Monday, 5 March 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Gray Liberal Government in Tasmania and the former Fraser Federal Liberal Government for their foresight and vision in planning the magnificent Lake Barrington international rowing course; and (2) expresses confidence in the Tasmanian Rowing Council in their plans to stage the King's Cup Regatta at Lake Barrington in April 1984. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognising that it is exactly 12 months since the Hawke Government gained office, congratulates the Prime Minister, the Ministry and the Government for one year of exemplary government of this country; (2) recognises that divisiveness has been replaced with consensus in the Australian community; (3) commends the Government for its action in regard to industry, especially the steel industry; and (4) commends the Government for introducing a universal health service and for its actions with respect to the building industry and education. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for acting in an anti-democratic and totalitarian manner by refusing entry visas in January 1984 to South African Rugby Union administrators Dr Danie Craven, Mr Duggy Dyers and Mr Curnick Mydesha and in February 1984 to Mr Kent Durr, MP, and Mr Mahmoud Rajab, thereby denying freedom of speech and an exchange of views and deliberately suppressing free discussion in the Australian parliamentary democracy. Mr BILNEY(Kingston) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with pleasure the confirmation in recent official statistics that the recovery in the housing sector is now well established with housing approvals for private homes now at the highest level for over 10 years; (2) expresses its belief that this solid recovery, in a key employment-creating sector, reflects the success of the Government's First Home Owners' Assistance Scheme, together with the welcome and sustained drop in housing loan interest rates which has taken place since the election of the Government; and (3) warmly congratulates the Government on the steps it has taken to revive the housing industry, thus contributing markedly to the overall economic recovery while at the same time assisting many Australian families to own a home of their own. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern that in all categories, male and female, Western Sydney has higher unemployment than the Australian average; (2) identifies Western Sydney as an area where the complete neglect of the New South Wales Government is reflected in the 60,676 unemployed, and (3) condemns the Federal and State governments for the continuing high unemployment levels in Western Sydney. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that this is the first anniversary of the Government's election triumph; (2) records that notable success has been achieved in the areas of- (a) interest rates; (b) housing recovery; (c) business profitability; (d) the establishment of Medicare; (e) manufacturing recovery, and (f) industrial relations, and (3) congratulates the Prime Minister and his Government on their first year's performance. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to the reported statement by the Prime Minister in the Melbourne Age on Friday that the deficit estimate for the coming financial year will probably not be released by the Government. Why is it that an estimate which one year ago was firm enough to justify the wholesale breaking of election promises has now become, in the Prime Minister's words, 'so illusory and prone to change' that it cannot be released, or will it be released after 24 March? Mr KEATING —We published the last estimate because we wanted to catch the former Government telling lies. We did just that. I can understand the former Treasurer being sensitive about this, particularly this week when Mr Kelly's book reveals, chapter and verse, the conspiracy between him and the former Prime Minister to make sure that the Australian public had no inkling whatsoever of the real and parlous state of the economy at the time of the election campaign. We on this side of the House went sailing into the election believing that we were facing a no-policy change deficit of $6 billion when, in fact, we were facing a no-policy change deficit of just on $10 billion. The Government, upon receiving that information, had to make that information available to the public to indicate the state of the economy and the state of Federal finances, and the disastrous deterioration in the fiscal position of the Australian Government. The fact is that this Government has said, over time, that more information should be made available in the economic debate. At the time of the Budget we published information which the former Government never published. At the time of the National Economic Summit Conference we published information which the former Government would never publish. We indicated that we would publish the forward estimates of the outlays in the years ahead. The Government will do that . If there is to be a debate focussing on the trends in outlays and on any of the areas of the outlays-be it social security, defence, or any other area-that debate will be facilitated by the information which this Government is prepared to give, which the former Government was never prepared to give. The former Treasurer knows that if any government published an estimate of receipts that, of itself, would mean that certain assumptions would need to accompany that estimate, including what at that point in time the government thought the estimates on wages, inflation and other factors would be. I make it quite clear that this Government is prepared to facilitate any public debate about the course of the outlays. The time to have a debate about inflation and employment is when the Budget is published and not on the best estimate that the Government or the Government's advisers could drag together at this stage. We will not be publishing a forward estimate of receipts-no government in Australia ever has-because we do not feel we will be in a position to publish such an estimate with any sense of accuracy at this time. We will be publishing a forward estimate of the outlays, as the former Government was never prepared to do, to facilitate a debate in this country on the question of outlays and the trend in the outlays of the Commonwealth. In conclusion, last year it was absolutely necessary. At this time last year the former Treasurer knew the real state of the economy and was not prepared to publish it. We published it to expose his duplicity and to indicate to the nation the parlous state of budgetary affairs, but we will not be publishing a forward deficit for this year. Ms MAYER —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the major achievements in the areas of employment and industrial relations during the first year of the Hawke Government? Will he also indicate what prospects he sees for these key areas in the forthcoming year? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for Chisholm for her anniversary question. I am pleased to be able to advise her and the House that there have been substantial achievements in both areas of my portfolio. As all honourable members will recall the employment position when we took office was one of rapidly collapsing employment and soaring unemployment. Thankfully, a year later that position has been completely reversed. Over the course of the last year we have seen a reversal of that trend, and we now have strong employment growth and declining unemployment. Since the low point of April last year, employment, seasonally adjusted, has increased by 135,000, or 2.1 per cent, and seasonally adjusted unemployment has declined by 47,500, from 10.3 per cent of the work force to 9.5 per cent in January. Many policies have contributed to this dramatic turnaround. The one in my direct area of responsibility is the community employment program, which is now beginning to have a real impact on the labour market. As of mid-February, some 3,066 projects had been approved under the community employment program, involving $240m in Federal funds and creating 22,292 jobs. Many more jobs will be created under that program in the next few months. Underlying the dramatic turnaround in the labour market has been the prices and incomes accord, which remains central to the Government's economic policy. The Government has been active in giving effect to that accord, over a wide range of policy areas. Central to the accord is wages policy, and the accord's centralised wages system has been put in place. Adherence by trade unions to the accord has been tremendously satisfying. Apart from the couple of blips in that area, we have had almost complete support for the principles of wage fixation set down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission last year, which are in line with the wages policy of the accord. Adherence by the union movement has been very satisfying indeed. That is demonstrated by the number of industrial disputes. There has been a dramatic decline in the amount of time lost through industrial disputation. The latest figures we have show that over the year to last November the number of working days lost in industrial disputes fell by 30 per cent compared with the previous year. Figures for the months of September and October last year were the lowest for 15 years and in November time lost was 45 per cent less than the average for November in the previous 10 years. The honourable member for Chisholm also asked me about future prospects. In brief, the future prospects on both sides of my portfolio are excellent. The continuance of trends on the employment front is highly likely. I especially draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is now forecasting that Australia's rate of economic growth in 1984 will be the highest of any country in the OECD-the highest of any industrialised country in the world. That means we are certain to see high employment growth through 1984. Indeed, the OECD forecasts that and a consequent decline in unemployment. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the trade union movement will not continue to strongly support the accord, and, as a result of that, 1984 will be a great year for this country. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to his election promise that there will be no new capital gains tax. I refer also to his evasiveness on the question of a capital gains tax, both at the National Press club on 23 February and when answering my question in the Parliament last Friday. Will the Prime Minister now assure the House that his Government will not introduce either a new capital gains tax or Federal death duties? Mr HAWKE —I have made it quite clear in this House and outside that the policy of this Government will not be announced in response to questions that come from this completely discredited Opposition. Let me say two things: As far as the revenue base of this country is concerned, we have accepted the responsibility that it should be dispassionately investigated. That dispassionate investigation will take place not only within the processes of our Party and in the Government but also in the Economic Planning Advisory Council. It is an issue to which members of that Council have indicated their desire to address their attention. The matter will be followed through there. I remind the House of the composition of EPAC. It consists of representatives from the business community, the trade unions, the States and other relevant organisations. The business community is more interested, I would suggest, than any other sector of the community in investigating how we can arrive at a fairer , more equitable and more efficient tax base. We will, of course, as a government listen to the work of EPAC. We will listen with particular interest to the contribution that comes from the representatives of the business community. In addition, we have commissioned work on the distribution of wealth in this country to be done within the Australian National University. Mr Shipton —Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —We hear this incredulous 'ha, ha' as if it is an exercise in irresponsibility for a government to ask relevant institutions to investigate how a government may be able to establish the fairest possible revenue base in this country. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Higgins. Mr HAWKE —We make no apology for the fact that through the work of EPAC and relevant academic institutions, and consistent with our own responsibilities, we will continue to examine the position. It seems to me that the results of the work that has been undertaken within the Government, EPAC and the relevant academic institutions is not work that will enable any significant changes to be achieved in the short term. At the point where this Government, as a result of receiving the investigative work and advice of EPAC, other institutions and its own departments, is persuaded as to what is necessary to achieve efficiency and equity in the tax system in this country, we will announce the relevant decisions. We will not be pushed into a premature announcement by an Opposition which at this stage has not got the beginning of an idea as to what its own tax policy is. Mr LEO McLEAY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. In view of Australia's dependence for its competitive trading edge upon the services provided by the shipping industry, particularly for those Australian industries and shippers seeking to earn export dollars for the benefit of this country, I ask: Is the Minister aware of carping Opposition criticism that Australian shipping is internationally uncompetitive? Is there any substance in this carping criticism by the Opposition? If so, what is the Government doing specifically to address these important problems? Mr PETER MORRIS —The Government is very much aware of the serious and deep-seated problems that afflict the Australian shipping industry, and particularly of the concern of shippers at the lack of competitiveness of Australian shipping rates. We recognise that there is a need for structural change, but that change cannot be achieved overnight. That change is needed to overcome many years of mismanagement of the Australian shipping industry, particularly of the Australian National Line, by previous conservative governments. A little later if I quote from a policy objective by the present Leader of the National Party of Australia, one will then understand why the Australian shipping industry has serious difficulties. In the 12 months that this Government has been in office a very high priority has been given to the reform of the shipping industry and particularly to the operations of ANL. When we came to office ANL was in such a financial position that within a matter of weeks after 5 March last year it would not have been able to pay wages had this Government not stepped in and set about a policy of reform and provided a capital injection to the Australian Shipping Commission to enable it to carry on. In May last year we entered into an agreement with the Commission and representatives of the five sea-going unions to improve productivity on ANL ships, to place the Commission on a better financial footing and to enable ANL to restructure its management procedures and to review its management efficiency . As a result of legislation which recently passed through this chamber and the other place ANL has now much greater commercial freedom to operate in the market -place, to make management changes and to make productivity changes that are necessary if Australian shipping is to have a place in the years ahead. There is a new chairman of the Australian Shipping Commission and a new managing director of the Australian National Line, both of whom have been welcomed by spokesmen for shippers. But there is a long way to go yet in reforming ANL. That has not been made any easier by the lack of policy direction that comes from those who sit opposite. If I look straight ahead I see the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir, a strong believer in ANL, whose policies and performance are now discarded by the present Opposition spokesman on transport who believes that ANL should be sold. The selling of ANL would mean the termination of ANL services to Tasmania. If that is what the Tasmanian Liberals want, let them say so. The same spokesman has put the view that Tasmania is a liability and that it ought to be transferred to New Zealand. Mr Leo McLeay —Who was that? Mr PETER MORRIS —The Opposition spokesman on transport. He said that in that circumstance any assistance to Tasmania ought to be paid to New Zealand. Any future transport assistance to Tasmania ought then, in those circumstances, be paid to New Zealand by way of foreign aid. But better than that, if we go back to the autobiography of the first Chairman of ANL, Sir John Williams-remembering it was established under a conservative government-we see that in his autobiography he said of the present Leader of the National Party of Australia: To our surprise, not long after his appointment, Sinclair informed us that we should now regard the Commission as what he termed a 'Political Instrument' . . . There is the policy of the conservative parties. It is not an efficient publicly -owned transport enterprise serving this country but a political instrument of the National Party. Referring to the claim of the Department of Transport Sir John stated on the next page-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr PETER MORRIS —This is relevant to the matter before the House. Sir John, after all, was an appointee of the then conservative government. He was appointed by Sir John McEwen. Sir John Williams said: Some of the tactics employed by the former were petty beyond belief and it was my impression that Sinclair was involved in the meanest of them. There is the policy of those who sit opposite in respect of ANL and shipping. But let me say on a broader sphere, in respect of shipping policy, that we passed through this chamber last week legislation to provide accelerated depreciation allowances for Australian shipping. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Minister to wind up his answer. Mr PETER MORRIS —We have given a clear sign to the industry that there is a role for Australian shipping and we have done more in our 12 months in office to strengthen the Australian shipping industry and to make it more competitive than has any conservative government in history. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that a reading of the convention debate shows that the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers of the Australian Constitution were of the view that Parliament and Parliament alone should have the final say on the question of judicial misbehaviour. Mr Steedman —They were all property owners. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member might be interested to know that the Solicitor -General referred to the convention debate in his recent findings on this matter . In particular, I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the view of Mr Isaacs who said: You must not allow the solemn verdict of two Houses of Parliament on this question to be challenged elsewhere. Mr Kingston maintained that the view of the Federal Parliament on misbehaviour should be 'unchallengeable and without appeal'. I ask the Prime Minister: Will he provide the Parliament with the factual material contained in the New South Wales corruption tapes and transcripts so that, in accordance with the provisions of section 72 (ii) of the Constitution, the Parliament can decide the question of judicial conduct? Mr HAWKE —I am glad that at last the Leader of the Opposition has come to this point. It will not escape the attention of members of this House that this Parliament sat last week. Last week there was an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite to address themselves to this question. Why did they not do so? The reason they did not address themselves to this question last week was that there was still some lingering semblance of decency, and acknowledgement of a proper course of behaviour. They did not ask this question; they were right not to do so. But since last week something has intervened. What has intervened? The people in New South Wales are being asked to give a verdict. The proper jury, the people of New South Wales, will be able to give its verdict ; or will give a resounding verdict. Let me go to the issue. We now see that because of these considerations this miserable, dispirited and totally rejected Opposition is once more getting down into the gutter. What has this Government done? Once this matter was raised material was made available to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government of this country, moved immediately with expedition and with total propriety. He has given a detailed exposition in the other place of what should be done. I remind the House of what the Attorney-General said had been done. I remind members by saying with absolute emphasis that this Government has acted with expedition and total propriety. The matter was referred by the Attorney-General to the Australian Federal Police and to Mr Temby. The Government also sought an opinion from the Solicitor-General on the constitutional question involved. Both the police report and the opinion of Mr Temby made it clear that there was no evidence of criminal misconduct. They went on to say that there was no basis upon which-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest we wait until the House comes to order. Mr HAWKE —Both those opinions, from the police and from Mr Temby, went on to say that there was no basis upon which further investigation of the alleged behaviour of the judge could be justified. Further, the opinions from Mr Temby and from the Solicitor-General make it clear that misbehaviour within the meaning of the constitutional provisions alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition was not involved. This is the situation: Firstly, this miserable Opposition is attempting to help its disconcerted-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It seems that so many members see protection in interjecting at the same time. I warn them that there will be no such protection if they seek to delay the procedures of the House. Mr HAWKE —What we have is a miserable attempt this week from honourable members opposite to help their disconcerted colleagues in New South Wales in a situation where clearly the proper action has been taken by the Attorney-General. They are seeking, on the basis of allegations, smears and innuendo, to try miserably to get some political advantage. As I said, this Government through the Attorney-General has referred this matter to the appropriate independent authorities. I wonder whether we are now getting to the second stage of the passage into the gutter. Is it being suggested by the Leader of the Opposition-- Mr Tuckey —Ask John Dawkins, he will tell you. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will no longer tolerate the interjections of the honourable member for O'Connor. I warn him. Mr HAWKE —I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is or is not-he should make it clear whether he is-getting to the position of adopting the Sinclair syndrome; that is, that when investigations have been undertaken by the appropriate authorities-- Mr Howard —They were undertaken by the New South Wales Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I remind you of those investigations. The independent authorities consisted of the Australian Federal Police, through its Commissioner -appointed not by us but by the former Government-Mr Temby and the Solicitor- General. All of their reports were unanimous in showing that there is no basis for further investigation in regard to these allegations in respect of a judge. I ask whether the Leader of the Opposition and those on the other side of the House are implying that the Federal Police, Mr Temby and the Solicitor-General are crook or incompetent? What is being suggested? It is quite clear. Mr Donald Cameron —Happy birthday boy. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Moreton. Mr HAWKE —The scenario is clear. The people opposite have embraced this sort of scenario: When anyone gets up and makes an allegation on some illegally tapped conversation that is sufficient for this crowd opposite to say immediately that happens that we do not have to follow the due processes of investigation by independent authorities; it is enough for these people to say that they will go into the Parliament and muckrake and carry on. That may be the approach these people in their desperation want to advocate. I make it clear that the way this Government operates is with honour, with expedition and with total propriety. On immediate receipt of this matter we referred it, through the Attorney- General, to the Federal Police, to Mr Temby and to the Solicitor-General. They have independently and unanimously made it clear that no further investigation is appropriate. Opposition members must come to the barrier and come clean. Are they suggesting or implying that the Federal Police are not competent or that they have acted improperly? Are they implying that Temby is crook or has not acted properly? Are they saying that the Solicitor-General is crook or has not acted properly? If they want to use the Sinclair-Cross technique they should go ahead and use it, because the people of Australia will say about all of them, as they said about Sinclair, that that is where crookedness is and that is where impropriety is. Mr GEAR —Will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and tourism and the Minister for Administrative Services inform the House what initiatives and new policies were introduced in his area of portfolio responsibility during one year in office? Will he also tell the House how this compares with the performance of the previous Government? Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House seems determined today to limit Question Time by continuous interruption both of questioners and of those who are answering. I ask the House to come to order. Mr JOHN BROWN —Not much time is available so I will go to our more prominent successes. Upon assuming responsibility for the Department of Administrative Services, the first thing I discovered was that the previous Government had got us to the level of paying something like $220m a year in rent for Commonwealth properties. Of all the developed countries of this world, we own fewer properties than does any other government. We lease 64 per cent of our Commonwealth properties, and in Sydney we lease 83 per cent. I have had permission from the Treasurer to press ahead with a program to redress that ridiculous imbalance which no business in the world would tolerate, except those alleged great economic managers who ruled this country for 31 of the last 34 years. In the first year of office we have achieved the following: In the next 12 months we will be constructing buildings in Townsville, Cairns, Rockhampton, Mackay, Thursday Island, Newcastle, Wollongong, Port Pirie, Parramatta, Adelaide , two in Tasmania-Glenorchy and Devonport-and Fremantle in Western Australia. I will pick only one of those places to demonstrate exactly how stupid were our predecessors. One of their first legislative acts in 1976 was to cancel a project, which the Whitlam Government had started, to build a Commonwealth centre in Parramatta. I will just show honourable members opposite how stupid they were. The tenders for this building closed last Friday week and indications are that this major building of 60,000 square metres be built and paid for in 10 years for a cost of around $100m. The savings in rent over that period, if rents remain constant from here on, and they will not, will be $180m. That is a nice $ 80m gain, plus a building. Honourable members opposite when in government had neither the wit nor the business expertise to see how advantageous that project would be. That will be repeated in a minor way in all the other places which I have mentioned and next financial year we will be repeating the dose. We are making effective and sensible use of taxpayers' funds and making sure that this Government, which is the major business in Australia, works on businesslike grounds. I will say nothing more about the Department of Administrative Services . I do not think that is a bad achievement in 12 months. I will not waste much time talking about sport either because I think the whole of the nation knows that this Government has revolutionised the contribution of government to sport without interferring in sport as the previous Government did . I will cite one example. We have given $1.4m to the Olympic Games Team for 1984. I am sure that the people of Australia will feel that that is a reasonable contribution from a national government. Mr McVeigh —No way. Tell the truth. Come on! That was our decision. Mr JOHN BROWN —The previous Government gave $800,000 for the Moscow Olympic Games and took back $500,000 because the competitors would not tow that Government's political line. The previous Government thought there would be a world war within three weeks of our team going to Moscow. There was no world war and our competitors went to Moscow at their own expense and won some medals. Mr Howard —They are only slaughtering one and half million Afghanistanis; that is all. Mr JOHN BROWN —Who? The Olympic Games team? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister not to respond to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is already straining the tolerance he gets because of his position. Mr JOHN BROWN —I do not think the interjection is entitled to a response, Mr Speaker. I will leave the subject of sport except to say that all of those Australians who love sport know exactly what this Government has done for it at all levels, from the elite to the grass roots level. That is reflected in the great support that this Government gets from the community, particularly the popular support the Prime Minister has. He is seen as a friend of sport, not someone who exploits it for his own personal reasons. In regard to tourism we had a government for seven years that had a diamond mine and did not know how to dig the diamonds out. Now we have revolutionised tourism in this nation. We will double the number of international visitors by 1988 from one million to two million and that will create 50,000 new jobs, something of which honourable members opposite could never have even thought. I must make passing reference to the success of the Paul Hogan campaign in the United States, which has been absolutely stunning. When all of those hundreds of thousands of Americans start coming in, providing jobs for kids that honourable members opposite could never have thought of, they might realise that their criticisms about using Hogan in that campaign were unjustified. I feel very satisfied with the achievements of this Government in my area or responsibility and I am sure that the next couple of years will prove that the plans we have laid will come to fruition. Mr PEACOCK —Is the Prime Minister aware that, as he was filibustering, blustering and fulminating in his last answer, his Attorney-General was confirming that the determinant of judicial behaviour is the Parliament? As neither Mr Temby, the Solicitor-General nor the Australian Federal Police are members of this Parliament, will he do as we have requested and, recognising what his Attorney has said in the Senate, provide this Parliament with the factual material contained in the New South Wales corruption tapes and transcripts? Mr HAWKE —I simply say that the actions of the Attorney-General in respect of this matter have the complete support of this Government. He has acted in accordance with the policies of this Government and what he has said in the Senate is endorsed by the Government in this House. This Opposition is not going to be relieved of its obligations to start functioning as a positive and constructive Opposition and deal with issues, by this attempt to get down to a basis of unauthenticated material. The task force that is investigating these matters under Mr Temby is seeking to establish some authentication. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, if he or any of those people who sit behind him have any evidence at all that would lead to an authentication, to make it available. The course of action which has been indicated and followed through by the Attorney-General is the correct course of action and will be adhered to by this Government. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I ask a question of the Minister for Health. It relates to Medicare. It is a matter of concern to the electorate. Can the Minister say how many people who had no cover under the previous Government's private health insurance scheme are now covered under Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question. One year ago 1,826, 300 Australians were without private insurance cover or any Commonwealth protection; that is, one year ago, nearly 2 million Australians were without any protection against the burdens of health costs. In fact, given that the drop-out rate for health insurance throughout 1983 had been rising, it is likely that by January of this year over 2 million Australians would have been without any protection or means of meeting the needs of health cover. Mr MacKellar —That is absolutely untrue. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Warringah and the honourable member for Mackellar have made the same point on about three occasions. I invite the Minister for Health to continue his answer. Dr BLEWETT —I simply refer those doubting gentlemen to the surveys conducted in March of last year by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which established the figures I have just given to the House. Since 1 February all of those 2 million Australians have been covered under the Medicare arrangements. Since 1 February no Australian needed to fear not being able to get either basic hospital or basic medical cover. The chief beneficiaries, of course, have been the people of Queensland because in January one-third of all Queenslanders were without private health insurance cover; that is, they were quite unable to go down the street to their local general practitioner because they did not have that cover. Since 1 February 100 per cent of Queenslanders have been able to make use of their GP resources. It is not, however, just a question of the universality of the cover because from 1 February we have had a system which is income related; that is, people pay according to their means. It is based on what they can afford. If honourable members on the other side of the House are prepared to look honestly at what private health insurance would have cost if the old system had continued-that is at least $15 a week per family-they can calculate that most Australians are better off under the Medicare scheme. I admit it is true that some of the 37 per cent who support the Leader of the Opposition may be worse off because it is an income related scheme. However, if one does the full calculation one will see that on that basis most Australians are better off than they would have been under a continuation of the old scheme. Finally, let me say that the Opposition when in government created a two-tier health scheme-one for the poor and one for the privately insured-and even that left out two million Australians. I know that the Opposition, combined with some of the vested interests that support it, is trying to create a two-level health system-one for those with Medicare only and another for the privately insured. Let me say now to the Opposition and to other interests in this country: We will take all steps that are necessary to ensure that every Australian is guaranteed high quality basic medical and hospital cover. Mr SPENDER —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Why was Mr Temby, QC, not referred to material which appeared in the National Times and which is said to be based upon the tapes concerning an allegation to the effect that the judge discussed with the solicitor the institution of malicious prosecution proceedings, the institution of these proceedings in the name of a colleague, and the funding of those proceedings? Does the Prime Minister suggest that this Parliament's views on any question arising under section 72 (2) are bound by the opinions expressed by outside counsel, no matter how eminent they may be? Will he answer how this Parliament can judge any question of misbehaviour or injudicious conduct and whether it be simply to say that there is no case? How can the Parliament form any opinion at all unless the material, which has been put to counsel Mr Temby, is also put to this Parliament so that it can make its constitutional judgment should it see fit to do so? Mr HAWKE —As distinct from those on the other side of the House, this Government is not going to be party to allowing the reputations of people, whether they be members of the judiciary or elsewhere, to be brought into the gutter to satisfy the meaner political instincts that exist on that side of the House. The logic of what has been put by the honourable member for North Sydney is that one has any allegation on unauthenticated material, and immediately that happens one brings into this Parliament the person so named in those allegations on unauthenticated material. If that is the concept on that side of the House, if that is the Opposition's idea of how this Parliament and how this democracy should operate, I simply say to members of the Opposition without any equivocation: It is not this Government's idea. I just ask people to understand what sort of situation we would get into if we followed that path. Any unauthenticated allegation which names names could be brought into this House immediately. Those people would then be the subject of unjustified vilification. That is the sort of society those opposite would like. They say they are the defenders of law and order and fundamental processes of this society. They are unbounded in their hypocrisy; they have no concern with law or order. They have demonstrated, as is acknowledged by every independent commentator in the country , a total incapacity to be an effective opposition in terms of asking questions about the economy, about this society and in putting up alternative policies. They are totally discredited. They are left now with wanting this Government to use this Parliament as a place in which to put their unfounded and unauthenticated allegations and to drag through the processes of this Parliament the names of people who, on all the evidence independently put to us, should not be subjected to that process. I repeat, not defensively, but with aggressive pride, that this Government will not succumb to that. Opposition members can have their say when these investigations are concluded. We have referred this matter to the appropriate processes. Investigations are being undertaken by a joint force comprising the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police under Mr Temby. He is required, under the laws of this country, to act on any evidence of criminality, any breaking of the law or any illegality. Let us wait and see whether that is disclosed. The Opposition would rather follow the other process and present empty, unjustified and unauthenticated allegations, drag names into the Parliament and throw mud at these people a la Sinclair. I tell you what! Not only-- Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest you direct the Prime Minister to use the proper names of members in the House. That is the third time he has transgressed and you have done nothing to correct him. Mr SPEAKER —I uphold the point of order. Mr HAWKE —Of course you are correct, Mr Speaker. So that there be no doubt to whom I am referring as the arch hypocrite of all-perhaps some people do not understand the name-I am referring to the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England. He has descended into the gutter. This Government will not follow him. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to clause 13 of the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present the report on the financial results of Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia airline passenger air services on trunk routes and the total operation of passenger air services carried on by the commission and the company for 1982-83. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to sub-clause 13 (3) of the schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present a joint report of Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia on (1) consultations on passenger revenue load factors and aircraft utilisation held during 1983, and (2 ) air fares consultations held during 1983. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present a document on ' Charter of printing and publishing responsibilities', together with the text of a statement relating to the document. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed. That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —I present the report entitled 'Seven Years On' by Mr Justice Toohey on his review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and related matters. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr HOLDING —In September 1983 the Honourable Mr Justice John Toohey, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia and the first Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Commissioner, began a general review of the provisions and operation of the Land Rights Act at my request. I informed this House on 7 December that I had received Mr Justice Toohey's report and reaffirmed my intention to make public the report so that those directly affected by its recommendations would have an opportunity to comment before the Government took any decisions on the report. In addition, I indicated that there would be close consultation with the Northern Territory Government. I have already held preliminary discussions on the report with the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Mr Paul Everingham, and the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. Commonwealth officials will be considering the report with Northern Territory Government officials and with representatives of the Northern Territory land councils. As well, I have had notices placed in the major Northern Territory newspapers informing the public of the availability of the report and inviting comments by 15 March. Mr Justice Toohey's recommendations appear to be a carefully balanced package of amendments, designed not only to give a measure of relief and benefit to each of the competing interests affected by the Act, but also to maintain the delicate balance of interests which the Act represents. I would hope, therefore, that all affected parties view the report in this light and not reject out of hand any recommendations that do not serve their particular interests. I draw the attention of the House to a particular comment by Mr Justice Toohey in the final chapter of the report, where he says: The number of amendments recommended to the Land Rights Act may be thought to suggest substantial defects in the legislation. It would be a mistake to draw that conclusion. Given the legislative novelty of the subject matter of the Act and the need to marry complex notions of traditional Aboriginal law and culture with European institutions and administrative procedures, the Act has worked surprisingly well. But it is inevitable that after 7 years cracks in the edifice have started to show. This report seeks to show how those cracks might be mended while leaving the overall structure intact. Once all the consultation processes I have mentioned have been completed and the Government has considered the various views advanced I expect to introduce an amending Bill for the consideration of the Parliament. I believe that the amendments to the Act which result from this process will benefit all sectors of the community and will facilitate an even smoother operation of this novel legislation. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the Parliament, of sincerely thanking Mr Justice Toohey for working under considerable pressure to provide a report which I think will benefit members of both the Opposition and the Government, as well as all citizens who are concerned to see that this novel and important piece of legislation works in the interests of all the people of the Northern Territory. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-Last June or July there appeared in a couple of newspapers a small article saying that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) had implemented an inquiry into the Northern Territory land rights legislation. My response at the time was that the legislation has been in force for some seven years and that it was a good idea to have a general review of the legislation. As time went on I was mystified why the Minister had not made a public statement and issued terms of reference. He did not do so but rather selectively informed a couple of journalists as to what he was doing. After the inquiry had been running a couple of months I put a question on the Notice Paper seeking the terms of reference so that they would be on the public record. Some six weeks later the Minister responded. In that response, on 15 November, he informed the House that he expected Mr Justice Toohey to report by 30 November. It was only then that we found out that the inquiry would not be a public inquiry-there would not be public hearings, there would not be any opportunity for the public to make submissions, rather, selected individuals and organisations would be asked to make submissions, so it was a very limited inquiry. More importantly not only was it limited in relation to those who could make submissions to the inquiry but also the terms of reference were limited. It was not a general inquiry at all; however, I will come back to that point in a moment. Aboriginal Land Rights Act Aboriginal Land Rights Act Aboriginal Land Rights Act Aboriginal Land Rights Act The next thing we heard about the inquiry was when the Minister answered a question in the House. He said: Honourable members will be interested to know that I received Mr Justice Toohey 's report on Monday, 5 December. Now the Minister was quite right. We were interested to know that he had received the report, and of course we would have been interested in receiving a copy of the report, but unfortunately that was not to be the case for some considerable time. The Minister said in the House he hoped to table the report the next day, that being 8 December, and that he had issued directions that the report be printed as a matter of urgency. The report was not tabled last session and it is now nearly three months since the Minister received it. Further, whilst the Minister gave a copy of the report to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) he would not give a copy of the report to the Opposition or to the Liberal senator from the Northern Territory, Senator Bernie Kilgariff. I do not know why the Minister would not allow other interested members a copy of the report. Certainly it could not have been on the grounds of the expense in photocopying the report, because he had no hesitation in spending the taxpayers' money to send extraordinarily long telexes to all and sundry round the country at a cost of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars; and what was the message on the telex? He was telling people that he was about to speak in the Parliament and that they ought to turn on their radios to listen to him. Perhaps he gave the honourable member for the Northern Territory an advance copy because he thought he was a slow learner and would need the extra time to study it. The Minister's action in this whole matter certainly does not sit well with his frequent claim that there should be a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs. When we finally did get an official copy from the Minister's office last month we were interested to see why the Minister had adopted such a secretive approach to this review and why he had wanted to withhold copies from both the Opposition and, indeed, the Press. I turn now to the terms of reference. I refer to the Minister's answer to my question on notice. In relation to the terms of reference the Minister said: I appointed Mr Justice Toohey on 29 June 1983 to undertake a general review of and report on the provisions and operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights ( Northern Territory) Act, 1976, and to recommend amendments to that Act and changes to any other legislation where appropriate, having regard to the following principles which the Government sees as fundamental in relation to Aboriginal land rights: (1) Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title; (2) protection of Aboriginal sites; (3) Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; (4) access to mining royalty equivalents; (5) compensation for lost land to be negotiated; and, without derogating from the generality of the foregoing, to report and recommend amendments where appropriate . . . The terms of reference continue. So whilst the Minister talks about a general review of the legislation, it clearly was not a general review. It was only a review within the confines of the implementation of the five Australian Labor Party principles in relation to Aboriginal affairs. These principles are the same principles which are contained in the Minister's motion currently on the Notice Paper. Let me refer to a couple of paragraphs in the Toohey report which make the restrictive nature of the review clear. On page 61 of his report, Mr Justice Toohey at paragraph 407 says: The terms of reference of this review recite the following among the principles which the Goverment sees as fundamental in relation to Aboriginal land rights. (3) Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; (4) access to mining royalty equivalents. At paragraph 409, Mr Justice Toohey says: To the extent that the Land Rights Act gives effect to these principles, the review cannot recommend changes. Now that to me indicates that submissions were put to Mr Justice Toohey outside his terms of reference to which he felt he could not respond, because the Minister had tied him up with ALP principles. Let me make it clear that I am in no way impugning the integrity of Mr Justice Toohey. What I am saying is that I believe that this was a restricted inquiry. Why was it important to have a general review of the Northern Territory legislation? The Northern Territory land rights legislation was the first of its type. It was new legislation implemented by the Fraser Government and, of course , unforeseen problems became evident in these initial years of its operation. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people have raised issues regarding the legislation which need to be addressed. In addition, there is much to be learned from the experience gained both from legislation implemented by other States such as South Australia and from the broad ranging inquiries which have been held since the Woodward report on the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission and since the Northern Territory land rights legislation was introduced. In my view it is quite possible that there are alternative and, in fact, better ways to meet the legitimate needs and interests of the Aboriginal people and at the same time overcome some of the difficulties which have arisen for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the application of the Northern Territory land rights legislation. Therefore a broad ranging inquiry into the legislation after seven years of operation and after the experience of other States, taking into account alternative approaches, would have been very useful. For example, the approach adopted by Mr Seaman, QC, in his inquiry in Western Australia into appropriate land rights legislation for that State has commented extensively on the Northern Territory legislation and its applicability to Western Australia. He has also made some general comments. For example, in his discussion paper, he says in paragraph 6.15: My present view is that the arbitration provisions in the Northern Territory legislation have no practical application. In the Opposition's opinion these alternative views ought to have been considered. However the Minister's restrictive and, indeed, almost secretive approach to this review has meant that a general review was not possible. Such a general review could have considered whether the original objectives had been achieved and whether the original intentions of the Bill had been fulfilled, and if not, why not. I know for example that in the Northern Territory there has been a great deal of discussion about the area of land subject to claim. When the land rights legislation was introduced, the Minister, Ian Viner, wrote an article which was reprinted in a Department of Aboriginal Affairs booklet called 'Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory, what it means and how it will work'. In that article Mr Viner said: In recent months I have read and heard many alarming rumours about the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory-how they are getting 50 per cent of the land and how afraid people are that their own land may be taken over. I want to put an end to these rumours because they are not only untrue but dangerous to the future racial harmony to which I have already referred. The Minister that is, Mr Viner, then referred to the areas of land which were thought to be subject to the land rights legislation. He said that he would be handing over title to about 18 per cent of the Territory, that being land which was former reserve land. He then went on: Only Aboriginals able to prove strong traditional links with the land-not Aboriginals from other areas-are eligible to lay claims and so be granted land titles. With so much of the land available for claim being either desert or areas no longer having traditional occupants, it is expected that claims will be lodged including those already lodged to another 10 per cent of the Northern Territory. So the Minister at the time-that is, Ian Viner-was suggesting that about 28 per cent of the land in the Northern Teritory would be claimable. Nowadays the figure bandied about as land under claim is between 45 per cent and 50 per cent of the Northern Territory. Another issue I want to raise in relation to this report is the application of the principles which the Minister seeks to impose on the Northern Territory. The principles I refer to are those to which I have referred in the terms of reference. Now as I pointed out last week in relation to the Minister's response to the fringe dwellers report, the Minister is very selective and indeed inconsistent in his application of these ALP principles. One of the so-called principles referred to in the terms of reference is that Aboriginal land should be held under inalienable freehold title. Now whilst the Minister placed that restriction on Mr Toohey's inquiry into the Northern Territory land rights legislation he did not place the same restriction on himself when dealing with the fringe dwellers report. In his response to that report he talked merely about a secure title being granted to Aboriginal people, not inalienable freehold. Therefore, the second point I make in relation to this review of the Northern Territory land rights legislation which has such a significant impact on all Territorians is that the Minister imposed on the review the implementation of ALP principles which he himself fails to implement in other areas of his portfolio. Let me give another example of his inconsistent approach. It relates to uranium mining. The Northern Lands Council has told me, and I think it is now fairly well known, that it has been specifically instructed by the traditional owners that they wish the projected mines at Jabiluka and Koongarra to go ahead. The terms of reference of Mr Toohey's inquiry include a principle seen by the Government as fundamental in relation to Aboriginal land rights, that is, Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land. But the plain fact of the matter is that this Government is totally without principle. Whilst uranium mining is taking place around Australia the Government has said to the Aborigines: 'Well, we have a principle that Aborigines should have control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land, but in relation to your uranium on your Aboriginal land, even though you want to mine it, we are not going to let you'. So this Government has already breached two of its supposedly fundamental principles in relation to Aboriginal land. As I said, this Government is totally without principle. Another major point of concern which the Northern Lands Council has raised with the Opposition is the fact that it has about 150 exploration licence applications currently before it, but it has put to me that it does not have the manpower to process those applications as required under the current Northern Territory legislation. It applied to the Minister for an increase in staff so that it could expedite these exploration licence applications. The Minister responded by giving it two more staff-far short of the number the Northern Lands Council said it required to overcome this enormous backlog. I suggest to the Minister that he review the staffing levels and the work load of the Northern Lands Council and, if more staff is needed, he ought to put a submission quickly to Cabinet that some of the 1,400 asset test wallopers whom this Government employed prior to the dropping of the assets test could be usefully employed assisting the Northern Lands Council in overcoming this backlog of exploration licence applications. Finally, let me say in relation to this report that the Opposition is deeply concerned that there was not a general review of the Northern Territory legislation. We do acknowledge that this limited review does have some worthwhile recommendations. However, in the limited time we have had the report some of the recommendations would appear to create more difficulties than they resolve. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The right honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —During Question Time the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) referred to some observations made in an autobiography of Sir John Williams, the former Chairman of the Australian National Line. In particular he suggested-I do not have the exact words-that that very distinguished former Chairman said, in some criticism of me, that I saw the ANL as a political instrument. I add that I find it extraordinary that one who in the Australian Labor Party is the successor to the former member for Newcastle who as Minister for Transport imposed freight rates on superphosphate users in Australia-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party should get to his personal explanation. Mr SINCLAIR —Certainly, Mr Speaker. There are two areas where quite obviously there is reason for any government instrumentality to be very closely aligned to the Government parties and philosophies and views. The first is in the industrial area and the second is the shop window. It is in that area that I certainly as Minister-- Mr Peter Morris —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the right honourable gentleman to come to the point of his personal misrepresentation. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Transport will resume his seat. I was about to remind the Leader of the National Party of Australia that he is to correct the misrepresentation, not to debate the matter. Mr SINCLAIR —I agree, Mr Speaker, but it has been suggested that I used the ANL as a political instrument. It is therefore necessary for me to explain how and in what way any intrusion on the Australian National Line was so used. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a personal misrepresentation. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, it has been alleged that I saw it as a political instrument. I did not other than to the degree to which I certainly ensured that the Australian National Line complied with award conditions and industrial behaviour in the same way as every private body involved in the same area. I certainly see the Australian National Line as a shop window for Australian shippers on the one hand and consumers on the other. Thirdly, I do not believe-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party must round off his remarks. Mr Peter Morris —The right honourable member has not been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is a matter for the Chair to judge. The right honourable member has been given the opportunity to correct the misrepresentation. He is in fact debating the matter. Unless he comes straight to the point I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Mr SINCLAIR —Neither I nor the Government of which I was then a member ever saw the Australian National Line as a political instrument. We saw it certainly as a government instrumentality. We on our part believe in privatisation, wherever it should be. We did not see the ANL then as a political instrument of that Government and we do not now see it as a political instrument of this Government . Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SHIPTON —During Question Time the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) stated that the Opposition had been critical of the appointment of Paul Hogan to promote an Australian domestic tourist campaign. I want to assure you, sir, and the House that that is not so. I ask that the Minister withdraw that statement. In fact, in a Press release on 21 September I stated that the decision to use Paul Hogan was certainly welcome. In a Press release on 26 September 1983 I stated that I congratulated television star Paul Hogan for his bid to boost Australian tourism. I assured Mr Hogan of the Federal Opposition's support for his involvement in the campaign. I congratulated him then and I congratulate him in the House now. I said that the decision to use Paul Hogan was certainly welcome. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Higgins must realise he is given leave to correct a personal misrepresentation. Does he claim that he was personally mentioned in this respect? Mr SHIPTON —I claim that as the Opposition spokesman on tourism I was personally misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to answer my question. Was he personally named? Mr SHIPTON —I was not personally named, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr PETER MORRIS(Newcastle-Minister for Transport) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr PETER MORRIS —The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) made mention in his personal explanation of my reference, in answer to an earlier question, to his attitude as Minister for Shipping and Transport to the operations of the Australian National Line. I acquaint you, Mr Speaker, with page reference 212 of the book So Ends the Day by Captain Sir John Williams which reads: To our surprise, not long after his appointment, Sinclair informed us that we should now regard the Commission as what he termed a 'Political Instrument'- I read also from page-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Transport is repeating the same offence as that made by the Leader of the National Party. He has not been personally misrepresented. Mr PETER MORRIS —Mr Speaker, the answer I gave was a direct quote from the publication I have just mentioned which said that the Line for the first time as a result of that political instrument policy finished in the red. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is now arguing the matter. I ask him to resume his seat. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cross,Mr Hawker,Mr McVeigh,Mr Porter,Mr Rocher and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully 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 Cross,Mr Hollis,Mrs Darling and Mr Morrison. 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 Andrew and Mr Porter. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that there is a problem of the spread of Paterson's Curse in our area that has not been halted by chemical control. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be the introduction of biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests that legislation be enacted to permit the biological control of the weed known as ''paterson's curse''. The petitioners wish to express their most serious concern regarding the recent spread of this weed and the resultant loss in primary production. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Hicks. 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 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 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 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 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 commences 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 Connolly. 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 of sex and marital status, (ii) eliminating discrimination on the grounds 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 Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. 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. 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. 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 Capital 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 Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. 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, for example the 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Braithwaite and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully shows: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. 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 petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 humbly 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. To 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 respectively 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 decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus beween 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 program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 1983 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard), proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The political conspiracy between the Prime Minister and the Wran Government to prevent a proper judgment being made by the people of New South Wales on the issue of corruption in that State. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.24) —On 24 January 1984 there appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald a very short statement which read as follows: There will be no election in the first half of this year in NSW. So spoke Mr Wran, the Premier of New South Wales. Mr Steele Hall —The penciller. Mr HOWARD —The penciller. Yet everyone knows that yesterday the Premier of New South Wales announced, exactly two months after he said there would not be an election, that there would be an election in the first half of this year. We do not have to go very far to find out why that firm declaration of political resolve made by Mr Wran on 24 January has now been turned over by a welter of political expediency. It is because on 2 February 1984, a bare nine days after Mr Wran's declaration, in the Melbourne Age publication began of what have now notoriously become known in the folklore, of not only New South Wales but also of the rest of Australia, as 'the Age New South Wales corruption tapes'. Transcripts of those tapes were published on 2 February, 3 February and 4 February 1984. I allege, as do all honourable members on this side of the House, that shortly after the return of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) from his overseas trip, convinced by the power brokers of the New South Wales Australian Labor Party of the real threat posed to the Wran Government by the contents of those tapes, coming on top as they did of a long saga of concern about corruption in New South Wales, the Prime Minister decided that his first and most important duty as the national leader of the Labor Party was to get Neville Wran to the polls as soon as possible before it all spilled over, before the truth really came out. So began this great chronology of conspiracy, so began all the plans worked out by those power brokers of the New South Wales Labor Party machine. It is appropriate, of course, that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the self-proclaimed leader of that same faction, is here to reply on behalf of the Government. Let us look at what happened. Let us look first at the scuttling of the assets test. So indecently was that done, so frantic was the Prime Minister to get Neville Wran to the polls before the truth really came out, that he did not even have time to tell his Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) that he was going to put the assets test on the back burner. We all know that there is to be an assets test. On whom can we rely other than the Prime Minister? He has said so. But he is putting it on the back burner, pushing it out of the way, so there will not be any concern and worry about it during the New South Wales election campaign. The fact is that there is something rotten in the State of New South Wales. There is concern about corruption in that State and for the Premier of New South Wales, and the Prime Minister, to say that this is an election about putting up or shutting up is to ignore the record of the Wran Government over the last seven or eight years. Over that period there have been many examples of people putting up allegations of corruption and those allegations being established. If one wants to examine what has happened in New South Wales, if one wants to understand the paranoia that is now gripping its government, that jewel in the Labor crown, the government that has been gripped by the Labor Party since 1976, one has only to go back over the record. Before I do that, let me examine for a moment the central proposition that the Premier and the Prime Minister, in their conspiracy to prevent a proper determination by the people, are asking the people of New South Wales to accept. They are saying: 'Let us have an election quickly so you can make up your mind whether all these allegations about further corruption happen to be true, yet we will not give you any evidence on which to make that judgment'. It is rather like the Prime Minister calling an election on unemployment and then suppressing publication of the unemployment figures. That is precisely what is being done by Mr Wran on this occasion. He asks the people of New South Wales to judge once and for all, so he brings the election on to prevent a number of very significant things happening. Firstly, he brings it on to prevent knowledge of the findings of the Cross inquiry into the early release system which involved the now resigned Minister for Corrective Services, Mr Jackson. The Premier of New South Wales had to sack Mr Jackson, amidst a welter of complaints and allegations about the propriety of the early release system, when he misled the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. Yet will the people of New South Wales have the results of that inquiry before 24 March? Of course they will not. Will the people of New South Wales have the results of the investigations that are proceeding, with the Prime Minister, into the Age tapes? Of course they will not . Everybody in New South Wales knows that the reason they are having this election early is that their government is frightened that the longer it goes on the more difficult it will become for Mr Wran. The longer it goes on the greater will be their concern. Everyone knows that, going back over the past couple of years, there has been a long saga of misdemeanour, corruption and concern about the quality of government in New South Wales. The Premier of that State would have us believe that the Street Royal Commission totally debunked what was alleged in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners program, yet the truth is that when one goes through the evidence given before the royal commission one notes that, so far from the commission debunking what was claimed on the Four Corners program, it vindicated the courage and accuracy of those who put that program together. It also resulted in a major figure in the New South Wales magistracy, Murray Farquhar, being sent for trial for having perverted the course of justice. It also resulted in the conviction of Kevin Humphreys. We do not have to go back very far, of course, to remember what happened to Deputy Commissioner of Police Allen , who was so persistently patronised by Mr Wran and so promoted to a senior position in the New South Wales police force. We recall, of course, the sudden and unexplained resignation of Mervyn Wood, Commissioner of Police, following criticism in a report of the Solicitor-General. We realise now that arising out of the investigation of the New South Wales Solicitor-General into these tapes which, according to the Prime Minister, are still unauthenticated, the Government has reopened the investigations into the so-called Cessna-Milner case which involves an allegation of an arrangement to reduce the street value of some drugs from $5m to a fairly nominal sum so as to make the conviction a summary one and one that would not carry a long prison sentence. We all know, of course, that in May 1976, just after Mr Wran won the State election, three months into the first term of office, the then Labor Attorney- General directed that no further action be taken in the Botany Council bribery case, probably the most notorious and yet unexplained example of concern about corruption in New South Wales which led, of course, to the total exoneration and exculpation from the law of a key member of the Wran Government, Laurie Brereton , who is now a senior Minister in that Government. All of these things are facts; they are not allegations, they are not suppositions and they are not smears and innuendos made under parliamentary privilege. I will come back to that in a moment because the monumental double standards of this Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales are no more demonstrated than they are on the question of parliamentary privilege. These things are concrete examples of there having been something rotten in the State of New South Wales under the Wran Government. They are all the more reason why this House should reach a conclusion that this Government has not come clean about the contents of the Age tapes. The Government constantly says to us that we are behaving in an irresponsible manner. What does a responsible Opposition do other than to question matters, raise them in parliamentary debate, probe responsible Ministers and present arguments? The Government still has an opportunity to come clean. This Government that was pledged to open government, this Government that said it would communicate with the people and this Prime Minister who has no compunction about tapes of a most private nature being made public about a former National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party-he had no compunction at all about letting the Combe-Ivanov tapes be made public; he believes that to be perfectly all right-say: 'We do not worry about the invasion of Mr Combe's privacy or the invasion of the privacy of other people. That is perfectly okay'. When it comes to this issue the Prime Minister has a double standard, like he has on the deficit. He says: 'Oh, no, we cannot make these tapes available'. I wonder why the Government cannot make them available? Is it because of the identity of some people? Is the Goverment a bit sensitive about the associations between the Prime Minister and not only prominent legal but also some political personages who are referred to in the subject matter of the tapes as distinct from just being referred to in a fleeting manner? The Treasurer knows what I am talking about; the Prime Minister knows what I am talking about; the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), above everybody else , who, of course, we all know has had a very long association with one of the people involved in these tapes, knows what I am talking about. No wonder there is such a cover-up and conspiracy over this. No wonder the Prime Minister and his power backers from New South Wales got together when he came back from South East Asia and said: 'We had better get Neville running as soon as possible before the top blows off this Age business because that will be the final straw on top of everything that has happened'. So I say to the House that this Opposition has behaved in a totally responsible manner about this issue. We have not abused parliamentary privilege in the same way as the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and, above everybody else, Neville Wran abused parliamentary privilege not only in the last month but also over the last seven years. If one really wanted the crowning example of the abuse of parliamentary privilege by a politician in Australia, I invite members of the Labor Party and I particularly invite those people of a feminist disposition who support the Labor Party to read some of the remarks of Neville Wran in the New South Wales Parliament about female members of that Parliament. They can make a judgment then as to how good his declarations are about equality and proper treatment of the sexes. One will get an idea of the sorts of standards of the man who is a close political ally of the Prime Minister, a man who is frantically concerned that if he delays the electorate for any further the allegations of corruption contained in the Age tapes will, of course, overwhelm him. We have endeavoured to behave in a totally responsible manner since the publication of the tapes. We have elicited a totally unsatisfactory response from the Government. Despite the declaration of the Solicitor-General that it is for the Parliament and not somebody else ultimately to decide whether a person should remain a Federal judge, despite the fact that the tapes and the actions of the Attorney-General cast doubt over the integrity of other members of the Federal courts of this country, despite the fact that the Attorney-General confirmed again the right and the role of the Parliament, despite the fact that the Prime Minister stands for open government, despite the fact that he is willing to fling David Combe's privacy to the winds, he is unwilling to table even in a sanitised version a transcript of these tapes. One has to ask why. One has to ask what further action a responsible Opposition can take, having been blocked at every turn, having been denied by the Government of this country which promised such an open approach, which promised it would govern in such an open manner. It is now engaged in a political conspiracy to get Neville Wran to the polls before the people of New South Wales really wake up to what is involved. What is involved in this election in New South Wales and what, above everything else, is involved in this election is the quality, the integrity and the competence of the Government of that State. Over the last seven years there have been countless examples of where people's concerns about corruption have been vindicated and have been well founded and well justified. The Age tapes are yet another example of the growing concern in New South Wales that there is something fundamentally dishonest about its administration, that there is something fundamentally crooked about some of the people who serve the Government and participate in the government of that State. What the people of New South Wales want is a fair ventilation of those issues. What the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales are determined to deny them is precisely that because by their actions they have prevented the very thing they say the election is designed to do and because of that they ought to stand condemned completely by this Parliament. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.38) —This is about the most pathetic matter of public importance that I have seen presented by the Opposition in recent times. If the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Mr Greiner, is going to rely upon the present Federal Opposition to help in his election campaign, God help him. He will need God's help; he will not get much from honourable members opposite. What the matter before the House really says is that the Liberals are afraid of the public. What they are really saying is that the State Government is calling the election because of a political conspiracy. It is now a conspiracy for anybody to talk about taking a government to the polls. They talk about a political conspiracy between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Wran Government to prevent a proper judgment being made by the people of New South Wales. What could be a more proper judgment than an election, to let the people have their say and, to let the people make their judgment? Of course, it is just nonsense to allege that the Prime Minister has made an election in New South Wales a priority this year any more than it would be nonsense for anybody to argue that the present Federal Opposition determined the date of the last Queensland election. It is nonsense, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) knows it is nonsense. Of course, they have changed their view since 1975. They regarded elections then as very cleansing. Going to the electorate was the right thing to do in 1975. We have seen a change of tune since 1975. In those days the Opposition argued that it was a cleansing thing to hold elections. It said that it was right for the public to adjudicate on the loans affair and that it was right for the public to make a judgment about the Whitlam Government. Of course, the Wran Government will now ask the public to make a judgment about all the charges that have been thrown around in New South Wales willy-nilly. The Opposition says that that is a political conspiracy. The Liberals are afraid of the public and they are afraid of the public of New South Wales. The fact is that New South Wales is becoming ungovernable. The Government of New South Wales is constantly beset with charges, claims and counterclaims. The whole process of government is freezing up while the Government is distracted from the business of government by these charges, counter charges and calls about corruption in New South Wales. The Premier of New South Wales has called a halt to this nonsense by asking the public of New South Wales to make a judgment about those allegations. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on about the charges in New South Wales. Let us take the last three. First of all, he spoke about charges against the Wran Goverment on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Four Corners. The Premier, as no other Premier has done, put himself before the scrutiny of the Street Royal Commission of Inquiry into Certain Committal Proceedings Against H. E. Humphreys what were the charges against him? In the end he was cleared of all the improprieties alleged against him. There is no point in the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party arguing that there are now proceedings against Mr Farquhar. The Premier understood, when that commission was given to the Chief Justice of New South Wales, that whatever the outcome of it, there would be an obligation for the recommendations to be pursued. Of course the recommendations cleared the Premier. The second lot of allegations were made by the right honourable member for New England and Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). The basis of his allegations was that he had been approached by two people who said that they could change the course of justice in New South Wales. The consequent judicial inquiry condemned him. But what did he do? He came into this place and condemned the judge as he did in respect of the Hon. Peter Nixon a year earlier after an inquiry into allegations about him. The right honourable member came into this place with the former Prime Minister and condemned that judge. The third allegation was made by Mr Bob Bottom. Those allegations were looked at by the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry. Again they were found to be baseless. The charges made by him concerning the impropriety of a magistrate were found to be baseless. So much for the allegations which have been made. What is the New South Wales Government to do with the allegations that have been made? Should it continue? Charges were also made by Rosemary Foot, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales. The New South Wales Premier ripped her charges to shreds last week. She mentioned me in dispatches and I will be ripping her to shreds in the courts at the right moment. She can go and shoot her big mouth off in the Supreme Court. We will see how she goes there. The New South Wales Opposition is incompetent and led by a greenhorn leader of four years parliamentary experience. In November, Mr Greiner said that the Opposition was not in a position to govern. What has happened since November? Has he had some inspiration during the holidays? Is the Opposition, which was not in a position to govern last November, now in a position to govern in March? Of course it is not. It is the same Opposition. It is the same tired old remnants of the Liberal Party which were led by John Dowd and a succession of Liberal leaders and with which Mr Wran has wiped the floor in New South Wales. It is the same tired old crowd. Whether it is Mr Greiner and his elongated deputy will not matter one little bit. The fact is that nobody in New South Wales believes that the present New South Wales Opposition is in any position to lead or govern or in any way to offer itself as an alternative to the Government of New South Wales. Mr Greiner wants to be Premier of New South Wales but he wants to tear New South Wales down first. That is the price the people of New South Wales are going to be asked to pay to see him become Premier. Has anybody ever heard a serious contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales on any matter of policy? Has anybody heard him say anything constructive about New South Wales? All he does is revert to the same old nonsense to which the Liberals always revert. If they cannot beat a decent moderate Labor Government they revert to smear campaigns and allegations of corruption. The same occurred with the Whitlam Government. The same charges were made against Mr Connor and Dr Cairns that they were supposed to be getting a backhander and a quid from the loans affair. After the election, however, there was no talk about impropriety. While one can certainly argue about the administrative necessity of the whole loans procedure, nobody can argue about any charges of impropriety, of anybody taking money. But those were the charges laid against the former Labor Government and they will be laid against Labor governments for time immemorial because that is the final retreat of the cowards of the conservatives in Australia. They go back to the old whispered word corruption. Mr Wran understands that. It will go on and on. He is now saying to the public: 'Look, I have had three allegations made against the Government. They have been put before judicial inquiries and the charges have fallen to the ground. I am saying to the people of New South Wales: ''You make a judgment about my Government. You make a judgment about the public of New South Wales'' '. Now we have the charge of conspiracy and the suggestion that the public of New South Wales will be asked to adjudicate. There is now a conspiracy to hold an election . It is a conspiracy to give the public the opportunity to make a proper judgment. That makes absolute nonsense of this matter of public importance proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Liberals have spoken about a so-called network of crime operating in Australia. Who governed Australia for 31 of the last 35 years? Does anybody seriously content that corruption started in Australia on 5 March 1983. Is that the charge? Is the charge that in some way all this corruption started when the Hawke Government was elected a year ago? Let us look at the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Why was that Royal Commission set up? It was set up to embarrass the Labor Party because Malcom Fraser thought that a bit of waterfront thuggery would reflect badly upon the Labor Party. It reflected the fact that the former Treasurer sat on his backside for five years while the Commissioner of Taxation beckoned him to change the tax laws of this country while the rip-off merchants were ripping billions out of the public purse. That is what is revealed. That was the conspiracy. The conspiracy was one of abject laziness and absolute neglect of the public interest. That is why the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was set up. The Liberals have never attempted to look at crime and corruption in this country. They set up that Royal Commission to try to score points off the Labor Party and to pick up a few Melbourne waterfront thugs. They did not expect them to represent the people that honourable members sitting opposite represent. They were fronting for all the lurk merchants, rip-off merchants and shysters who subscribe to the Liberal Party. That was one of the factors that led to the undoing of the former Government and brought that Government, as it should have, into disrepute. We, on this side of the House, reject this whole charge about corruption and conspiracy in New South Wales. The Deputy Leader went on about the tapes as if, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, whenever there is an illegal tapping of anyone's conversation we are supposed to race people before the Bar of the House and rip them to shreds in a kangaroo court set up by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). This is after the same Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party crawled in here last week to defend the indefensible, the Leader of the National Party, who made charges and then could not stick with them under cross- examination. He made the most infamous attack upon a judge in the living memory of any member of this Parliament. So in other words, when the judgments go against the Liberals we should forget the inquirer, the judge or the commissioner. They want us to drag people before the Bar of the House when a set of tapes falls off the back of a truck. That is just not the way this Government will be treating matters of that kind in this Parliament. The only thing I say about the allegations of the Leader of the National Party are that although Mr Waterhouse and Mr Coombs were not prepared to sue the Leader of the National Party after he made the original allegation-they were prepared to go through the court proceedings and the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry-if I were them, and I am not in the business of giving advice, I would have him before the Supreme Court very quickly over the charges he made on television and to the National Party conference. Mr Tuckey —Just wait for the Jackson report. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I warn the honourable member for O' Connor. Mr KEATING —Let the Leader of the National Party go to the Supreme Court and let us see how some of the glib rubbish, tripe and drivel he went on with last week goes before a Supreme Court justice in a defamation proceeding. I tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not go very far at all. The Opposition talks about the phone taps. Even that was five to eight years ago, and of course that was a period when the former Government was supposedly crime busting in this country and doing its best to keep its society clean. Mr Howard —Where is your next Coles K-Mart, Paul? Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition just referred to Coles K-Mart. I make it clear that last week the New South Wales Premier went into the House and established, by laying out a whole table of properties developed by the New World Company, that, from memory, 17 of the 21 developments were already zoned and were in non-Labor council areas. Finally, he proved conclusively that there was no matter of concern at all. I make it quite clear, if honourable members opposite are having a jibe at me, that Mr Anderson-who with some pride I call a friend-has never at any stage asked me to do anything for him. I never have done anything for him and, in respect of the harbour front land in New South Wales, as I made it clear to the Sydney Morning Herald when it asked me, he never approached me and I never approached anyone in the New South Wales Government either directly or indirectly. So members of the Opposition should not direct their mealy-mouthed interjections at me. We can continue the debate on this matter at any time they please. The New South Wales Government is doing the only thing it can reasonably do. It is a good government; a government which took New South Wales out of the mire in 1976 and made it the premier State, only to be dragged down by the recession brought on by the former Treasurer and the former Prime Minister. If anything is wrong with New South Wales and the New South Wales economy it was caused by the policies of Malcolm Fraser and John Howard, and nothing else. What this government wants in New South Wales is a competent, seasoned government, which can, with the national Government, drag New South Wales and the other States out of the recession. We do not want some tinhorn or greenhorn leader of four years standing. We reject absolutely the charge made in the matter of public importance. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(3.54) — Madam Deputy Speaker, it is normal when a government goes to an election for it to set out its record so that the electors can make a judgment and decide whether or not they approve of that record. In this case the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is conspiring, as the matter of public importance notes, with the New South Wales Government to prevent the people of New South Wales knowing the facts upon which they will vote. In fact, what they are voting on, so far as they can see, is one record of criminal activity after another. That has been adequately set out by the honourable member for Bennelong and Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). One can almost hear the sigh of relief of the Premier of New South Wales each time an inquiry finishes. He fronts up to the media and says 'we will go on to better things', and each time he does a new inquiry arises about further charges. The Opposition's position in this is quite clear. It has been instrumental in those charges being made, and of them being proved in many important cases. They are about to be proved further, at this moment, in the courts. There is no doubt that the Government of New South Wales desires to put these matters behind it. Of course it cannot put them behind it because it is standing squarely in them. If only we could find the truth of the present controversies, including the tapes and the records, we in this Parliament and the public of New South Wales would be all the better able to make that decision. Madam Deputy Speaker, the material so far published is extremely complex. If it does one thing above anything else it proves the necessity for a national crimes commission with the power to subpoena witnesses and compel them to answer. Without that, and without this Government's support for such a crime body, we will find from time to time that New South Wales is a test bed for criminal activity in this country. As I have said, the Opposition values its record in regard to these matters and the resignation of Minister Jackson in New South Wales is one indication of work done by this side of the House being fully effective in uncovering criminal activity. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has noted, we have also had the effect of the inquiry into the allegations of the New South Wales Premier in that the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate was ordered by Commissioner Street to be charged with perverting the course of justice. If those two things do not justify the work of the Opposition in this matter, nothing else will. However, we are now dealing with tapes and reports which give substantial direction towards possible further serious crime. I ask the Government: What does it have to fear? Who is it covering in this exercise of yet again resisting investigation? If the people named on the tapes are cleared, who will object to that? Every member of this House would hope that the people mentioned would be cleared of crimes which may be indicated. If they are incriminated, is that not what this country needs, too? Do not those who engage in criminal activity deserve to be incriminated? Which of those two things does the Government object to? Does it object to clearing the names of those mentioned on the tapes or does it object to incriminating them if they are guilty of offences against the State and the community? The tapes show that a judge talked to a lawyer. They had some extensive conversations. The judge indicated that he had intervened to influence the appointment of a government official. He indicated that it might not be a bad idea to blackmail an alderman because he visited homosexual bars. He denigrated a former Federal Government figure. There are also suggestions of a blackmail attempt on a former New South Wales Liberal Minister. Of course these are only some of the extensive telephone conversations that took place during those years . I would like to know more about those activities. I lead you back some years, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Victoria, when a convicted operator of an international drug racket syndicate was ordered to be given back his suspected forged passport, at the direction of the Federal Attorney-General, against the direct wishes of senior police. Now that was done in 1974 by the Attorney-General of this Commonwealth Parliament. What the Australian public and the people of New South Wales should know is-is the judge mentioned in the tapes the same person as the Attorney-General in the Sala case in Victoria? And the Government must answer that allegation and the public of New South Wales must give some judgment on that. Are they one and the same person? And that is the question the Government should answer before this parliamentary day has finished and before this House has risen. There is more. After the tapes were published and the controversy began there was a strange intervention by Mr Justice Kirby, who took a general view that minimised any possible offence against propriety by the Federal judge in being involved in influencing the appointment of a senior New South Wales Government official. He said: I think there would be many such consultations which go on as to judicial and other appointments and it is something which until now we've kept secret. My constituents, and I am sure many other people around Australia, would be shocked to know that that is a general standard of behaviour of judges which until now has been kept secret. I am pleased to say that a Supreme Court judge in my State, South Australia, took umbrage at that description of what was said by Mr Justice Kirby to be something of a normalcy. A newspaper article reports: Mr Justice Wells, during an unconnected trial in the Supreme Court yesterday, said the statements were ''irresponsible'' and without the ''slightest foundation.'' He said he was speaking on behalf of present and former SA judges. . . . . ''Not only does that impute corruption to us, but implies that we are from time to time willing to act in flagrant defiance of constitutional principles governing the separation of powers . . . He said no judge of his acquaintence ''would ever dream of doing such a thing.' ' He comprehensively rejected what had been asserted and stated that it was '' utterly false.'' ''On behalf of all SA judges, as well as on my own behalf, I express my own deep resentment of this calumny. It cannot be soon or too emphatically denied. There we have a standard set by one of the most effective Supreme Court judges in the Australian community, who takes quite a different view. Without involving himself in the subject of the tapes but by pointing up the obvious difference in standards he condemns the involvement of the Federal judge, as has already been mentioned. What is worse is the defence of this position by the current Federal Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). In answer to a question asked in another place recently in relation to this matter the Attorney-General said: . . . the judge's answer was that he had had such a conversation to the extent that he could recall the solicitor in question and that his response would be that if the occasion arose he would see what the situation was with the appointment in question and let the solicitor know. I certainly do not regard that conversation as being in any way improper . . . I suggest to honourable members that the words 'I certainly do not regard that conversation as being in any way improper' are in direct and utter contrast to the views of every member of the Bench of the Supreme Court in my State. It is a standard which will not be supported by the rest of the judiciary of Australia. If the Australian public knew that people in judicial office in this country became involved with the Executive of the day by influencing and affecting its choice in making government appointments, they would be utterly shocked. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(4.04) —There have been occasions in the past when the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) would have had cause to be proud of his record, but his performance today brought serious discredit to the impact that the people who sit opposite have had on him since he became a member of this place. His speech contained serious innuendoes. I understand that he is a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Privileges. The honourable member for Boothby should give serious consideration to whether that is an appropriate committee for him to be a member of. During his speech he suggested that the decision by the Premier of New South Wales to give people of that State an opportunity to pass their judgment on 24 March was in some way a scheme devised to prevent their passing judgment on the charges. The electors of New South Wales will have precisely that opportunity on 24 March. What concerns members of the Opposition is not so much that the people of New South Wales will have the opportunity to pass judgment, but rather the judgment those people will make. Both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Boothby know, as do the other people who sit on the Opposition benches, precisely what form that judgment will take. I was concerned when the honourable member for Boothby referred to-I quote his words as accurately as possible-the charges made by the Federal Opposition which resulted in the disclosure of criminal activities. In connection with that the honourable member for Boothby referred to cases which have not yet been heard. He referred to inquiries which have not yet been conducted. The honourable member came into this place and pre-empted the decisions of those cases and inquiries by suggesting that they disclosed criminal activity. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me inform you and honourable members that many people in New South Wales believe, with a great deal of justification, that if some members of the Opposition in New South Wales, members of both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, were to fall into a sewer the maggots would jump out. If honourable members opposite find that sort of comment offensive, let me say that I believe that the disgraceful, vile, vicious, malicious and orchestrated behaviour of some people of the New South Wales Parliament more than adequately justifies claims of that kind being made. How unfortunate that it should appear to anyone to be appropriate that such a comment should be made, but the more we hear of the behaviour of those people, and the behaviour of some of their Federal colleagues from New South Wales, the more convinced we become that, as abhorrent that that type of comment may appear to us, the essence of it can be well substantiated. If we are to talk about corruption-it was the Opposition which raised this-let us look at a couple of events that have occurred recently. First of all, the whole of Australia knew that the New South Wales Liberal Party was flat broke-in fact, it was seriously in the red. This was declared by it. Mr Ruddock —That is right. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am glad to hear the honourable member for Dundas confirm this because he may well be able to explain exactly what lies behind these developments. If he has the opportunity at some stage to explain the situation I will be very interested to hear it. The New South Wales Liberal Party was flat broke; it was seriously in the red. Overnight it plucked $175,000 out of the air in order to undertake the most ambitious direct mailing campaign in Australia's political history. Over 350,000 personally addressed letters went out to people in New South Wales. The New South Wales Liberal Party is now undertaking a similar campaign. It is expected that the next campaign will cost something like $300,000. That is in addition to about $2.5m that the conservative forces in New South Wales will pluck out of the air to finance their next State election, in order to try to build up the malicious campaign that they are developing in New South Wales in order to ensure that respectable, responsible and honourable people are subjected to the type of character besmirching that they have been undertaking. This one is a pearl. We have some Liberal Party members from Victoria in the Parliament at the moment. I hope that those who are not in the chamber are listening to my speech. I draw attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to a reference to the 500 Club. No doubt you are familiar with this club because you are a Victorian. Let me enlighten you on what this is all about. The 500 Club has been set up in Victoria by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party says, quite definitely, that similar organisations are to be established in other States. What is this 500 Club? The Opposition gets 500 of its cronies together. To be entitled to remain members of the 500 Club each will pay $500 a year. Now that is delightful, of course. That gives the Club only a quarter of a million dollars from these cronies whom the Opposition is flat out protecting and defending in this place and in other parliaments. But what does the letter which goes out to the prospective members say? It asks them to pay $500. It states- these are not my words; they come from Opposition members' mates down in Victoria-that membership will enable subscribers to meet and 'influence' politicians. Now is not that delightful? The Opposition members sell themselves pretty cheaply-$500. Who would want to influence members of the Opposition anyway? They are destined to remain members of the Opposition not only in the national Parliament but also in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. Who would want to influence members of the Opposition for the payment of even a measly $500? Neville Wran first lead the New South Wales Australian Labor Party to an election in 1976. The people of New South Wales have been passing judgment, with great credit to their perception and their political judgment, particularly since 1976. Prior to that they had put up with 13 continuous years of the most shameful, disgraceful and inefficient government that New South Wales had ever seen. Mr Simmons —A mob of crooks. Mr ROBERT BROWN —That is right. If Opposition members are looking for corruption they should go back to that time. There is not one person here who would be prepared to support or defend the position that was adopted by a knight of the realm, Sir Robin Askin, the former Premier. In 1976 the people passed their judgment and gave Neville Wran a majority of two seats. They gave him 50 seats in the Legislative Assembly. At the next election in 1978 the number of seats held by the Labor Party went up from 50 to 63. At the last election-1981-63 seats became 69 seats, the highest majority that the New South Wales people have ever entrusted to any government in all of the times that the New South Wales Parliament has existed. What happened to the Liberals? Here are the figures: In May 1976 the Liberals had 29 seats. In 1978 the number had dropped to 18 and in 1981 it had dropped to 13. The people of New South Wales have been passing admirable judgment. They will do so again on 24 March. I have a list here of charges that have been made against honest and honourable , respected and respectable people in New South Wales by people such as those who sit on the Opposition benches and their cohorts in that State-accusations that were made against the Premier himself who stood down while the case against him was heard. He was completely exonerated. Accusations were made against Police Commissioner Jim Pyne. He was completely exonerated. Disgraceful accusations were made against Miss Susan Schreiner, a stipendiary magistrate. Distress and concern was caused to that woman by those accusations. All of those people were completely exonerated. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion has concluded. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 220th report of the Committee, relating to Finance Minute on report 193-report of the Auditor-General 1979-80 and March 1981, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Ms MAYER —The 220th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's report No. 193-reports of the Auditor-General 1979-80 and March 1981. Report 193 was tabled in the Parliament on 20 April 1982. The Department of Finance minute was forwarded to the Chairman of the Committee on 4 November 1983. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used for responding to the Committee's recommendations. Examination of the reports of the Auditor-General is part of the Committee's proscribed activities. Report 193 presented the Committee's findings from several public hearings into matters raised by the Auditor-General 's reports for 1979-80 and March 1981. The matters included in report No. 193 were: The Department of Defence, HMAS Stirling; Department of Transport, payments of moneys for the second Hobart bridge in advance of demonstrated need; the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority-delays into the presentation of financial statements; and the Department of Foreign Affairs-accounting at overseas posts. The Auditor-General raised a number of matters with the Department of Defence concerning the administration of the Royal Australian Navy base, HMAS Stirling, Western Australia. The Committee was pleased to note at the time of its inquiry that the Department was in the process of rectifying the matters raised by the Auditor-General. The Committee is also pleased that the Department has adopted its recommendations to proceed with the purchase of two tug boats and to expand the range of stores held at HMAS Stirling. The Committee's inquiry into the Department of Transport arose from comments by the Auditor-General that a payment for the second Hobart bridge of $450,000 from the Department of Transport to the Tasmanian Department of Main Roads was made in advance of a demonstrated need for funds. The Committee concluded that the payment was made in good faith but that sufficient care was not taken to ensure that the necessary conditions for the payment of the grant were met. The Committee is pleased that the Department of Transport has instituted new arrangements which will prevent a recurrence of this problem. The Committee's inquiry into the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority arose from comments by the Auditor-General concerning the delay in the submission for audit of the Authority's financial statements for 1976-77, 1977- 78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The delay was caused by a dispute between the Authority and the Department of Finance over the form of accounts and uncertainty about how to account for non-government moneys collected locally by schools. The Committee's major recommendations were that the Authority adopt accrual accounting and that its legislation be amended to allow greater accountability of non-government moneys. The Committee is pleased that the Authority has taken these actions. The Authority's financial statements for 1981-82 have been prepared on an accrual basis and the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly has agreed to amendments to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Ordinance 1976 to make moneys raised locally moneys of the Authority for auditing and financial reporting. However, the Committee is concerned at the length of time taken by the Authority to achieve a satisfactory response. The Committee's inquiry into the Department of Foreign Affairs arose from comments by the Auditor-General regarding deficiencies in accounting and financial administration at overseas posts operated by the Department. The Department informed the Committee that it was aware of the problems and that a joint management review was in progress. The Committee also suggested that the Department review the finance overseas regulations and, where necessary, seek permission for special procedures. The Committee is pleased that the recommendations of the joint management review and its other recommendations have been largely implemented. In conclusion, the Committee is generally pleased with the responses contained in the Finance minute. However, it wishes to stress again the need for timely responses to its recommendations. I recommend this report to honourable members. Debate resumed from 1 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr McPhee 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 SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.19) -Madam Deputy Speaker, may I add my best wishes to those you have already received. You will, of course, find your duties in this House very easy. The members are invariably courteous to each other. They are attentive to the rulings of the Chair and listen very carefully to all arguments which are put no matter how heated the occasion may become. It is in all ways a model House. It will make your burdens very much easier. Madam Deputy Speaker, having wished you well, I now proceed to the Sex Discrimination Bill. This Bill has been the subject of many views which have been expressed in this House. Those views are very sincerely felt-be they for the Bill or against it, or as I am, I think, half in favour and half against. Probably the most considered contribution was that given by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman). His criticisms of the Bill were thoughtful and ones which we should all look at. I do not propose to repeat them, but I simply say that I helped the honourable member for Wentworth to prepare a draft Bill of which he has given notice. The purpose was to bring before this House a Bill which would concentrate upon conciliation and do away with very much of the peremptory and authoritarian provisions in this Bill. Granted that the Government has had the good sense to agree to a number of amendments, which have made it a very much better Bill than it was, it still remains a very bad one. It is prolix in expression, cumbersome in procedure, legalistic in effect and authoritarian in spirit. On the other hand, it should be clear and brief and should emphasise conciliation because we are dealing with a very human problem, that is, discrimination. Discrimination is a social problem and a problem of attitude. It is a problem of individual attitudes and one which in many ways is very hard to pin down. One has to be very careful before one brings to bear on that kind of problem provisions which are more apt in examination, for example, of a failed company. I wish to add to the criticisms made by the honourable member for Wentworth some specific criticisms on the provisions in Part III, Division 3 and in Part IV. These provisions, or at least some of them, are evidently based upon special investigation provisions in the Companies Act. I had two or three years experience at the Bar in the implementation of these provisions when I was conducting special investigations. Apt though they may be for investigating the affairs of failed companies, they are not at all apt for the role of conciliation which is essentially what we should be concerned with. Clause 75 in Part III, Division 3 makes provision for evidence on oath. Clause 76 provides for the retention and copying of documents by the Human Rights Commission. In clauses 80 and 81 we have provisions for elaborate determinations to be made by the Commission expressing views upon a variety of matters such as whether redress should be made and whether damages by way of compensation for any loss suffered by reason of conduct complained of should be made. Clause 82 provides for proceedings to be brought in a Federal Court to enforce a determination made pursuant to clause 81. This can be brought by the Commission itself or by a complainant. Clause 89 is in the 'offences' section. Under this clause it is made an offence to fail to furnish information when called upon to do so. Under clause 90 further offences are created, including offences in relation to failing to attend as required by summons, failing to appear and report upon a certain day unless excused and refusing or failing to be sworn. Clause 91 provides that where one has been called under clause 89 to furnish information or produce a document, it is not to be an excuse that to furnish that information or to produce that document might incriminate one. The evidence of the furnishing of the information or document by a person cannot be used against that person in other criminal proceedings, say, for proceedings in an offence of a specific kind under this legislation. That is a gross invasion of the privilege against self-incrimination. We all know that once information has been obtained, there are always ways of proving the facts from other sources. As a protection, that protection is largely illusory. It is because of provisions of this kind, because of provisions of the kind referred to by the honourable member for Wentworth and because of the tenor of the Bill that one can approach it only with the gravest of doubts. It is anti- liberty and pro-authoritarian in much of what it seeks to achieve. Therefore, whilst I support the Bill, I do so rather like the honourable member for Wentworth, making a giant vote of trust in the Government-the Government which is really conspicuous for its lack of concern for individual freedoms; indeed its contempt for individual freedoms. The arguments which have been put against the Bill are many. It would be very hard for anybody to quarrel with the proposition that we all agree that, so far as is possible, an attempt should be made to eliminate the various forms of discrimination which exist against women. In supporting the Bill, reluctantly though I do, I must say that I do not agree with those who say that the Bill is an attack on the institution of marriage. I do not believe it is. I believe it is badly expressed. I have other criticisms of it of the kind that I have briefly made, but I do not believe it seeks to attack the institution of marriage. I do not think that is the purpose of the Bill and I do not think it should prove to be subversive of that institution, which really is so central to any sane, decent and worthwhile society. Let me for a few minutes say something about the position of women in our society. From the time of the suffragette movement we have been conscious of the fact that women have been saying that they were not equal and were not treated equally. We all know that in the time of that movement, particularly in Britain, civilised men behaved in a quite uncivilised fashion. The vote which was given in Australian States, either late in the nineteenth century or early this century, certainly has not ended the equality argument. Let us ask ourselves these questions: In our experience of life, are women equal and treated equally? Have honourable members considered how difficult it has been in the past for a woman to get a bank loan? Times are better now but most certainly that has been extremely difficult. Have honourable members looked at the number of women who hold senior positions in major public companies? Have they asked themselves why the numbers are so small? Have they looked at the women in professions? I have seen the position of women in my profession. It has been perfectly plain that for a woman to get ahead at the Bar of New South Wales she must be just that much better than any man. It is not a question of being equal. It is a question of having to prove that she is in fact better than her competitors. Indeed, have we not all heard the words: 'Well, look, you cannot really take her on and treat her seriously, firstly, because she is a woman and therefore her views are bound to be somewhat suspect. Secondly, she will go away , get married and have children, will not treat work seriously and will not be really serious about making her life at the Bar'. I give that instance as an area that I know well. Are not common attitudes the bedrock test of whether discrimination exists? We all know that discrimination exists. Some of us are willing to do a little more to eliminate discrimination than others. Can laws help to change attitudes, particularly laws as badly framed as the one we have here? The quick answer is no. It is true that changes in attitudes on questions as personal as the ones we are looking at now are individual and social matters. It is really a slow accretion of perceptions which gradually permeate society and so cause a change in view, rather as a river slowly changes course over the years. But how does this come about? It comes through education. It comes through people realising that certain situations should not be tolerated, that change is needed. It comes from social advocacy. It comes, in short, by all the means by which any great change in social attitudes is brought about. It is perfectly true that laws cannot make us good, but they can help to prevent conduct we judge to be wrong. They can help to ameliorate some ills. They can help to open some doors and they can help to prevent some doors from being closed. For all the criticisms that I make of this Bill, I think we must realise that it is the only Bill we will see in this House. Therefore, I believe that we should, with reluctance, support it because its underlying objects are right and because its underlying objects accord with the view that I think most of us have of our society. Therefore, I will support the Bill even though I have the gravest of reservations about the way it seeks to bring about something which, in the end, is achieved on a personal basis and is best achieved through a process of conciliation rather than through the highly legalistic and authoritarian system that this Bill proposes. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(4.32) —The Sex Discrimination Bill we are debating at present is that which passed the Senate on 16 December 1983. The original Bill introduced in that chamber in June 1983 was superseded by the introduction of the current Bill on 29 November which contained 53 amendments to the original Bill. That Bill itself was further amended in the Senate prior to gaining approval. I mention these matters because it has been said by many people and oganisations in the community that the Bill has been rushed through Parliament without a reasonable period being set aside for public comment and discussion by senators and members. This, of course, is not the case. I know of no recent legislation which has been given such a lengthy period in which individuals and community groups have been given the opportunity to make their views known to the Government. The provisions of the Bill can be summed up very succinctly by saying that they seek to bring an end to discrimination based on a person's sex, marital status or pregnancy where such discrimination occurs in the work place, in educational institutions, in accommodation establishments and those places which advertise the provision of services and facilities and the sale of goods. In this day and age there should be no need for such legislation, but unfortunately there is. Although some states have enacted similar legislation, others, including the Territories, are allowing their citizens to be placed in a position where at times they are being discriminated against. This legislation will give every person throughout our nation the opportunity to enjoy equality. It sets out to extend the horizons of, and to expand the opportuntities available to, women in our community who represent over 50 per cent of our population. It does not seek to stereotype people or to force them into a style of life they do not want. Rather, it gives people, male or female, the chance to live a life of their choice. When the original legislation was introduced in June last year, there was an outcry from many individuals and community groups, including many religious organisations and educational authorities. Many of the complaints were aimed against the provisions of the legislation itself, and many against the fact that , coupled with the Government's decision to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the legislation would take away the rights of many women who chose to take on or retain the role of housewife and mother and remain in the home. Many of the complaints were genuine and proper, resulting in the original legislation being amended quite considerably. It is significant that the 53 amendments made to the original legislation were carried out by the Government, because a number of members, including myself, were not happy with many of the original provisions. It is all very well to legislate to give people more rights, but such legislation needs to be balanced so that the rights and beliefs of others are not jeopardised. Many of the complaints, however, were quite scurrilous and mischievous and created only fear among many well meaning people in the community. I have considerable sympathy for many in the community who were misled by some of the false propaganda. They were told that their dearly held beliefs and values were in danger. Many signed petitions which accompanied some propaganda material. Some of those petitions were presented to people as they were leaving church on Sundays. Those people who signed the petitions were saying to the legislators that they did not want the value of the family unit undermined, their children taken away to child care centres, mothers being forced into the work force, or the very great differences between men and women to be submerged in some unisex existence. They were saying that they did not want our educational institutions prevented from employing people who shared their values and beliefs. I have great sympathy for such people because they had just cause for concern, a concern shared by myself. However, I have no sympathy for those who perpetrated outrageous propaganda, much of which was downright dishonest. One of the persistent misinterpretations of the United Nations Convention is in relation to article 2 (b) which states: To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women. This extract from the Convention was quoted by those who tried to put a fear into people as if there were no limitations and as if it implied some move towards a unisex society. It is a pity that those who sought to misinterpret the Convention did not quote Article 1, the fundamental article which gives a definition of the term discrimination and which restricts its meaning to the cornerstone concept of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 1 in full reads: For the purposes of the present Convention, the term 'discrimination against women' shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. This is the first article of the Convention which governs all subsequent articles. Disrimination is restricted by definition to the basics of human rights and fundamental freedoms which, of course, puts paid to many of the petty complaints and distortions, including the assertions that it would give women the right to abortions on demand. I assure those people to whom abortion on demand is anathema that I too consider it so and would not support this legislation if I thought it altered the existing laws in this regard. It has been said that this legislation will affect the family unit. This is not so, although other legislation may do so. I refer to such as the discriminatory provisions of the existing Income Tax Assessment Act which taxes single income families at a greater proportionate rate than two income families. Even with the spouse rebate, single income families pay more tax. This is an area to which I believe the Government should give greater attention, as the family unit is the cornerstone of our democratic society. History has shown us that to ignore the importance of the family unit is to bring about society's downfall. I have a very great regard for those people who cherish the family unit and for those women who choose the vocation of being a housewife and mother to that family unit, with the husband as the sole breadwinner, being the only one in full time paid employment. It was in this type of family unit that I was born and raised, and it is in this type of environment that my wife and I have raised our two children. Those people who choose that type of life will not be affected by this legislation or by any other legislation brought before the Parliament by this Government. I will quote from a statement the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made in this chamber on 10 May 1983 in response to a question from the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), who sought an assurance that women who chose life within the family would not be forced into the workforce. The Prime Minister said: I certainly can give the assurance that the honourable member seeks. I would just very briefly like to make the point that this Government is concerned to ensure that adequate legislation and appropriate practices are operating in this country so that the discrimination which has existed in this country against women shall be brought to an end. Very fundamentally we will be taking steps within the education and employment fields to see that from the very beginning of a young girl's education the education system will operate in a way which will not preclude the opportunities being available for them to enter a wide range of occupations which hitherto have tended to be closed to them because of the inbuilt prejudices of the education system. It is appropriate, and I believe we would have the support very largely of all of the members of the House, to proceed in that way. Having said that and having enunciated and affirmed our commitment in that direction, which I know has the total support of the honourable member, nevertheless I accept the point that we must not, in our enthusiasm to eliminate those forms of discrimination, ignore the fact that a very large number of women see the total fulfilment of their aspirations and their happiness in terms of the family-the role of wife and mother, of sustainer and supporter, and the upbringer of children. It is a noble and appropriate role for those who see their total fulfilment in it. There is absolutely nothing that this Government will do which will in any way prejudice women who quite appropriately make that choice. Indeed, the range of policies that will be adopted by my Government will ensure that families and women discharging that role will be given the greatest opportunity of achieving fulfilment and satisfaction for them and those dependent upon them. I trust that that statement will ease the minds of many women in our society who have chosen not to pursue a business career. I wish to deal now with a number of matters relating to the legislation about which many people in the community have expressed concern. I do so in an attempt to dispel such fears and to put those provisions of the legislation in a more logical and fairer light. One of the most contentious issues was whether the legislation gave women the right to demand an abortion. The Right to Life Association of Australia obtained the opinion of an eminent Queen's Counsel, who advised that even prior to the amendment of the legislation by the alteration of clause 32, there was no concern. Clause 32 states: Nothing in Division 1 or 2 applies to or in relation to the provision of services the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to members of one sex. However, because there appeared to be some fear in this regard, the Government introduced clause 32, which resolved the problem of interpretation. Unfortunately, the Right to Life Association New South Wales still persisted with its objections in regard to the matter of abortion, and indeed took some time to recognise that the Bill did not allow abortion to be demanded by women. Whilst I realise that differences of opinion can occur between associations having a common cause, it is difficult to accept the sometimes insulting insinuations made against Christian members of parliament who are making a conscious and conscience decision on the matter. Members of the Government may make a conscience vote on this legislation and, as I stated earlier in this debate, I would not support the legislation unless I were satisfied with its provisions. I suggest to the Right to Life Association and the movements connected with it that they get their act together and approach moral questions from a sound, sensible middle ground if they are to be given credibility and acceptance by parliamentarians and other members of the community. Another issue raised is that the legislation should have a conscientious objection clause which would allow persons to decline to perform or participate in the performance of any act which would be contrary to the genuinely held conscientious beliefs of that person. I have given this matter very serious consideration and I have come to the conclusion that if a conscientious objection clause were inserted in the legislation it would make the legislation non-effective and non-workable. To give people or organisations such a let-out would only perpetuate and legalise much of the discrimination which occurs at present against both male and female members of our community. It would give credence to such situations as the refusal by some hotel keepers to serve people from the Aboriginal community or to provide accommodation to them. I could give many other examples but I do not think it necessary to do so. For these reasons, I have given, I cannot support the inclusion of such a clause. Other Acts of Parliament which incorporate a conscience exemption section, such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the National Service Act, are quite different in nature and are very restrictive and necessitate proof of conscientious objection, in some cases before a court of law. Clause 22 of the Bill has also invoked a deal of concern from a number of organisations which are worried that pharmacists may be forced to supply goods such as abortifacients or pregnancy controls to women who demand them. The simple solution is that if a pharmacist does not wish to stock such goods, there is no obligation on the pharmacist to do so. If a pharmacist did not stock such goods, he would not commit an act of discrimination under the legislation as he would not be in a position to supply the goods to any person. So the sex or marital status of any customer is irrelevant. A further consideration in the refusal by the pharmacist to stock such goods could be his or her concern about the nature of the goods and not about the sex of any potential customer. I believe that the legislation under debate is necessary. It follows the pattern established in anti-discrimination legislation, which has been operating successfully for a number of years in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The Bill covers both direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy, and its provisions embrace both male and female persons in Australia. Government members are pleased that the legislation is generally supported by the Opposition parties, as outlined by the Opposition spokesman on this matter, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), and we are pleased to hear that if honourable members opposite had remained in Government similar legislation would have been introduced in 1983. It is also significant to note that the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women was signed by the previous Government, whilst its ratification was, of course, completed by the present Government. The need for such legislation has been made apparent by the number of complaints received in those States where anti-discrimination legislation is in operation. The area of most concern, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), is that relating to the disadvantages suffered by women when dealing with the finance and banking sectors of industry. The administration of the Bill is vested in the Human Rights Commission, the functions of which will include holding inquiries into and making determinations on complaints, hearing applications for exemptions from the Act and examination of existing and proposed legislation to ensure its consistency with the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act. The day to day investigations and examinations will be carried out by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who will be established under the Act. In order that complainants are not prevented from proceeding with complaints because of costs, the Bill makes provision for applicants before the Federal Court to receive assistance having received the approval of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), if the need should arise. Arrangements will be made so that advice will be readily available to persons about the rights and remedies available to complainants so they will be able to make an informed choice as to the course of action most appropriate to their circumstances. This Bill is about ending discrimination and not about changing chosen lifestyles or about the way in which people work and live, and for that reason I support the measure. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(4.50) —This is the third day on which the Parliament has addressed the Sex Discrimination Bill. Honourable members speaking to it at this juncture could be excused for feeling that they were engaging in an exercise in tedious repetition-even more so given that there appears to be a common accord within the chamber in that the principles contained in the Bill are supported without demur. One could fairly ask, why then the division, why then the need to maintain a somewhat lengthy debate? I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the reason is to be found in the amendments moved by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). The most important, as far as I am personally concerned, is that which relates to the head of power. We are aware of course that the head of power is attached to the international convention signed and supported by this Government and the Government that preceded it. At first blush, the document to which we refer, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, is non-abrasive. In the main, it reconciles completely the deeply held views of most Australians. It contains nothing that would occasion particular offence, other than in those clauses to which exception has been taken and concerning which the Australian Government has given notice that it would not necessarily respond. The Convention could almost be described as innocuous insofar as it does not break new ground. It declares that certain conditions prevail throughout the world and indicates attitudes that should appropriately be adopted towards them, but it strikes me as singularly odd that the United Nations and its instrumentalities can be charged with falling lamentably short of those noble objectives that were declared post-war-objectives to which everybody related and which everybody saw as holding high hope for world stability and the advancement of human society. Sadly, but predictably, the United Nations has fallen short of that lofty objective. As an Australian, I resent that we should be dragged by the nose to some international convention to be reminded of our derelictions in this country , with the suggestion that we lack the wit or inclination to remedy those deficiencies, should they exist. When we look at the world as a whole and measure the extent of human distress and hardship it becomes almost a nonsense to say that this country must hasten to remedy the deficiencies set out in the world charter. I say that against the background of our society and economy, given the substantially favourable circumstances in which our people labour. Of course there are aspects to which one can point and of which one can say that they leave a lot to be desired. But when one realises that hundreds of millions of people who are under the mantle of the United Nations Organisation will derive no benefit from the charter, insofar as they comprise societies wherein the female is regarded as little more than a chattel, one realises that those countries will be totally unresponsive to the Convention. So here we have another classical example of a type, sadly, increasingly found in respect of United Nations instrumentalities, of a tendency to exert influence on what I might describe as the goodies and to display a deplorable impotence in respect of having the baddies measure up. Therefore, it is my firm belief that Australia should possess the will and the competence to introduce legislation that will at least fairly signal the ambitions of the Federal Parliament, without having to resort to an international covenant. The arguments about the extent to which the Covenant intrudes upon the sovereign rights of the States have been well canvassed. I shall not canvass them again. My objection to the head of power simply relates to the fact that I, as an Australian, resent most strongly the implication in the measure that but for the Convention we would have continued to be totally derelict concerning the distress or disarray in our society, as alleged to exist or as existing. So I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava and shall stand on it. If the House lacks the inclination or wit to adopt it, I will have no alternative to opposing the Bill whilst upholding the principles contained within it. In common with all other honourable members, I have been subjected to unending petitioning by concerned people within the society, people who are both for and against, and it is clear that much of the criticism is born of fear rather than fact. Why should that fear exist? Very substantial ground for fear was laid in the original Bill, which was quite draconian in intent. The affirmative action it contained foreshadowed the dismantling of a society to which we had become adjusted, a society that we found comfortable, a society in respect of which we would accept change by way of a process of gradualness consistent with the ambitions and sensitivities of our people. The Government had backed away from affirmation action. One might well say: 'There is now nothing to worry about; why should the fears exist'? Those fears keep showing up and it is the little things that give the show away. The Bill stands as a declaration of principle that we could all support but it is fair to ask what the spirit behind the Bill is. What is the motivation for it ? Where may it take us? Speaker after speaker on the Government side has insisted that the Bill in no way constitutes a threat to the traditional family, yet we heard from the other side one who professed support for the Bill say- rather than that because of her family rearing responsibilities she was confined within the home, or was prevented from engaging in outside activities-that for all of that time she was imprisoned. There was a stridency in the use of the word, one could almost say an element of hysteria. How in the deuce can the Government, if it is to describe the traditional family situation as representing imprisonment for a woman, claim that this Bill does not carry an element of indictment of that very style of life? The Government cannot have it both ways. Having reassured people outside who got in touch with one expressing their apprehension, that there was nothing illegal or malevolent in the Bill, one had also to add that some people who had addressed themselves to it had been motivated by bitterness, resentment, or a particular life experience. We cannot have it both ways. If the Government wants to convince the people of Australia that there is nothing of a potentially malevolent nature in the Bill it must refrain from making comments which give the game away. One cannot describe the traditional family lifestyle as imprisonment and at the same time expect people to believe that the Bill is not suggesting to the traditionalists in family society that they are lamentable failures, that they are being denied, that they are suffering hardship, that they are imprisoned-that they should break away and change their lifestyle. What can they do? They can of course enter the work force just to accommodate that implanted notion. Certainly they are welcome to and have done so. I was rather surprised when the honourable member for Balaclava, in his inimitable fashion, as the opening speaker for the Opposition, addressing the House in his usual most persuasive manner, quoted certain statistics attributed to the Centre for Government Studies of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology under the heading 'Women Who Work in Local Government'. The statement that made me prick up my ears was: Statistics indicate high levels of participation in the work force by women, together with an increasing trend for women to return to work after child bearing. They now more closely than ever approximate-- I emphasise the word 'approximate'- male rates of participation in the work force . . . in Victoria in 1982, women made up 45.7 per cent of the work force . . . 63 per cent of working women were married while 41 per cent of married women were in the work force, as compared with 13 per cent in 1954 and 25 per cent in 1964. This trend is supported by American data. I suggest that, notwithstanding the absence of any legislation of this nature on the statute books, it has all been happening. The female-and I describe her as such for want of a more appropriate expression that accurately defines her sex; a suggestion has been built up over the years that perhaps this is a derogatory term, but it is certainly not my intention to use it in such a manner-has progressively attained emancipation. This has all been happening without legislation being on the books. So why do we now have to introduce legislation to achieve a state which substantially has been achieved thus far? This has all happened of its own volition. I am not saying that women should not be in the work force. Of course they can choose to be in the work force, whether in order to accommodate their ambitions in respect of a higher standard of living, as in many cases, to meet the esentials of subsistence. We get ourselves into knots about the less than favourable working conditions and emoluments attached to the employment of women . That, arguably, could be the case. But we also have to look at what would be the consequences if, motivated by the most generous intentions, we elevated their salaries and conditions to a level which might be desired. Bearing in mind what the market place can bear, the result almost certainly would be that jobs would cease to exist. So this would be an empty victory. I ask those women who have been imposed upon, if one likes, because of economic and social circumstances whether they would rather work under those conditions or whether they would rather not work at all? We have to watch that we do not so restructure our society that the cost of attaching to it or penalty is more substantial than we would either invite or wish to suffer. Therefore, we have to keep things in perspective. We have to ask women and/or males who work in comparatively underpaid jobs to choose between the two points-that is, remain in some employment or suffer the consequences of being unemployed while we luxuriate in the notion that we have at least discharged our moral obligations to our fellow citizens. So, it is all happening. The prospect of females to advance themselves in society have been enhanced without the need for this omnibus legislation. We have encouraged all our young women to go to university. We have facilitated that objective by way of government decisions. We have naturally brought young women into a different environment, into an era of enlightenment in which they have been able to gain increased qualifications and broaden their horizons as a consequence, we saw a great invasion into the traditional work force and, as a result, the country has benefited. However, again we have to bear in mind the cost that attaches to such a change. Because of the emancipation of women and changes in the traditional family structure we witnessed in 1982 the extraordinary paradox of unemployment and employment levels going up concurrently. The reason is, of course, that the second member of the family-and I do not differentiate between sex-has elected to take up the right to enter the work force. If we reverted to the traditional family and social structure-I say 'if' because it is irreversible; it will not happen-it is reasonable to argue that there would be insufficient unemployed people to fill the vacancies that would be created. Hasten to say, I am not recommending that the female should go back to the home. I would find it totally acceptable if the male, by agreement, went back to the home to care for the family. That is not the argument. However, the simple fact is that we are suffering a socio-economic consequent as a result of too rapid a movement into a situation that we have not thoroughly canvassed. This creates probably one of the greatest problems confronting any government today-that is, how to cope with this massive social change. At the same time technology is compounding the difficulties. The whole point is that, whilst this Bill is laudably intended to be charitable , it will create enormous problems. For instance, how do we get on in terms of discrimination and harassment in regard to employment? Take the case of an employer who advertises a vacant position and is confronted with a male and female whose qualifications meet the requirement of the job. To what extent is the employer at liberty to feel an instant empathy, or a liking in simpler language, with one or the other. If the employer happens to choose the male, to what extent is he in a position to defend himself, and should he have to do so, for having chosen a male when it might be argued under this Bill that he discriminated against the female? These are the sorts of problems which, in the washup of this Bill, will create great difficulties. It is easy to say that we have to have child care centres to accommodate the requirements and ambitions of women or males who want to enter the work force. Mrs Fatin —Who have to work. Mr MILLAR —I grant that some have to work. But there is a difference between the essentials and that which is seen as desirable which must be measured against that which is attainable. There is a cost attendant on this which must not be confused with one's sympathies or inclinations. The reality is that in this place we have to budget year after year. The Budget is presently of the order of $57,000m and the ambitions of government are still frustrated. So, there is a cost. Whilst we can skim over the consequences of encouraging women to enter the work force, we cannot assume that the requirements resultant from that change can easily be met by government. It would be mischievious to suggest that that is the case. I began my speech by saying that I support the contents of the Bill in principle. However, I am absolutely dedicated to the proposition that it should not be based on a head of power relating to an international convention. I am hopeful that the Government will accept the Opposition's amendment because if it did there would be almost unanimous support for the Bill. If the Government fails to do so, I am afraid that I will be locked into my total conviction. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(5.08) —Let me say how disappointed I was by the criticism of the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) of the principle of equal pay. That seems to me to be advocating a return to slavery-a position which women have been trying to get themselves out of over a long period. Mr Millar —I did not say that. Mr HAND —That is the way it appeared to honourable members on this side of the House. I am pleased to be taking part in this debate on such an important issue. We in this place must reject the lies and half truths of some people in the Opposition , both in this chamber and in the Senate. Attacks on the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), such as the one by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) the other day, which was sectarian to the extreme, must be rejected as nothing more than the rantings of a minority sectarian group in our country. The Australian Labor Party went to the people of Australia with a clear commitment to end sex discrimination in the work place, in education and in the area of credit. Throughout Australia women and men experience discrimination on the basis of their sex and marital status. The Labour Government is pledged to establish a more just and equitable society. In the course of this debate much has been said of the fact that six Government members are in fact women. I wish to place on record that I think the Labor Party still has quite a considerable way to go. Six women colleagues of mine contribute to this place, but that is not enough. My Party has set about rectifying the imbalances that have occurred over a long time in relation to the role of women within the Labor Party. I look forward to the day when there are more women here representing the whole of the community. I look forward to the day when the first woman member of the Opposition in this modern era is elected. I would also like to touch on a point to which some people might take exception . It is a result of some observations that I have made since I have been a member of this House. It has disappointed me somewhat the way in which some members of parliament, because of their elevated positions or their own view of their elevated positions, tend to treat the women who work in this place. I have been appalled quite frankly at the rudeness that I have seen handed out to women who work in this establishment. I am sure that the males whom I have seen do this would not do this at home. I do not, for one moment, suggest that every honourable member does it, but I have seen some outrageous exercises in arrogance. I place that on the record. I hope that will change as a result of this Bill. The general outline of the Bill is as follows: 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 the Commonwealth laws and programs. The Bill also prohibits discrimination involving sexual harassment in the work place and in educational institutions. The Bill establishes a Sex Discrimination Commissioner whose function it will be to conciliate complaints of discrimination made under the legislation and to attempt to reach an amicable settlement. Where the process of conciliation is unsuccessful, the Human Rights Commission can inquire into the complaint and may make determinations as to future conduct. These determinations may be enforced by actions in the Federal Court of Australia. The objects of the Bill include those points already referred to plus a desire to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination involving sexual harassment in the work place and educational institutions and to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of equality of men and women. In view of the comments made by some honourable members opposite in opposition to these proposals, I will read the introductory comments made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) when she introduced the Bill into the Senate on 29 November 1983. She said: On 2 June 1983 I introduced in this chamber, a Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. On 20 October 1983 Senator Evans announced a series of amendments to the Bill-53 in fact-which had been decided following comments received from interested parties about the impact of the Bill in particular areas and comments about the conciliation and inquiry process. This Bill incorporates those amendments as well as some other changes I will discuss later. The following is an important point: Let me say that I do not apologise for the fact that there are numerous amendments to the original draft. In my Press release about the introduction of the Bill on 2 June 1983, I invited constructive comments. We received a lot of comments and they were all considered. Many of those who commented came up with ill-founded comments about the Bill, that is that it was a bad Bill because it addressed only some problems in our society instead of fixing all problems such as unemployment and poverty, in one miraculous swoop; or that it was a bad Bill because people who did not wish to have equality would be forced to be equal; and so on. It was not possible to change the Bill to deal with these comments but they were considered. Division 3 of the Bill relates to discrimination involving sexual harrassment. Clause 28 deals with sexual harassment in employment. Sub-clause (1) makes it unlawful for an employer or a person employed by an employer to harass sexually any employee of the employer or a person seeking employment with the employer. Clause 29 deals with sexual harassment in education. Sub-clause (1) makes it unlawful for a person who is a member of the staff of an educational institution to harass sexually a student or person seeking admission of an educational institution. As the Minister pointed out, the Bill does not attempt to deal with all forms of sexual harassment but only with sexual harassment which can be characterised as discriminatory in nature in the sense that it is linked to a belief that a rejection of an unwelcome sexual advance, an unwelcome request for sexual favours or other unwelcome sexual conduct would disadvantage the person in relation to employment or educational studies. The Government will consider how best to deal with other forms of sexual harassment and will be seeking the views of womens' organisations on this matter. The Minister also stated in the second reading speech: The Bill before the House follows the pattern established in anti- discrimination legislation which has been successfully operating for a number of years in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. Whilst this Bill is intended to apply throughout Australia the Government recognises that in these States the existing mechanisms have been successful in combating discrimination and the Government does not wish to interfere with their operations. Accordingly , provision is made in the Bill to ensure the preservation of State anti- discrimination legislation dealing with matters dealt with in this Bill and to enable that legislation to operate concurrently with the Sex Discrimination Act. The Commonwealth, in doing this, also leaves the option open for other States to introduce their own legislation in this area. We look forward to that occurring in the very near future. I would now like to make some general comments on the legislation now before the House. The Bill shows the Government's commitment to redressing the inequalities that exist within our society. I contrast this with the attitudes of some honourable members in the conservative parties, who are in opposition in this debate. I will come a little later in my speech to who is pushing those people from outside. Some months ago a letter was sent to all back benchers in the Opposition stating that the campaign against the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Bill 'has been led by women from privileged backgrounds who seem intent on preventing less privileged women from achieving a similar equality'. This letter was not sent by somebody from this side of the House but by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) who, with the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), made great contributions to this debate. I congratulate those two honourable members, not in a point scoring exercise but in a genuine expression of my views on this issue. The Young Liberal Movement has also condemned those in the Liberal Party who oppose the Bill. I quote now from a letter from Dame Beryl Beaurepaire which appeared in the Australian on 23 October 1983. The letter, in part, states: In July, 1980, while the present Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, was Deputy Prime Minister, the Federal Government sent me as deputy leader of the delegation headed by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott, to the United Nations Conference on Women's Affairs in Copenhagen. There, on behalf of the Australian Government, Mr Ellicott signed the United Nations Convention against All Forms of Discrimination Against Woment. . . . . . In ratifying the convention last month, the current Minister, Senator Susan Ryan, fulfilled the commitment made in 1980 by the coalition Government. Similarly, in presenting the sex discrimination bill to the Parliament, the present Government is fulfilling the commitment to equality of opportunity made by the Liberal-National Party Government. . . . Australians of true liberal principles have no alternative but to support it. It was signed by Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, Vice-President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Victoria Branch, East Melbourne. So, as honourable members can see, a significant number of people are having a lot of trouble with some of their representatives here because those representatives do not appear to be representing the views of their party. The Bill is about eliminating discrimination and about ensuring equality of opportunity. It extends the right of individuals. It does not entail any measures of compulsion or conscription. The Bill does not force women to go out and work. It does nothing to undermine the traditional role of women as child bearers and home carers. In this legislation the Government proposes equality of opportunity and to extend the right to all individuals. The Bill can only serve to improve family relations, not undermine them. I repeat, the Bill does not undermine family relations. I am glad that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is in the chamber. The honourable member for Franklin is distinguished in that he has joined forces with such organisations as Women who Want to be Women, the Right to Life Association and the Women's Action Alliance, a National Civic Council front organisation. Women who Want to be Women is the group which I think the honourable member for Balaclava described as a privileged group of women who are trying to prevent less privileged women from achieving the same equality in society. The Right to Life Organisation has a history of political blackmail unequalled by any other organisation ever to be formed in this country. That organisation is, in my view, one which honourable members would do well to ignore. As I have said, the Women's Action Alliance is another front organisation of the National Civic Council. It is a secret organisation which fosters hate and division among women's organisations and there is plenty of documented evidence to prove that point. I also include John Maynes amongst the supporters of the honourable member for Franklin. He commented in his report to the Federated Clerks Union National Executive that the Sex Discrimination Bill represents a direct challenge to a conscience and is a major concern for all those who believe in the rule of law and British justice. This outburst by Mr Maynes is typical of his group's attacks on the Australian Labor Party and its policies over a long period. I have found it interesting to read the speeches of honourable members opposite and discover just who among them has been pushing hard the NCC line in this debate. It would be wrong if I did not comment on Senator Harradine's remarks on this legislation which have been much quoted by the honourable member for Franklin and others. Senator Harradine without doubt is the greatest exponent of the Goebbels theory of distort, distort and distort and maybe people will believe what is said. Senator Harradine, for narrow sectarian reasons, has attempted to mislead the Australian public on this Bill. We have read Press statements by him which include outright lies. However, after all of Senator Harradine's chest beating, he refused to vote for or against the Bill. I put it to honourable members that this man who paraded around the country and condemned the Bill did not have the integrity, that other people showed, by voting against it. Senator Harradine is an opportunist of the lowest and greatest type. I remind the House that on 16 December 1983, when the motion was put in the Senate that the Bill be read for the third time the vote was Ayes 40 and Noes 12 . For the record, the Noes were Senators Archer, Bjelke-Petersen, Boswell, Sir John Carrick, Collard, Crichton-Browne, Jessop, Lewis, Scott, Townley, Walters and Watson. They were the twelve who refused to support it. It is interesting to note in Hansard the comments made as a result of the need felt by Senators Baume , Chaney, Durack, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Hamer, Kilgariff, Martin, Messner and Reid to have inserted in Hansard a statement which put their position so that they could disassociate themselves with those 12 other people. Part (c) of the statement read: The freedom of religious schools will now be preserved. The Bill cannot be used to force unwilling persons to participate in abortion procedures. The initial provisions infringing civil liberties have been removed. I think that puts an end to most of the arguments people on the other side of the House have raised. Every point raised in this debate by honourable members opposite has been countered either by people in their own party or by people representing the Government. I feel sure that history will condemn these 12 people and their supporters when their role during the course of this lengthy debate is examined. The Bill aims to ensure equality of opportunity for women and men through the elimination of unjust discrimination. The Bill does not, as has been suggested by some members of the conservative parties opposite, interfere with religious or family values-I repeat, it does not interfere with religious or family values -and will not force women or men into roles that they may not wish to undertake. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(5.24) —I support the general intentions of the Sex Discrimination Bill, if not its method of operation and the intentions of some of its supporters. I support the amendments moved by my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and will support the detailed amendments he will move in Committee. I understand the Government has declared its intention not to accept these amendments, although I hope it will reconsider its position. It would achieve much more broadly based support from within the community for its measure it it were to do so, without blunting the objectives of the Bill. There is a slightly unpleasant aspect to this debate. It is a pity, but the orgy of self-congratulation of honourable members opposite has not been an edifying sight, nor has the new-born adherence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the legislations principles been any more reassuring than his various other conversions in recent times. I suggest to honourable members opposite that their strident claims of Australian Labor Party superiority in matters of this kind rest on a flimsy foundation. I am firmly of the belief that we would improve the deliberations of this chamber with a higher proportion of women members. However , I remind the House that all six women members are here by courtesy of the electoral pendulum and face political extinction when it returns to its previous position. Much as I welcome the presence in a non-party sense of the honourable members for Henty (Mrs Child), Lilley (Mrs Darling), Canning (Ms Fatin), Canberra (Mrs Kelly), Phillip (Ms McHugh) and Chisholm (Ms Mayer), I remind them that they all hold marginal seats. They would be well advised not to adopt the cloak of immodesty adopted by their leader for, as surely as his facade cracks, as it will, so will their fortunes fade. What I am really saying to them is: 'Do not let a good cause be tarnished by tawdry politics. Do not invest too much of your good will, too much of your cause, in an unworthy vehicle; that is, the Australian Labor Party in its guise as a paragon of equality of the sexes'. Greater political participation by women requires a more secure base than it has within any of the three parties represented in this House. I do not decry the achievement of the Australian Labor Party in securing the election of six women to this House. It is a considerable achievement. However, it is important to examine the underlying changes that lie behind the achievement and to applaud solid building blocks, not window dressing. In 1977 I addressed a seminar in Sydney on women in party politics, conducted by the Women's Electoral Lobby. The proceedings were published in the Australian Quarterly of September 1977. I invite honourable members opposite to read those proceedings and to compare my address with that given by a representative of the currently ascendant faction of the Labor Party at that meeting. I am sure that after reading it they will understand why the only woman member in this House from New South Wales, the honourable member for Phillip, is not a member of that ruling faction. Having expressed my irritation at the somewhat strident self-congratulatory and partisan nature of the approach of Government members to this debate, I also draw attention to some of its consequences. In common with some of the more aggressive opponents of the Bill, these hyperactive proponents have missed an opportunity to educate the community in a balanced way as to what the objectives of this kind of legislation really are. Perhaps I can deal with this subject best by responding to the arguments of some of my colleagues on this side of the House who have opposed the Bill in its entirety or in part. Their objections seem to come under five headings. First, there are the objections that the Bill attempts to use powers of the Commonwealth that depend on what they regard as rather indulgent interpretations of the High Court of Australia. I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy with this view, and its concerns are reflected in the amendments moved by the Opposition. I have found it difficult to understand how the High Court could allow the Commonwealth to override the intentions of the constitutional compact merely by signing an external treaty to the opposite effect, but then I have never been sufficiently reverent about the legal system as opposed to certain fundamental aspects of human rights under the law. I understand that the Soviet Union and Iran have the most impeccable bills of rights entrenched within their legal systems, making a nice distinction between reality and the law. Fortunately, in our case, there is a closer fit but they never exactly coincide. Secondly, there is the related but not quite coincidental concern that the legislation infringes 'State rights'. The term 'State rights' is a difficult one for a Liberal until one realises that what is meant is not the supremacy of the rights of the State over the individual but the rights of regional governments vis a vis the central government. The issue is more akin to those involving disputes between sovereign nations, where people talk about rights under international law, whatever that is. Again I have some sympathy for this point of view, as I am a federalist and believe in the decentralisation of decision- making and the devolution of power to State and local government. Unhappily, however, I have observed over the years that many of the most strident advocates of States rights are those least willing to accept the full taxing responsibility in the exercise of those rights. Therefore, I am selective in my acceptance of this argument on an ad hominem or, I hasten to say, ad muliebrem, basis. If we accept the bona fides of the federalist argument-I certainly do so-as has been put forward by my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield and by yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, who do accept its financial implications, we still have to answer the question of those who believe that significant unfair discrimination against women exists in Australia and that processes of law should be used to redress the balance. If there is a minority in a particular State that believes it has little chance of persuading the majority to protect its rights, will it accept the status quo when it believes there is a higher court of appeal? Of course not. The minority will believe passionately in its cause and employ every legal means to pursue its objectives. In the course of history minorities have gone beyond that and have overthrown regimes that were legally entrenched in order to secure wider freedom. Of course , legally entrenched Liberal regimes have been overthrown by tyrannical ones too . But we are far from that here. We are operating well within the law. I believe it is possible to legislate nationally on an issue such as this without destroying the compact of federation. This legislation, I think, uses unnecessary powers to do it, but the States' rights objection would apply even to lesser legislation. I hear it, note it and understand it, but I believe the aggrieved parties have a stronger case. The third kind of objection to the Bill questions the validity of using legislation of this kind to try to reshape in some way the value systems of our society. Exaggerated claims have been made as to the kind of reshaping that is intended. Some proponents of the Bill do see it as a means of turning the traditional family upside down, but they are an extreme minority. Equally some of the more extreme opponents of the Bill accept these claims at face value and see the imminent destruction of society as we know it. If one agrees, as I do, that our society still discriminates unfairly against women in quite significant ways, one still has to answer the question as to whether legislation is an appropriate means of helping to redress the balance. As a Liberal, I do believe in using legislation to right wrongs and to change the order of society in a more equitable direction. Indeed, I believe that quite radical reforms are necessary in our society to remove some of the latter day tyrannies that have been set up supposedly in the interests of the masses. Honourable members opposite who claim the Liberal inheritance through what I regard as the polluted American Liberal stream happily condone the suppression of individual liberty through the excessively coercive powers of the trade union movement or through monopolistic education or health systems. My concern in recent years in grappling with the complex problems of modern economic issues has not diminished in any way my Liberal dedication to the cause of human freedom in its various forms. Indeed, I agree with Frederich Hayek that economic and social freedoms are indivisible, so I see my pursuit of economic choice merely as part of a larger framework of individual liberty. Thus if there is a legitimate Commonwealth power that can be used to assist all women in Australia to achieve genuine equality of opportunity why should that power not be used? By 'legitimacy' I do not mean the full technical extent of the law relating to Commonwealth powers as recently defined by the High Court of Australia. There have to be political constraints on the use of powers. The heads of power used for this Bill go well beyond what is legitimate in this sense, or even necessary, to pursue the objectives of the Bill. This leads me to the fourth kind of objection to the Bill which relates to the means to be employed to achieve the objectives. My colleagues the honourable member for Wentworth and yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, have made carefully considered speeches on this issue which must be taken into account. Honourable members who have spoken since you have also done so. I am not quite so alarmed as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, although your points are telling. I endorse fully the remarks of the honourable member for Wentworth and also his conclusions. There are better ways of achieving the objectives of this Bill and it will be left to a Liberal government to tidy it up. Finally, there are the objections raised in all sincerity by some of my colleagues, perhaps exemplified by the speech by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) who believes the Bill is an attack on the integrity and standing of those women who choose to remain at home. Those honourable members simply do not believe that massive injustices need to be redressed, or at least not to the extent that they would require legislation. Here we come to the heart of the problem and the reason I believe some kind of action is justified. Of course, there are women, possibly even the majority, who are perfectly happy with their complementary role in relation to men and have no burning desire to change the existing order. But I simply do not see how their position is threatened by improving the opportunities for participating in the spheres of those who make a different choice. This is not a zero sum game where increased opportunity for some is achieved only by a subtraction from others. It is like arguing, as the socialists do, the trade between nations must result in one or the other being exploited, whereas of course it is usually beneficial to both. More fundamentally, however, there is a paternalism in this kind of argument that quite properly invokes paroxysms of rage and frustration among women who wish to participate in a broader stream of events and find these barriers of total incomprehension of their feelings and aspirations blocking their path. Madam Deputy Chairman, this is the first time I have seen you occupy the chair since your elevation as Deputy Speaker. May I congratulate you on that elevation . In all logic, the arguments of those who are concerned about the role of those who choose to stay in the home could and indeed were used in England to deny women the vote. They have no more force now, I believe, than they had then. If legislation of this kind does nothing else, at least it draws the attention of the community to a problem which many people simply do not believe exists. Countless numbers of women in this community have received a second best education because their families put boys first. They face the same problems of being put down, not treated seriously in their work place, and seeing much less competent men taking senior positions. Also many of those seemingly contented housewives might surprise their complacent husbands if their innermost feelings were allowed expression. If legislation will kick this process of enlightenment along a little faster than the glacial progress achieved by the normal processes of change in our society by all means let us have legislation. If the form of the legislation is not appropriate, then let us tidy it up. I urge the House to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and to support the intentions of the Bill. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(5.37) —The Sex Discrimination Bill, when it completes its passage through the Parliament later this week, will become one of the finest achievements of this Government. Australia will finally catch up with the rest of the civilised world in making it unlawful to discriminate in matters such as employment, education, accommodation and the provision of goods and services. Our predecessors had seven years in which to bring in such a basic reform but, as the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) admitted in his speech on this Bill last week, it was not until just before the election a year ago today that they even got round to preparing a proposal for Cabinet. In seven years their only principle, if one can call it principle, was procrastination. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who spoke previously, quite rightly referred to glacial progress. This community knows where responsibility for such glacial progress resides. By contrast, this Government introduced this legislation in June, only three months after assuming office. Had the Bill not been subject to the disruptive and delaying tactics of the Opposition in the Senate, it would have been law by now. I commend those Opposition members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who have indicated their intention to support the Bill on the third reading vote. But regardless of the attitude of the Opposition, or of individual Opposition members, this Bill will become law and Australia will be a better place for it being unequivocally clear that this society will not tolerate discrimination against its members. It has long been accepted in this country that discrimination on the grounds of race is morally repugnant and legally impermissible. This Bill enables us to say that equally we regard discrimination against women on the grounds of their sex, their condition of pregnancy or their marital status as being equally repugnant and impermissible. Of course, the Bill allows remedies for men who suffer discrimination, but the major beneficiaries will be women who for far too long in this country have been obliged to endure the indignity and humiliation of being denied opportunities in employment or access to services, such as loans, because of their sex. This is a situation which no decent Australian would tolerate and the Australian Labor Party has long acknowledged its duty and responsibility to use its power, once in government, to make such practices capable of remedy by law. As with other important Government initiatives, the Government has shown a willingness to consult interested parties about the impact of this proposed law. As a result of representations which were put to us, and which we saw to be reasonable, the Government agreed to a number of amendments. I acknowledge, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the eyes of many, especially some women's organisations, these amendments were seen as diluting the legislation. I do not agree with that view, since the Bill before the Parliament today is faithful to its primary object, and that is to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. Those changes we did agree to, such as providing exemptions for non-government schools, in enlarging the scope of the exemption for religious bodies and in clarifying the situation regarding single sex services such as abortions and sterilizations, were done in order to have the legislation widely accepted within the community as fair and reasonable. I am confident we have achieved that aim. There is therefore no need for further amendment. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) has foreshadowed several further amendments. The Government will oppose these. I am confident that most fair-minded Australians will welcome this legislation, and I know it has far more widespread support in the community than one would ever judge from the malicious and unfounded attacks mounted by some Opposition members. In particular the Government regards as being a contradiction in terms the foreshadowed proposal to insert a conscientious objection clause into the Bill. The Government is mindful of the possibility that some persons could use such a conscientious objection provision to justify unacceptable and discriminatory practices. We do not propose to facilitate their efforts. Once this legislation is proclaimed all Australians will have an obligation to remove discriminatory practices or else face the eventual possibility of court action and public exposure. The Government certainly hopes that the Bill will provide the impetus for employers, educators and providers of services to remove any currently existing discriminatory practices, and that such court actions and public exposures will not often be needed. This has been the case in those three States where anti- discrimination legislation already exists and where many employers are responding by removing discriminatory practices and allowing women to compete on equal terms with men for employment and advancement. What this Bill will do is preserve the legislation already operating in those States and provide legislative protection for the hundreds of thousands of Australians who live in States where the governments have consistently refused to acknowledge the need for such legal protection for women and other victims of discrimination. The Bill is but one step in the process of ensuring that women are able to enjoy equal access to the facilities of our society, especially in the employment area. The Government has already announced that it intends to clean up its own back yard and will, this session, legislate to provide for equal employment opportunity for women and for disadvantaged minority groups in the Australian Public Service. Once that legislation is in place there will be no cause for any person to claim that the Government is not prepared to practise what it preaches. I acknowledge that some departments have already begun to implement equal employment opportunity programs in advance of the legislative requirement. I commend them for their efforts and note especially that the Department of Defence Support last week held a training seminar for its senior managers from around Australia to induct them into the new policy. I trust other departments will follow their example. The next stage in the process will be the issuing of the Government's Green Paper on affirmative action. I expect the Green Paper to be considered by Cabinet in the near future and it will then be issued for public comment and debate. Until it has gone through the appropriate processes I cannot disclose details of what the Government proposes. I can say, in answer to the scare- mongering nonsense raised by some Opposition members during this debate, and to a recent totally inaccurate newspaper report, that the Government has no intention of imposing anything on the private sector that is unrealistic or unworkable. It would be utterly counter-productive to do so. Indeed, we will proceed with our proposals in the same way as we have introduced other important reforms, through a careful process of consultation with the parties concerned; in this case business, trade unions, women's organisations and tertiary educational institutions. We see no point in imposing upon these important institutions of our society requirements which they cannot reasonably meet and we do not intend to do so. We are confident the Government's proposals will be well received by the parties concerned. Madam Deputy Speaker, this Bill itself will not, of course, create jobs or services where none exist. Nor will it necessarily improve women's access to the labour market. What it will do is ensure that women no longer suffer discrimination within that market; that if they are denied jobs, if they seek them, this will be because unfortunately there are still insufficient jobs for those who want them. No Act of Parliament can remedy that. The Bill has been accused of doing all kinds of things of which it is incapable. It can neither force women out of the home, nor require them to stay there. Nor, of course, should it. It will not influence access to child-care services or require children to be cared for in centres, as some Opposition members have, in fact alleged. I will take this opportunity, however, to repeat and to reinforce the Government's commitment to increasing and improving children's services as we undertook to do in our election commitment. We allocated an extra $10m to children's services in the last Budget, and have announced a firm commitment to spend $30m in this year's Budget. That commitment remains, because we know the importance women themselves place on having high quality children's services provided by the Government. The Leader of the Opposition acknowledged in his contribution to this debate on Friday that the future of a country lies with its children. The commitment of this Government is progressively to ensure that those people who want or need access to good quality child-care for their children will not be denied that service. I have already referred to the fact that this Bill cannot create jobs where none exist. The Government is committed to increasing employment, partly through our job creation schemes but more importantly by restoring growth to our economy so that the labour market expands. To date our record in this respect has been a good one and I am confident that the coming year will see the economy continuing to grow and with it a consequent increase in employment. We have already made clear with the community employment program, the Government's job creation scheme, that we wish women to have equal access with men to jobs. The CEP guidelines require 50 per cent of all jobs created to go to women. To date that target has not been reached, I regret to say, but it remains our objective and I commend measures such as that recently taken by the South Australian Government in appointing a full time officer to try to improve women's access to CEP jobs. I trust other State government's will take the necessary steps to comply with this requirement. For its part, the Commonwealth will also strive to achieve the 50 per cent target in the jobs created with its own direct funding. A committee chaired by Mr Peter Kirby is currently reviewing all labour market training programs. This committee has been asked to report specifically on ways to increase women's access to training and retraining. The Government is particularly conscious of the need for women to have such access and is aware that this need will increase as restructuring of our manufacturing industry proceeds. Women workers are among the most disadvantaged groups in the Australian work force. They, for example, lack the mobility of many of their male counterparts. This is especially the case if they live in regional centres. I am fully aware of the economic and personal havoc which can follow the closure of an industry, factory or other enterprise in a small regional centre and where, as is often the case, that enterprise had employed large numbers of women. The women retrenched in these circumstances usually cannot pack up husband, children and possessions and move to new locations. So, in developing its industry policies, the Government will pay particular heed to the problems experienced by women affected by industry restructuring. If we can replace pools of unemployment with pools of new and sought-after skills this will act as an incentive for new industries to establish themselves in the regions where those skills exist. In its approach to industry policy, the Government will not neglect the needs and problems of women workers, including that massive number of discouraged workers who are women and that even greater number of women who have given up for the time being looking for work because inherited unemployment is so high. The Bill before the House today cannot directly address these sorts of issues, and does not pretend to, but its introduction and imminent passage are a strong declaration by the Government of our firm intention to ensure that women have an equal and dignified place as citizens within our society. The Government's record in appointing women to boards and authorities is a good one. To date more than 60 women have been appointed to such boards and authorities. Subject to Executive Council approval, Hylda Rolfe will be appointed to head the Prices Surveillance Authority and I am very proud that this very important body, one which has a central role to play in the success of the prices and incomes accord, is to be headed by so capable and experienced an Australian woman. Women have also been appointed as members of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the Schools Commission, the Council of the Australian National University and several other major government bodies. Soon it will no longer be noteworthy that every batch of new appointments announced by the Government includes a number of women. I am confident that this very important policy of increasing the number of women on such bodies will have a very significant impact on Australian society. It not only allows women of talent to serve the Government and to take their rightful places alongside men as decision makers, helping determine the future of this country, but also provides for young girls positive examples of what women can achieve and what they themselves can strive for. There is also the increasing presence of women amongst the parliamentary ranks of the Australian Labor Party. This is a most important development. Just ten years ago there was only one woman member of this chamber-none other, Madam Deputy Speaker, than yourself-the honourable member for Henty, Mrs Joan Child. What a matter of pride it is for me that as, on behalf of the Government, I make this important speech, you occupy the chair. After your enforced retirement at the 1974 election there was, for a period of six years, not a single woman member of this House. It was the Labor Party which provided women with the opportunity to win representation in this place when, in 1980, the honourable members for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and Lilley (Mrs Darling) were elected, and the honourable member for Henty was re-elected. Twelve months ago today, when we won government, three more women took their places in this chamber-the honourable members for Canning (Ms Fatin), Chisholm (Ms Mayer) and Phillip (Ms McHugh). Next time, whenever that election is-I notice there have been speculative comments about it-there will be more. Mr Goodluck —God help us. Mr HAWKE —The invocation of the Almighty will not help the honourable member. In this rather feeble issuance of interjections, it is noteworthy that the Opposition parties do not have a single woman member of this chamber. I say, as a matter of pride that our party, the Australian Labor Party, is very proud also to have seven women senators. Given the dismal record of the Opposition, I was astonished to hear the honourable member for Balaclava attack this Government for phasing out the National Women's Advisory Council. We have moved to put in place more effective arrangements. Last week Senator Ryan sent letters to more than twenty major organisations, most of them women's groups, inviting each of them to nominate three women for possible inclusion on the new body. Senator Ryan has asked that the nominations be returned before the end of this month and she will announce shortly after that the composition of the new, and very representative, 20- member body. What we are doing contrasts dramatically with the position which prevailed under the previous Government. Honourable members will be aware that that Government herded the Office of the Status of Women, or the Office of Women's Affairs as it was then known, out of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and into the then low-ranking Department of Home Affairs and Environment , where it had no access to or influence on the Prime Minister of the day. The only concession it made to acknowledging that women might have a special view to put to government was in the establishment of the National Women's Advisory Council. But that Government did not even heed the advice of its own advisory body. On more than one occasion, including one Budget, the Council was obliged to make public criticisms of that Government for failing to look after the needs of women. By contrast, this Government has restored the Office of the Status of Women to its rightful place in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This Government has already put into effect a vast range of policy initiatives for women, including those I have referred to today, and it has announced its plans to establish a new consultative body for women. The new body will be an important complement to the other forms of consultation the Government is already undertaking with women. An Aboriginal women's task force operates from within the Office of the Status of Women and its two full time officers and eleven temporary regional co-ordinators are talking to Aborginal women in both remote and urban regions throughout Australia in order to be able to report to the Government in August on what Aboriginal women see as their needs and priorities. The Government has also established a women's telephone information service in each State capital. (Extension of time granted) Thirteen women have been employed by the Government under the community employment program to run these information services for women. The services will be opened officially in the next week or so. In addition the Government is moving to honour its commitment made during the Queensland State elections to open a shopfront information service for the women of that State. Queensland is the only State which is taking no steps to establish any form of consultative mechanism for women and so the Commonwealth has been obliged to fill the void by providing a means of access to information about government services for women. We have acquired premises in central Brisbane and advertised several positions, and I expect that the shopfront will open for business in April as announced. The Government's policies for women are extremely comprehensive; this Bill and the other measures I have already mentioned being just a fraction of what we are doing. I draw honourable members' attention to another extremely significant part of the implementation of this policy. Upon our election 12 months ago today, the Government established a task force of the permanent heads of the 10 government departments whose policy areas most concerned women. The task force is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Yeend, the Secretary to my Department, and it comprises the permanent heads of the Departments of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Education and Youth Affairs, Attorney-General's, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Industry and Commerce, Employment and Industrial Relations, Social Security and the Chairman of the Public Service Board. The task force has met twice so far and I am advised it will meet again shortly. I am expecting its first report to come to the Government before the end of this month and I am looking forward to hearing the measures suggested by the task force for ensuring that, in the implementation of all government policy, the needs and interests of women are an integral part of the process. I have already announced that I intend the Office of the Status of Women to have a central role in the formulation of this year's Budget so that our major economic decision will not be made in ignorance of their potential impact on women. The Government's commitment to raising the status of women, of which the Bill before the House is very much a prime example, extends into all areas of policy. It is a commitment we are determined to maintain. We have already achieved a great deal, but there is much more we intend to do. The passage of this Bill and its proclamation into law will be a very visible symbol of that continuing commitment. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(6.02) —I offer my congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to that high position because I believe that you are determined to uphold the dignity and status of this Parliament and this House. I wish you well in your office. I accept the good intent of many of those who support the Sex Discrimination Bill and I would not wish to attack either their motives or their sincerity. Whenever a government attempts in too great detail to legislate and enshrine human rights, indeed to define discrimination, it enters a very vexed, complicated, dangerous and controversial field. The more it goes along that path to protect against discrimination, the more it can-I emphasise the word 'can'- intrude on the rights of others even to the extent of discrimination. I want to say more about that later. We see in this Bill, despite the expressed intention to remove discrimination, which would be the desire of every one of us, results which could discriminate against the States, their constitutional rights to legislate in certain areas, as well as discrimination against individuals and families and their sincere beliefs and values. I will indicate some of the areas of concern I have and consequently only some of the reasons why I cannot readily support this Bill, despite my aversion to discrimination. This Bill takes us absolutely, finally, and, I suspect, irrevocably along the course of relying upon the foreign affairs or external treaty head of power. This Bill is an acceptance of a principle which is not within the spirit and intent of the Constitution. It is a device for cloaking with dubious legality legislation which the intent of the Constitution clearly defined to be that of the States and denied to the Commonwealth. I cannot and shall not support legislation, be it this Bill or any other, which deliberately relies for its respectability and legality on such a philosophy and on such a head of power. Indeed, this area of legislation is the province of the States. That clearly is the intent of the Constitution. This is reinforced by the clear evidence that the States believe this to be so, for a number of them have already legislated in this very area. Legislation is on the statute books of some States and has been there for some time. To some extent, the amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) seeks to remedy that defect in the Bill. Nevertheless, that is not the sole problem I see in this legislation. I have other serious objections. We are not talking only about discrimination in finance or some services, discrimination which none of us would condone. Although it has been claimed that affirmative action is not a feature of this Bill, it is quite clear that it has no real meaning or purpose unless we progress further to affirmative action. The expressed intention and course of the responsible Senate Minister is that on this seemingly innocent edifice a structure of affirmative action by further legislation is to be erected. Indeed, that is incontestable. When one embarks on that course one enters the area of reverse discrimination. The remedy designed to redress discrimination itself becomes discrimination enforced by and enshrined in the law. I point out the impositions which the Bill provides. There is no provision for conscientious objection on any grounds as other legislation involving human rights ought to canvass, if not specifically provide. I believe that is a very serious and a very severe omission. Let me now very simply put a proposition which should be fully considered. I can be and am willing to be called a wowser or a square, because I am committed to certain Christian and moral values and principles. As a parent, I believe I ought to have the right to commend those values to my children. When they are of age they will assess whether my actions, behaviour and life honestly reflect the words and advice that I have imparted to them. They will make their judgment and will espouse, reject, or modify those values; but I have the right to present those values to my children. One of those values is concern for the institution of marriage and the Christian teachings associated with it. That, of course, is relevant to my concept of the Christian family. Yet despite my beliefs and the precepts I impart to my children, against every principle I hold dear, if I have an apartment to let, I must let it even to persons in a de facto situation if I do not want to transgress the spirit and letter of this legislation. I would be accountable for exhibiting discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status. Thus I am seriously discriminated against. I am expected to abrogate values and principles which are most precious to me and integral to my way of life; otherwise, I transgress the law. I cannot honestly tell those applicants the truthful reason why I object to their tenancy. No matter what might be the morality of it, perhaps in vindictiveness against my Christian religion, I can be insulted, provoked, humiliated by word and action, and it can be demanded with the backing of the law that so long as the rent is paid they can use my property. Where are my rights? What about discrimination against me? Why should I be denied any right at all to act in accordance with my opinion or my view on moral or social issues? The applicants are able legally to force upon me, actions which offend my values and morals and make their values and morals superior in the eyes of the law to mine. This legislation, without any logical, rational or fair justification, except the vague description of discrimination, makes that judgment and forces it upon me. If I decide I will sell the property I am in a similar dilemma. If I know that the prospective buyer intended to institute a brothel, a witches' coven, a temple for Satan worship or the like, I have no defence if I refuse to accept the tendered purchase money for my advertised property if it can be alleged anywhere that sex, marital status or the like had any part in my decision. Yet it must be to some extent relevant. In either of those cases, if I am to be true to my conscience, I have to look for devious ways around the situation. I have carefully or cunningly to deceive as to the reasons I give; otherwise, I circumvent the law. Circumvention of the law is an equally unacceptable and undesirable action. The legislation in other senses transgresses the processes of reason. I agree that there ought to be no discrimination by reason of sex in occupations which can equally be performed by male or female. I have no truck whatsoever with the unreasonable view that certain jobs should be exclusively male or exclusively female. Yet there are jobs which can be more efficiently and comfortably performed by one sex or the other. I refer, for example, to heavy manual jobs such as wheat-bag lumping and the like. Should an employer be forced to reject an employee who can lift, say 60 bags an hour with comfort because he is a great big husky male, if a female, whose physical frame enables her to handle, say, 20 bags an hour, presents herself? On the face of it, if I were that employer I should have a right, even under this legislation, of employing the male. But I would have to be very careful in that situation not to insinuate that a woman may be less suitable than a man. If the non-preferred applicant is militant or vicious, there is plenty of scope or incentive to create trouble for me. I believe that this legislation does very much intrude on the right of employers to employ those who are best suited for the position that the employers want to fill. We enter the domain of education. In the interests of time, I do not want to repeat what has been said before and I cannot pursue the detail of my concern, but once again I want to state a principle. A matter of opinion which ought to be respected is whether education should be co-educational or otherwise and whether church-sponsored schooling meets the perceived needs of families. When we get into the area of education with legislation which talks about discrimination, we run the very grave risk of disciminating against, trammelling or even denigrating rights which many Australians hold most sincerely. That point has already been made here and in the other place. It ought not to be lightly disregarded or dismissed. It is not for this Parliament to decide whose human rights are paramount, nor is it the right of this Parliament or of any other parliament to eject values which are of proven virtue because of the militant nature of protests about discrimination. To increase advantages and opportunities for one, the risk is run of diminishing it for another, and that is incontestable. I suppose we still have to strike the balance. We have legislation which purports to expand opportunities but which must necessarily restrict them for others. It does impinge on family. It does impinge on our rights to old certain values and principles and to carry them out. It does seek to alter society. But whereas society may well need altering in some respects and whereas unfair discrimination is abhorrent and reprehensible, this type of legislation cannot be the most desirable vehicle to achieve that. It will not change the nature of people. It will not make a saint out of a devil. For all its good intents, it is more likely to lower standards than to exalt them. It shows the virtual impossibility of trying to lift morality by legislation. The law has never been capable of that. To try to legislate human rights and human standards of behaviour is a task which unfortunately requires a wisdom beyond the reach of mortal man. We end up with greater problems. Drinking could not be prevented by prohibition. A look at Chicago and in American history experience will illustrate that. Education is a far better weapon. Illegal gambling was not even slowed down by anti-SP legislation, and so the saga can be extended. We have to try to educate. We have to get an acceptance of principles in the minds of the Australian people if we are to achieve those things that we all desire. It cannot be done by legislation . It has never succeeded. It never will succeed. Discrimination will not be overcome by this Bill. Only by the elevation of human compassion and concern can we reach that desirable goal. We can easily delay its achievement by attempting to enforce it by legislation of this nature. That is my concern, and I have given some of the reasons why I have severe apprehension about this Bill and why I cannot support it. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(6.14) —I am pleased to take part in this debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill. Indeed, this is an historic Bill. What can one say about the speech by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann)? I really have grave doubts about it and if his thoughts are the results of Christianity-I claim to be a Christian-no wonder people are leaving it in droves, because the thoughts the honourable member put forward are not really Christian thoughts. My comments on this Bill will be brief, not because I do not have much to say, but speaking at this time in the debate I find that most of the arguments have been covered on both sides. I am amazed that in 1984 there should be any opposition to this legislation, but the Opposition, especially the honourable members from Tasmania, still has the ability to amaze me in this House. I congratulate the speakers on this side of the House, my female colleagues as well as my male colleagues, for their excellent contributions. Some of the speakers on the other side of the House have also made excellent contributions. I refer particularly to the contribution made by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). Mr McGauran —And Gippsland. Mr HOLLIS —I will deal with the honourable member's contribution later. The speech made by the honourable member for Darling Downs was a contribution I would have been proud to have made myself. But the same cannot be said about all the contributions from the other side of the House. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) agonised over State rights. I suggest his agonising would have been better directed to righting the discrimination that has existed against women for far too long in this country. Australia is a male dominated society. We are wasting the talents of about half the population of this country . I thought honourable members opposite were economic rationalists. So on economic grounds alone one would expect them to support this Bill. I am unsure what to say about the contribution from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). I have a degree of respect for him as a person-he is a nice chap-but I was shocked at his contribution. His argument might have been more appropriate 50 years ago, but surely we have progressed from those days. How will the contributions to this debate from the honourable member for Gippsland, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) or the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) read to future historians? I thank the honourable member for Franklin-unfortunately he is not in the chamber-for helping with this legislation because after listening to him, how could anyone with any intelligence at all agree with him? His cowardly attacks on two outstanding Australian women are to be deplored. He made the point that he was a Catholic and as such was opposed to the Bill. I am a Catholic and I support the Bill, as many Catholics do. I lived abroad for a number of years and the thing that struck me when I returned to this country was the absence of women in positions of responsibility -even minor positions of responsibility. No one can tell me that Australian women are less intelligent than their male counterparts or than women in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom or wherever. The reason women were not and are not in positions of responsibility is that in Australia we have for far too long been a male dominated society. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) said that under the former Liberal Government Australia was represented at the Stockholm conference. But what he did not say was that the delegation was led by a man. Some representation! The honourable member for Braddon in his contribution said words to the effect that we on this side of the House come into the chamber preening ourselves because all the women members are on this side. As members of the Australian Labor Party we are proud that the ALP has selected such excellent candidates and that the people in their electorates in their wisdom elected them to this House, and what excellent members they are. The honourable member asked about the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Even in the Labor movement I will admit the result is not perfect, but the ACTU is making a significant effort to correct the imbalance. The ACTU now has a woman executive member, Jenny George. Mr McGauran —Only one as well. Mr HOLLIS —It is more than the National Party has. The honourable member's party does not have one woman amongst its members. The excellent work of ACTU advocate Jan Marsh is very well known. The New South Wales Trades and Labour Council has two women executive members, including one vice-president. The Victorian Trades Hall Council has three women executive members, including one vice-president. The Western Australian Trades and Labour Council has two women executive members , including one junior vice-president. The Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council has a woman executive member, who is also the vice-president, and-wait for it-even Tasmania has a woman executive member on its Trades and Labour Council. Amongst provincial trades and labour councils there are: Two women secretaries, one secretary/treasurer, one president and one junior vice- president. At this stage I make mention of the South Coast Labour Council, of which I am a proud member. Some 25 of the delegates are women. They play an active part. I refer especially to Faye Campbell, south coast organiser of the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia and executive member of the South Coast Labour Council. Big business and its sycophants have been unable or unwilling to keep pace with the significant advances that have been made by the Labor movement. Liberal and National Parties opposed equal pay for women in this Parliament and it was not until 1972, when Labor gained power, that women gained this basic right. All of the women's units which exist in the Australian Public Service exist only as a result of initiatives of Labor governments. Funding for these units was opposed by the Liberal and National parties and was cut back when those parties were in government. Like all honourable members, I have received a lot of correspondence on this topic, including from Women Who Want to be Women, or who want to keep women in the kitchen, and a group called Council for a Free Australia. Babette Francis has been maintaining a somewhat disjointed correspondence with me. The only thing I can say, as the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) might say, is: How can they have got it so wrong? They have either not read what is proposed or have deliberately distorted it. I was pleased that my colleague the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) adequately put to rest the nonsense being peddled that this legislation has been rushed through. There has been adequate time for consultation. I have been shocked at the false and misleading statements that have been put about. As the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) has said, there has been fearmongering concerning the legislation. How strong become the voices of reaction when attempts are made in some social fields to drag Australia screaming and kicking into the twentieth century! We must question the motives of those, including honourable members opposite, who would keep us in the Dark Ages. I refer to the actions of those who, by alarmist tactics, have endeavoured to frighten the community. Some people have indeed been frightened. I remember one day when a group led by that great libertarian, the Reverend Fred Nile, was in Canberra. It included two women from my electorate. I went to see them and, as I walked across Kings Hall, they cried out: 'Please Mr Hollis, don't take the little babies from their mothers'. Half an hour later, despite some honourable female members as well having tried to talk to them, they were still convinced they were right; their minds were closed. Some of the scaremongers are suggesting that suckling babies will be torn from their mother' s breast and put into creches, while their mothers are forced back into truck driving or whatever. As my colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) said, it is claimed that women will be torn from their knitting needles and put into manual work. That is the kind of scaremongering that has been going on in the community. My constituents can be assured that, under this legislation , little babies will be safe with their mothers. Mr McGauran —That is a red herring. Mr HOLLIS —It was not a red herring to the women you scared the daylights out of , the women who thought the Government was going to take the poor babies from their mother's breast. My colleague, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) mentioned the percentage rates of women in the Public Service. I would like honourable members opposite to consider the participation rates of women in tertiary education and then argue, if they dare, that discrimination does not exist. Some 28.8 per cent of persons employed as lecturers are women; 17.5 per cent of all senior lecturers are women; 3.5 per cent have managed to become assistant professors and, wait for it, 1.3 per cent of all Australian professors are women-yet there are fools who say that there is no need for this legislation . To my knowledge there is no woman vice-chancellor of any Australian university . I am sure that an investigation of other senior administrative posts in Australian universities would reveal a dearth of women. Throughout my life I have been opposed to all forms of discrimination, be it racial or on the grounds of sex. Discrimination is unnecessary and unjust. Legislation will not eliminate discrimination because it is a sickness of the mind but, by setting the mood, it can create a climate that is much more favourable to its elimination. I welcome this long overdue legislation and commend the Bill to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.25) —Mr Deputy Speaker, not even acute laryngitis will deter me from placing on record in this national Parliament, briefly and succinctly, my views on this extraordinary legislation. As was clearly stated at the commencement of the debate last week: 'Both the Liberal and National Parties are committed to the removal of discrimination against individuals on whatever basis'. Both our parties are totally committed to true equality of opportunity for all Australians, as our record in government proves beyond doubt. My argument therefore is not with the stated principle which this legislation purports to serve; it is with the vehicle itself, the Bill before this House, that I find myself in a position of irreconcilable conflict. This is an appalling piece of legislation, one of doubtful constitutional validity. It is based on a premise which threatens death to federalism: it is badly drafted; it is ambiguous and imprecise; it is destructive of basic and fundamental rights and freedoms and itself constitutes a denial of the principles of natural justice. In so many ways this Bill offends the fundamental precept of our Constitution wherein all Australians are guaranteed 'one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth'. In so many ways this Bill offends both the rule of law and individual rights in a parliamentary democracy. In so many ways this Bill constitutes an attack upon our traditional values, the importance of the family as the fundamental unit of society, and our traditional Australian way of life. The Bill relies heavily upon the recently broadened-and in my view dangerously extended-interpretation of section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution, the external affairs power. Whilst conceding that there are parts of the Bill with which I have no quarrel whatsoever, I have to say that the legislation as a whole is tainted with the pseudo-intellectualism of selfish and unrepresentative feminism and doctrinaire marxist-socialist precepts of contrived equality-defying even the laws of nature . This Bill, in so many ways, brings down upon itself the maxim reductio ad absurdum. It therefore does a grave disservice to the principle it espouses. I have, on legal grounds, a strong dislike for what I call neon sign legislation, which attracts a lot of flashing publicity, but is ill-prepared and in the ultimate is more likely to harm the cause than help it. Whilst acknowledging that there are many supporters of this legislation who genuinely and sincerely believe that it will advance the status of women in Australia, I find myself in the position where, after careful deliberation, I have concluded that, at the very least, this Bill, if it becomes law, will be counter-productive and counter -productive in the extreme. I have no doubt that I will be attacked by Government speakers who follow me in this debate and I might well be attacked by members of my own Party who disagree with the views which I have just expressed. There has been so much pressure applied in the months leading to this debate that it has now become the fashion to brand as sexist-chauvinist any male parliamentarian who dares to even question some of the provisions of this legislation. As one who has fought discrimination whenever and wherever I have found it since I first entered Parliament back in 1966 I can point to my voting record in the Tasmanian Parliament and in this place to vindicate my contention that my commitment is genuine and has been consistent during a parliamentary career which now exceeds 16 years. I will not be stampeded, coerced, or intimidated into supporting legislation which I believe contains many grievous errors, wrongs and injustices , simply because if I do not act as these arrogant minority pressure groups demand, I will be branded with appellations which the electors of Denison will well know are false and without any substance whatsoever; in short, I will not permit myself to become a victim of the well known tactic of blackmail by smear and innuendo. Unlike some in this House I do not claim a monopoly of wisdom. Unlike some others in this House I do not claim for myself infallibility. I simply say that, mainly on constitutional and legal grounds, I find myself committed, both in reason and in conscience, to opposing this Bill because I do not believe that it is in the interests of the overwhelming majority of Australians. Accordingly I intend to vote against it at the third reading, unless in the meantime it is acknowledged that the implications and ramifications are such that the Bill should be subjected to a detailed parliamentary inquiry before it is inflicted upon the people of Australia by the Hawke socialist Government. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(8.00) —It is always nice to speak after the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who made some rather wild claims in his speech on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. Among other things, he said that the Bill, on his reading, goes against the fundamental precepts of our Constitution, that it is an attack on the traditional values of our society, that it is tainted with psuedo-intellectual Marxism and that it is defying the laws of nature. The whole thing is just a razmataz of adjectives for which the honourable member for Denison is well known. He said nothing, which is usual for most of his speeches. He has used this debate to take a broad sling at everybody in the community who defies his views. Unfortunately the proceedings are not being broadcast so he could not get to the people of Tasmania for them to understand his dazzling wit. It is the attitudes expressed by the honourable member for Denison and people of his ilk that have made the fight for equality by women of this country so difficult. We have heard some incredible claims by members of the Opposition during the passage of this legislation, none of which has particularly addressed itself to the issue but many of which have been aimed at confusing or scaring sections of the electorate. The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond), who is not in the chamber at the moment, said that by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women we all would somehow come under the dominance of the communist bloc. He talked of the hypocrisy and humbug of Marxist tyrannies that control the United Nations. To back up his assertions, he claimed we are already under foreign domination and that foreign conventions have already been used to subvert State authorities and trample on the rights of individual Australians. In case honourable members are wondering what he was referring to in that case, it was the World Heritage listing and the saving of the wilderness in South West Tasmania. Honourable members may well ask what this has to do with a Bill to assist women in overcoming discrimination in this country. That is a very easy question to answer-absolutely nothing, as was shown in the speech of the honourable member for Denison. These red herrings are what the Opposition uses in place of reasoned and rational debate and are aimed only at creating confusion amongst the citizens of this country. But the honourable member for Forrest-I wish he was in the chamber now-went on to suggest that by ratifying the United Nations Convention we would allow Iran, Libya and the Soviet Union to have inputs into our national life. He said that this will destroy our parliamentary system. What rot. One of his unenlightened colleagues, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), who unfortunately is still also in the dining room, said the legislation is a plot born out of the international feminist movement to satisfy its inner desires. 'All sorts of things are being done', he said, 'to encourage women to leave home'. I am not quite sure what that means either. What I would like to really know from the Opposition, and especially some of our neanderthal comrades from the National Party of Australia, is why these men are so afraid of legislation that in fact only affirms and reaffirms the rights of women to be treated as equal citizens in this country. There have been many other contributions from members of the Opposition and, with a couple of notable exceptions, none of them has properly addressed himself to the question. Most of them have attempted to read into the Bill some of the most incredible fantasies we have heard since Freud and perhaps in the case of the honourable member for Denison, Kinsey. The constant talk about how 'decent' people all oppose this Bill and how 'thousands of normal, healthy Australians are up in arms' is so much humbug. I am sure that there are thousands of normal, healthy Australians who are madly enthusiastic about our legislation-I refer, of course, to the vast majority of women in our society with whom the honourable member for Denison does not have much to do. What is more worrying is the way in which these people have gone to the electorate to wind up certain groups and to contribute to some rather strange views, to say the least. I would like to quote from a few letters sent to me over the last few months, as other members of this House have been doing. Of course, many of them use identical words and sentiments so they obviously originate from a central campaign. One of the key phrases in the letter writing campaigns was: In my understanding of the Bill, it concerns me that there will be a profound effect on family structure and family life as we know it. Let me give a few random quotes from some other letters, which honourable members will find have been substantiated by members of the Opposition in their speeches. One letter states: In the Bible which is God's word to mankind, he describes women as man's helpmate. That is our basic role, one of the homemaker and because the family is ordained by God, it is a sacred tennent to be tampered with at our own peril. To quote another: The authors, a minority group of foreign females of doubtful heritage and intent, who, aided and abetted by a few local radical minority groups, have somehow been able to manipulate a few gullible politicians in our parliament into supporting them. To quote again: My husband and son did not risk their lives defending our way of life only to have it torn to pieces by the Australian Government caving in to the pressures of a well-organised radical group. And again: We believe our children should be taught by adults who teach and promote healthy family life not homosexuals who will pervert our children's minds. And again: Why should the Russians tell us what to do with Australian women. Again: Australia will become a Soviet-style country whose daily portion is oppression. Again: I protest your enforcing all independent schools to adhere to government controls such as non-sexist policies, including the banning of books and customs etc, which make distinctions between men and women. Again: This devastating and alarming proposition will endanger the religious freedom of individuals and the rights of parents. I am sorry, but I received a lot of letters too. Another letter stated: One-sex toilets-an absolute embarrassment to those not brainwashed into thinking that men and women are both the same. I say: What about aeroplanes? Mr McGauran —This is irrelevant. Mr STEEDMAN —The honourable member is right; it is irrelevant. But that is the sort of material we have had from many members on the honourable member's side of the House, including a large percentage of National Party members. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland is out of his seat and interjecting. Mr STEEDMAN —I understand that this comes under standing order 58. Other letters state: Women will be put into the armed services on combat duty. Their children will be farmed off to people too old to fight. . . . . Australian men will be home washing dishes while the wife (of the year) is out slaving for a living. . . . . If the Government denies our students the right of access to the Bible, God's inspired word, then those members of parliament who consent to this anti-God policy will have to absolutely answer to almighty God for their actions. . . . . Tiny tots will become puppets to a regimented creche system. This is very reminiscent of the speech recently given by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), who told us about women who said that they will have children ripped off their breasts and other such fantasies that are fuelled by certain members of the Opposition. Mr Speaker, I realise that I have gone on at some length with these quotes, but I feel it is necessary to establish the sort of hysteria that we as a government have had to contend with thanks to the Opposition and the extremist groups it controls or winds up within our society. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) mentioned all the groups with which he is associated-a great little crew they are! I realise that there are some people in our society who may have genuine doubts about sections of this Bill, but they are not being helped by the extremist groups claiming to represent them. One of these is the group known as Women who Want to be Women, which brings up a very good point-do they not think they are women at the moment? There are very confused people in this group. We also have the Women's Action Alliance which anybody, except the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), with a limited mentality would understand is run and controlled by the National Civic Council and, as the records of the NCC conferences show, is actually run by a man. Yet, many innocent women have been conned by the rhetoric of these National Civic Council operatives who pretend that they are really only representing the middle ground between the so-called radical feminists and the Women who Want to be Women. So, Mr Speaker, opponents on the other side of the House have not directed themselves to the question and have attempted only to muddy the waters. However, the big question is: Why are those men on the other side of the House so afraid of women? I think that this is where we get to the crux of the matter. Just have a look at them-there is not one woman representative on that side of the House. But what big men they are in the members' bar-oh, yes, real butch Aussie lads that group, but watch them duck for cover when a Labor woman walks through. The real problem we have with members of the Opposition is that basically they do not like women and, more importantly, they are scared of them. They are so inadequate, they are so badly socialised, they are bred in such elite vacuums that they cannot communicate on a social level with women. They are totally inadequate and they cannot relate to a woman on equal terms. But if one tells them that they will pull out pictures of their wives and children and no doubt boast of their sexual prowess. Mr Speaker, they just do not understand. Let us get down to the real issue and make the honourable member for Gippsland a little happier. Other speakers from this side of the House have covered all the differing aspects of the Bill. They have quoted the statistics, the records, the instances of discrimination and harassment and they make very interesting reading in the Hansard. In my maiden speech to the House in August last year I referred to my female comrades who, I said, had laid to rest once and for all the myth that women cannot win mass support from the electorate. But while the electorate can accept women as members of parliament, it seems that Opposition members of Parliament cannot. Honourable members should look at the blatant sexism and hypocrisy being practised by the Liberals in Victoria. Prue Sibree, the State member for Kew and one of the only two women in the Legislative Assembly, is under threat by 14 others for her pre-selection. Why is this young, articulate and educated woman under threat from her own party? She is under threat basically because she is separated from her husband. Is not that fantastic? A woman finds her marital situation is unsatisfactory and takes a course of action that dozens of her male counterparts have taken but her morals are suspect. What if this double standard had been applied to, say, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the Gucci Kid, the hanger-on and groupie of the Hollywood stars? What if he had had to face this sort of moral outrage that has already been perpetrated in Victoria against a member of the Victorian Liberal State legislature? This is the modus operandi of the Liberal Party and its farmyard cohorts. But while the hypocrisy of the Opposition is apparent to all with eyes and ears , it is the attitudes they represent that are so harmful to the rights of women in this country. Despite the many battles fought by the progressive elements in our society and the many women's groups which are able to articulate the problems, the position of women will not be dramatically changed by the passage of this legislation. Many middle class and educated women will be able to take heart at the principles expressed in the Bill, but it will not change the attitude of society. The educative process is a long and slow one and this legislation is only the first step in that process. But what of the women in real trouble? What of the lower income earners, migrants, single mothers, or working class women who may never even hear of this legislation? What of the women in the factories and the women about which honourable members on the other side of the House have no knowledge whatsoever because of their born to rule problems? While the Opposition is trying to keep all these women at home by the bed and the sink, to quote perhaps, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), what of the women who have to work to support a family? What of the women who do the dirtiest and lowest paid jobs in our society? What of the migrant women trapped in a cycle of poverty with an unemployed husband, several children, and a low paid job, perhaps gutting and packaging poultry on hard concrete floors for 12 hours a day in circumstances that are reminiscent of a Dickens novel? What of the women with no education and training who, through circumstances not of their making, are forced to eke out an existence, supporting their children on welfare, with no opportunity to gain a job or education to improve their lot? What happens to their children when they join that cycle? The greatest resources we have in this country are its people. But we treat a large proportion of them as second class citizens and do not make available to them the resources that may enable them to break the poverty cycle. This is what we are talking about: A fair go for the women of Australia. Not all of us had our seats in Parliament bought for us by our fathers as did the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Many honourable members do not have the resources to go to law school with a Mercedes on each foot. This legislation may increase the awareness of people of the plight of many women in society. As I said before, it is only the beginning. Until the women's movement, the trade union movement and the State and Federal parliaments address themselves to the real problems confronted by women in our society and go out into the streets and see the conditions that many people live under, anti- discrimination will be only partly effective. The born to rule, keep them in the house attitude of many honourable members of the Opposition coupled with the hysterical and untrue statements they are making in this House and in the other place will contribute nothing to the redressing of these social ills. I am thankful for the time given to me to address this Bill. I am thankful for the interjections from the young member for Gippsland who obviously, apart from his father buying him a seat, does not have the intellectual capacity to put two words together. I am thankful to the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) for being here once again to make his usual contribution to this House which, as usual, is nothing. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(8.15) —There is discrimination in our community against women. That has been made clear by many honourable members in very thoughtful speeches in this House. The contribution made by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) did nothing for the debate. If he accuses honourable members on this side of the House for being extreme then I recommend he go and carefully read Hansard and what he has just said because his contribution to this debate and some of the obscene accusations which he made against honourable members on this side of the House do him no credit nor do they do credit to the Government to which he professes to belong. Examples that have been given by honourable members in this debate have shown that, unfortunately, women from all walks of life in our community, whether they be from the Public Service, commerce, the professions, the thousands of work places around the community or whether some of the homes in our community, are discriminated against. However, I will be voting against the Bill. I recognise that there is discrimination and I recognise the objects of the Bill are very laudable and ones that I can endorse completely. For example, the Bill seeks to eliminate so far as is 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, the disposal of land , the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also seeks to eliminate, so far as it is possible, discrimination involving sexual harassment in the work place and in educational institutions and, finally, to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women. If honourable members accept that there is discrimination, it follows that they must accept that they are excellent objectives. But as I said, I do not believe, despite the fact that they are the objects that preface this Bill, that the Bill should go through this House tonight and become law. I am against it. That is not because I am misled, ignorant or simply being mischievous, or that I am a chauvinist or, as the honourable member for Casey said, that, because I dare to get up and speak against the Bill, I am somehow being led by the nose by extremist groups. It is none of those things. I am against the Bill for four reasons. First of all, the drafting of the Bill has been slipshod; secondly, it does not deal adequately with the question of conscientious objection; thirdly, I have a suspicion that it contains hidden objectives; and, fourthly, the use of the external power. Let me speak, first of all, about the drafting problems. It is well known to all of us that the drafting of the original Bill was dreadful. The fact that 53 amendments were introduced by the Government in the Senate is stark testimony to that fact. However, despite those 53 amendments, I believe that there are still drafting problems which are unresolved. I believe that these unresolved problems lead to the fact that there are very serious questions which the Government has to answer which will lead to serious problems. Let me give three examples-I hope there will be time in the Committee stage to go further-that lead me to make the first criticism of the Bill. I deal, first of all, with the operations of the Human Rights Commission. Clause 77 states: (1) For the purpose of an inquiry, the Commission- (a) is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any such matter in such manner as it thinks fit. Clause 65, which, again, deals with the operations of the Commission, says, in effect, that there is no automatic right for legal representation. I believe that these clauses constitute a serious infringement of civil liberties. For example, given that sexual harassment could, I think, rightly so, be considered to be a serious offence under this Bill, a person facing that serious allegation has less protection in proceedings before the Commission than a petty thief may have in a proceeding before the court. If honourable members add to that the wide scope and power that the Commission has for the making of determinations, as well as what I regard as seriously infringeing civil liberties the Bill leaves a person facing a charge in front of the Commission with a very serious lack of protection. That is the first drafting problem I give as an example. Secondly, although this is a Bill which promotes the principles of equality between men and women, equality is not anywhere defined. Clause 4 of the Bill goes to great extremes and gives a profusion of definitions of other terms. It even includes a careful definition of a man and a woman but nowhere does it define equality. So what are we talking about in this Bill? Are we talking about equality of opportunity or are we talking about equality of outcome? I do not think the Bill answers that sort of fundamental question. This is another example of a serious drafting deficiency. A third example is clause 91 (1), which seems to say that self-incrimination is not a reasonable excuse for failing to furnish information or produce a document during proceedings before the Sex Discrimination Commission. I make the aside here, Mr Speaker, that I find it odd that this Bill should require a person to produce a document, insist that he appear before the Commission and insist that he give information that may incriminate him, yet this is the Government that shies away from those provisions in the proposed national crimes commission Bill. It has put such provisions into this Bill without much problem. That is one problem with this clause. Clause 91 (2) seems to cancel out the provision of clause 91 (1). So there are two aspects to be considered here-first of all, self-incrimination becomes a fact before the hearings of the Commission but, secondly, under clause 91 which deals with this matter, there is confusion as to how it will work. They are three examples of my first reason for opposing this Bill. I hope they will be dealt with in the Committee stage. I will raise other issues of a less serious nature; nevertheless, they are drafting problems. We then come to the problem of conscientious objection. Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill were the subject of much debate and questioning in the Senate when the Bill was discussed there. Senator Harradine is one whom I would single out as being much to the fore in putting the problems that these clauses present as far as conscientious objection is concerned. Senator Harradine and others pointed out that there is a need in Australia for genuine anti-discrimination measures but they should not operate so as to violate the integrity of conscience. I am sure all honourable members would have been aware this morning of a letter sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and published, for example, in today's Canberra Times, from the Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, Archbishop Carroll. He raised these two points, among others: The omission of any provision acknowledging genuinely held conscientious objection as a ground of exemption from any requirement of the Bill. The extent to which the Bill seems likely to limit the freedom of hospitals, pharmacists, medical practitioners and health-care professionals in areas where conscientious beliefs are involved. Many honourable members have spoken on both aspects of this lack of protection for conscientious objection. I am sad that the Prime Minister has already rejected out of hand any insertion of a conscientious objection clause in the Bill, without even waiting to hear the detailed debate that may take place in the Committee stage. I think the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) illustrated the point when he talked about the problems of landlords letting houses, so I will say no more on the matter, except this: We are all agreed that there is a need to protect a person's genuinely held, informed, conscientious belief. However, under this Bill conscientious belief, no matter what its basis, is not a defence against a complaint of unlawful discrimination. There is a need to protect conscientious belief, but this Bill does not do so. That is another reason I for one will not support it. The third reason I gave for querying the Bill was that it had secret motives, hidden objectives. When the Sex Discrimination Bill was first introduced by Senator Ryan in 1981, she made it very clear that there was a need for affirmative action in the Bill. We were subsequently led to believe, when this Bill was introduced, that it was to differ from that first 1981 Bill in that it expanded the grounds of unlawful discrimination to include pregnancy and sexual harassment but excluded the 1981 provision for affirmative action in private and public employment. Before I go any further, I think there is a need to define exactly what I mean by the term 'affirmative action' in this context. I do not mean just the introduction of positive programs to overcome discrimination in working conditions or job selection and so on, but positive discrimination in favour of women in employment opportunity, promotion, manager arrangements and so forth perhaps regardless of experience, qualifications, seniority or merit. Let me come to the point. Clause 26 of the Bill seems to make it clear that affirmative action is not included. That clause says: It is unlawful for a person who performs any function or exercises any power under a Commonwealth law or for the purposes of a Commonwealth program, or has any other responsibility for the administration of a Commonwealth law or the conduct of a Commonwealth program, to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person's sex, marital status or pregnancy, in the performance of that function, the exercise of that power or the fulfilment of that responsibility. That makes it very clear that affirmative action in the sense that I have defined it is out, as promised by Senator Ryan. We then come to clause 33, a very tricky clause, which says: Nothing in Division 1 or 2- under which clause 26, of course, comes- renders it unlawful to do an act a purpose of which is to ensure that persons of a particular sex or marital status or persons who are pregnant have equal opportunities with other persons in circumstances in relation to which provision is made by this Act. I believe that this clause means that any man discriminated against may lose any claim in the matter if the purpose of the discrimination was to give a woman equal opportunity. It is true that affirmative action, in the sense that it means positive discrimination, has not been made mandatory, but to my mind clause 33 authorises positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. So I believe that that has been inserted quite contrary to the assurances given by the Government that affirmative action would not be included. It is very much alive, at least to the extent that clause 33 does give authority for it. That is why I accuse the Government of introducing hidden objectives. This is a sneaky clause which has been placed in the Bill to allow affirmative action policies to be followed. Given the experiences of affirmative action overseas, it is undesirable. Such policies have resulted in quite unintended consequences. It caused a furore when it was introduced in America and Canada; it will certainly cause the same sorts of concerns in this country. I come to my last objection, the use of the external affairs power. The authority of the Bill relies on the external affairs power. I know there is some debate on precisely how much of the Bill, in practice, will depend on this power ; however, regardless of whether it is slight or otherwise I do not believe that this power should be included in the Bill. I say particularly, as a Tasmanian member and given the sad experiences of Tasmania over the Gordon below Franklin Dam, that anyone who believes in a federal system of government cannot support this Bill as long as that external affairs provision remains. In the dam case this Labor Government trampled all over the rights of Tasmanians and all over the rights of the Government of Tasmania. That was done in a most shameful way through the use of this external affairs power. If the Commonwealth wishes to legislate in this area and has to do it by using the external affairs power, it should confine itself to the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth Public Service. It should let the States get on with legislating in their own areas. I refer again to my own State. If the Tasmanian people want to have this type of legislation, let them persuade their Tasmanian Government to legislate. It is interesting to note that whilst members of the Government claim-I think that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) was the last one who claimed it-that they had a mandate to introduce this sort of legislation, let me remind the Government that in Tasmania the Tasmanian Liberal Party went to the people on a mandate saying that it would not introduce this sort of legislation. So that is what Tasmanians wanted when they voted for a Tasmanian Liberal Government. I return to the point: Let the Tasmanian people and other States which so wish it to get on with their own affairs if the only way to introduce this legislation is to use the external affairs power. In summary, I cannot support this Bill. The reasons I oppose it are: It is still badly drafted, it has omissions which could lead to serious consequences, particularly as the legislation affects the rights of individuals. It has concealed provisions for affirmative action which we have been assured have been specifically excluded. Finally, the legislation uses the external affairs power which is anathema to me, a member from a small State. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.31) —in reply-I wish to thank all honourable members for participating in the debate which has been of some length. As we can understand, there can be individual points of view, but I think everybody will agree with a convention which will eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. Certainly there may be some argument as to whether the way in which the Sex Discrimination Bill is drafted meets the criteria, but the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is for the elimination of discrimination. Surely nobody would make any exceptions to that. The previous Government, when Mr Ellicott was the Minister responsible, signed the Convention. I think it is significant to make the point that at that time expressions were made such as 'proud to be an Australian' and 'being active in the drafting of the text of the Convention which was accepted on 18 December 1979'. Without detracting in any way from the objections made by the Opposition, obviously Mr Ellicott felt that a very substantive contribution had been made by Australians in that area. It is also worthy of note, when one looks at the speeches made at that time, that the reason for the Convention was that there was discrimination in the world. There were enormous problems for women in the world and it was relevant. Dr Harry Edwards —Still are. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable member says, there still are. I think that is true. Australia was one of the first countries to sign the Convention. We were one of 57 countries which signed it during the Copenhagen conference. I believe those matters ought to be brought to bear in case it is thought that the Australian Government suddenly decided to bring it in immediately. It had a lot of support right across the political spectrum. Again, I make the point, because Australia is a federation, that the States were consulted before the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Ellicott, signed the Convention in Copenhagen in July. That ought to be put on record because the impression seems to have been created that inadequate consideration was given to some of the matters that have been raised. The real issue is the elimination of discrimination. One of the thrusts made by the Opposition spokesmen was by way of a second reading amendment relating to the external affairs power. There is no argument about using the external affairs power because it is a question of whether we have power to legislate. In this Federal structure we do have significant opportunities to debate the merits of whether we use the external affairs power or not, but we would use it if there were some doubt about the legislation. In other words, all legislation has to be related to a head of power. That comes from the Constitution. As we do have the external affairs power and as we entered into an international convention, it is appropriate to talk about it. To that extent we reject the Opposition's view that the legislation should not rely on the external affairs power. Surely nobody would want to weaken the Bill. The question would be that the Bill, in certain circumstances, might have to rely on that power. The thrust of the Bill is the elimination of discrimination. There are some notes on the external affairs power which clearly indicate that it was first brought to notice back in 1936 in what was called the Burgess case which related to navigation standards and the adoption of those standards in the international convention. But more particularly there has been a decision of the High Court of Australia in Koowarta v. Bjelke-Petersen, 1982. The Court considered the validity of the Racial Discrimination Act. The majority of the Court held that the Act was valid. Mr Justice Stephen was one of those who suggested that even if Australia was not a party to the Convention this would not necessarily exclude the topic as part of its external affairs. I quote from part of a judgment on the Koowarta case in which Mr Justice Mason makes a point: There is no reason at all for thinking that the legislative power conferred by s. 51 (xxix) was intended to be less than appropriate and adequate to enable the Commonwealth to discharge Australia's responsibilities in international and regional affairs. It is unrealistic to suggest in the light of our knowledge and experience of Commonwealth-State co-operation and of co-operation between the States that the discharge of Australia's international obligations by legislation can be safely and sensibly left to the States acting uniformly in co -operation. As the object of conferring the power was to equip the Commonwealth with comprehensive capacity to legislate with respect to external affairs, it is not to the point to say that such is the scope of external affairs in today's world that the content of the power given to the Commonwealth is greater than it was thought to be in 1900. The consequence of the expansion in external affairs is that in some instances the Commonwealth now legislates on matters not formerly within the scope of its specific powers, to the detriment of the exercise of State powers. But in the light of current experience there is little, if anything, to indicate that there is a likelihood of a substantial disturbance of the balance of powers as distributed by the Constitution. To the extent that there is such a disturbance, then it is a necessary disturbance, one essential to Australia's participation in world affairs. I think that was the issue at the time. Australia is in the international obligation field. We participated in the Convention. It was welcomed at the time by the then Minister as being a progressive step. Basically the legislation will prevent discrimination against women. The problems that we find in the world are not, to some extent, as horrendous as they are in Australia at present, but it is significant to think that discrimination can still exist. All this legislation will do is guarantee that we can remove discrimination. The Bill merely gives a method of complaint to a commissioner who would certainly be anxious to solve the matter by conciliation. If that was not possible the complaint would be referred to the Human Rights Commission. The Commission itself would have every opportunity to discuss the matter. If the Commission felt, and only then, that something had to be done it could impose the appropriate penalty. That in itself would not be enforceable unless the matter went to the Federal Court. So there is a whole series of steps which would certainly require a fair bit of examination and interpretation from the point of view of severity before anybody could really say they were suffering an injustice. It is well known by all of us that in the past women have not had the same opportunities as men. That is very clear. On Saturday I attended a university graduation ceremony in Sydney. It is quite significant that in the two faculties at which I was present, namely, pharmacy and the arts, women graduated in the ratio of 2:1 as against the males. That is a plus for Australia, but in 1933, for example, the figure was about 20 per cent. Many women could not get to university because in those earlier days they did not have the educational standards. At present at Sydney University female enrolments have increased to about 50 per cent. Forty years ago the figure was about 20 per cent. Mr Tuckey —What piece of legislation do you reckon achieved that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think it was because more money was allocated to education and women were allowed to participate in the secondary school system. The honourable member would know that his own parents probably would not have had the same chances as he had but, nevertheless, there was a discrimination against the woman. Mr Tuckey —It didn't take legislation to fix it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Karmel Committee on education indicated that more adequate financial resources were needed to get women there. It certainly meant that a father required a better take home pay to guarantee that his daughter had a chance to go to school. I am not just thinking fast while I am on my feet. The honourable member knows that things have improved but there is still no reason at all for discrimination. Because of the present position and the extensive debate that has taken place we do not accept the view that we should not be relying on all powers available in the Constitution. There are a number of amendments to be moved which we do not accept either. They were also moved in the Senate, and we will deal with them in the Committee of the Whole. I thank everybody from the Government side for their participation . It has been quite an extensive debate. I am pleased to think that we are about to pass this legislation into an Act of the Parliament, and I think it is not before time. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, we ask that the matter be now dealt with by the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Macphee's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Howe, B. L.Beazley, K. C. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beddall, D. P. Hurford, C. J.Bilney, G. N. Jacobi, R.Blanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh. J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Hawke, R. J. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Young, M. J.Hollis, C. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFisher, P. S. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Shipton, R. F.Hall, Steele Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 6-by leave-taken together. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(8.52) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 5, page 6, at the end of sub-clause (1) add ''and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances''. (2) Clause 6, page 6, at the end of sub-clause (1) add ''and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances''. I have moved those amendments to clauses 5 and 6, which honourable members will recall are definitional clauses in respect of sexual discrimination. This will not, of course, preclude honourable members from speaking on the other clauses. Clause 5 relates to the sex of the aggrieved person and clause 6 relates to marital status. I appreciate the willingness of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) to allow maximum time for debate on the second reading. I am also aware of the fact that the Government has a time limit on the Committee stage. Therefore, I will be brief and will not repeat all of the views expressed in the Senate, on behalf of the Opposition, when this matter was given a very full airing. I wish to quote two paragraphs from the speech by the official spokesperson for the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Martin, during consideration in Committee, as recorded at page 3698 of Senate Hansard of 13 December. At the end of sub- clause (1) of each of these clauses we seek to add the words 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. The reason for this is illustrated by Senator Martin's remarks, which were: I point out that the wording of clauses 5, 6 and 7 is identical to all intents and purposes except that they deal with sex, marital status and pregnancy respectively. However, in clause 7, the Government has the words 'the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances' in the same position as the Opposition seeks to place them in clauses 5 and 6. The Government apparently accepts that discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons who are pregnant can be justified on the grounds of reasonableness in certain circumstances. The Opposition suggests that the same could apply in the case of sex and marital status. I emphasise that it is not the Opposition's intention by introducing these amendments to negate the purpose of the Bill. That is not the Opposition's intention at all. However, I turned to the explanatory notes for some guidance why the words were contained in clause 7 at all. I found no explanation. I found repeated the words 'the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. But we have not had an explanation of reasonableness. This matter was debated, as I said, at great length in the Senate. I do not intend to repeat the arguments, but I must observe that the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) did not adequately answer the matters raised by Senator Martin on that occasion. For reasons set out in my speech on the second reading, as well as those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and others, this and other amendments are not aimed at diluting or negating the objects of this Bill. As I have said, they are objects to which the Opposition parties have been long committed. But we are concerned that, without the amendments which we propose, these clauses could apply to some quite unwitting action which might be deemed to be discriminatory when the person accused was acting in good faith and in the best interests of all concerned at the core of the action. It might be counter-productive to the public education of persons regarding discrimination to have such persons branded as discriminators. Surely any technical discrimination should not be held against an unwitting and bona fide action and should be weighed against the benefits of the organisation and, of course, the individuals concerned in the interests of the organisation. We put it to the House that it would be unjust to overlook the motivation of the alleged discriminator and consider the validity or merit of some other aspect of the judgment which is complained of. As has been circulated, the Opposition submits that to both clause 5 and clause 6 on page 6 of the Bill, at the end of sub-clause (1), should be added the words 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. With the leave of the House we intend to put those two amendments, because they are similar in effect, to one vote and one division. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(8.58) —I do not think it would be appropriate to let this opportunity pass without making some brief reference to the fact that we are now dealing with clause 3 (a), which contains one of the objects of the Bill; that is, to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women and to refer again to the fact that, following the narrow High Court judges' decision of 4 : 3 deciding that there should be a broad interpretation of the external affairs power in section 51 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth now has an opportunity, by signing a convention or a treaty, be it bilateral or multilateral, to take over responsibilities which have traditionally been the responsibilities of State governments and State parliaments. It is important to make two points about this clause. One is that, as far as conventions and treaties are concerned, there should be an opportunity for the public to know exactly what is in a convention or a treaty before it is actually approved by the executive arm of government, the problem being that the Minister of the day and some officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs might know in detail what is contained in a convention. They might know the fine print. But the public would not normally know in detail what is contained in a convention. The interesting fact is that once the executive arm of government actually signs the convention it thereby has a commitment to take all reasonable steps, including legislative steps, to enforce that convention. Thus, once that executive act is committed, the government of the day and, in effect, the parliament of the day at the Federal level is committed to passing legislation. So there should be a chance for full discussion in the public arena so that people know what is contained in a convention. Although many of the provisions of this Convention would be acceptable, I am sure, to the majority of the people in this community, many provisions in the Convention would not have the support of the community. I will not go into the details now because of the limit on time. The other point is that there should be a chance for full and proper consultation with the State governments because of the fact that the Commonwealth has this chance to impose its views on the States. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) mentioned earlier that there was in this instance consultation with the States. I wonder how detailed was that consultation. I think there needs to be greater involvement, because of the extensive interpretation of the external affairs power, of the political processes in the country. I do not recall when this convention was signed, any discussion, for example, in the party room of the joint parties. There may have been some, but I doubt whether there was any at all. I doubt whether there was very much discussion in the Cabinet room itself, yet we see now how important was that Convention. There should be discussion in the public arena, in the party rooms and in the Cabinet. There should also be in the future full and proper consultaion with the States. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(9.02) —Perhaps before the Minister comments I can assure the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) that in the previous Government's Cabinet there was a very full discussion on the decision of the then Government to agree to the Convention, to sign it, and to begin the ratification process with the States. That process had indeed begun at Attorney-General level and it was very far advanced at the time of the election one year ago. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(9.03) —I also just voice my objection to the way clause 3 is being used, as described by my colleague. I will not canvass the problems which the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) put so well because that would be wasting time. However, I take up the point that the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), just commented upon. I really would like to know just how much discussion took place, for example, with the State of Tasmania. Mr Snow —Ha! Mr NEWMAN —Honourable members opposite sneer, but it so happens that in the smaller States like Tasmania we believe in the Federal system and that we should have a fair say in what happens in this country. Everything that happens in this country does not necessarily emanate from the great brains in Canberra. I make the point that we are pretty bruised in Tasmania and that that will go on for a long time. The Government, whether in the end it gets its way in all these things, will still remember Tasmania and the use of the external affairs power over the dam. The former Labor Government in Tasmania intended to introduce a Bill similar to this. It was the subject of some debate in our community in Tasmania. There was an election shortly after the proposal to introduce this Bill started to generate debate in Tasmania. The effect was that the Liberal Opposition then went to the people on a clear mandate saying that it would not introduce this Bill, and it was elected to government. So like members of the Government who have claimed-- The CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member to make his comments relevant to clauses under discussion. Mr NEWMAN —They are absolutely relevant, Madam Chair. In Tasmania people did not want this sort of Bill. Rightly or wrongly, they opposed it; people may criticise them for that. But because the external affairs power can be used the legislation will be forced upon them. That is the point that the honourable member for Braddon made and the one I make as well. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.06) —The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his comments on clause 3 might explain to me how the Government proposes 'to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women'. I have read this Bill pretty well and it appears to me that although certain steps can be taken to protect a female employee or a male employee a female employer may have no protection if she decides to make some decision as to the type of person she might choose to employ and if she makes the horrible mistake of advertising her choice. Is there some difference between a female who achieves the rank of employer-- Mr Brumby —A stupid question! Mr TUCKEY —It is not a stupid question and the person who said it is a plain idiot. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Will the honourable member please ignore the interjections. Mr TUCKEY —When people talk like that they show they have no brains. What a load of bloody garbage! In all quietness and sincerity I asked the Minister at his next opportunity to explain to me the difference between a female employer and a female employee and where this Bill gives any rights to a female employer. I know there are no employers on the Government side; no one over there even understands what that is all about. If they want to achieve it, perhaps they should. I believe the Bill is significantly deficient in one of its objects as set out in clause 3. I repeat that object to the House: 'to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women'. In that object I do not see anything specific about the type of man or woman. If anyone on the Government side believes there is a difference after the achievement of a certain status, perhaps someone from that side would explain it . Ms FATIN(Canning)(9.08) —I will speak very briefly to clause 3. I will quote Senator Missen from the other place, who talked on the Convention. As reported in Hansard of 8 November, he said: One must realise that the Bill before us seeks to implement, in part, the terms of a convention-the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I think that honourable senators ought to be reminded that this Convention was signed in 1976 by a delegation of very distinguished women from this country led by the then Attorney-General, Bob Ellicott. It was important that the Convention should be signed and ratified. I regret there was a delay in the ratification while we endeavoured to get States and other organisations to comply with the provisions of the Convention so that we would not be embarrassed when it came to ratification. I think this Bill has had the support of the Liberal Party of Australia generally. I am proud of the fact that legislation of this type has been supported by the Liberal Party for many years. Although there are some in my Party who now appear to want to slide away from that support, I believe it is important that we have opposed discrimination which women in the community have suffered for many years. It is important that we do all we can in that regard. I very briefly quote further from this eminent lawyer: I want to draw attention to the fact that there are four objects in this Bill. I think the Bill reasonably implements them. The first object is to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It is important to point out that the Bill does not implement all the terms of the Convention; only some parts of the Convention are being implemented. Yet one would not get that impression from the nonsense which is talked in the community about how the Convention has been signed by a number of communist countries and therefore the Convention must be very wicked. I believe that the Convention is an admirable document which sets out very fairly the objects we should seek to remove discrimination against women. I felt it important that this statement be included in this part of the debate. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(9.11) —I will reply briefly . No amendments were moved to clause 3, but some discussion occurred. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised the issue as to what extent protection was available for a female employer. The same protection is available for a male as for a female. Mr Tuckey —That is not the question. I am talking about the whole thing discriminating against employers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, not in that sense. The honourable member raised the issue as to whether there was a distinction between a male and a female. Mr Tuckey —I used the case of a female employer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member raised the question as to what would be the position in the case of a female employer. There is no distinction. Mr Tuckey —That is not the answer I am seeking. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It may not be the answer the honourable member wanted, but it is what the Bill says. A matter about which the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) was concerned was whether there had been any consultation with the Attorney-General of Tasmania. I am advised, although the honourable member should know better than I, that there were discussions for some years with the respective Attorneys-General. I am very much indebted to the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), who is in charge of this Bill for the Opposition, for confirming that fact. I would be very surprised if there had been no consultation with the Attorney-General of Tasmania. The main thrust of the honourable member's speech seemed to relate to what was the position of State rights. The Bill preserves State legislation in clauses 10 and 11. I cite as an example a decision of the High Court of Australia last year relating to New South Wales legislation, Vioskauskas v. Niland, that the racial discrimination provisions were invalid, and the Government took immediate action to amend its own Act to insert a saving provision aimed at preserving the operation of State provisions. Similar saving provisions are included in clauses 10 and 11. In inserting these provisions the Government's wish is to make it perfectly clear that it recognises the valuable contribution made by the legislation currently in force in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria in combating discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status, and it supports the continuation of that legislation. It leaves open the option for other States to follow this lead and enact their own anti-discrimination legislation. I think that what I have said would satisfy adequately the qualms of the honourable member for Bass. I will deal specifically with the amendments moved by the honourable member for Balaclava, which are being moved on the understanding that there appears to be some lack of uniformity between clauses 5 and 6 and that part of clause 7 which states: . . . the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances. Clause 7 deals with pregnancy and its problems, which require special treatment. I will cite an example. A person might be entitled to say that it is unreasonable to hire a woman who is seven months pregnant when the job involved would be of some duration, say, for longer than three or four months. If the job were for only a few days, discrimination could be argued. However, one must look at the facts in that case. The Government cannot support the amendments to clauses 5 and 6. They imply that one is entitled to treat people less favourably , using the argument as to whether or not the treatment is reasonable. The onus of proof would be reversed. The point is that there is to be no discrimination. It is not a question of whether less favourable treatment is not reasonable; the question is that there should be no discrimination. Therefore, it is not reasonable at all. We see no reason for accepting the view that, firstly, there would be an exemption on the basis that less favourable treatment is reasonable. It should not exist. Secondly, if that clause were inserted, the onus of proof would be reversed. In other words, the person who suffered discrimination would be obliged to prove that it was not reasonable. We say that to treat people less than favourably is not accepted. We think that adequate exemptions are adequately provided in the Bill. Honourable members will find them in Division 4 , from clause 30 onwards. It sets out cases where exemptions can be made in special circumstances. For those reasons the Government does not accept the amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Hurford, C. J.Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 7 to 27-by leave-taken together. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(9.23) —by leave-I move: (3) Clause 9, page 8, omit sub-clause (10). (4) Clause 9, page 10, after sub-clause (20), add the following sub-clause: ''(21) The prescribed provisions of Part II shall not have effect except as aforesaid and shall not otherwise rely upon the Convention for their effect and application.''. (5) Clause 10, page 10, omit sub-clause (1). (6) Clause 11, page 10, omit sub-clause (1). In my contribution to the second reading debate, I indicated that the Opposition was concerned about the use of the external affairs power. I outlined the reasons for that concern and gave the example that, while most non-government schools were incorporated, and therefore covered by the corporations power, some were not and could apparently be reached by this Bill by the use of the external affairs power only. I noted that the actual reliance on the external affairs power might be quite slight or even marginal. Nevertheless, the Opposition itself would not have relied upon the external affairs power in government. Therefore, we have moved these four amendments. I know that in the Senate the Government refused to accept these amendments but we believe that the sub- clauses are not essential to the foundations of this Bill and that the overall effect of reliance upon them represents a very serious threat to the spirit of federalism which underlies our Constitution. This Bill relies for its validity on several heads of power granted to it by the Constitution. No one would deny, for example, that the Bill should rest on the powers that are properly conferred on the Government in respect of interstate trade and commerce, corporations, financial corporations, or banking and insurance, but there is a great deal of disquiet about the use of the external affairs power as a safety net to provide residual validity in case the High Court should find that the more conventional heads of power were inadequate . Therefore, the use of the external affairs power in our view is not justified, although I know that the Government justifies it on the basis of havng ratified the United Nations Convention after consultation with the States and that those parts of the Convention that are covered by the Bill should apply uniformly throughout Australia. We are aware that the legislative counsel has drafted this Bill to conform as much as possible with New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian legislation. There will of course be inevitable conflicts with the law in those States and, despite the efforts to harmonise them, there will be problems. But the real problem arises in the other three States and in the belief that the Government knows best for those States. Because this Bill relies for its validity on those heads of power one has to point out the risk that serious inroads into the spirit of the Constitution will be made. Therefore the Opposition, believing that the reliance of the legislation on the external affairs power should be removed, proposes that from clause 9, sub-clause (10), which obviously relies upon that power, should be deleted. We also propose adding a new sub-clause (21), as set out in our amendment No. (4). We also propose to omit clause 10 (1) and clause 11 (1). Each of these amendments would have the effect of removing the reliance upon the external affairs power. We believe that that is consistent with the objectives of the Constitution. We all know the extent to which the Constitution has been given a somewhat centrifugal interpretation over the years and we regard that as appropriate to many areas of human affairs. But in this type of situation we do not think that is so. If, indeed, it is the situation that three States are lagging behind public opinion that will soon enough be seen to be the case. If they are acting consistent with public opinion that again will be seen to be the case. But it is not for this Parliament to usurp their authority. To the extent that this Bill relies upon a use of the external affairs power which could not have been in the contemplation of the founders of this Constitution we believe that usurpation would be a result. We do not believe that should be sanctioned by this Parliament. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition I have moved amendments Nos. 3 to 6, all of which have been circulated in my name. We will seek to divide on those amendments. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia)(9.32) —I suggest that the argument that the fathers of our Constitution wanted to give certain powers to the Federal Government has been dragged into this debate as a red herring not only in regard to this legislation but also in regard to virtually every challenge to the external affairs power that has come to the High Court of Australia. There seems to be a conception in the minds of most Opposition members that State rights are to be upheld more than human rights. There is such a thing as universal human rights. We have heard time and again from those on the other side of the House about how God lays down laws in the Bible. We hear all sorts of things about natural law, theological law and moral law. But the moment it comes to international law they are looking under the bed for communists. A convention signed by Australia which relates to a legitimate field of international concern is not in conflict with the intention of the framers of our Constitution and in such a case the Federal Government should make any decision that has to be made. We do not need a consensus between the States, and every State does not need to have a veto, which seems to be the attitude adopted by honourable members opposite. If one believes, as Bob Ellicott believed, that this approach is in line with the principles of natural justice, theological justice, human justice and human rights, one does not go pussyfooting around trying to get everybody to agree before one says it is right. We do not hear people on the other side of the Parliament say: 'First, we must get everybody in every State and the Northern Territory to agree before we pass laws on abortion or whether there shall be a conscientious objection to a particular war in Vietnam'. No, they are quite happy that these areas are covered by Federal powers because, of course, the Constitution spells out that we will concern ourselves with defence and health matters. But honourable members opposite are timid the moment it comes to universal human rights. They say: 'Is this the correct field for the Commonwealth to legislate on?' Did the framers of our Constitution foresee that perhaps there could be an international concern to do the right thing by human beings and to make them equal? I just want to record my abhorrence and rejection of the whole case that has been put on behalf of the Opposition. I do not say on behalf of the member who put it because I think he knows better. But he is bound by the consensus of his party. I believe it is completely wrong to raise this objection on the grounds that it is ultra vires the intention of the framers of our Constitition. I reject that argument. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.35) —I was interested to hear the arguments of the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham). I would like to express a view on the honourable member's first premise that this is universally good legislation. It is unfortunate that the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) misunderstood the first point I made during the second reading debate. I wish to return to it as I am able to do during the Committee stage. Madam Chair, I am entitled to refer at any time to the short title of the Bill, which says: 'A Bill for an Act relating to Discrimination on the grounds of Sex, Marital Status or Pregnancy or involving Sexual Harassment.' Of course, clause 14 deals with the prohibition of discrimination. When we talk about discrimination against applicants for jobs and employees we have to go through a very considerable list of what it is unlawful for an employer to do. I previously asked the Minister a point which he very carefully tiptoed around. I asked him what clause in the Bill deals with discrimination against a female person or for that matter a male person who happened to be an employer. Quite clearly the short title of the Bill requires that we consider all people. Clause 3 provides that we should consider men and women. But all of a sudden, from there on in, the Bill forgets that there are various strata of men and women. I hope that this time the Minister will be fair enough to keep to the short title of the Bill. Bearing in mind the opening comments in clause 3, can the Minister explain to me how this Bill is complete if this matter is dealt with in only one clause? We are talking about discrimination. Discrimination is simply defined as something that says that nobody hurts anybody else. I will go 'he' if that applies only to people in the work force. Quite clearly, this Bill creates all sorts of opportunities. In fact, there is a transfer of a recognised discrimination in the work force to a discrimination against employers. Of course, the legislation will fail on these grounds. As I heard one speaker say this afternoon, the legislation will teach people to be very devious. People will get around the situation. They will say they want a barperson instead of a barmaid. But if it is an employer's habit to employ barmaids, that person will employ barmaids. Might I add that when we get down to this business of discrimination, to my personal knowledge women working behind bars in Western Australia have been paid the same pay as men for the last 60 years. To the best of my knowledge they were the first women in the Australian work force to get equal pay. But it never stopped Western Australian hoteliers, myself included, from employing women on these grounds. We employed them because in our opinion they did a better job than men. We are now to be denied that right. A male person may apply for the job and it could be established by a commissioner that he would do the job better than a woman. Of course, the poor old employer is only paying the money. He is not entitled to make a judgment because someone, to whom the Government is going to pay a fortune, will know a lot better than he what suits his trade or what suits considerations such as cleanliness. But if it so happens that a male person demands a job and puts forward a couple of smart arguments, the rights of an employer to exercise his own judgment are destroyed entirely by this piece of legislation. I hope that my fears can be allayed by the next speaker on the Government side or the Minister getting up and pointing to that part of the legislation which provides for the rights of the employer. Of course, there seems to be an acceptance in this Parliament that women never get to be employers. We know that that is not the case. Many women have become employers. However, there is nothing in the legislation that gives any protection to employers. Maybe this time I have made myself clearer than I apparently did the last time I spoke. The Bill is an imposition on people who seek to create employment. The legislation will either make them devious or just chase them out of business. Clause 23 of the Bill deals with accommodation. I want to raise the rights of the individual in this respect. We are well aware, in the first instance, that anything to do with accommodation provided by religious organisations was, of course, to be ignored. However, the pressures were no doubt greatest upon the Deputy Prime Minister and the religious organisations could quite rightly claim that they were entitled to practise what they preach. That is exactly the situation. Clause 23 refers to accommodation and states, in part: (3) Nothing in this section applies to or in respect of- (a) the provision of accommodation in premises if- Fortunately we have now recognised that a dear widow lady might like someone in her house who is of her sex. Sub-clause (3) (a) (i), which provides for that, has my complete approval. Sub-clause (3) (a) (ii) makes similar provisions. Sub- clause (3) (b) refers to accommodation provided by a religious body and sub- clause (3) (c) refers to accommodation provided by a charitable or other non- profit-making body solely for persons of one sex, et cetera. This Government, typically, has accepted that an institution has rights. It has been recognised that a church has rights and that it can practise what it preaches. A church can say that it will not provide accommodation to a de facto couple because, as an institution, it promotes marriage. But an individual-I thought that in Australia it was the individual that we most appreciated-is denied his rights. This recognises the rights of the institution but not the rights of the individual. There are people in my electorate with firm religious convictions. They have second houses on their properties which they offer to employees. Some of these people would be horrified, because of their religious beliefs, to have a couple in a de facto relationship with children live in that house. Those children would naturally mix with their own children and they would have the problem of explaining to their kids why Miss Smith and Mr Brown have children when they have gone to some difficulty to explain to their kids why that relationship will not work. I hope honourable members opposite can tell me why the Government accepts the right of a church to deny people living in a de facto relationship the right to accommodation but it will not grant that right to an individual. It proves to me that the Government knows more about institutions and more about statutory authorities than it will ever know about people. This Bill is about people. It discriminates against people in the way that it is prepared to grant rights to institutions. That was all done for political reasons as we know. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(9.44) —The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) has moved a series of specific amendments which seek to give effect to the general tone of the amendment which he moved at the second reading stage. In order to avoid submerging the clarity of his ideas underneath a mass of prose, it might be useful for me to refer back to the amendment which he moved at the second reading stage. All parts of the amendment were rather extraordinary. Paragraph ( 3) of the amendment states that the Opposition wishes to amend the Sex Discrimination Bill to make it clear that: the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid work force or alter their view of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children; This is absolutely clear from precisely the clauses which we are debating at the moment. This is the absolute tenor of the Bill. It would be clear to a blind person that the Bill provides rights and guarantees to women in the work force but it is not a Bill which imposes the necessity for women to move into the work force. The next remarkable idea to which I would like to refer is encapsulated in paragraph (4). It states: no decision or action by any educational or child care or other body established for the education of students or the care of children-- And so forth, will be affected by this legislation. Of course the decision will not be affected by this legislation. The proposition there is nothing more or less than a paraphrase of a clause of the Bill. Mr Tuckey —Madam Chair, are we dealing with clause 4 or are we dealing with clauses 6 to 27? The CHAIRMAN —At the moment we are dealing with clauses 7 to 27. The honourable member should remain relevant to those clauses. Mr WELLS —If the honourable member for O'Connor was capable of following a chain of reasoning, he would have understood that I was referring back to the earlier amendment only in order to illustrate the specific points which have now been moved as amendments to the Bill. The next item to which I refer is the proposition relating to the use of the external affairs power. Perhaps even the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) will be able to grasp that this is relevant to the clauses that we are now discussing. The Opposition has two absurd propositions in respect of this. The first relates to the head of power. A lot of nonsense is talked by the Opposition about how the reliance on the foreign affairs power is somehow an abdication of our national sovereignty. This is the most unutterable rubbish. It reveals a complete ignorance of international law. The United Nations is not imposing anything on us. It does not have the power to do so. Its task in this area is to draw up standards, just as it does in the areas of health, education and so on. Nations can endorse those standards or disendorse them if they choose to. In this case Australia chooses to endorse them. It does so because they are good standards. If we changed our minds we could deratify the conventions that we have ratified. Some honourable members opposite have spoken as though the foreign totalitarian governments were legislating for us just because we are members of the United Nations. This is no more true than to say that we are legislating for foreign totalitarian governments. If we in this chamber could, by working through the United Nations, impose laws on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, most of Africa, all of South America and nearly all of Asia, and even on the United States of America, those countries would have much better laws than they have now even if there were a permanent Liberal majority in this House. But that is not something that will happen. That is not the way the United Nations works. The member nations of the United Nations cannot impose laws upon us. When we ratify a convention it becomes law as an act of the Australian people. An example might help. It might even bring this home to the agricultural minds, infertile though they are, of some honourable members opposite. If a progress association runs a garden contest, as the Arana Hills Progress Association in my area runs garden contests, they set up standards. They set up ideals. They say: 'This is what a good garden would look like'. They do not make the people of Arana Hills make their gardens like that. The people of Arana Hills choose to have their gardens like that. They ratify the conventions which the progress association has established. Likewise, the United Nations sets out a series of conventions. We choose to ratify it. That is a choice of the Australian people. We choose it because they are good conventions. We choose to ratify them because they represent sound and moral thinking. Mr Groom —How is it a choice of the Australian people? Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Braddon wants to know how it is a choice of the Australian people. It is a choice of the Australian people because we won the election, because honourable members opposite lost the election and because we are legislating now in the name of the Australian people and in the name of the people who voted for this proposition. Referring to the second absurdity regarding the external affairs power which is tooted around by the Opposition it would be useful to talk about the States rights question, which the honourable member for Balaclava referred to a moment ago. The real reason for Opposition members opposing this legislation is their opposition to the use of the foreign affairs power because it is, they say, a threat to the States. It is the old, boring, whimpish catch-cry of States rights . They do not deny that rights which this Bill is seeking to implement are the rights which they would like to see in effect. The honourable member for Balaclava did not deny that, nor did the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). They agreed that these are rights which they would like Australians to have. They just say that they would not have them because to do so would be to infringe the rights of the States. I ask honourable members opposite who hold this view to examine their consciences. Are they in favour of the rights of Australians or the rights of the States? Are they really going to divide this House and vote against a Bill which guarantees rights which they claim Australians should have just because of some nostalgic views they have about certain anachronistic administrative units? Mr Goodluck —Yes. Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Franklin would vote for any anachronism one would like to put up. But are serious-minded people, are intelligent members of the Opposition, those who have brains rather than gravel, really going to divide the House over an issue such as this? Are they really going to say that just because the rights of Australians have to be implemented in a way that will mitigate the 'rights' of these anachronistic State units they will deny Australian rights? This House will often have to choose between the rights of the States and the rights of Australians. I give notice that I will be choosing the rights of Australians every time. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(9.50) —I will not detain the Committee very long. When moving the Opposition's amendments I pointed out that we were concerned about the use of the external affairs power to bring about a somewhat distorted result compared with that which even the most far-seeing of our constitutional fathers might have thought was the logical and proper outcome of the distribution of responsibilities under our Federal Constitution. I again say that if the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) believes in democracy within the States, he ought to think that if these issues are so important they should be raised as major issues in State elections. I hope no one on the Opposition side would deny the evidence which justifies legislation of this character. If one did deny the evidence-I hope no one in this chamber would-one would have only to look at the report of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board for the year ended 30 June 1983. I refer any doubting Thomas, Bruce or whoever, to pages 156 to 162 of the report, where a good deal of attention is given to discrimination, including sexual harassment. The report, in part, states: During 1982-83, there were 34 complaints of sexual harassment lodged with the Board under the Anti-Discrimination Act. This is an increase of 10 complaints from the previous year. A substantial number of inquiries were also received from other women alleging that they had been sexually harassed. But for a variety of reasons these women did not actually file complaints under the Act. Many were deterred from doing so by the embarrassment of having to disclose the details of their experience to other people at senior levels in their organisations. Others feared reprisals and victimisation if they did complain. Many were unable to provide any proof or evidence that the harassment occurred and consequently decided not to proceed with making a complaint. The report also quotes a survey which showed: a common form of solving complaints of sexual harassment is to remove the woman from employment the male harasser is invariably more powerful within the organisation than the woman the women's reactions were of anger, embarrassment and feelings of powerlessness some women felt frightened, 'dirty' and even guilty harassment resulted in reduced job satisfaction, loss of confidence and motivation and decreased efficiency complainants' health was affected 30 per cent of the women surveyed resigned from their jobs In relation to major problem areas, the report states: A great number of potential complaints have come from women employed in small businesses, particularly coffee lounges, milk bars, shops and small restaurants . . . where the number of persons employed by the employer, disregarding any persons employed within his private household, does not exceed 5. A provision of the Bill concerns that subject. The Opposition could raise a number of points which might be seen to be of a carping character. We have not said that this Sex Discrimination Bill or some of the State Bills ought to put limits on the number of employees in small business, but I expect that over time this Bill and the State legislation will have to come back for revision in the light of experience. We are putting to the Committee at the moment that there is no justification to rely even for a slight underpinning on the external affairs power, but no one on the Opposition would deny the following statements from the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board: The women complaining of sexual harassment in these work situations are typically young and poorly educated. They are almost always not a member of a union and, in addition to sexual harassment, are exploited in their rates of pay and working hours. They complain that their employers treat them as if they ' owned' them. They also complain of verbal abuse, physical touching and grabbing, and repeated and sometimes violent requests for sexual relations which, they are told, is part of their job to provide. As youth unemployment increases, particularly amongst young women, this type of sexual harassment becomes more difficult to resist as the young women who leave find themselves without any prospects of another job. A young woman complaining of sexual harassment over a long period said, when asked why she'd put up with it, 'I knew it was the only job I'd ever have.' None of us on this side of the House who care about people, to use the expression of the honourable member for Petrie, condones that sort of conduct, whether it is in small business, where most of the complaints lie, in medium or large business, or in the public sector. It cannot be justified and none of these amendments should be construed by anyone opposite as even remotely trying to justify it. But we do have a Federal Constitution. It may not be the one which any of us in this chamber would devise today if we were drawing it up, but we are not. We are living with it, we work within it and we look at the evolution of powers as interpreted especially by the High Court of Australia and sometimes as ventured by this chamber. We just say that if the States of Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland recognise the need for or feel the urge for legislation of this character, they ought to introduce it. If this Parliament feels it ought to legislate, there are many heads of power upon which it can rely. I enumerated them in my opening remarks on these amendments. Mr Wells —When do you think Queensland will feel that need? Mr MACPHEE —That is a matter for the people of Queensland. It is not for this Parliament, wise though we might think we are, to decide what is best for the people of Queensland, or Tasmania or Western Australia. It might be that if I lived in Queensland I would think it needed legislation of this character but surely that is a matter for the people of Queensland to decide. It is certainly relevant for this Parliament to look at interstate trade and commerce, financial corporations, other corporations, banking and insurance. We accept and readily say that it is relevant for this Parliament to consider all of those things. We can argue about the detail but we will not argue about the principles. But to rely upon the external affairs power, to give it an underpinning which is not otherwise there by a legitimate High Court interpretation of the proper heads of power for this Parliament, is something that we do not accept. So I resent very strongly any suggestion that anyone on this side of the House supports discrimination on any ground, including the ground relating to sexual harassment. We do not, and there is no way that we will, deny the evidence of the reports presented year after year from New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. It would be an odd thing, which would show the total lack of homogeneity in this country, if the situation were different in Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia but until such time as the State governments stir themselves to recognise that, then this Parliament ought to use only those powers which undeniably are there for it to use in ordinary domestic law in this country. To use a United Nations convention as the means, through the external affairs power, of intervening in domestic law, in a way that none of those contributors to the constitutional debates of last century leading to the foundation of this Parliament contemplated, is acting against the spirit of federalism, no matter how one interprets it. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(9.58) —I would also like to spend a short time talking first of all about clause 9 of the Sex Discrimination Bill. I agree with what the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), has just said. Some very descriptive speeches have been made about the problems of women in our community. Some have been extremely vivid, even poignant. I too resent the accusations made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) that somehow we are not conscious of that because we happen to argue about the method which the Government is using- that is, an external affairs power-to enforce this legislation on Tasmania. I simply take up the point that the honourable member for Balaclava has put. If the Tasmanian Government is so far behind the times and if its people are aware of the problems the Federal Government has been talking about, the simple remedy is for the Government to go to Tasmania and, with its colleagues there in the Opposition, tell the people of Tasmania how badly off they are. Mr Cunningham —They will tell you before the year is out, don't worry. Mr NEWMAN —The attitudes that people have to honourable members from my State are quite understandable when one considers the interjection just made by the person who has the responsible position of Deputy Government Whip. The Government will never get a seat in Tasmania. I was trying to put a serious position. I will continue to do so despite the stupid interjections of people like the honourable member for McMillan. The point that I was making was that if the Government is so certain about the position in Tasmania, let it go to Tasmania and argue the case. If it is a strong case the people will change the Government and the new Government can bring in laws such as this. Until that happens we belong to a federation. Each State is different. Each State, particularly Tasmania, has special characteristics. That is the way it should be as long as we have a Constitution like we have. I draw attention to some other points which I raised in my speech at the second reading stage about the inadequate drafting of the Bill. Some of it may be regarded as carping, but I wish to make some quick points about certain clauses. For example, clauses 14, 15 and 16 state that employers may not discriminate against a pregnant person, even where the employment may be deemed totally unsuitable to that pregnant person. Let me take an extreme case of a pregnant person applying for the position of breaking in wild horses. I presume that if she were not employed for that reason the employer would be liable to go before the Human Rights Commission. That is a way-out example. Perhaps another example would be the employment of a person in a warehouse whose activities included lifting heavy weights and so on. Should an employer be forced to employ a pregnant person under those circumstances? I think that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) made an important point when he raised issues such as this. What protection is there for an employer who is forced to employ a pregnant person if a workers compensation claim results because of miscarriage or some other associated problems with the pregnancy? In relation to clause 23, I raise the issue of somebody who runs, say, a hostel for pregnant females on a non-charitable basis. Should the person running that hostel be forced to accept a non-pregnant male? That may be a carping criticism. Mrs Kelly —A pregnant male! Mr NEWMAN —A non-pregnant male. A male! I was trying to be vivid in my description. Honourable members are right to have a giggle. I ask the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), to clarify an issue under clause 26. Under this legislation will it be possible for the Commonwealth Employment Service to continue to give preference to unemployed women as well as those who are pregnant and so on, under the community employment program? The CEP now discriminates in favour of women. Under this legislation can the CES continue to promulgate the CEP in favour of women? Ms FATIN(Canning)(10.03) —I wish to respond very briefly to the remarks made by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). I think he would recognise that many members and senators acknowledge his position as far as this legislation is concerned. I put to him that he developed a case to show that a great deal of sexual harassment exists in this country. It has existed for many years. Often the people who have been sexually harassed have not been able to seek redress. The honourable member for Balaclava developed an argument to show that that applies. Many honourable members on this side and on the other side have known that for many years women of all ages have had to suffer sexual harassment. The honourable member said that this Government should not implement this legislation so that we can prevent this sort of sexual harassment continuing in States such as Queensland and Tasmania. He said that we should put that argument to the State governments and wait for them to do something about it. Mr Macphee —I said, to the extent that there is a marginal area, not authorised already by the heads of power of this Parliament. It might be 10 per cent of this legislation, at most. Ms FATIN —I suggest to the honourable member that in the area of sexual harassment alone we as a government must take responsibility to do something about it as soon as possible. We are able to do so by introducing legislation such as this. I for one, who respects the States and the rights that States have , cannot stand by and see women, younger women and older women, suffer any longer the sorts of embarrassments which they have had to suffer in the area of sexual harassment. I think that argument in itself dismisses the position which the honourable member put in regard to the States. A number of States will not bring in sex discrimination legislation. Some of the legislation at the moment does not address itself to the situation of sexual harassment. Mr GROOM(Braddon) 10.06)-I wish to restrict my comments to clause 23 of the Bill which relates to accommodation. I suggest to the Committee that this clause raises a number of very sensitive issues which were referred to in part by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) earlier today. Let us take the situation of a person who owns a house or a flat and who wishes to let that house or flat. That person may prefer to let that house or flat to a married couple. Under this clause it is unlawful for a person to discriminate in that sense in favour of a married couple. Couples, whether lawfully married or in a de facto situation, must be treated on the same basis. As has been mentioned, there are people with strong religious views who may believe very deeply as a matter of conscience that they would not want a couple in a de facto relationship to live in their house or flat. Where are the rights of such people under this legislation? For those people it is a matter of conscience. Honourable members opposite might laugh about this, but there are people in the community who have deep religious views who would not want to let a house or flat to people who they believe, according to their religious views, are living in sin. This right is to be taken away from them. Ms Fatin —It is not. Mr GROOM —It will be taken away from them. I ask the honourable member to read that provision. If the Minister wants to dispute this fact let him do so. There are all sorts of ways around it. There are dozens of ways around it, but as a matter of law if the owner of a house or flat makes a preference for single people or married people that person is breaking the law. People have said that there is no problem in this Bill for families; families are not affected by this legislation. What about a couple who have kids and are looking for a house to let? The landlord may prefer to give that couple the house because they are a married couple with children. According to this law that preference cannot be given. So one has to treat on exactly the same basis, say, three or four single people, a married couple or a couple living in a de facto relationship. According to clause 23 one cannot give any preference on the basis of marital status. If honourable members look at marital status under the definition provisions, they will see that marital status means the status or condition of being single, married, married but living separately and apart from one's spouse, divorced, widowed or the de facto spouse of another person. All those people must be treated on the same basis. I believe this provision is a very serious infringement of the rights of individuals. If one gives rights to people one takes away rights from people. That is a matter of obvious logic. If one gives to someone one is taking away from someone else. There is no doubt that under this provision families can be adversely affected because they may miss out on gaining accommodation which they would normally gain if the person who let that house or flat let it according to this law. I hope that the Minister for Trade will make some comments on that because I believe it is a very sensitive issue. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.11) —I will be very brief on this occasion because I thought I had completed my comments. I wish to address myself to the issue of States rights. Again-it is not uncommon because it is clearly the view that the institution is paramount-we find speakers seeing a State as the institution, such as the State Parliament or the State bureaucracy. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) recently told us that clearly human rights transcend State rights. If that is the institution of the Parliament House building in Western Australia I would agree with him wholeheartedly, but I have a funny feeling that in fact when we talk about State rights we are talking about the people who reside in that State and who, through their State Parliament, reflect certain views a little closer to the grass roots. It is an interesting situation. We have had a gerrymander and a few things thrown around. The Labor Government in Western Australia is quite able to match the philosophical views expressed in the Sex Discrimination Bill. Maybe it has some plans to do that. It has not done it yet. Maybe it feels that in political terms it would be better off not doing it and telling the constituents that the nasties in Canberra have delivered this upon them. Maybe they will do that, I do not know. As I recollect, when Mr Burke stood for election one of the major planks of his platform was the wonderful co-operation he had with one R. J. Hawke. So I presume that communication still exists. Just as clearly one should be able at this time to institute this piece of legislation in Western Australia . If Mr Burke is not proposing to do this it is because his political nose tells him that too many people in Western Australia do not approve of the legislation. I will give honourable members an example. Daylight saving has just finished in Australia in most States bar Queensland and Western Australia. I am told daylight saving is kept out of Queensland because of the gerrymander. Six years ago Western Australians rejected daylight saving at a referendum where there was one vote one value. I suggest that that State will probably reject that again next April. If it does not we will find it is at one with the States of Victoria , New South Wales, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. If it rejects it, it is not at one with those people in those States, and that is what federalism is all about. Australia is such a gigantic area of land that in any one instance its people would talk a variety of languages such as we strike in Europe. Quite clearly State governments have a role and quite clearly that is to reflect the opinions of the people who live in the State. We are taking that right away with legislation such as this. The point I am making and which I want to make clearly is that the Government is wrong to talk about State rights in terms of the institution. It should recognise the views of the people. The honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) is close enough to Brian Burke to tell me-it would be interesting-how anxious he is at this time to match this legislation. If he is, there will be no need to impose it on him. If he is not, it is because it is his view that the people of Western Australia, as a majority , do not want it. In both cases it is quite clear that the Government does not need to impose the legislation in this fashion using, of course, the external affairs power. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.14) —I can appreciate that honourable members opposite are getting into all sorts of extraordinary situations. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) has got us to the position of discussing non-pregnant males at this stage, and I think this is taking the discussion a bit far. In fact no amendment has been moved so I trust we are not going to pursue this. But let me look at some of the other matters. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who is able to make a contribution by always saying that there is something wrong with a Bill, I think destroys his own case when he talks about employing people in a hotel when he feels he might be obliged to employ a woman even though a male who applied was the better person. That destroys his argument. If that is the position there has been no discrimination. Mr Tuckey —No, I said in somebody else's opinion, namely, a commissioner. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is not the point. The point of the Bill is that the employer can choose any person he likes but he is not to discriminate on the basis of sex and if the other person who is chosen is better, he has not discriminated. Mr Tuckey —They would be better only in the eyes of a commissioner. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Wait a minute. The commissioner will have to look at the facts. Surely there will be some method of assessing who is the better person, because the employer assessed it. So why would he be wrong? Mr Tuckey —I would be a hotelier and he would not. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The facts would be on the experience, the references and everything else, and the honourable member knows that. The point I am making is that the Bill is there to prevent discrimination. It is a very simple position. The honourable member for Bass raised the question of accommodation, particularly in a de facto position. Of course there is an exemption where the accommodation is shared, but if he is talking about separate accommodation, where there is a house or a flat, one must ask why that would be raised in relation to discrimination when all he is doing is letting premises. In what way would a de facto relationship affect the premises? Is the honourable member suggesting that if he were the landlord he would be around there with the children all the time looking through the window and saying 'Look, they are not married', or something like that? The landlord lets premises and the commercial aspects are the premises, so why would the honourable member suggest that there would be anything affecting the landlord by letting the premises simply because the occupants are not married? That is the position and that is the way it is. In fact, as the honourable member would well know, in the commercial world I doubt very much whether many lessors would be very worried about the marital status of tenants as long as the rent was paid. That is the commercial position. The honourable member knows also that there would be the question of a lease and everything else. I think he is taking it to the extreme. He also knows that in law the children of the unmarried are still deemed to be children in law and they have a lot of rights. So why is it that the honourable member suddenly suggests that they do not have even the rights of habitation in that sense? That is the extreme situation he is putting. Mr Groom —I did not say that. Don't be silly. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, it is. He is putting it on the basis that he has got the premises. He has advertised them for letting. Somebody comes along. He then decides to have a look at their marital status and nothing else and so his premises are going to be affected. I cannot see that for the life of me. The issue now comes to the real point. I must say this in fairness to the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee): At least he addresses his mind to the amendments. The argument he is putting I cannot agree with either for this very simple reason: In the terms of logic, for example, there is nothing wrong with all the other powers that he is relying on. They happen to be the powers relating to corporations, banking and insurance, trade and commerce, incidental power and the powers applying to territories. There is nothing wrong with any of those at all. But simply because there is one other power called the external affairs power the amendments are to delete the reference to that. One would think in terms of arguing that the Sex Discrimination Bill must be a fair Bill if it relies on all the other powers to which the honourable member has no objection. So where does the Bill fall down? According to him it falls down simply because it puts, as another ground on which it relies, the external affairs power. That does not make sense at all. We have all the other powers in the Constitution. He is prepared to accept five of them and then he says that the sixth one is out. Mr Groom —Why have it there? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is the basis of the law itself. We are not talking about the power. It is the law relating to that particular power. Again it was the honourable member's party, when it was in government that took great pride in consulting the States before it signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It took even greater pride in saying that it helped draft the Convention. It took delight in saying that it was one of the original signatories to the Convention. In the whole process there was complete consultation with all the States. Does the honourable member mean to say that Mr Ellicott did not even discuss these matters and what they were about? Did he not even discuss the drafting of the Convention? Mr Macphee —Of course he did, but he did not say that a Bill of this Parliament would use the external affairs powers to override State powers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, maybe he did not say it but I would be amazed if he had consulted with all the States on the basis that he was not going to use the external affairs power. When one is talking about an international convention any draftsman will use the external affairs powers as one of the legs on which to base the legislation. For example, with systemic non-government schools one cannot rely on the corporation power because they are not incorporated. Mr Macphee —Most of them are. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, they are not. Eighty per cent of non-government schools are systemic and therefore not incorporated. That is one example. If Opposition members want to talk about the law, they should talk about the law on the issue of what is wrong with a government relying on a power-- Mr Macphee —If that is true, let the State governments legislate. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —State legislation is still protected. In fact it is protected for two years or more. Western Australia can legislate if it likes because it will be legislating against discrimination. If it does not do it, why say that there should be no law applying in those States? That would not make sense. What does that do for an international convention? With an international convention, in a federation there is an obligation to ensure that States conform with the structure of the convention. That is the purpose of an international convention. What purpose would there be to have an international convention and to have Ministers going to the relevant forum to represent Australia and then saying: ' Well, this really means nothing because the six States back home might not be interested'. What purpose is that? I know that Opposition members are dis- appointed-- Mr Hodgman —What about where there is a Federal clause? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point is that where there is a Federal clause that should be inserted. But in this case we are dealing with the equivalent of human rights . I cannot understand why the Tasmanians opposite are getting paranoid about the fact that the World Heritage Commission endorsed a classification put up by their Government-- Mr Goodluck —The previous Government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It does not matter. We are talking about the World Heritage Commission. It is the same principle. Laws have to be passed on behalf of the people of Australia, not just of some segments of a State. This is an extraordinary situation in which State laws prevail. If the States want to legislate, they can do so. Where is the objection? The objection surely must be that the Opposition never intended to allow Mr Ellicott to give such high praise to this international Convention. Why did Opposition members not stand up in the Parliament and object strongly? What did they do in the party room with this proposition? Did they ever discuss it in the party room? Mr Tuckey —No. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I can understand that too because it has been a one man band for a long time. That is why the Opposition has ended up where it is-in opposition. It will be there for a long time unless it does something about that . The next time Opposition members move amendments they should try to do better than this. They say that they do not mind five of the powers but they object to the sixth, when really they are objecting to the Bill itself. Accordingly, we reject the arguments submitted. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Hurford, C. J.Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Question so resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being past 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.32) —Yesterday the Premier of what is said to be the ' Premier State' made an incredible statement when he publicly confessed that government had become 'unworkable in New South Wales'. Very significantly, the Premier went on to say that this incredible situation had come about as a result of the actions of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament. I say from the outset that when a Premier has to confess publicly that government 'has become unworkable in New South Wales' his only honourable course is to resign. Mr Wran should, thereupon, on constitutional precedent, resign his commission forthwith. It is completely and utterly unconstitutional for Mr Wran to remain Premier of New South Wales during the forthcoming election campaign when he has made the statement, when he has made the admission, that he is no longer capable of governing New South Wales. More significantly, the question has to be asked: Why is the Premier running for cover? Why is the Premier engaged in the race for his life? Let me put the proposition bluntly: Governments which are honest and honourable have nothing to fear from allegations of corruption. It is governments which are not honest and not honourable which find that their lives become miserable. It is those governments which find that they cannot get on with the job of governing because they know every minute that there is a risk of a further element of scandal being raised. The people of New South Wales and the people of Australia generally are now seeing a craven government running for cover in one of the most disgraceful and dishonourable charades ever in Australian politics. The New South Wales Government is trying to get to the ballot boxes before the full truth of the stench of corruption in New South Wales is exposed to the people of Australia. I do not need to remind honourable members or the people of New South Wales of the names involved; they run off the tongue so easily. People, of course, remember Mr Allen. They remember Mr Jackson and the situation which led to a royal commission. Mr Maher —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Here, of course, is the mouthpiece trying to stop the debate. Mr Maher —My point of order is that there is a judicial inquiry in New South Wales into very serious allegations against a member of the New South Wales Parliament, Mr Rex Jackson. The speaker is canvassing the inquiry and will prejudice the case if he is allowed to continue. I ask that you uphold the point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I take the point of order with regard to that matter. The honourable member for Denison should keep to the point. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) is interjecting. It is all right for him, the member for Nugan Hand. That is a matter I raised in the Parliament a couple of years ago: What happened to the money from Nugan Hand ? We have yet to get an answer to what happened to the $200,000 that went to the Australian Labor Party from Nugan Hand. The Labor Party produced two phony receipts for $500 apiece. These are matters the people of New South Wales will remember. But I take the honourable member's point. What I want to say is this: It is clear from the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today that he is in it up to his neck as well, that there has been a conspiracy between the Prime Minister and the Premier to get to the election before we find out more about the tapes. Mr Leo McLeay —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The speaker continues to make outrageous allegations. Mr SPEAKER —I assure the honourable member the Speaker does not; the honourable member for Denison does. Mr Leo McLeay —I meant the previous speaker, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Denison. He has made some outrageous allegations which have never been tested and to which everyone in the Labor Party in New South Wales would take exception. As a member of the Party in New South Wales, I take exception to them . I ask the honourable member to withdraw his remark about the Nugan Hand Bank. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is making a statement. There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can appreciate the honourable member's sensitivity. The plain fact is that I raised these matters-- Mr Leo McLeay —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As I have just made the point, I do not have an undue sensitivity about it. My title in this House is the member for Grayndler. There may have been created a new electorate of which I am not aware; if there has been I have not been elected for that division. I ask the honourable member for Denison, if he intends to refer to me at all, to refer to me properly, in accordance with the Standing Orders, by my title, the member for Grayndler. I do not know who this fictitious member is he is speaking about. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I uphold the honourable member's point of order. He should be referred to by his electorate. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. This proves the point I am making. The Labor Party is trying to buy time, to get to the election before the truth about the tapes, about judges, public servants, senior trade union offficials and $50,000 bribes comes out. This is the corruption that the Labor Party cannot stand up to . This is the corruption of that Party's trying to get to the election before the truth comes out. The Prime Minister is in it up to his neck. It is a conspiracy between the Premier and the Prime Minister, and members opposite know it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.39) —In the current New South Wales election campaign there is an appalling attempt to smear the Australian Labor Party. It will not succeed . The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are bereft of any policies. What has really upset me is a statement by the Liberal candidate for Burwood that, if elected, the Liberal Party would resume the building of expressways, something it never did when in government. It would be unable to do that. No government could build expressways because the Liberal Party and the National Party when in government refused to buy any properties for the construction of urban expressways. I give full credit to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) and the members of the Whitlam Government who abandoned urban expressways throughout Australia. I was elected to the New South Wales Parliament in 1973 on a platform of stopping the construction of expressways. Now, 10 years later, in the inner city suburbs, the Liberal Party candidate has let the cat out of the bag by saying that a Liberal Party government would build expressways. This would cut my constituency in two. It would mean the demolition of thousands of homes, none of which a Liberal Party government would own. These Liberal candidates are misleading the electorate. They say that they will build expressways, yet they have no possibility of doing so because no Federal Labor government would underwrite such a pipe dream. Where does all the traffic go? Where do the people park? It is just a farcical round robin. In Sydney we have the greatest natural expressway in Australia. We have Sydney Harbour and the Parramatta River which comes right through from Parramatta. The Liberals never built a ferry to go up the harbour; they cancelled most of the ferry services. The question of expressways is a very important issue. People think it would be nice to have an expressway to take them to their destinations so that they can park outside wherever they are. But in reality, as a member of State Parliament, I could not induce the Liberal Minister for Roads to buy one property in any part of my electorate for the construction of expressways. Sometimes the properties would be owned by old pensioners whose homes had been affected for 30 years. These people wanted to retire, and no property at all was purchased by the Liberal Party when it was in government in New South Wales. Now the truth slips out. It has not improved its thinking in the last 10 years. It is still bound up with old theories and philosophies which have been rejected throughout the entire world. The notion of urban expressways is something that people overseas would laugh at. In Melbourne they were rejected and grossly revised, and in Sydney they were revised. They will never be built. In Fivedock in the days of the Liberal-Country Party Government in New South Wales 400 homes were to be pulled down, and institutions, factories and parks would have been lost. If I remember correctly the Department of Main Roads owned 10 of those properties. Imagine buying 400 homes in Sydney, with its inflated prices, in upper middle class suburbs like Haberfield where there are hundreds of homes, each property being very substantial. Lines were drawn on maps, which embraced people's homes for 30 years. They could not improve them. They could do nothing with the properties. They could not sell them, and they were delighted when the Labor Party came to government in 1976, took away these dots on the map and gave them a chance to sell their properties. Schools were involved there which successive departments of education would not improve because they said the schools would be lost and the kids had to live in demountables. Now, after 10 years, the Liberal Party wants to turn the clock back. The people of New South Wales will not tolerate such nonsense and such shortsightedness in the policy of pumping every penny into building an expressway to get a few votes from the people who think that they will solve all the traffic problems. One cannot have a public transport system which loses money and an expressway system. No city in the world has ever done that, and the Liberals will not do it. The Liberal Party is misleading the voters in New South Wales. It is telling them fairy stories, if it thinks it can do that. I know that on 24 March the Liberals will be soundly beaten. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.43) —Today we heard an impassioned plea from a fast footworking Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who let us know that not by any means would he let unanthenticated tapes and statements be brought into this House to be used in a way in which the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the McCabe- Lafranchi report were used here. They were misused by members of what is now the Government in the most horrible fashion, and at that stage it was done with the approval of the honourable member for Wills who is now the Prime Minister. The Age tapes relate to corruption in the New South Wales Government and administration. They were authenticated. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) suggested that he did not know whether they were authenticated. When people drew his attention to the means by which the Age newspaper authenticated the tapes by contracting telephone numbers which were in the transcripts, he said: 'Oh, anybody could write that thing up'. It would take a fair bit of work to write up hundreds of pages. Let me remind honourable members that we are talking about the Age newspaper, not some little back street rag. If the Age newspaper had concocted those tapes in reverse so that it used the telephone numbers first, we would have a conspiracy. That is not like libel, that can be established every time. It is quite clear that the Age newspaper did not concoct those tapes and that the phone numbers and everything else mentioned in them are for real. What were we told in the Age on Friday 2 March? It refers to the Trimbole transcripts and states: First to the man in room 259 at the Fijian Hotel on the main island of Fiji. The transcripts show that Trimbole received a call in Sydney from an unnamed woman . . . The male is staying at the Fijian (hotel). The telephone number is 50155, Room 259. The male's name is Melaj. They discussed the STD but don't know it they then decide that wherever Melaj is, they are one hour behind. On 23 April 1981, Trimbole, according to the transcripts dials 0011 679 50155. He asks for room 259. He gets Mr Malek. He calls Mr Malek 'Robbie'. All these factors come out and they all prove that those tapes are authenticated. Government members-Ha, ha. Mr TUCKEY —I say to honourable members opposite that they should not laugh about it because they cannot prove otherwise. This Parliament has the right to see the transcripts and to make judgments on them. They are certainly as authenticated as the McCabe-Lafranchi report. They are as authenticated as the Costigan report , and honourable members opposite had no difficulty whatsoever in dragging down to the ground the names of senior citizens, and very important and innocent people. Mr Cunningham —I take a point of order. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member does not have a point of order. He would not know what one was. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for McMillan on a point of order. Mr Cunningham —My point of order is that reports by reputable judges who have done the work which has been asked of them have been brought before this Parliament. Mr TUCKEY —Is Costigan a judge? Mr Cunningham —And we have had the Costigan report tabled in this Parliament. Such reports are being referred to by the honourable member now in the context of a newspaper report. I think this is a-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I am making is that the reports were brought here to this Parliament. Mr Cunningham —They were genuine reports. Mr TUCKEY —They were genuine reports. They were as genuine as the information given if necessary under oath, but they are no more genuine than these transcripts. In fact the McCabe-Lafranchi report was just a list of companies which went to the bottom of the harbour, and all of a sudden people were being dragged in. Government members-Ah! Mr TUCKEY —I have no worries about that situation, and we will line up a few of the mates of honourable members opposite very shortly. Dawkins was in it, honourable members know that, so what are they worried about? Let us go back to the New South Wales Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member shall refer to a member of this House by his electorate. Mr TUCKEY —I refer to the Minister for Finance. I am glad to repeat his name. He is a crook. Mr SPEAKER —I will ask the honourable member to withdraw that charge. Mr TUCKEY —I will withdraw it as he did. The New South Wales Government and the Premier have been referred to time and again. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(10.48) —It is now 12 months since the election of the Hawke Labor Government. I think we now have the opportunity to consider in a calmer and more dispassionate atmosphere some of the types of material which is sent out by our opponents. Had I drawn the attention of the House to the letter which I have before me 12 months ago, when the election was still very much in our minds, I think its significance may well have been lost to honourable members. I have delayed bringing it to the attention of the House for 12 months so that we could look at it and see the type of extravagant, unsubstantiated, wild and malicious claims which are made by our opponents. I do this because we will be subjected to exactly the same type of thing over the next couple of weeks in the lead up to the New South Wales election. I wish to get this on the record. I have a letter which was sent by Mr Stephen Litchfield, the Campaign Director for the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party of Australia. It was dated 18 February 1983 and was sent to one of my constituents. Hence, it found its way into my hands. It was not addressed to me. The letter states: Why do you suppose Bob Hawke received a cheque for $50,000 for Labor's campaign from the AMWU, one of Australia's most militant unions? Why would the ALP & ACTU suddenly give the impression it had agreed on a wages and income policy when they have been unable to do so previously? What deals have been struck and what strings are attached to left-wing unions support? It gets better: It's because the unions control the Labor Party and want it to be the Government after the March 5 election. That should worry you! As a businessman like you-- he is a constituent and a member of my branch of the Australian Labor Party in Hunter- I know it's not much good owning a business if you aren't allowed to make the decisions. I ask you to imagine the day when you are stopped making your own management decisions, backing your own judgment. A day when you have to go cap in hand to some trade union official for permission to hire or fire, to stop and start work and to negotiate what profit you will be allowed to make. A day when unions are above the law of the land and a time when you are powerless to seek redress against them. The deals struck between Bob Hawke's Party and the unions have put a future Labour government in debt. The unions will demand the bill be paid! There's a simple reason why this is so. With Labor in Government, ALP policy, which has been drawn up by the union movement, will be put into action. It is binding on any Labor Government. The unions will insist on it! And why not-it's great news for them and disastrous news for you and me. The 'democratic socialisation of industry', a phrase contained within the ALP platform is not jargon, but a binding commitment to the action that will take place under Labor. I have just read an analysis of ALP policy which shows how dramatically you and I as businessmen will be hurt if Labor get in. It was written quite independently of the Liberal Party and at the very least I ask you to read it. If you don't get concerned after reading the ALP's platform analysis, nothing I can say will alter your opinion. They are the facts-in black and white. It's their policy, they mean it, I'm deeply concerned by it and I'm doing something about it. But to do the job properly I need your help. I need cash now and I'll tell you why. It's going to cost the Liberal Party big money to stop the likes of Laurie Carmichael, John Halfpenny or Norm Gallagher running this country through a captive Labor Party led by Bob Hawke. I am going to have to spend a lot of it in protecting our marginal seats, particularly Phillip, Barton, Macarthur and Eden- Monaro where very small swings against us will lose the seats. If we lose these seats we will lose government-- What a great prophet. The letter continues: Labor will get in and the unions will be in control. Remember it was the left- wing of the ALP that supported Bob Hawke as President of the ACTU. The way you can strike back and take real action for your own protection is to support our campaign to hold these electorates. Listen to this: I have authorised a special budget of $250,000 to be spent solely in those four critical electorates. That is, $60,000 in each- I am asking you to help me fund this special campaign. The stakes are high in this battle and we can't afford to lose. It is your business and mine that will suffer if we do. The cost is cheap when compared to the cost of a Hawke Labor Government. Your donation of just a few hundred dollars will do much to stop the unions getting complete control through a puppet Labor government. Our donations together will stop it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.53) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to the situation regarding employment in the western suburbs of Sydney. The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils has put together a report on which it wishes to speak to several Ministers of the Federal Government. The area involved covers the Commonwealth Employment Service areas of Auburn, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Fairfield, Granville, Katoomba, Liverpool, Mount Druitt, Parramatta, Penrith, St Marys and Windsor. I would like to impress upon the House the dreadful situation regarding employment and the problems of unemployment in the Australian State that has the worst employment record in the whole country. I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the position in western Sydney, compared with the rest of Australia, is far worse than is the average area. The rates are such that in all categories of employment, according to the way in which the CES categorises people for employment purposes, western Sydney is worse off than is the rest of Australia. In five of the eight categories used by the CES western Sydney is worse off. That is a terrible record for a State government that claims to have a concern for people and about their prospects in employment. The fine record of the Wran Government in New South Wales is that during the period March to September 1983 it created a whole 103 jobs in western Sydney. What a splendid record of achievement the New South Wales Government has. A total of 60,678 people are unemployed in that area. For those 60,000 people the New South Wales Government created 103 jobs. What a dreadful record. What a terrible record for the Australian Labor Party members who represent western Sydney and for the Government that claims that New South Wales is the premier State of this nation. It is premier all right. New South Wales has a record of being first in unemployment and first in the imposition of high taxes. That is a dreadful record. The Regional Organisation of Councils is coming down to speak to Ministers and I hope that Ministers will listen because, under the proposals of the Commonwealth Government, the councils are expected to find 30 per cent of total funds in order to participate. Mr Leo McLeay —That is not true and you know it. Mr CADMAN —Today I got a letter from the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in regard to the Parramatta Council. He has refused that council any variation of the 30 per cent. These 10 councils of western Sydney want to speak to the Federal Ministers involved because the councils cannot afford to pay the 30 per cent required to create employment in that area. What is the Federal Government going to do? If its record is anything like that of the State Government it will do nothing. That Government has created 103 jobs in western Sydney which has an unemployment rate of 13.6 per cent. That is dreadful. Nothing has been done by the State Government. It has no works programs, no impetus, no will, no dedication to the well-being of people in that area. The councils involved will be requesting that the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments ensure that allocations to western Sydney under the community employment program be commensurate with the levels of unemployment that are evident in the region and that the basis upon which such allocations are made be communicated to the regional council and its member councils. They are stuck for funds. They have a massive problem and the Wran Government of New South Wales has done not a thing to recognise their problems. The Minister for Territories and Local Government knows that the job opportunities, the factories , have been pushed into Campbelltown, that they have been moved away from western Sydney where the people are and where there is a need for jobs. The problems have not received the attention they deserve. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(10.58) —Let me first nail this business about the 30 per cent requirement to which the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has referred. If he were doing his job, which obviously he is not, as a local member he would explain to the council, as the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has done, that if councils are having difficulties in this regard these factors will be considered and dealt with sympathetically. In my own area some of the councils have been exempted. There are all sorts of ways of putting the 30 per cent in. The councils can put it in in kind. The honourable member is a fool; he is not doing his job. He should be explaining the situation to councils. The rubbish spoken by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has taken mud-raking in this Parliament to a new level. It is just like the mud-raking in the Parliament of New South Wales. That is why Neville Wran is going for an election. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said today, let the people of New South Wales decide. They are sick and tired of all this mud-raking that is being indulged in by the Liberal-National Party. The only reason members of that Party are mud-raking is that they have no policy at all. I invite the fools on the other side of the chamber to tell me what their policies are on coal, on education, on housing and on roads. They have no policy at all. They have to go and mud-rake, mud-rake and mud-rake. It is all they are good for. We will see on 24 March what the people of New South Wales think of the mud-raking of the Liberal-Country Party in New South Wales. In my own area of Illawarra no State government has spent more money than has the Wran Labor Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Uren —I would like the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(11.00) —I rise to reply to the comments made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) about the western region of Sydney. I agree that western Sydney has one of the serious social problems of the nation. Basically, this problem has arisen because of the failure of Federal governments from 1950 to the present day, with the exception of the three years between 1972 and 1975. It was only in that period that the national government worked together with the State Government and local government to try to upgrade conditions within that area. The honourable member for Mitchell talked about the Western Region Organisation of Councils known as WESROC. This organisation was set up under the administration of the Whitlam Government. At that time I was the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. In fact, the Whitlam Government in its first year of office made $5m available to try to overcome many of the social problems . We continued to fund WESROC until we were defeated at the end of 1975. From that year until we gained office again not one penny of moneys came from the national government to assist the local government in that area. This year we have made another $1.5m available to the western region of Sydney. Might I say to the honourable member for Mitchell that one of our first actions in 1972-73 was to make an inspection to ascertain where we could locate a Commonwealth office. We wanted to bring public servants out of the central business district of Sydney to Parramatta. We acquired a site in the heart of Parramatta owned by Meggit Ltd. We set aside $1.5m in the last year of the Whitlam Government for the construction of this building. The first action of the Fraser Government was to cancel the program. The program is proceeding under the present Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown). What was the theory behind the Whitlam Government's thinking? The theory was that if one is to give the people of the west an opportunity one has to give them jobs. That was one of our programs. The Wran Government has been denigrated. Between 1972 and 1975 we encouraged the electrification of the railway line between Penrith and Granville. There was a quadrupling of the railway line. The then conservative government of New South Wales deferred that work. One of the commitments of the Wran Government was to make sure the railway systems, particularly the urban system, would be upgraded. As I said, the railway system has been quadrupled. One of the great achievements of the Wran Government has been the upgrading of the urban railway system. The transport problems of major cities can be solved only by improving public transport systems. The Wran Government has done this. In fact, over 3 per cent more Sydney people use the urban public transport system to and from work than is the case in Melbourne notwithstanding the fact that Melbourne for so long was controlled by a conservative government. The Wran Government had that as a priority. The Wran Government has tried, with its meagre funds, to upgrade the services in western Sydney. The only way that we can overcome the social and infrastructure problems of areas is to get the Commonwealth, State and local governments working together. For the first time for many years we now have the Australian Government, the New South Wales Government and WESROC, which represents all the western regions, working together in the interests of the people. Mr Ruddock —What about the entertainment area? Mr UREN —I could give the honourable member other examples. For instances, there was a serious local flooding problem in Toongabbie. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises, he may continue. Mr UREN —I thank the House. I will keep honourable members for only a few more minutes. I can give the honourable member for Dundas the example of the flooding of the Toongabbie Creek system. In 1972-73 during the administration of the Whitlam Government we carried out a survey of the problem, we found out what was needed and funds for the work were being made available. When we lost government , funds were not forthcoming from the conservative Government to assist the New South Wales Government. This is a sad situation. We can look at issue after issue. I say again that the only way we can solve the social problems is to work in partnership and as a team. I believe there are social problems in regional areas. Many regions have to be looked at selectively. We have to look at some regions in New South Wales, particularly the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra. The La Trobe Valley and the Geelong area in Victoria also have serious problems. However, as I said, the only way that we can overcome these problems is to make sure that there is a real partnership at Federal, State and local government level. This Government, particularly with the Labor governments of New South Wales and Victoria, is going to tackle the job and we will give recognition to local government. One of the things that the Fraser Government failed to do was to give any real understanding, muscle or support to local government. The national Government recognises that this is what is needed. We will work together with State and local government. I would welcome representatives of WESROC if they came here. I encourage them to agitate the Government. We are the first government since 1975 to fund WESROC programs, to look at the social problems and to look at what could happen between now and the year 2000. The honourable member for Mitchell stood up at a late hour this night to try to gain cheap political capital because of the election that is to be held in New South Wales. We know what the situation is. I am quite sure that the people of western Sydney ultimately will support the Wran Government of New South Wales and that it will be returned to power again. When it is returned to power we, together with all honourable members from electorates in the western suburbs of Sydney, have to make sure that we agitate in this place and work together so that the conditions of people living in western Sydney will be improved and that they will have an equal chance with other Australians to better their way of life. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.09 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 5 March 1984: Australian National Railways Commission Act-Australian National Railways Commission-By-laws- Board of Appeals. General Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos. 20, 21, 22 Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 29. Director of Public Prosecutions Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 24 Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Health-M. Dennett Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinance-1984-No. 5-Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Regulation-1984-No. 4-(Public Health Ordinance)