part of the seat of the honourable member for Herbert and mainly in the seat of the honourable member for Leichhardt, is that year in year out there is less profit in growing sugar. In regard to assistance from the Commonwealth Government and the arrangements in which the Commonwealth Government is involved, there is really no way in which specific assistance can be given to any particular agronomic area. The problem arises, as the honourable gentleman would know because he has spent so much time accompanying me and speaking with cane farmers in his electorate, when the Commonwealth and the Queensland governments are negotiating a domestic price arrangement. It is very important for any index of cost production or productivity to take into account that there are some high cost and low cost areas involved in the production of sugar. The Commonwealth is not involved in arrangements concerning the sugar industry. By and large they are set by the Queensland Government, through its various instrumentalities and agencies which administer its policy. Some agreement has been reached between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government to address some of the overall problems and some of the regional problems of the industry, particularly when we are composing a domestic price formula and when we are looking at some of the special needs of producers in some agronomic regions which in the long haul face disadvantages. I remind honourable members that the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission on rural adjustment has pointed to the fact that perhaps this instrumentality should no longer be directed to giving assistance from the Commonwealth through the States across the board but should concentrate on industries and regions. This mechanism may hold out some hope for areas of agricultural disadvantage or those with particular problems. This would affect the super wet belt of the sugar industry, the dried vine fruit industry, which centres particularly on Sunraysia, and some of the problems which the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has been raising in regard to the wheat farmers in the Perenjori/Eneabba regions. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1973, I present the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee annual report for 1982-83. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the tenth annual report of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation, for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 3 (A) of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978, I present the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation fourth annual report, 1982-83. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 42 of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, I present the Health Insurance Commission's ninth annual report, for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the 1983 annual report of the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission. The report contains recommendations for the distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual municipalities by the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission. Payments to South Australia were made in early August 1983 by the Treasury. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Agents Board of the Australian Capital Territory for the year 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers for 1982-83. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members I table the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratory Services and Facilities or, to give it a more convenient name, the Ross report, after its distinguished Chairman. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises (1) the publication of the report of the inquiry into Commonwealth laboratories. (2) That the paper be printed. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —by leave-The independent Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratory Services and Facilities was established in January 1982 as a consequence of a recommendation by the Committee of Review of Commonwealth Functions, or as it was affectionately known, the razor gang. My predecessor, the Hon. David Thomson, M. C., provided the original terms of reference. In June 1983, following the change of government, I provided revised terms of reference. The terms of reference were comprehensive and sought recommendations on the efficiency and effectiveness of Commonwealth service laboratory operations including, inter alia, the functions, facilities and capabilities of existing and proposed service laboratories; the relationships between government laboratories and their relationship to private and State laboratories; the scope for rationalisation of operations and the means whereby this might be achieved; arrangements for costing and charging for laboratory services; contracting out of Commonwealth laboratory activities; and the use of Commonwealth facilities by outside organisations. Strategic mission oriented research or fundamental research activities were excluded from the purview of the inquiry. The Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry was Professor Ian Ross, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Canberra. Members of the Committee were Mr Alan Dumaresq, veterinarian; Mr Arnold Hancock, O.B.E., chartered accountant; Mr Jack Ritchie, O.B.E., metallurgic engineer; and Dr Laurie Wain, research scientist. The Secretary to the Committee was Mr Rex Moncur of the Department of Science and Technology. The Committee reported in November 1983. The report consists of three volumes. Volume 1 contains 96 general recommendations which aim at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Commonwealth service laboratory operations. These recommendations involve the strengthening of laboratory management, establishing the full costs of services and operations and developing and implementing charging policies to recover those costs. They suggest that the sole criterion for the establishment of Commonwealth laboratory services should be the obtaining of these services at the least cost to the community. There are also recommendations leading to a reduction in the number of small laboratories, with time, thus concentrating laboratory activities in larger and more viable facilities. Volume 2 contains more than 200 specific recommendations on 86 Commonwealth laboratory services. Volume 3 is a directory of Commonwealth laboratories and includes details of staffing, laboratory functions and facilities available. Limited information is included in this volume on State and territorial government laboratories and those in the private sector. The Committee, which had this brief to consider the efficiency and effectiveness of Commonwealth service laboratory operations, of necessity took into account the Government's requirements and its recommendations therefore reflect economic realities and current trends in technology and management practices. The Committee's report reveals that a number of Commonwealth laboratories were established to provide specific services, the need for which no longer exists. These laboratories are still functioning without their continued existence ever having been examined. Most laboratories examined do not have a full knowledge of their total costs. They know their operational costs but are generally not aware of the cost of other components such as accommodation. The economic realities of today cannot allow this situation to continue. Laboratories, like any other government activity, must account for their existence, and their viability. Such accountability should be integral to laboratory management and objectives. To consider the recommendations made in the Ross report, an interdepartmental committee is being established to advise the Government on the response it should make. Relevant unions and professional associations will be consulted before and during any actions arising pursuant to the recommendations of the report. I wish to express the Government's thanks to the members of the committee for their comprehensive, and, I may add, extremely well written, report on the diverse matters that affect the efficient operations of Commonwealth service laboratories. I commend the Ross report for the consideration of the House. I present the following paper: Commonwealth Laboratory services and facilities-Report of independent committee of inquiry-Ministerial Statement, 2 March 1984. Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(2.57) —This report of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratory Services and Facilities, which is called the Ross report after its distinguished Chairman, is an important document. It reviews 86 Commonwealth laboratory services, provided by some 208 Commonwealth laboratories . That is, the focus is on laboratories which deliver actual services. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and other bodies which are in the category of laboratories engaged in fundamental research activities or strategic mission oriented research, are excluded. However, it is interesting to note that these laboratories have a combined staff of the order of 4,000, which is rather more than half the size of the current staff of the CSIRO. It is a surprising number and has emerged in a rather gentle and unremarked manner. As the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has said, the essential charter of the Committee, which sprang from the previous Government's review of Commonwealth functions, was to recommend on the efficiency and effectiveness of Commonwealth service laboratory operations. I believe that the Committee has done a comprehensive and perceptive job. There is no lack of criticism by it of procedures in the laboratories generally. For instance, the Committee found in many laboratories a general lack of a clear statement of objectives, that in some cases the original purpose has been lost to sight or has changed with changed circumstances, that there has been inadequate action to focus efforts on the priorities of government, and that laboratories have not been aware of the full cost of the provision of services. The Committee urges of course that this must be so and that charges for services should reflect this. The Committee finds also that there is fragmentation and recommends moving towards a lesser number of more viable laboratories. Importantly, there is a very clear recognition that a larger role should be accorded to the private sector in providing these services. The Committee states: We believe that in many areas the private sector can now respond more quickly to demands and cope more readily with the prospect of change. It is, then, a specific recommendation of the report that the future growth in requirements for laboratory services should be directed to Australian industry and that, indeed, the transfer now of appropriate laboratory service work to industry as a step which would complement policy for industry development should be pursued. As I said, this is an important report. I note that an interdepartmental committee on ways to implement the Committee's recommendations is to be established. I wonder why that has not been done already as the report is dated November 1983? It is greatly to be hoped that the Government gets on with the job with expedition. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The confusion and concern caused by the Prime Minister's actions and statements in Japan and China about beef and steel exports. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.02) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will report to the House as soon as possible on the discussions he has had during his recent tour of a number of countries in the region to our north. In the meantime, there are two particular matters arising from reported statements he made in Japan and China which need to be clarified. I refer, of course, to statements affecting both the beef and steel industries. First, the Prime Minister quite properly raised with the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Nakasone, the question of future access to the Japanese market for Australian beef. That much is clear, but the rest is as clear as mud. We were informed from reports of a Press conference that the Prime Minister had been assured by Mr Nakasone that Australia would not suffer as a result of efforts by the United States of America to gain an increased share of the market and that Australia would maintain its share of the Japanese beef market. The Prime Minister was reported to be confident that any increase in United States beef sales to Japan would be accompanied by an increase in Australian sales. Subsequent events have caused unease in the beef industry. Madam Deputy Speaker, we all know that the Japanese beef market is a sensitive market. Japanese beef producers apply very heavy political pressure on their government to limit beef imports and their efforts have been very successful indeed. On a recent visit to the mid-west in the United States it was made clear to me in private discussions that the Americans would make an all-out effort to increase their share of the Japanese beef market to help ameliorate the trade deficit problem. Already the Americans have 40 per cent of the Japanese market. In doing so, they have whittled away our own share. The means by which this has been achieved are not altogether clear but it has been suggested that the Americans have found a way to send offals outside the quota system to make it possible for additional United States meat to enter Japan. However, there appears to have been some real concern by the Japanese about the interpretation by the Australian Prime Minister of what the Japanese Prime Minister had said to him. And, there seems to have been some hiccup in plans for scheduled talks between Australian and Japanese officials on the future quota arrangements for the beef trade. One view of the matter is that the Japanese were upset by the Prime Minister's alleged misreporting or misrepresentation of Mr Nakasone's assurances and that the Japanese responded by indicating that they were not ready for talks with our officials. Another view is that the Japanese wanted to make further progress in their discussions with the Americans before they commenced discussions with our officials and industry representatives. Whatever the truth of these reports and views, it is important to establish exactly what did happen in Japan. What did the Japanese Prime Minister say to our Prime Minister? Did Mr Nakasone actually give our Prime Minister any assurances? If he did, what were they? Did he say that Australia would not be disadvantaged as a result of Japan-United States deals? Did he say we would not be discriminated against? Did he say we would maintain our share of the market? The beef producers of Australia have a right to know the answers to these questions. Our beef trade with Japan is far too important to allow any misrepresentations or misunderstandings to continue. We want the matter cleared up. Indeed, on 13 February 1984 I sent a telegram to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen). I seek leave to have a copy of the telegram incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Telegram to: Hon. Lionel Bowen, MP Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade As shadow Minister for Trade and a member representing a large number of beef producers, I am deeply concerned at the cancellation of Australian/Japanese officials' discussions on Australia's beef exports to Japan. The Prime Minister's statements in Japan indicated that his discussions with the Japanese Prime Minister assured the maintenance of Australia's percentage share of the Japanese beef market. Reports now indicated the Japanese authorities have refuted the Prime Minister's claims. Not only is the Prime Minister's credibility at risk, but the price structure of the Australian beef industry is also at risk. The industry is one of Australia's most important export trades. It is, therefore, imperative that the assurances claimed by the Prime Minister are in fact honoured. I strongly urge that either the Prime Minister or yourself, as Minister for Trade, proceed to Tokyo as a matter of urgency to clarify the Japanese position prior to a finalisation of Japanese arrangements with the US. Failure to act will place the Australian Beef industry in jeopardy. I would appreciate your earliest advice. Ralph J. Hunt Mr HUNT —I thank honourable members. I sent the telegram to the Acting Prime Minister because of my concern for the beef industry and about the misunderstanding that obviously occurred. I recall the disastrous consequences of a failure of a previous Labor Government and Minister for Trade to intervene in discussions on beef imports to Japan in the 1970s. Of course, as a consequence of the then Minister for Trade failing to intervene in the issue we ultimately lost a very big share of that market and this began the great price slide in the Australian beef industry. Last year, on 22 November, the Minister for Trade announced that he had received assurances from the Japanese Ministers that we would not be disadvantaged by any arrangements made between Japan and the United States. What did that mean? I understand that the talks which were delayed have now been scheduled to take place next week. But it is not good enough to allow these negotiations to commence in an air of uncertainty. It is essential for the Prime Minister to take the opportunity to report to the House and give precise details of the nature of the response he received from Mr Nakasone, and to spell out any assurances which he may have received from the Japanese Prime Minister. Before discussing the second matter, perhaps I could also ask the Prime Minister-I hope somebody brings it to his attention-to tell us what response he received in Korea when he raised questions regarding our beef trade with that country. He has been singularly silent on this issue. The Cattle Council of Australia asked the Prime Minister to raise this question with the Korean Government hoping that we could put the beef trade on a more predictable and stable basis. This trade until now has been 'on-off', as evidenced by the recent episode of the Koreans calling a tender, and then abruptly cancelling it without any indication of future purchases. I am not aware of any statement by the Prime Minister on this matter although he has been very vocal on so many other issues about discussions he has had with leaders on his overseas trip. I turn now to the extraordinary events surrounding the Prime Minister's unexpected announcement while in China of a dramatic scheme to join Australia's and China's steel industries in some kind of axis. I say 'unexpected', because as far as my research establishes the Prime Minister did not consult with anyone in Australia before he made this announcement in China. He does not appear to have consulted with the trade unions in Australia or with the steel industry. One wonders whether the Prime Minister consulted with the Department of Trade or , indeed, with anyone else before he launched this proposal. It has been suggested by some writers and reporters that he needed a big, bold initiative, to pacify the unions following his constructive-if I may say so- Osaka manifesto to restructure Australian industry. Mr McGauran —That is perfectly true. Mr HUNT —I believe it is true. Many union leaders are reported to have fears that the Osaka restructuring statement will restructure them out of their jobs and into the ranks of the unemployed. The Prime Minister did not advance his steel proposal in a tentative way to test the water. He went in boots and all, not merely suggesting that there may be some possibilities to explore but proposing a development involving massive investment and ultimate integration of the strategic steel industries of the two countries. The proposal seems to have taken the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd by surprise. For one so committed to consultation, I would have expected the Prime Minister at least to mention to BHP beforehand that he intended to raise the matter while he was in China. Let us face it: The Prime Minister has treated BHP in a very shabby fashion indeed. His gratuitous suggestions that if BHP was not interested there were other fish in the sea was uncalled for when there had been no consultation. It would be tremendous if the proposal was developed into a profitable method of increasing sales of our steel and iron ore to China on a long term basis. However, it would be unfortunate if it was only some hairy scheme developed out of a need to pacify unions because of the Osaka statement. It is probable that many billions of dollars will have to be invested to achieve the Prime Minister's dream. In today's international economic climate, where there is a malaise in the world steel industry, it would require extensive commercial investigation. Fortunately, since his statement a feasibility study of the scheme has been announced to see whether the idea is worth pursuing. I understand that that initiative came from the Chinese. I hope that the Prime Minister did not forget, in telling BHP what was good for it, that BHP has traded with China on and off since 1891. BHP's sales to China have gone as high as 700,000 tonnes a year. It has sold China iron ore, manganese, railway wheels, and so on. It has recently completed an agreement for the sale of technology to China and is helping China with training of workers and in the upgrading of their steelworks. Yet the Prime Minister, talking to the Australian media in Peking on 10 February, had the gall to say that 'in the past, BHP has been somewhat less than imaginative and adventuresome in its planning in regard to export markets'. It is very much to BHP's credit that it has agreed to approach the Prime Minister's proposal in a constructive fashion. One would have expected nothing else from the Big Australian, despite the Prime Minister's failure to consult it first. I have a sneaking suspicion that the euphoria which the Prime Minister experienced in the Great Hall of the People and at the Fragrant Hills Hotel is now being replaced by a growing sense of reality. That is certainly the case in China, where serious doubts are now being raised about the Prime Minister's plan . At this later stage, some economic fundamentals are being given attention. The figures just do not add up, at least as things stand at the moment. I am told that at present China can buy iron ore on the world market at about $US120 a tonne. There is no way in the world that BHP could sell iron ore to China at that price. It would need something like a 25 per cent increase on that price just to break even. I suppose it is possible that the Chinese might see benefits in becoming involved in an arrangement with Australia and would therefore be prepared to pay a higher price for their iron, but they have not said that. However, two basic things are necessary. Firstly, if an arrangement is made it must be one which provides long term security for BHP. The company cannot be expected to get into something that does not have such a basis. Secondly, whatever decisions are made about this matter they must be commercial decisions, not political decisions. That brings me to an aspect of this matter that gives me a lot of concern. The whole matter raises some important questions about the way this Government operates and about the Australian Labor Party's intentions and philosophies. These questions came very sharply into focus when the Prime Minister, as reported in the Australian Financial Review on 17 February, said: We are not going to sit idly by and allow a BHP, by its own judgment, to determine the future welfare of this country. There was a clear warning signal if ever I heard one when the Prime Minister went further: The lesson Japan has shown is that it is necessary for a government to sit down with the BHP's and the unions and determine what investment decisions have to be made if opportunities are to be grasped. The Prime Minister has made it clear that his Government will involve itself very directly and deeply in the decisions which, until now, have been made by the elected boards of Australia's public companies. From now on, the Government will require Australian industry to consult with it on its intentions and its investment plans. This is a major departure from tradition and practice which will raise real concern amongst those people who have been elected to make decisions on behalf of shareholders. It is the people in the market place, the people who stand or fall by their decisions, the people who have to make the profits and pay the dividends who can best make investment decisions in the interests of their shareholders and of the nation as a whole. We are facing a new situation. The Prime Minister has revealed another purpose for his exercise. It's not just a question of BHP saying: 'We will do this' or ' we won't do that', he said. I think this reveals, without doubt, the real philosophy of the Australian Labor Party. Every Australian should study the Prime Minister's statements very closely because we could be seeing the beginning of a new socialist endeavour with far-reaching implications of most profound seriousness for the nation's future development and social welfare. He has announced that he is going to interfere with the commercial decisions that are to be taken by the great public companies of this country. I believe that we should make sure that everybody knows what this Government is on about. The Prime Minister has told us so. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(3.17) —I am delighted to be able to speak on this recycled topic. It is so important that it was transferred from early in the week to late in the week. It did not take precedence over the nonsense on Tuesday afternoon. What is even more interesting is the way this matter has been presented. In the last 12 months we have seen the resurrection of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and a rejuvenation of the National Party of Australia leadership, with one of its oldest members becoming Deputy Leader. I think that is quite fascinating. The party that is talking about its revival Australia-wide, its influx of youth, its newfound energy and direction, elected one of its oldest members as Deputy Leader, a member who quite clearly in the last 12 months has been taking a very low profile and a very inactive role. I think that is quite fascinating. I wonder why? The two-month break from Canberra has been interesting. It is interesting to conjecture what was in the minds of members of the National Party during those two months. What we had today was a very woolly, misguided and dangerous set of statements from the greatest socialist party in Australia, the National Party. I find it hard to follow why the National Party constantly puts down the primary producers. Between 1979 and 1982, under the Liberal-National Party Government, Australia's share of Japanese beef imports under the quota declined from 78 per cent to 70 per cent, whereas between 1976 and 1982 the non-quota imports by Japan increased from 13,000 tonnes a year to 50,000 tonnes a year. The National Party presided over the contraction of the Australian share of the Japanese beef market in a very major way, yet not a word was said. If anybody from this side of the House had said anything he would have been said to be anti -Australian. We would have been accused of endangering the delicate negotiations between governments on one of our major exports. Certainly beef exports to Japan , Korea and other countries that we now export to are always very delicate. So to hear today the undermining of our beef industry by members of the National Party proves how political a party it is, how its politics are more important than its primary producers. That point has never been more strongly reinforced that it has over recent months. Let us go slightly further, to what in fact was said in Japan. The joint communique of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Nakasone, says in a key paragraph: The Japanese side believes that the position of Australia as a supplier of primary products including minerals will not decline so long as these Australian products maintain their competitiveness and their stable supply is assured. The Japanese side confirms that it has no intention of dealing with the trade problems with third countries at the expense of Australia. In other words, Japan was saying that it would not make political decisions regarding its beef imports. That was one of the fundamental points made. One might look at the present Government and say that it came into power in 1983 and there has been a decline in the Japanese quota from 78 per cent to 70 per cent. But what is the increase in non-quota imports by Japan from America? That has risen by a massive degree. Of that market of 50,000 tonnes, we have about 10 per cent and America has about 80 per cent. What do we do? It is very clear what we do-the Prime Minister goes to Japan on a Prime Minister to Prime Minister basis and raises the problem, asking: 'Are you going to deal with our beef imports on a political basis or on a stable supply basis?' I think the answer has come back fairly clearly. The attempts by the honourable member for Gwydir to make out that the deferral of talks has endangered the Australian supply to Japan in itself is totally mischievous and extremely dangerous. I suggest that, as a member of parliament who purports to represent the beef industry, he has done the industry a great deal of harm. Any objective analysis of where we stand in regard to Japanese imports would indicate that it is a very tough, hard business and the last thing it needs is a professed National Party socialist talking about how it should be done when for the last six years we have gone downhill in a major way. That is a trend we are trying to correct. With regard to the steel industry, what the Prime Minister said before leaving Australia was along the lines that the first year of government was aimed at re- establishing the relationship in Australia between the Government, industry and employees. It was aimed at putting Australian industry on a competitive, stable and productive footing-the three things that were missing during the term of the last Government. The steel industry was the area on which the previous Government had perhaps its most dramatic effect. We watched that Government, in August 1982, recoil in shock and horror at the announcement by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd of its contractions. We watched it recoil with not the foggiest idea of what to do, although agreeing that something should be done. It blamed BHP. Malcolm Fraser said much more during that time about the big happy Australian than he was purported to have said; in fact, it does not bear examination. It was very clear that the last Government was totally at a loss to know how to deal with an industrial decline along the lines of that which took place in the steel industry. In our first six months of government the steel plan was put in place. Production figures at the moment show that the effect of the steel plan on the industry at Newcastle, for example, has been most dramatic. Steel production for December was some 30 per cent up on that for the same month of the previous year . We are now getting steel back into a competitive position but we must also recognise that the Australian market is tiny. We watched for decades a Liberal- National Party Government exporting raw materials and then re-importing manufactured goods. Surely it makes some sense to look at exporting value added products. If, as seems almost certain, China is interested in importing Australian iron ore and coal, then surely it makes a great deal of sense to suggest that it should consider importing manufactured steel and pig iron. That is a real possibility which is affected in part by the harbour conditions at the appropriate Chinese ports. They have difficulty taking the very large bulk carriers that make the cost of shipping the raw materials iron ore and coal more competitive. The fact is it may well be that it is more in China's interest to import some manufactured steel and pig iron rather than the raw materials. It is a point that should be considered. The suggestion that this Government will take away from the BHP Board its decision making process has to be the biggest farce of all time because if it was not for this Government there would not be a BHP steel industry. It was very clear last March, April, May, June and July that steel production in Australia by BHP would cease unless the public of Australia gave it assistance. This Government gave assistance to the industry-not to BHP but to the industry-which we saw as being integral to Australia's industrial development. This Government created the climate and the pre-conditions for steel manufacturing to continue in Australia and it has made it possible for the industry again to become competitive. The steel industry authority, the steel plan and the complete revitalisation of the industry were brought about by this Government so to suggest that the BHP Board in isolation made a decision about steel manufacture is absolutely ludicrous. It could not have made a decision to stay in steel unless this Government had created the pre-conditions for it to do so. I suggest that the BHP Board, its employees and the public of Australia know that and for honourable members opposite to ignore that is to treat those groups as idiots. The fact is that taxpayers' money-to the extent of some $70m a year for the next five years-is ensuring that there is a steel industry in Australia. What the Prime Minister suggested to China is that our steel industry is competitive, viable and current, and that China could well shorten its development programs by looking at importing finished product from Australia rather than raw materials, particularly in the short term. The offensiveness of the remarks of the honourable member for Gwydir was heightened when he suggested that the idea of a working party was put forward by China when in fact it was clearly put forward by the Prime Minister in those discussions. The fact is that before BHP could get involved there needed to be a government to government relationship because China is not the BHP Board, nor is it similar to it. If we are to have discussions with China about mutual trade, particularly in an area as significant as steel, there has to be government agreement in advance of that. I am talking now about members of parliament who have been here for decades. As I said earlier, if the Opposition has not learnt in all those decades, all those years of experience, how Australia and China develop negotiations, then the results of last year are perhaps more than pertinent. The fact is that in that visit the Prime Minister opened up a key potential for Australian manufacturing industry and for a future import-export relationship between Australia and China . He proposed to the Chinese Government-this was made absolutely clear in the Press conference of 9 February and subsequently-the possibility of a working party being established between Australia and China to explore the details of such a possibility because these things must be agreed to on a government to government basis before the companies themselves become involved. Whether or not BHP's whole procedure in this area develops will depend on commercial judgments. There is no question whatsoever about that. I suggest that those commercial judgments in so many cases will depend first on Government decisions regarding tariffs, protection and various other conditions. In fact, in today's Australian Financial Review it became clear that a delegation would leave for China next week consisting of members of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and five or six major Australian companies. In other words, Australian companies are now saying: 'Yes, we will join the delegation; we will participate in those discussions and we welcome the opportunity to do so'. It is very clear that industry understands what the Prime Minister has done and it is very clear that the labour movement understands what the Prime Minister has done . The only people who do not understand, it seems to me, are members of the National Party of Australia. One must question where their loyalties and objectives lie and why they are in this place because certainly the bucketing of the beef industry today, the politicisation of the negotiations between Australia and Japan on beef, is one of the gravest blows I have seen in the last 12 months to that very delicate mechanism. In recent weeks the National Party leadership has taken unto itself the right to God. I suggest that that right is available to all Australians-men, women and children. I suggest that members of the National Party would have great difficulty in digesting the Ten Commandments. I suggest that that part of religious activity would not sit very well and, if it were to go to the next logical step, it would cause enormous digestive problems. Of course, the National Party does not operate on a logical basis. I invite every Australian to study the Prime Minister's statements in China, Korea, Japan and Singapore. Those statements encapsulate the idea of a nation working together-by way of agreements, consultation and the develoment of a sense of direction. This is not a nation that allows a separate company to run its own race. It does not allow every employee, Minister or member of parliament to run his own race. We must work as one country or not at all. We have seen the results of eight years of confrontation, whipping boys and scapegoats. This Government is not about scapegoats. It is about getting results . I suggest that in the last two months the Prime Minister has done more to establish Australia as part of the Asian trading pattern, as part of the Asian scene, than anything that has happened in the previous eight years. Clearly we are gaining respect. The governments of the countries which the Prime Minister visited clearly are watching the results of the National Economic Summit Conference, the activities of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the development of the steel plan and what is happening in the arbitration system. The record of the last year is so immaculate that they cannot fail to be impressed. The fact that they are impressed is reflected in their statements. Members of the National Party do not like the fact that we are seen to be more competent and more professional in our negotiations with those countries than they were. Mind you, that in itself is not much of a credit. I suggest that the raising of this subject as a matter of public importance has not been justified. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr PUNCH(Barton) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 218th report of the Committee, relating to the finance minute on report 187- reports of the Auditor-General 1978-79, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr PUNCH —First of all, may I say what a pleasure it is to present this report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts when you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are in the chair. I offer my congratulations to you on this occasion. I am sure that you will do an excellent job. Report 218 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 187th Report. Report 187 was tabled on 7 April 1981. It considered the reports of the Auditor-General for the financial year 1978-79. The Department of Finance minute is the formal documentation of the Government's response to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. The twelfth Public Accounts Committee sought written submissions from 14 departments on matters raised in the Auditor-General's reports. After scrutiny of the submissions, the Committee heard evidence from four departments. These were the Departments of Defence, Primary Industry, Social Security and Transport . The item at issue within the Department of Transport, the purchase of ultra large fire tenders, was the subject of a separate report by the Committee-report 189. The report incorporating the Finance minute on this matter is to be tabled shortly. The items at issue in the departments of Defence, Primary Industry and Social Security formed the basis of report 187. The Committee's investigation of the Department of Defence was in relation to repair and overhaul of aircraft. The Committee examined the practice of removing serviceable components from aircraft to remedy defects and supply spares to other aircraft as well as the effect of current repair, maintenance and stock holding procedures on the availability of aircraft. With regard to the Department of Primary Industry, the Committee considered the matter of the apprehension of foreign fishing vessels. Specifically, the Committee examined the administrative problems associated with the apprehension and disposal of foreign vessels found fishing illegally in Australian waters. The Committee suggested procedures relating to disposal of apprehended vessels and disposal of catches. The Department of Social Security was examined regarding the payment of pensions and benefits overseas. The Auditor-General's report for 1978-79 had drawn attention to deficiencies in the procedures for payment and review of pensions and benefits overseas. The Committee was concerned that with the increasing volume of payments of pensions overseas, the reported deficiencies might have led to significant payments in excess of entitlement. Accordingly, the Committee examined several issues. These were the procedures for payment and review of pensions and other benefits, reciprocal payment arrangements with other governments, staffing of overseas offices and the internal audit procedures applying to overseas payment functions. The Committee made recommendations designed to improve the system of payments, audit and review. Its recommendations related to the regular reconciliation of records of beneficiaries and those eligible, use of banking facilities to transfer payments in respect of short term visits overseas and reciprocal arrangements to localise administrative functions. With this background on report 187 in mind, let me talk briefly about the Government's response to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee. The Government's responses were presented only after some considerable delay and , in the first instance, a number did not satisfactorily address the issues raised by the Committee. Adequate responses were not presented until October this year-some two and a half years after the Committee's report. While the matter of timing is not satisfactory, the information ultimately provided is generally quite acceptable. However, if departments were to give more extensive information in the first instance, this of course would reduce the necessity of follow-up approaches to departments. With regard to content, the Committee notes unfavourably the lack of detail provided to support some departmental responses. The Committee would have been interested, for example, to see the detailed calculations which appeared not to justify the placement of Social Security officers in Rome and Athens to carry out continuing entitlement reviews. The Committee is convinced that the burden of disclosing a reasonable amount of supporting data imposes a desirable discipline on departmental analysis. Several administrative changes have been effected in the areas scrutinised by the Committee in report 187. To summarise, these include: Firstly, progressive introduction in the Department of Defence of a six months 'buffer' stock of aircraft spare parts to reduce the incidence of long lead times in item acquisition; secondly, development of a Defence replenishment provisioning model and associated financial estimating and budget-tailoring models to improve procedures for estimating the real costs of procuring additional aircraft spare parts; thirdly, amendment of the manual of procedures for recording and disposal of fisheries forfeitures to give added emphasis to the timely disposal of forfeited boats and catch, taking into account anticipated net realisable value, and fourthly, restriction of payments of pensions to overseas addresses to clients whose absence will exceed 12 months. As I mentioned earlier, the Committee is generally satisfied with departments' responses. The Committee is particularly pleased to note the recent media reports of negotiations of reciprocal pension arrangements between Australia and Italy and Australia and Greece. I commend the report to honourable members. Debate resumed. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(3.38) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity of extending my congratulations to you on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. I feel that the elevation is richly deserved. You have proved yourself very capable in the past and I look forward to co-operation between yourself and myself. I rise to support the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. This is, as other speakers on this side of the House have already indicated, not only a significant piece of legislation but also it shows the Government's concern to improve the status of women and its concern to secure a more just and equitable Australian society. Quite clearly, the so-called Opposition has proved itself again to be divided, confused and, in some cases, quite ignorant of the purposes of the legislation. The fight for women's rights has been a long and drawn-out affair not only in Australia but throughout the world. Many previous speakers in the debate have indicated some historical accidents that have occurred which relate to the emancipation of women, and I would like to add to the historical record, if I may, by referring to the fact that in 1791 Olympe de Gouges in France issued a manifesto-I will not say it in French-entitled The Proclamation of the Rights of Women and Female Citizens. This was a counterblast to the Rights of Man which had recently been published. Of course the date was significant because it was the date when the French Revolution was in its throes. A year later Mary Wollstonecraft published in London her Vindication of the Rights of Woman. In those revolutionary times the effect of such publications created a great deal of unrest, as indeed in some quarters they are creating a great deal of unrest today. The result of that unrest was that Olympe de Gouges was sent to the gallows in 1793 with some of her fellow women campaigners. I have spoken to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and advised her that perhaps she is fortunate that she is living in the twentieth century. One point has to be emphasised when we talk about this legislation, and that is that it will affect both men and women, not just women. Men and women do experience discrimination on the basis of their sex and their marital status. This fact is undisputed. This Bill will eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, pregnancy in employment, education, accommodation, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. The proposed legislation will provide a mechanism for complaints and an avenue for redress by individuals or groups that are discriminated against. No longer will women be regarded as second class citizens and thus be denied access to many benefits of society which to date have been available only to men. I would like to pay tribute to the many notable contributions to the debate both in this House and in the other chamber. In particular I mention the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) and the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh); the latter for what I thought was his very courageous support of the Bill against some ridicule from members of his own Party. I also pay tribute to the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) and the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin), who put forward very strong and convincing arguments in support of this Bill. In this debate my parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Canning has given the House some interesting figures which illustrate that women in Australia are in a position of economic disadvantage compared to men. I will not repeat the figures as they are now part of the public record. They reflect the outcome of the interaction of very complex and interrelated factors such as rigid sex segregation in the work force, discriminatory employment rules, policies and practices, unequal participation in the labour force and training programs, different career patterns, gender differences in the use of education and the allocation of domestic responsibilities. This Bill can be regarded only as a first step towards overcoming some of the problems outlined above. Some form of affirmative action needs to be introduced over time. I am pleased to be able to record that this Government proposes to proceed with the implementation and upgrading of equal employment opportunity programs within the Australian Public Service. Obviously the concept of affirmative action is one in which a great deal of heat has been generated but little light, and in some cases little enlightenment. The Government is to be commended for agreeing to issue a Green Paper on this matter with a view to generating public discussion and understanding of the concept. The Bill will cover both direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy. Direct discrimination is where the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same or similar circumstances he would treat a person of the opposite sex. An example of direct discrimination in employment is where a woman who works in the hardware section of a department store is passed over for promotion to run the section although she is the most experienced applicant because it is a man's job. She is being treated less favourably in that circumstance because of her sex. Another illustration-and this evens the balance between the two sexes-is where a single man is denied a transfer to a country branch as the company which employs him believes in some mysterious way that single men are less stable than married men-I wonder what this means in respect of the present divorce rate in this country-and thus not able to cope with living in a country town. Indirect discrimination occurs with a policy or practice which, on the face of it, appears to be neutral or non-discriminatory by its operation results in discrimination against one particular group of persons. The discriminator requires the aggrieved person to meet a condition or requirement which he or she cannot meet, and is one which far more people of the opposite sex can or could meet and it is not reasonable in those circumstances. For example, it could be made a condition of a particular job that only persons above a certain height are eligible for that job. This could preclude a substantially higher proportion of women than men and could not be regarded as a reasonable job requirement. In the field of education it will be unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy against a person applying for admission as a student. Single sex educational institutions have been exempted from that legislation and this is because this Government does listen to the comments raised by reputable organisations outside this Parliament, and it did so in this case. The Government recognises that there is always a need for a proper balance between various and often competing rights. To this end a number of exemptions have been spelt out in the legislation. More importantly there is also provision for the Human Rights Commission to be empowered to grant specific exemptions from a provision dealing with unlawful acts of discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy. These exemptions may be subject to conditions or may be limited to certain activities and are for a maximum period of five years. I refer those honourable members opposite who hold genuine but perhaps misguided concerns about the impact of this Bill, and those groups outside this House which also hold genuine concerns, to the comments of Senator Hamer, a Liberal Party senator from Victoria, when the Bill was debated last year in the other place. I quote from page 2959 of Senate Hansard dated 29 November 1983: Opinions in the community are deeply divided on this Bill. I should like to point out, though, that not all the opponents of the Bill can necessarily justify the high moral line they are taking. Some of them claim to be defending the institution of the family against attack by raving feminists. However, I should remind the Senate that the policy of the Nazi Party for women was expressed in the slogan 'children, church and kitchen' . . . one of the reasons the Germans lost the Second World War was that Hitler adamantly refused to permit a thorough mobilisation of women for the war effort, as other countries were doing, because he thought women's proper place was in the home looking after their families. Hitler called the emancipation of women a symptom of depravity on a par with parliamentary democracy. Goebbels said: 'Our displacement of women from public life occurs solely in order to restore their essential dignity to them'. Senator Hamer went on to say that he was not for a moment suggesting that all opponents of the Bill are Nazis. I certainly concur with that because opponents of this Bill are reasonable, decent people even though they may well be misguided. Mr Milton —Some of them, not all of them. Mr BLANCHARD —My colleague said: 'Some of them, not all of them'. I still say that most of them are decent Australian citizens. In my closing remarks I wish to point out that this Bill follows the pattern established in anti- discrimination legislation which has been operating successfully for a number of years in three States of the Commonwealth-South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. It should be noted that in those States the legislation has proved successful in combating discrimination and, despite the tales of woe which came from the same groups opposing the present Bill, the family still remains intact in those States. For a number of months people have had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the provisions of this Bill. The Government, to its credit, has carefully considered all the arguments that have been put up, both for and against the Bill. It has accepted amendments which were in tune with the spirit of the legislation. It has not accepted, and will oppose, and continue to oppose amendments which seek unreasonably wide exemptions from the legislation or which run counter to its intent. This Bill is a worthy addition to the legislation of this Parliament and I am proud, as a member of the Government and as a member of the Australian Labor Party which introduced the Bill, to support it strongly. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Motion (by Dr Blewett) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(3.55) —Recently the Government made a grant of $1m to send our athletes to the Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Whilst this is to be applauded , what about the disabled sports men and women who, first of all, have received a no to holding disabled games in Australia? The Government has made a decision not to press for the Olympic Games for the Disabled to be staged in Canberra as part of Australia's bicentenary in 1988. Of course, this has been a great disappointment to disabled sportsmen. Three Ministers in the Government issued a joint statement recently saying that the Government had decided not to spend money on the staging of these Olympics in the same year as the summer and winter Olympics. They gave as justification for the decision the belief that the established practice of holding the event in the same country as the Olympic Games should be maintained. The Government has made a donation of $50,000 to the Australian disabled squad to help its members to prepare for and travel to the 1984 Olympic Games for the Disabled which are being held in New York. Whilst this is a nice little donation , I feel that it is not commensurate with the team which will represent Australia. These sports men and women have great courage, skill and dedication which has been achieved over many years of practice and through coaching by people who have dedicated their lives to see that these people become proficient . They have the interests and welfare of these disabled sportsmen at heart. Recently there was a telethon in which some $5.5m was promised to send our athletes to the Olympic Games in Los Angeles. This was a very successful telethon and surely something can be done to assist these disabled athletes. There has been no indication that help will be given to those selected for the Australian amputee team. It is to be understood that some time ago the Federal Government did a survey of talented disabled sports people in which, apparently, all were asked to give estimates of how much it cost in a 12-month period for training and all expenses. To date results of the survey have not been made known. It is time that this survey was finalised and, as mentioned, the results of it made known to these athletes and to Australia. The question must be asked: When will the result of the survey be known? Will the Government make a donation to the cost of sending this team to the 1984 Olympic Games? As mentioned, $50,000 has been donated but this is not nearly sufficient to take a team of talented disabled Australian sportsmen to these games which are being held in New York. I also understand that there are disabled olympics and amputee olympics, which are combined for disabled people. I commend this matter for the attention of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Government of Australia because these people are talented and skilled in their various sports. We should encourage them and do all we possibly can to help them represent this country at these games which, as I have mentioned, will be held in New York. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.00) —I have just finished reading a most interesting paper by Christopher Flavin entitled 'Nuclear power, the market test'. The paper was commissioned by Worldwide Institutes, an independent non-profit research organisation. It is an organisation funded by private foundations and United Nations organisations and was created to analyse and focus attention to global problems. The paper is indeed interesting because it provides evidence beyond doubt that the production of nuclear power has involved cost over-runs which have become, as the author states, both endemic and devastating. Waste disposal and radiation hazards, as I indicated in a speech last year in this House, have major economic implications. The need to make nuclear power plants safer is the basis of much of the cost increases. Since the 1970s cost estimates for individual nuclear power plants have risen 20 per cent annually. Nuclear power plants completed in the mid-80s will cost an average of $2,000 per kilowatt in 1982 dollars; this represents twice as much as in the case of coal plants. In all the countries heavily involved in nuclear power and where costs are known, such as the United States of America, Britain, West Germany, France, Japan, Sweden and Canada, the economic costs of nuclear power are rising dramatically. Chronic inefficiency has become a trademark of the nuclear industry. Mr Scott —It is a dying industry. Mr MILTON —What the honourable member states is quite correct. The protests of the nuclear industry that inept regulation is at the root of the cost increases is, as the paper states, like killing the messenger who carries bad news. The disposal of nuclear wastes and the decommissioning of old nuclear power plants are problems which have not been resolved. No satisfactory research on the disposal of nuclear wastes has been undertaken in any country. The study of synroc in Australia is still at the laboratory testing stage. Meanwhile, nuclear wastes continue to accumulate in temporary storage areas all over the world. No procedures have been formulated to cover the permanent shut down of obsolete nuclear power plants when they reach the end of their 30-year life span. How much these problems will add to the cost of nuclear power has not been accurately estimated. As the paper indicates, no clear-headed capitalist would proceed with such projects as long as the waste disposal and decommissioning problems remain unresolved. The paper also refers to one of the most deceptive of government policies on the development of nuclear power which is the hidden costs supported by funding provided by governments. It is estimated that between $15 billion and $46 billion, in 1982 costs, and depending upon the accounting methods used, have been spent on nuclear power development by the United States Goverment alone in the past three decades. If the power utilities concerned had paid these costs directly, including breeder reactor development, it is estimated that nuclear electricity would cost an additional 50 per cent. An important factor which is also often ignored when calculating the costs of nuclear power are the huge tax concessions which are given to the nuclear power utilities by government. It is estimated that taxation concessions and subsidies exceed all other subsidies combined. Examples of such concessions are investment tax credit and accelerated depreciation of assets which mean that many North American utilities pay little taxes. I recommend this paper to all members in this House, as it is the complete answer to those people who argue that nuclear power is a rich economic resource and that uranium will be a valuable source of income for Australia. It would be interesting if reliable figures were available in Australia indicating the true costs to the taxpayer of the development of the uranium mining industry in this country. An important aspect of the debate on the future of the nuclear industry which is often neglected is the availability of alternative energy sources and the need to improve the efficiency of the natural methods of producing electric power. Both solar energy and wind power have a great potential to provide unlimited and reasonably cost effective electric power and research projects all over the world are indicating that potential. Of course, such natural resources of power are not sufficiently profitable to attract the interest of private capitalists. Unfortunately governments have not yet been sufficiently enterprising or adventurous to become heavily involved in the production of solar and wind energy, although I am aware that countries such as Israel are beginning to develop a solar power industry. Private enterprise continues to leave the field clear for public enterprise in the full scale production of solar energy and solar energy appliances in Australia. I urge the Government to create a solar energy corporation which could exploit an unlimited source of natural power, which would be much more economical than the development of the uranium mining industry in particular, and nuclear power in general. Such a corporation could either consist of a partnership between private and public enterprise, or could be a wholly owned public corporation. If the corporation became involved not only in solar power generation but also in the manufacture of solar appliances, many thousands of new jobs could be created for Australian workers, and a much needed new export market could be developed during a crucial period for the economic future of Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(4.05) —I rise to add my remarks to those of the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe), who appealed to the Government to assist generously by way of funding the Australian Olympic Amputee Team to New York later in the year. I make the appeal without scruple in respect of all members of that team, but I have a particularly close personal interest in the matter because I am blessed by living in close proximity-one house removed-to one of the members of that team. She is a stout-hearted young lady of 15 years of age who by her diligence and application to training is now the holder of five world amputee records. That affords me a great deal of pleasure. I know how much she and her colleagues have put into it and how much it would be appreciated if the Government found it within its capacity to fund them in a manner appropriate to our national pride and as a tribute to the efforts made by them. I touch now on a matter that has concerned me for a considerable period. It relates to the difficulty of ex-servicemen in achieving appropriate trade qualifications for their skills and experience in the defence forces. This is a matter that has been duck-shoved around for very many years. I can well appreciate the antipathy that the defence forces may have to some clearcut and simply achieved recognition of the qualification of members on discharge or release. Understandably, if the Services, because of high technology, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars equipping a member of the Services for their purposes, they cannot be expected to be fervent proponents of my proposition, which would provide him with an inducement to resign earlier than he might otherwise and to move into a more rewarding area in monetary terms. The reality of it is that these ex-servicemen have every right to expect proper recognition of the qualifications and skills they have achieved. I am familiar with one situation-indeed I have made representations on it over the years-of an ex-serviceman whose qualifications in the high technology field were possessed by only three people in Australia. Nevertheless, he has been totally unsuccessful in achieving any rating of worth. The trade unions likewise are antipathetic to simplifying the acquisition of credentials because they are deeply entrenched, understandably, in the traditional methods and practices involved. That still leaves the individual, in terms of entitlements, exposed to the vagaries of thought of both politicans and industrial executives. It is high time that this question was addressed seriously in the name of simple justice and fairness. I leave the House with that observation. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(4.08) —There have been moves since the late 1970s by those associated with adult education to have an item included about adult education in the census. There was an item in a survey in 1979 but that was not very useful and it was not discussed with people involved in adult education. A call was made for topics and items for inclusion in the next census early in 1983. The Australian Association of Adult Education made a submission, as did the New South Wales Board of Adult Education. The Australian Bureau of Statistics information paper 'Preliminary ABS Views on the Content of the 1986 Census', recently released, on page 56 recommends exclusion of the item. Recently I placed a notice of motion about adequate funding for adult education. Perhaps if we had some reliable data about participants in adult education, not only would governments, both State and Federal, be amazed at the extent of activity in the adult education area, but adult education might also, at long last, be realistically funded. I was particularly disappointed to note the grounds on which the recommendation for exclusion was based and would like to comment on them. It is noted that there is insufficient user justification. I would suggest that this is because people working in adult education know that no data is available . Adult education is carried on as a fringe activity of major educational institutions, as a major or subsidiary activity of a range of government departments and instrumentalities, by the private sector and by a myriad of large and small community organisations as part of a wider program or as their major operation. In addition, it is always defined in organisational terms rather than in user terms. It is hardly fair to recommend exclusion because people have not had the advantage of working with or have expected to be able to work with reliable and comparable data. This Government is, I believe, committed to the concept of life-long learning. It is after all Australian Labor Party policy. As many honourable members in this chamber would be aware, an increasing number of people are participating in adult education. Before I entered this House I was actively involved in adult education as the regional organiser for the Illawarra region. New Zealand and Canada both include a question concerning adult education in their census-so should we. The strangest cut from the recommendations, however, is felt when reading the recommendation on page 55, namely, to include an item on attendance at an educational institution. The 1986 census, then, is potentially saying that adult education is not education. If the question were included with other data from the 'education' sector and in other parts of the census, valuable data would be available for the first time on such a scale about adult education participation , and characteristics of the adult education participant. The potential for ending some of the myths about adult education will be available. Bland assertions about adult education can be questioned from the standpoint of a reliable data base. I urge those responsible to include the recommended question on adult education in the 1986 census. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.13) —It is my pleasure today to support the National Farmers Federation in its Advance Agriculture Advance Australia program. As a farmer and as an individual representing all the great farmers of Maranoa, it is my duty to put to this House and to explain to honourable members on both sides of the House the very big role that agriculture continues to play in the advancement of all Australians, and particularly the role it has played in the advancement of the economy in the last 18 months or so. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) claims to have made the rain. He attempts to walk the water here every day in the House, but I can assure him that without the hard work of the farmers and all the good work that they do agriculture would not be where it is and the economy would not be picking up to the extent that it has in the last few months. A total of 170,000 farms in Australia are family-owned, and I think that is important. We talk a lot about the family these days. We have debated the Sex Discrimination Bill in the House today. It is important to note that these 170,000 small businessmen are producing enormous wealth for us. Farmers are Australia's largest export earners , earning 45 per cent of the export income in 1983-84. The National Farmers Federation campaign involves the provision of a special resources kit, a video film for secondary schools, booklets on farm facts and even a facts sheet for politicians, which ought to be useful. I hope that all members of the House use and take note of some of the figures in that sheet. I will spell out some of them. The gross value of farm production will increase by over $3.4 billion this year. The total rural production figure is $14.75 billion . Export earnings for agriculture will rise from $7 billion to $8.5 billion this year. Of course the drought has pushed up rural indebtedness and it has risen from $650m to a record $5.4 billion. This has to be serviced by an interest payment of $750m a year. Unfortunately this is good for the banking business. Rural indebtedness will rise by another $200m. The prices received by farmers are expected to increase by 7 per cent but prices paid are expected to rise by 9 per cent. That is not a very big gap increase. Total farm costs are expected to increase by 11 per cent-in fact they lag behind-to a gross expenditure of over $ 10 billion. That represents about 70 per cent of the gross income of farm input. Wages are expected to rise by 13 per cent. We believe in paying our workers a fair and equitable wage. Obviously the wage rate is going up a little more than inflation. Of course, inflation is claimed by the Government to be only 10 per cent, and we are giving our workers a 13 per cent rise. One of the specific needs for rural industry is to contain production costs. We farmers are well aware of that. We find it very difficult to contain other costs, particularly government costs. The Australian Labor Party has put enormous cost burdens on us since it came to government. Tariffs have been imposed. I mentioned tariffs here last Tuesday and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) did not even know what I was talking about. That is how dumb the Government is. It intends to slap a 15 per cent tariff on the importation of tractors, which will cost farmers $ 43m. The Government expects us to carry the burden of economic recovery and what does it do? It taxes us to death. Fuel excise has gone up. It is now indexed, as is beer. A good farmer has to have a drink of beer after work and roll a few smokes while he is working. All those excise charges have been indexed by this Government and they will continue to rise every six months. Mr Steele Hall —They are a high tax party. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is right. It is a high tax party. I will point out a few other facts about the great rural industry of Australia. As I said, it employs 170,000 families on farms. Each farmer in Australia produces enough food to support 70 people. I believe that is a wonderful effort on the part of the farmers. I am sure members on the Government side will agree with me and support that statement and will agree that farmers are very hard working Australians. When members of the National Party of Australia support the farmers, I expect them to back me to the hilt. The volume of agricultural output has increased by more than 200 per cent in the last 30 years. It has now reached the record of $14.75 billion, which I menioned. Australia is the biggest exporter of wool in the world and exports that product to approximately 100 countries. Primary industry provides 43 per cent of our total export earnings; mining provides 31 per cent and manufacturing 26 per cent. I think the primary industry figure is important to note because it shows that the farmers continue to support this country to the hilt. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(4.18) —During the last session of Parliament I spoke about the anomaly that exists regarding the rate of charge of a telephone call from various parts of the Flinders electorate to the Melbourne metropolitan zone . However, yet another facet of the 059 telephone zone is at present, and has been for some time, causing even greater concern. I refer to the situation that most people on the peninsula area feel that they are receiving a sub-standard service. By 'sub-standard' I mean that often it is not possible to dial in or out of the 059 area. Can honourable members imagine how frustrating and annoying it is to attempt to make an urgent telephone call to Melbourne and to have the dialling continually cut off by a Telecom Australia recording asking the caller to delay the call as the area is overloaded. With the tremendous growth that the Flinders electorate has experienced over the past decade and the significant demographic changes that have occurred there I find it extremely hard to understand why the telephone service is apparently geared only to the level of use that was deemed appropriate over 10 years ago. As well as noting the huge increase in the number of permanent residents on the Mornington Peninsula, it is interesting to note the demographic characteristics of the migration pattern. A significant group comprises people of retirement age . There are, according to the latest statistics, 21,154 people receiving age pensions in that area. Although these people may be generally fortunate enough to enjoy good health, they do fall into a high risk category of perhaps needing urgent and special care by virtue of their age. What a horrific event if the telephone service happens to be overloaded when a caller is trying to enlist help from a hospital or doctor. One can hardly 'wait 10 minutes and try again', as the decidedly calm, nonplussed, musak-type, pre-recorded voice so nicely requests a caller to do, adding a 'regret for any inconvenience incurred through this delay'. This sub-standard service is further compounded and aggravated over the summer months when most of Melbourne evacuates in favour of the beautiful beaches of the Flinders electorate. It is not uncommon to notice lengthy queues outside STD telephone boxes along the Port Phillip Bay beachside resorts-people patiently waiting to phone family or friends at home. To some extent I can understand Telecom services in this area experiencing a seasonal overload situation. However, it would seem, according to the increasing number of constituents advising me concerning it, that this inconvenience and sub-standard service is experienced throughout the year, with no particular bias as to the hour of the day. During the middle of the winter, or in the evening, it can be just as difficult to dial successfully in or out of the 059 zone. If it is not insult enough for the residents of Flinders to experience sub-standard service, it is even more of an insult to expect these people to pay the same rental and charges for having a telephone that allows one to transact a telephone call successfully only sometimes. Where is the value for money here? I do not feel that it is unrealistic for people to object to paying the same rental charges as do people within Melbourne . Melbourne residents can dial out at any time knowing that they have a fully realiable service. Although I do not advocate a refusal to pay Telecom rental, there is definitely merit in a case for reduced rental where the standard of telephone service is unacceptably lower than it is in other areas. Surely charging the same is neither fair or equitable. Why should one pay the same price for a service that is meant to be a convenience but often turns out to be an absolute inconvenience, a service that could well be described as nothing more than basic and subject to a pot-luck success rate? Therefore, I ask the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to inquire into the matter and that Telecom officers be instructed to provide a comprehensive plan for the successful resolution of this matter. Some time ago the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) was trying to contact me. I have the exact notes from his Secretary: ' Could you please follow up this call and find out what he wants-couldn't reach him because of STD facilities.' The statement by the Prime Minister's officer was that he could not reach me. The matter could have been very important. These are the things that Telecom must look at and do something to change. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(4.23) —I wish to use the time available in the adjournment debate this afternoon to give to the House the latest episode in the saga of the born again Burdekin Dam scheme. Honourable members will recall that the program was promised and undertaken by Mr Fraser in 1980 during his term in government. The promise given was that the Commonwealth would fund the headworks and the State would pick up the balance of the program as far as channelling and the reticulation of the water was concerned. At election time the promise still held firm. At that time Mr Hawke, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, promised that the dam would go ahead, but immediately after his being elected to office we noted some hesitancy, which indicated that perhaps the dam would not be continued. There was concern in that regard. In about June of last year the Prime Minister indicated to the Premier that the Federal Government would honour that section of the agreement that had been undertaken by Mr Fraser. The letters of exchange indicated, in the fine print, that some conditions might be attached. There was not an unqualified letter of acceptance of the program. At that time I mentioned to my constituents that perhaps the war was not over. It is not. We now have the Federal Government inferfering unnecessarily in the rights of the Queensland State as to how the channelling, and the purchase and sale of the dry land and then the wet land, will take place. Such a matter is quite outside the responsibility of the Commonwealth. Whereas at the time the Commonwealth indicated that it was prepared to build the headworks when the estimated price, as part of the planning, was $80m, a bargain price has now been received because Leightons has undertaken the contract at a price of $45m. That represents a substantial reduction which will, of course, take the strain and stress off the Commonwealth in that regard. We now find that the Federal Government has presented, through the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), a reason why the part funding of the Burdekin Dam scheme on the part of the Commonwealth may not be undertaken. Federal parliamentarians and State parliamentarians, particularly those who are members of the Labor Party, will be well aware of the fact that resumptions are governed by the State under its Acquisition of Lands Act. That Act ensures that the rights of both landholders and the Government are protected and that resumption compensation shall be based on current market values at the time of resumption. The Act also provides that if agreement as to compensation is not reached either the Government or the landowner concerned can refer the matter to the Land Court for determination. There is no way in which the Government can or would pay over-generous amounts upon resumption of land. One of the bones of contention is that the dry farming area might be more generously paid for than would be necessary. Existing land owners are entitled to a single 100 hectare retention farm at resumption values to allow them to continue in operation in the area. The land is not given to them without cost. The larger landholders, who are entitled to retain additional farms, can do so only by paying a substantial premium, $1,800 per hectare, in addition to the resumption value for each additional farm retained. So there is nothing incompatible between what the Queensland Government is doing in resuming the land and what was happening before. My fear concerning what I call the born again Burdekin scheme is that Senator Walsh is trying his best to put a qualification or condition on the Queensland Government which will mean that the Commonwealth will then avoid having to pay its contribution, as was promised by Mr Fraser. This is but a further instance of the way in which the Commonwealth has tried to interfere in State affairs. The same Minister, by his uranium policy, has led to the mining venture at Ben Lomond being put on the back burner, perhaps forever. We have also seen the same Minister stop the construction of the Franklin Dam. The Burdekin Dam is required and is an economic possibility yet everything is being put in its way. I suggest that Senator Walsh look at the matter more realistically before imposing conditions. Perhaps if he went on to the site, as I have on many occasions, he would realise that the people of the Burdekin, of Townsville and of north Queensland are depending on this facility being provided as quickly as possible. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(4.28) —I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the specific advantages that the Medicare scheme provides for the State of Queensland. Under Medicare funding the State will receive a considerable amount of money which was not previously available to it. A special grant of $35m has been offered to the Queensland Government. That sum can be used for the funding of various health programs within Queensland. However, Queenslanders have often been said to enjoy advantages which other people throughout the Commonwealth do not, as a result of our free hospital system. Mr Braithwaite —True. Mr WELLS —I welcome the comment from the honourable member for Dawson. Queensland's hospital system is an excellent one. It was established by the Labor Government and has remained in operation ever since. However, that system does provide somewhat less service and freedom of choice than is provided under Medicare in terms of medical benefit. While it has always been the case that Queenslanders could queue up at public hospitals, never until now have they been able to go to the general practitioner of their choice and receive free medical treatment. That option is now available to Queenslanders. Freedom of choice, the right of private practice-all these ideals which are held so dear by honourable members opposite-have been enshrined in the Medicare system. This nonsense that we have heard from time to time from the Opposition about the Medicare system enshrining socialist medicine has, for better or worse, no basis or foundation in fact, since what the system provides is fee-for-service, which is what doctors have always demanded. This freedom, which is available to the citizens of Queensland, is something that they had not previously enjoyed. They can now attend, without queueing at a public hospital, their family doctor and can continue to see the same doctor. They can have a family doctor. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 2 March 1984. Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, report for year 1982-83. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Answer to Question The following answer to question was circulated: (Question No. 858) Mr McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following list of inter-departmental committees is based on a definition of an IDC being a committee involving two or more Commonwealth departments established at the specific direction of the Government. A functional statement has been provided only for the committee chaired by my Department. In answer to parts 1 (a) (i) and 1 (a) (ii) of the question, the details are set out in the following schedule. In relation to parts 1 (b) (i) and 1 (b) (ii), the answer is 'Nil' in both instances. 1 (a) (i) 1 (a) (ii) Subject matter of those Inter- Interdepartmental Committees in Interdepartmental Committees Departmental Committees Chaired which the Department of Veterans' Chaired by the Department of by the Department of Veterans' Affairs participates Veterans' Affairs Affairs Natural Disasters Relief (Health) Committee Committee of Officials on Vietnam Veterans Issues To advise the Government on matters relating to possible health effects on Australian Veterans and their children, of exposure to ''Agent Orange'' and other herbicides in Vietnam. Interdepartmental Committee on Courses of Action Available to the Government to Deal with Atomic Tests Veterans' and Aboriginals' claims To consider reports submitted by the Commonwealth Institute of Health on its studies. Interdepartmental Committee on Fees and Allowances. Interdepartmental Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Rehabilitation Computer Security Advisory Group Working Party on Aged Care Policies