Thursday, 10 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-The purpose of this statement is to announce the Government's migration program for 1986-87. In doing so, I would first like to draw the attention of honourable members to the demographic and economic issues relevant to Australia's population and immigration policies in the longer term. While current economic and social circumstances are important in setting immigration programs, the Government is conscious of the importance of the questions of the longer term benefits and costs which must be addressed if Australia is to exploit its full potential. Immigration intakes of recent years have combined with decreasing natural increase to produce population growth rates well below historical experience. Since 1946 the average annual population growth rate has been 1.85 per cent; as recently as 1983-84 it fell to as low as 1.15 per cent. About half of post-World War II population growth has been due to natural increase and the other half directly the result of migration. However, immigration has had a significant indirect stimulus through natural increase. Although Australia's population is still slowly increasing by virtue of natural increase alone, this will persist only while the age structure of our population remains relatively young. The level of Australian fertility is currently 10 per cent below the long term population replacement level and there is little chance of a recovery. Although Australia's level of mortality is low, still declining, and satisfactory by global comparisons, the crude death rate will rise as the population progressively ages. With a continuation of these trends in births and deaths, Australia's population would begin to decline half way through the next century, in the absence of immigration. While still relatively young, the Australian population is also ageing progressively. Honourable members will be aware that this development has significant welfare, taxation, labour market and economic consequences. Short of substantial increases in recent levels of immigration, the ageing of the population will accelerate sharply early in the next century. If current levels of immigration are retained, the aged dependency ratio would increase by 58 per cent by the year 2021. This ratio broadly relates those in retirement age to those available to the labour market. A 58 per cent increase in this ratio would have dramatic and far-reaching social and economic consequences. No society and no government can responsibly ignore these trends. Immigration cannot reverse ageing of the population but it can retard the process. Over the last decade or so, the average age of new settlers has been some five years younger than the average age of the resident population. To retard the ageing process significantly will require a sustained return to more traditional, historical levels of immigration programs. Population is not merely a question of numbers, growth rates or age profiles. The distributional impact of migration, both international and internal, cannot be ignored. The Government is conscious of the propensity of migrants to settle in existing urban communities, but it does not regard this as an issue which can be properly addressed in a migration context alone, given that people in Australia are free to choose the place in which they will live and work. Recent research demonstrates that migrants are at least as mobile and flexible as their Australian-born counterparts, particularly in the early years of settlement. Equally, proper concerns about environmental issues are relevant to population growth and immigration programs. Ultimately, however, the capacity of a nation to address environmental concerns largely resides in areas other than immigration, including capacity to generate economic wealth, a sufficient tax base and technological sophistication. Immigration levels cannot be determined in isolation from permanent and long term departures. In recent years permanent departures have fluctuated from a low of 19,500 in 1980-81 to a high of 25,000 in 1982-83. They have resulted in substantial losses of skilled workers. Accordingly, the contribution of net permanent migration to the Australian labour market has been substantially less than the contribution of permanent settlers alone. I turn now to the economic implications of immigration. Recent research undertaken by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, CEDA, and my Department is relevant to our understanding of the role of immigration in the Australian economy. It is generally accepted that research of this kind is complex and based in part on econometric models, and that the findings have to be seen in that light. However, the more significant research findings are sufficiently important to include in this statement. Until recently, many Australians, and not least Australian opinion leaders, have subscribed to the populist view that during periods of high unemployment or economic downturn immigration is disadvantageous to the employment prospects of Australians seeking to enter the labour market. These mistaken perceptions need serious attention. I draw the attention of honourable members to three of the CEDA research findings. The first is that immigration has contributed positively to economic growth and development. The second is that immigration, even in the very short term, does not adversely affect the employment prospects of the Australian resident population, with few localised and particular exceptions. The third is that the skill, education, age and self-sufficiency profiles of a particular intake are perhaps more important than the overall scale of any one intake. In relation to this question of education and skills, the Government has noted the call for higher levels of skilled labour and business migration. The Economic Planning Advisory Council, EPAC, suggested that the skill composition and base of the Australian labour force could be enhanced in the medium term from increases in these programs. Whilst agreeing with these views, the Government is equally committed to upgrading the skill base of the Australian community by appropriate education, training and retraining policies and programs. In the long term, population policy objectives and economic rationality will be best served by a progressive return to more traditional levels of immigration. This return must be gradual, in part because the lead times in immigration are significant. Australia faces as much international competition for people with positive economic attributes as it does for commodity and capital markets. If anything, the level of competition is likely to sharpen in the medium to longer term. The Government sees properly managed population growth and immigration as an important strategy for economic policy options. All economic policy instruments involve short and long term benefits and costs, and immigration is no exception. In looking at the long term future the Government is concerned to awaken Australia's interest in, and appreciation of, the population dimension. The appendices to this statement, which I shall table at the end of my speech, underpin the statement and provide a basis for an informed understanding of where we are and where we are headed. I recently asked the National Population Council to develop and advise me on long term population options for Australia. I expect that the Council's advice and the statement I have made will both serve to elicit public comment on these longer term population and immigration issues. It should be noted that, if it were decided that Australia's population by the year 2000 should be about 19 million, then that outcome would be achieved by an average annual immigration program of 120,000. If it were decided that there should be a population target of some 30 million by the year 2038, the 250th year of European settlement of this continent, then such an outcome would be reached with an average annual migrant intake of 160,000. Both outcomes would be more likely were fertility rates to recover to higher levels. In either event, both could be achieved by manageable progressive increases in recent levels of immigration to intakes comparable to those experienced in the 1940s and 1960s when the population base and Australia's absorption capacity were substantially less then they are now or will be in the future. Australia's aim should be to see its immigration program in the context both of humane and community concerns and of population and economic development needs. Our understanding must be that immigrants, carefully selected, create more jobs than they take. It is against this philosophical and factual background that the Government has considered the migration program for 1986-87 and indicative planning levels for the subsequent two years. In developing the program the Government has had the benefit of formal advice from employers, trade unions, community groups, State governments, local government representatives, academics and the National Population Council. We propose a program of 95,000 visa issues and change of status approvals in 1986-87. This compares with an expected outcome of 89,000 in the current year and a planning level of 84,000. It represents a modest initial increase, and one I expect will be achieved. For the two subsequent years the Government has set indicative planning levels of 110,000 and 125,000, respectively. These levels are no more than indicative for planning purposes. They could represent the beginnings of a possible gradual increase in immigration which may thereby, subject to community support following from consultation on resources and needs, return by managed steps to historical intake levels of 160,000 to 170,000 or about 1 per cent of population at that time. These are decisions for the future-but the foundations are being laid. I announce one major change and initiative to the structure of the migration program of interest to all honourable members. The Government has decided to develop the concept of an independent and concessional migration category to attract a wider and more numerous number of people with the potential to contribute to Australia's economic and social needs. This category is based on the principles of the current extended family (category C) program, which as honourable members would know, covers sponsored adult siblings and non-dependant children. Applicants will be required to achieve a pass mark of 70 points on the existing points system which relates to the age, employability, education and skill characteristics of the potential migrant. In recognition of the economic support that family in Australia can provide, concessionary points will be given to adult brothers and sisters and non-dependent children (10 points out of 70) and nephews and nieces (5 points). In summary, the new independent and concessionary migration category brings benefits from the economic gains to Australia from the people likely to succeed in their migration applications, whilst recognising at the same time the economic and social advantages of the extended family nexus. This category is not one of entitlements but one of optimising human and economic realities. Effectively, the Government is concerned here with attracting people Australia needs, motivationally, economically and in terms of population building and the retardation of aging. Would-be independent migrants with no family ties but who adequately meet the criteria of employability, self-sufficiency, youth, skills and/or education will still be eligible to be included in our expanding migration program. At the same time, I emphasise the Government maintains its commitment to reunion of immediate family. The family unit for us is the Australian family unit based on husband, wife, dependent children and retired parents. For aged parents of independent means, spouses and dependent children, entry is virtually automatic. On present levels of demand, I estimate a program of 26,000 visas in 1986-87 compared with an estimated outcome of 25,000 in 1985-86. A sensitive element has been the Vietnam family migration program, which relies on the continued co-operation of the Vietnamese Government. It needs to be understood that in return for their responsibility to integrate into and contribute to Australian society, one of the rights given to migrants is to be reunited with immediate family. But this right does not flow over to the extended family. Extended family members are given preference for migration, more so in Australia than in the United States or Canada, but they must qualify for migration on the basis of the potential contribution they can make to Australian society. Skilled migration will continue to play a vital role in filling specific labour market needs. We propose 16,000 visa issues compared to a planning level of 14,000 in the current year. In an increasingly competitive environment, greater efforts will be made to attract business migrants and talented entrepreneurs with a target of 2,500 visa issues, some two-thirds higher than the expected 1985-86 outcome. I shall seek leave to table a summary of the compositional elements of the 1985-86 and 1986-87 migration programs at the end of this statement. The Government reaffirms its commitment to its refugee and special humanitarian programs which will remain for planning purposes at their 1985-86 levels, namely, 12,000 plus a contingency reserve of 2,000. This reflects a balance between a minor decrease in need for the re- settlement of Indo-Chinese, particularly Vietnamese, a minor increase in East European caseloads and a largely stable level of need in other areas. In line with our desire to increase community involvement in humanitarian resettlement and to recognise the resource implications of funding refugee travel to an extent not undertaken by comparable migrant intake countries such as the United States of America and Canada, there will be a change in the balance between persons receiving passage assistance and those responsible for funding their own travel to Australia. Fewer refugee travel costs will be funded by the Australian taxpayer. This Government reaffirms its commitment to immigration as a positive, needs-based, economically desirable and socially advantageous instrument of economic, population and social policy. It reaffirms Australia's sovereignty by maintaining non-discriminatory, but selective, universal selection principles. I reiterate that the Australian Government alone decides and will continue to decide who can enter and stay in Australia. It affirms its vision for the future, one of managed, gradual expansion of the migration program. It wants a better society for all Australians and sees immigration, properly controlled, as a powerful weapon in achieving that objective. This Government emphasises the balance that is required between choosing those who will make the biggest contribution to Australia and those admitted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, in particular immediate family and refugees. In this context, both the program that I have announced and the longer term thinking and debate about our future, which I encourage, continue to reflect the principles of immigration which my predecessors, of all political persuasions, have firmly embraced. I table a fuller statement from which I have drawn in making these remarks and which includes the appendices to which I have referred. I present the following paper: Migration Program 1986-87-Ministerial Statement, 10 April 1986. Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.17) —Before I respond to the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), I would like to make a few remarks on the consultation between the Government and the Opposition. For some time now the Opposition has been complaining about the Government's lack of consultation on immigration matters. The Minister and I had a discussion yesterday and I wish to inform the House that the Minister indicated his regret that the Opposition has not been consulted about this announcement and the details of the forthcoming year's immigration program. This is a matter of great regret to the Opposition. The Minister indicated that he will be doing everything possible to improve the level of consultation. The Minister claimed that a substantial sector of the Australian community has been consulted, but the Opposition has not participated. Nevertheless, because of the Opposition's wide contacts and well informed attitudes, the lack of consultation has been no impairment to our capacity to participate in this debate. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has just presented an economic rationale for increasing immigration to Australia by 11,000 to 14,000 for the forthcoming year. The Minister stated that the Australian economy will benefit greatly from this increase because it is based on young people with skills and knowledge who will be self-sufficient and who will create jobs for themselves and for others. In fact, the program of 95,000 immigrants for 1986-87 will not be 11,000 to 14,000 above last year's targeted program. There was a considerable overrun in family unions during this year of 12,000, and a shortfall in skilled immigrants. The increase this year above the targeted program was approximately 6,000, and the forthcoming year proposes a further increase on the actual intake of this year of 6,000. Some of the projected increase is anticipated to come from the occupational share system and the employer nomination system. Questions need to be asked. Can it be done? Is it realistic? Will it be good for Australia? The Opposition believes that a well planned, well executed immigration program is essential. We have argued for some time that any increase in the level of immigration should be based on the selection criteria which favour young, skilled educated employable people as well as those who can make a financial investment in Australia. The Government has accepted our basis in arguing its case. However, it has not applied these factors with the degree of confidence needed for a successful program, nor has it realised the widest implications of its announced program base. The Government in its immigration program, has been completely controlled and shackled until now by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the trade unions, and by its demonstrated ineptitude to administer the current program. There is no doubt about that-I invite honourable members opposite to read the record. The three years of Australian Labor Party administration of this portfolio has produced wild swings in philosophies, attitudes and administration. There seems at last to be an understanding that our immigration program must be good for Australia as well as for those who come here. Recent studies have demonstrated the economic benefits of increased immigration provided that the balance and mix of the program is taken fully into account. These studies have endorsed the policies of the Fraser Government and the long history of immigration and population growth administered by the coalition. At last we see some glimmer of understanding and comprehensive, sound goals and sound planning. Some of the economic benefits which accrue to Australia from a substantial immigration intake are obvious if Australia's great periods of growth are looked at in terms of standards of living and capacity for development in competitive industries. The domestic and international advantages of the program are supported by statistics which indicate that jobs are created if skilled people are brought into Australia. What have been the effects on our economy of the Labor Party's concept of immigration and why has it introduced programs that are skills, knowledge and investment oriented? First, we need to go to the basis of the Labor Party's policy, linked with the wages and incomes accord. When one compares the statistics for the last year of the Fraser Government with those for the first year of the current Government's administration one can see that the previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, now the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), caused a complete breakdown in communications and some misunderstandings in the processes he was using. However, subsequently there have been changes in policy and, despite many comments from the previous and the present Ministers, the program has been changed. Whilst Australia has been generous to the families of migrants in allowing them to come to Australia, the unbalancing effect of the previous decisions imposed upon us some difficulties that can be easily assessed if one looks at the different levels of skill based and family reunion based immigration. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard tables which I will now show to the Minister. They are extracts of departmental figures of the expectations and outcomes of programs for immigration in the various categories. This historical record clearly shows that in 1982-83, the last year of the Fraser Administration, family reunion immigration was running at a level of about 20,000 persons a year. The present Government has increased family reunion immigration in the various categories to an average of about 40,000 persons a year. At the same time, the number of people entering Australia in the skilled and business investment categories has dropped off from the level that obtained under the previous Government-an average of around 45,000 a year-to around 12,500 for the current year. In fact, the number of people in these categories was at a level of 8,000 a year in the first two years of the Labor Party Administration. It is opportune that we have a Minister who is seeking to give more emphasis to the skills, knowledge and investment categories. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Did the Minister give leave for the tables to be incorporated in Hansard? Mr Hurford —Subject to the source being acknowledged. Mr CADMAN —The source is the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- MIGRATION STATISTICS Category Year 79/80 80/81 81/82 Family Reunion 18,359 19,570 21,768 General Eligibility... 24,115 45,189 57,614 Refugee... 19,954 21,847 21,917 Special... 751 858 1,489 Eligibility... 18,092* 23,726* 15,912* TOTAL... 81,271 111,190 118,700 Category 82/83 Family Reunion... 26,952 Labour shortage/Business... 31,831 Independent Migration... 6,494 Refugee & SHP... 17,054 Special... 10,846 93,177 * Transfer-Tasman Outcome 83/84 84/85 Programme 85/86 Estimated Outcome 85/86 Family Reunion A & B... 22,673 22,370 26,000 25,000 C... 14,066 17,112 16,000 28,000 36,739 39,482 42,000 53,000 Skilled Labour & Business (OSS) Skilled labour Employer... 4,189 3,965 8,000 4,500 (ENS) Nomination Business... 3,067 3,746 6,000 6,500 Migrants... 1,453 1,417 4,500 1,500 Independent & Special... 579 655 1,500 700 9,288 9,783 20,000 13,200 Refugee & SHP... 15,485 14,207 12,000 12,000 Contingency Reserve... . . . . 2,000 . . Total Visa... 62,350 63,472 82-84,000 89,000 Change of Status... . . 6,014 8,000 10,500 * 838 included in policy prior to 19 April 1982 Mr CADMAN —I thank the House. It is sad to see the results of the Minister's efforts in comparison with those being made by the Government to support our young people in their wish to gain a job. These, of course, are connected. Extravagant statements, which are familiar to the House, were made in June and October when the Government proposed an increase in training opportunities for young people. These increases, in fact, have not been realised, and there is concern in the community that if the Government moves to improve, increase and expand an immigration program it will do so without providing effective training programs and opportunities for our young people. Mr Hand —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not see what our programs for young people in Australia have to do with the matter before the House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr CADMAN —That just demonstrates the concern of the honourable member for Melbourne about these programs. The House will know that the promised 10,000 traineeships by 1 July just will not eventuate. There is no chance that they will eventuate. Therefore I appeal to the Government to adopt a program for immigration and the training of our young people which is mutually compatible. That can be done. There would be no problems. At the very time at which the Labor Party was proclaiming its great economic recovery-that was brought about by the breaking of the drought and the winning of the America's Cup-it actually deleted the most important immigration factor for economic development. When we climbed to the summit to sign the prices and incomes accord, the ALP pushed skilled immigration over the edge. As I have said, it reduced the program to 8,000 a year. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at that time did not do a great deal for Australia's manpower requirements. Close family ties have always been acknowledged in Australia's immigration program. We admire the family values expressed by so many migrants. These are values which Australians would do well to emulate if they are really looking for stability and an environment suitable for the successful nurturing of children. The fact is, however, that a strong family reunion program unsupported by a strong skills and investment category of migrants will result in real risks for Australian employment potential. This difficulty can be further exacerbated in a time of economic downturn. We must recognise that 52 percent of family reunion arrivals are semi-skilled or unskilled. It is essential that a balanced approach to immigration be achieved. Let us see what the Labor Party has done. I have spoken about the changes in the average level of family migration and the changes the Government has introduced in the business and skills program. Dislocation of the labour force was a concern of the Labor Party when coming into office. The Opposition feels that a sound economic policy must be linked with a strong and balanced immigration program. Despite a failure to attract skilled migrants during this year, the Government has set even higher targets for the skilled workers in the coming year. Unless there is reduced control of these categories of the program by the union movement the target will not be reached. The target for this year was a total of 14,000 migrants. The estimated result for the year is 11,000. Business immigration also suffered a major restriction. A target of 4,500 entrepreneurs yielded only 1,800. The Business Review Weekly of 6 December clearly states that in a survey of vacancy levels, of the 108 companies that responded, 69 per cent said that they had vacancies; 33 per cent said that they were seeking both skilled and unskilled workers; 30 per cent wanted only unskilled workers; and 6 per cent were offering jobs only to skilled people. Surveys across various industries conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Australia Bank Ltd confirmed the Business Review Weekly statements. A call by Mr George Schaffer, the Chairman of Calsil Ltd, recently indicated his concern about the level of skilled migration. One has only to read our foreign language newspapers to understand the difficulties that have been experienced by skilled and semi-skilled workers in getting into Australia. La Fiamma of 17 March 1986 stated: As regards immigration from Italy the Department of Immigration says `that there is no interest'. This flies in the face of allegations that the Australian authorities contribute to the apathy by discouraging potential candidates. I leave that for the House's judgment, but the Opposition believes that an increase in immigration in the forthcoming year should be for employable and self-employed people. It is misleading and irresponsible to do otherwise. The so-called independent and concessional category has every appearance of being very difficult. Previously this category was confined to the reunion of brothers and sisters of Australian residents. There was a sharp increase from a projected 16,000 to an estimated 28,000 this year. It is now intended that the eligibility be widened but to decrease slightly the number and to increase the difficulty of gaining entry. I believe that the overseas offices of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will be flooded by the applications which will come forward and the Government's short term political traction of putting down this program will, in the long term, be damaged because I do not believe that the Government will gain either the skills or the family. I think it will fall between the two and many people will be disappointed. I think that it is a good idea, but I do not think that the Government can administer it. I think that it needs further refinement and I look forward to those refinements. I need to comment on the refugee program, because I am concerned that the Government appears to be combing the world to fill our refugee program, but we are not giving sufficient attention to the very difficult circumstances applying to families in Australia who are separated from families in refugee camps in Thailand and in Vietnam. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Scholes) agreed to: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 8 April 1986, namely: The construction of the National Bicentennial Science Centre at Section 28, Parkes, which is within the parliamentary zone. Debate resumed from 9 April, on motion by Mr Hawke: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.34) —I am very happy to participate in the second reading debate on this measure and to say a number of wide ranging things on this issue on behalf of the Opposition. The Government's Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 is a prime example of symbolic politics. The reality is that this legislation will not do a great deal to meet the real needs of Australian women in the 1980s and yet it is being proclaimed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as a major social advance. The Opposition totally supports the concept of equal opportunity. The record of Australian Liberalism in the area of female advancement surpasses that of any political party in this country. The Liberal Party of Australia and its predecessors can boast that this record includes the first woman elected to a State parliament, the first woman appointed to the Federal Ministry and the first woman to become a State President of a major political party. Given the philosophical antecedents of the Liberal Party, this record is not surprising. In 1861 John Stuart Mill argued that society should offer equal opportunities for all its members. Mill argued for `a principle of perfect equality admitting no power or privilege on the one side nor disability on the other side'. The central tenets of this early liberal thinking-equality of opportunity and greater freedom of choice for women-remain central to the goals of the Liberal Party and its policy formulation. The National Party of Australia, our coalition partner, has likewise a strong and unambiguous commitment to equal opportunity and like the Liberal Party, has a very proud record in this area. For example, Mrs Shirley McKerrow is the first woman to head the national organisation of any major political party in Australia. This commitment merely recognises the enormous contribution of women to the development of Australia. On any analysis the contribution of Australian women to the development of this nation has been quite remarkable. From the very earliest of times a prime example emerges. Although much has been written, for example, of the role of John Macarthur in developing the primitive wool industry that came to be the underpinning of the Australian economy, it is often forgotten that for many years his wife Elizabeth was the driving inspiration behind the development of this industry, and not only during the lengthy periods when John Macarthur was in effective exile. As is inevitably the case, it is only the famous who are remembered. These range across an enormous field of individual contribution and achievement. Many Australian women have made most important contributions to our society and to activities around the world. If one goes across the whole span, in literature there are people such as Christina Stead, Ruth Park, Joan Lindsay and Colleen McCullough. In the arts there is Judy Cassab. In films there are many actresses such as Judy Davis, Judith Anderson and Anne Lambert. Of course, in sport names such as Betty Cuthbert, Dawn Fraser, Evonne Cawley and Margaret Court come very readily to mind. But the naming of the few only underlines the contribution of the many and the role that they have played in the formation of one of the most remarkably successful and stable nations in the world. The Liberal and National parties, when last in government, demonstrated a commitment to equal employment opportunity for women. Under the Fraser Government the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau within the Public Service prospered. In 1981 the Public Service Board instituted a three-stage program designed to introduce voluntary equal employment opportunity for women in departments and authorities. The Board then established two goals for those programs: To increase the number of women in senior management; and to increase the number of women in jobs not traditionally done by women. Moreover, the Fraser Government made a number of important appointments of women to senior positions. It is appropriate to recall that Professor Dame Leonie Kramer was made Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and fulfilled that role with great success and distinction until her totally unjustified removal by the Hawke Government amid much personal vilification in 1983. Yet we hear nothing from the Government about the appointment and the deeds of women of her stamp and calibre. It appears that on occasions the rhetoric of the Hawke Government is not about women in general, but about particular women holding particular attitudes. The legislation being debated today does not encompass affirmative action. In essence, affirmative action denotes prescriptive, positive discrimination. This Bill, as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), does not set quotas; rather, it purports to enshrine the principle of merit for employment or promotion. This Bill in that sense is a welcome step back from the Australian Labor Party's historical predilection for the concept of mandatory prescriptive affirmative action. In Senator Ryan's original 1981 proposal, affirmative action plans would have been required of private corporations with a minimum of 100 employees or those parties to a contract with the Commonwealth to provide goods and services over the value of $50,000. Under Senator Ryan's proposal, those concerned would have had 12 months to develop their plans, and unsatisfactory progress would have attracted a direction from the Commonwealth Government to comply. Failure to comply would have led to a court order. Breach of such an order would have attracted penalties such as fines and prison sentences and, where applicable, termination of Commonwealth contracts and blacklisting for a number of years. Similarly, the first draft of the Hawke Government's Green Paper, `Affirmative Action for Women', also called for penalties where companies failed to comply with legal requirements under affirmative action legislation. But now the Hawke Government has retreated significantly from its earlier advocacy of prescriptive affirmative action legislation. This retreat has been so marked that the Opposition believes that this Bill has been inappropriately named. Therefore, we will move an amendment to rename this legislation an `equal opportunity in employment Bill'. The coalition is, and will remain, totally opposed to affirmative action legislation, because it implies an enormous bureaucratic interference in the lives of ordinary Australians. The Opposition fully and unambiguously supports the objective of equal opportunity of employment, and although the Opposition has reservations about the methodology and many of the features of this Bill we have decided not to oppose it because of our deep commitment to the concept of equal opportunity in employment. In reaching this decision the coalition took into account a wide range of views on the legislation. The Opposition recognises that strong and legitimately held views exist in the community about the legislation, particularly in sections of women's groups and organisations. As an example, I note that the Country Women's Association looked at the Bill in detail and it has a number of basic and legitimate concerns about it. In our proposed amendments we have particularly tried to respond to the concerns of organisations such as the CWA. While the coalition welcomes the fact that this legislation is not as draconian as originally proposed and does not contain sanctions; nevertheless, it does impose a number of regulatory obligations and additional costs and burdens on the business community. The Opposition is concerned at the ever increasing amount of social legislation and regulation, which is particularly hitting hard at small business and farmers. We want to make it emphatically clear that, had we been in government, we would not have introduced this Bill. In the Senate, the coalition will move a second reading amendment which sets out our general attitudes and reservations about the legislation. The Liberal and National parties fully recognise that many women in society believe, and have reason to believe, that they are discriminated against, and research undertaken both here and overseas clearly indicates that. For example, in an article recently published in the United States of America entitled `What the Republicans have learned about women' it was noted that four out of 10 American women believed that their opportunities had been limited. The study demonstrated that single women were more likely to feel this than were married women. The coalition believes that equal employment opportunity is best achieved through government leadership rather than through prescriptive mandatory legislation. We prefer programs based upon facilitation rather than coercion. The coalition also believes that in the achievement of equal opportunity in employment more should be made of encouraging voluntary co-operation amongst employers. In our opinion the experience of the voluntary pilot program provided an insight into the way ongoing change is best handled by governments; that is, through the encouragement of voluntary participation, the recognition of effort and the opportunity provided to employers to enjoy the benefits of equal employment opportunities. This is an appropriate occasion to say a few things about the debate on equal rights and equality of opportunity. The Liberal and National parties' commitment to these goals and concepts is unambiguous. However, the debate on these issues is often characterised by great prejudice and illusory assertions. Fundamental changes in the attitudes of Australian women have occurred, particularly over the past decade. Some of these changes have been accompanied by excessive rhetoric from radical feminist groups, which has done great damage to the cause of successfully achieving the removal of barriers and discrimination which have existed for women. By promoting reverse discrimination and advocating the establishment of barriers for others, many of these groups have given the cause of equality of status a bad name and have produced responses from others in the community which are unnecessarily suspicious in character. Similarly, the excessive zeal shown by some in attempting to change our common and beautiful language usage has led to resentment in wide sections of the community. There can be no equality of opportunity unless chance exists. Real equality opportunity depends upon the availability of choice. Without choice, equality of opportunity is illusory. The goal of the Liberal and National parties is to provide Australian women with an effective choice in their way of life. It is not and never will be our desire to dictate a stereotype of one kind or another. The question of whether or not a woman or a man is a full time home maker or combines the duties of parenthood with a career ought to be a matter of individual choice. However, it is important to recognise that such choice is totally illusory if the family in question can survive financially only if both parents go out to work. For this reason the Liberal and National parties strongly support income splitting, which will make it easier for low income families to exercise the choice-which is the stated goal of both parties-of one parent remaining at home full time while children are young. For too long the tax system has discriminated against single income families. This is one of the reasons why the number of married women in the work force who have dependent children has increased. However, I emphasise that that is not the only reason. There has also been a marked change in attitudes as more and more women are properly and effectively exercising a conscious choice to undertake full time careers. A coalition government would also introduce tax deductions for child care expenses. This would recognise the reality that in today's world about 50 per cent of married women with dependent children are part of the work force. There have been permanent shifts in the way of life of many Australian families. The number of Australian women wanting to combine the responsibilities of parenthood with resuming a career is increasing. The coalition recognises this and has adjusted its policies accordingly. Likewise, the coalition recognises that many women wish to exercise the choice not to undertake full time paid employment while they have young dependent children. Through a commitment to both income splitting and tax deductibility for child care expenses the coalition would facilitate choice and establish the basis for real equality of opportunity. To make this choice effective not only should barriers to advancement of employment be reduced but also the existing rigidity in our market, which makes it so difficult for married women to enter our work force, should be eliminated. I can think of a few things which would more greatly assist in a practical sense the desire of women to match their parental responsibilities with their desire to re-enter the work force than to have a greater availability of part time work. However, the unpalatable fact is that the trade union movement has persistently held a trog- lodytal attitude towards the achievement of permanent part time work. There is some sign of change in attitude of some trade unions. However, it is too little and, for many Australian women, it is far too late. The coalition believes that the practical desire of many Australian women to gain greater access to permanent part time work should be facilitated. At present this desire is being thwarted by Australia's rigid and inflexible industrial relations system. The existing centralised industrial relations system penalises individual enterprises which want to make agreements to stagger their working hours to make them more acceptable to female and male employers who have family responsibilities or other interests. Let me give honourable members an example of this. A large number of female employees in a factory in an inner Sydney suburb, all with young children, petitioned management to alter their working hours. Their proposal was that by starting 30 minutes earlier and having only half an hour for lunch they could be at home when their children returned from school-a not unreasonable aspiration. The employer obviously agreed to the proposal. However, the firm was soon informed by the Arbitration Inspectorate that it was in breach of the standard working hours provision of the relevant award and warned that it would be penalised if that common-sense arrangement were allowed to continue. The net result was that they had to go back to the arrangement, which from a common-sense point of view they obviously desired to change. As a result the standard working hours were reinstituted and the children of the workers spent an extra hour of each day without any parental care. That is all the result of the stupid, rigid and inflexible industrial relations system that we have in this country. It is this rigid and inflexible system, supported by the Hawke Government and the trade union movement, which denies women employment opportunities and the fair go to which Labor is allegedly committed to achieving for them. This is one of the features of the existing industrial relations system that reinforces the coalition's commitment to providing greater choice and freedom in Australia's industrial relations system. The goal of the changes we propose in this area is to facilitate choice and to provide the basis for real equality of opportunity in employment to be achieved. The legislation currently before the House does not seek to provide this flexibility or choice. Indeed, a number of areas seek to entrench further union power and influence. Compulsory consultations with trade unions are required. This is despite the fact that these were found to be unnecessary and burdensome during the pilot program that preceded this legislation. Therefore, the Opposition will seek the removal of this requirement. Once again in the legislation we see attempts by the Government to classify sub-contractors as employees for the purposes of the Bill. This reflects the recommendations of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems and seriously threatens the future viability of Australia's sub-contractors. Moreover, it is a grievous violation of human rights because such legislation, if implemented, would force sub-contractors who are not employees and who do not wish to be classified as such to be dragooned into unions against their will in order to please the union bosses at the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The coalition therefore will seek to change the definition of employees contained in the Bill. While not opposing the legislation the coalition believes that more effective equality of employment opportunities for women could be achieved through major reform in industrial relations and taxation. I have outlined a number of those earlier in my speech. It is sometimes suggested by our opponents that the importance placed by the Liberal and National parties on the family unit as the most basic and important force in our society is somehow inconsistent with the attainment of individual fulfilment by Australian women. Let me say that I and all my colleagues totally reject this notion. It is clear from our policies that the coalition aims to provide greater choice and flexibility to Australian families to allow them to pursue the way of life they desire. This can only enhance the achievement of individual fulfilment. The coalition will monitor this legislation very closely. We are moving to insert a sunset clause which would require the legislation to be reviewed in five years time. We believe that this is a reasonable time in which to assess the effectiveness and continued need for legislation of this type. It is worth observing that in the editorial in the current edition of the Australian Bulletin of Labour Professor Richard Blandy and Judy Sloan conceded that there was truth in the argument that equal opportunity policies make good commercial sense and that equal opportunity legislation may not be necessary. Professor Blandy and Judy Sloan did not maintain that this argument in itself was strong enough to lead to opposition to the legislation currently before the House. However, they made the claim: . . . such reservations point to the need to provide some `sunset' clause, such that the provisions of the Bill are not enforced after the period when attitudes have changed and employment procedures generally have been raised to provide for equal opportunity for all workers. This argument is completely consistent with what the Opposition is proposing in its proposed sunset clause amendment. It is pertinent here to note that the Fraser Government regarded the concept of equal employment opportunity for women as including both the Public Service and statutory authorities. The Hawke Government's Bill does not extend to statutory authorities. The Opposition regards this exclusion as an exercise of great hypocrisy. Apparently it is all right to require private business to meet regulatory requirements in this area, but statutory monopolies such as Telecom Australia and Australia Post are to be left out. The Opposition will test the bona fides of the Government by moving amendments to include within the ambit of the legislation women who are employed in statutory authorities. Another area left untouched by the legislation is the barriers to women seeking to re-enter the work force. Many Australian women who have been out of paid employment for some time rearing children often decide that they would like to re-enter the work force. After such long periods of absence women's confidence and experience can be low. In addition, they are usually condemned to starting at the lower ranks of the employment ladder unless their qualifications have been updated and they have gained skills associated with new technology. There are few retraining opportunities available to these women and the absence of adult apprenticeships makes their desire to re-enter the work force all the harder to achieve. This failure of the apprenticeship system to allow Australians more easily to exercise a choice to re-enter the labour market in areas of specialist skills is a major reason many women are found in lower paid generalist occupations and is yet another barrier to those women who are left untouched by this legislation. These are areas neglected by the Hawke Government over the past three years. Nothing in this Bill will overcome the lack of opportunity suffered by many women who wish to re-enter the work force. I have identified five areas left untouched by this symbolic legislation. I have identified freedom of choice in industrial relations, permanent part time work, retraining schemes, income splitting and child care tax relief. Three common threads typify each of the five areas I have raised: Each is more important for women's work opportunities than the legislation before the House; each is already part of the policies of the Liberal and National parties; and each has been effectively rejected by the Hawke Government and the Labor movement. The Opposition will continue to fight to ensure that the opportunities of all Australians are increased in these and other related areas. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(11.00) —I rise to support this historic piece of legislation, the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986, and I am pleased that there is a degree of bipartisan support for the Bill. Mr McGauran —Nonsense! There are 28 amendments. Mr BLANCHARD —Those amendments will be attended to in due course. In the meantime, I ask my friend to let me get on with my speech. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) talks about the role of women within the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. That is fair enough. But I ask: How many women are sitting on the Opposition benches? It is true that there is one Liberal member, the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan); but there is not one from the National Party in this House, nor is there likely to be one in the future. In his speech the Leader of the Opposition referred in extremely derogatory terms to the industrial relations system as it is today and he indicated that the Opposition's policy is to overthrow that system. I fail to see how the overthrow of the present system will lead to greater equality of opportunity for women. I am sure that it would lead to less. The term `affirmative action' is a fairly recent one. It originated in the civil rights movement in the United States of America and the first legislative action in this field came in that country in the early 1960s. I remind the house that history is replete with examples of how women have been given a subordinate role in society. Many of the world's religions, whilst professing equality before God-a male figure- have failed to practise the same equality within their bureaucracies. Recently we have seen the Dean of Perth, the Reverend David Robarts, a very good and sincere man, publicise his displeasure at the ordination of women deacons. The Bishop of Ballarat, Dr John Hazlewood, another good and sincere man, recently stated; The Bishop is supposed to be the centre of unity within the Church and the appointment of a woman bishop would be a very divisive thing. So I think by definition women cannot be bishops. What logic! Fortunately, the Anglican Church and many other Christian churches are attempting to grapple with and resolve this problem, but obviously there is still a long way to go. Until recently the State and Commonwealth Public Services were just as bad, perhaps worse. Women were regarded as temporary rather than permanent and it was not so long ago that a woman who married was requested or required to resign. More recently the Green Paper on Affirmative Action examined the relative status of Australian women with regard to wages, occupational and industrial distribution, hours of work and unemployment. It was found that on average, compared with men, women had low wages, were employed in jobs with low status and with apparently poor promotion prospects and experienced higher unemployment rates. It was also found that women constitute a substantial number of discouraged workers-persons who are interested in work but are not part of the measured unemployed because they have ceased searching for work, given the low probability of obtaining it. It is against this background of prejudice and discrimination in the work force that this Bill is presented to Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is to eliminate discrimination and to promote equal employment opportunities for women. Its aim is to give women equal opportunity with men to compete for all jobs, since it ensures that people are chosen to do a job depending only on their individual abilities to perform the task required, not on their sex. Affirmative action has become more important when we recognise that the labour force participation by women doubled between 1947 and 1983, from 22 per cent to 44 per cent. Yet most of this increase has been in part time work-a significant factor in terms of financial provision for women in retirement. Affirmative action means that women will no longer be denied chances to gain skills and experience because of certain general assumptions about women. These assumptions are often built into an organisation's employment and promotion policies and practices. They can influence whether people receive training that will help their career prospects in the future. There are many examples to illustrate this point, but one will suffice. This occurred in a social welfare agency with which I was familiar. The agency proposed to open a branch in a country town. The director assumed that the most senior staff member, a woman, would not be interested in the job transfer because she was married. The job was offered to a less senior member of staff who, of course, happened to be a married man. The senior staff member confronted the director and expressed her interest in the job; but by then it was too late as the decision had been made. This Parliament has already passed the Sex Discrimination Act which, despite the criticisms of the `tired Tims' and `weary Willies' opposite, has proved to be a sound and useful piece of legislation. However, this Bill is designed to eliminate much of the discrimination against women in employment which the Sex Discrimination Act alone cannot do. Thus this legislation strengthens the Sex Discrimination Act. It is true that a few major companies have introduced a form of affirmative action without government legislation. They are to be applauded for that. But many firms have not expressed or shown any interest in implementing any affirmative action program. The major example of a company that has attempted to carry out an equal opportunity program is that of Esso Australia Ltd, which in 1979 started a `women in management' program to encourage women to work in the company. Esso deserves praise for its initiative. It is worth exploring the history of this proposal. The firm engaged a female consultant to identify the female employment situation as it then stood and to recommend strategies for change. Having carefully researched the attitudes of women towards the oil industry and attitudes held within the company, she came up with some interesting results which, I feel, are very relevant to this debate. She found-and one would expect this-that traditionally women had not sought employment in the oil industry; that men within the company did not think that the oil industry was an appropriate place for women to work; that men did not believe that women were career orientated or had management potential; and that the few women employed by Esso could not see career opportunities for themselves within the company. These results show the social conditioning and the prejudices to which women have been subjected over the years. In 1981 the company broadened the program and called it an `equal employment opportunity' program. That the program proved successful can be seen in the results after five years. The proportion of women in the management/professional area of Esso's work force increased in the five-year period from 3 per cent to 11 per cent, or from 22 to 117 women professionals. In the clerical and technical area, the proportion of women increased from 39 per cent to 55 per cent, or from 181 to 291 women. From the firm's point of view the program has been a catalyst for reviewing existing management style, policy, practices and work environment. Unfortunately there have been too few employers prepared to experiment in this area as Esso did. It is because of the failure of the majority of large enterprises in this country to introduce an affirmative action program that the Government has decided to legislate so that women, who for so long have found themselves at the bottom of the labour market, can improve their labour market prospects, and to ensure that women can compete on equal terms with men for promotion. Before determining the Government's position on the issue, the Prime Minister in June 1984 tabled a policy discussion paper titled `Affirmative Action for Women'. At the same time the Government established an affirmative action pilot program. As we have already heard in this debate, 28 large private sector companies and three higher education institutions accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to participate in the program, which lasted 12 months and concluded in July 1985. At the same time the Government established a representative working party on affirmative action legislation. It was chaired by Senator Susan Ryan, the excellent Minister for Education, and included those representing Government, business, trade unions, higher education authorities, women's organisations, and the Opposition. Its task was to monitor the pilot program. The working party's report was released in November 1985. Its major recommendation was for the introduction of legislation to require all higher education institutions and private sector employers with 100 or more staff to develop and implement affirmative action programs for women. Another recommendation referred to the need to remove legislative restrictions to women's employment, while not, of course, jeopardising the safety or health of any worker. Many of these restrictions are within the jurisdiction of State governments and it will require the co-operation of those governments with the Commonwealth for them to be removed. The major recommendations are being acted on by this Government and this Bill illustrates that fact. A timetable has been set up for the introduction of affirmative action in this country and it will be phased in over several years. It will apply first to Australia's 19 universities and 46 colleges of advanced education. They will be required to commence their affirmative action programs on 1 August 1986 and to make their first reports by 1 August 1987. The legislation does not apply to small business but will apply to all private sector organisations which employ 100 or more staff. But initially only firms employing 1,000 or more employees will be required to comply with the legislation. The commencement date for such firms is 1 February 1987, and their first report will be a year later on 1 February 1988. It is interesting to note that there are 510 employers with more than 1,000 staff. Those employers with between 500 and 999 employees will be phased in to the program on 1 February 1988. Those employing between 100 and 499 employees will be phased in on 1 February 1989. One can see that this is a carefully thought out program which recognises that there will be problems in industry and which will phase in the substance of the Bill. It is true that some costs will be incurred by organisations and businesses required to participate in the program. However, the Australian Commissioner of Taxation has made a ruling that the expenses incurred by employers in implementing affirmative action will be deductible under section 51 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. This Government believes in consultation. This was shown in the steps-which I have already outlined-taken by the Government in preparing the Bill. The Bill provides for the establishment of a representative advisory committee to provide advice to the Minister and the Director. It is anticipated that the Minister will appoint committees to provide general advice or a committee might be established to advise on a particular industry or occupation. This Bill is a major Government initiative which is designed to remove any existing obstacles to women fully participating in the Australian work force. It deserves the support of all members of this House and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(11.17) —There is little doubt that every member of this chamber would be very seriously committed to the principle of equal opportunity in employment. Surely, there is not one of us who would endorse any discrimination against any person on the basis of sex, creed or skin colour. There would, I hope, be unanimity in the viewpoint that merit and capacity to satisfactorily perform would be the criteria for selection in employment, and that whatever the sex, colour or creed of the applicants there should be equality of opportunity. In a nation which can honestly claim to be one of the few genuine democracies on earth, which prides itself on believing in a fair go, and which, with perhaps less justification, describes itself as a Christian nation, human dignity, human rights and rejection of discrimination are values which we ought to cherish and ought to defend. Having said that, I am compelled to observe that this type of legislation-the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill-and the Sex Discrimination Act and the Australian Bill of Rights Bill are not the correct course to achieve these desirable goals. As I have said in debates on previous legislation-and I say it again in relation to this Bill-it is folly, dangerous and even discriminatory to attempt to legislate these values. Whenever we try to legislate to give rights, protections or opportunities we simultaneously reduce the rights, protections or opportunities of someone else. This Bill suffers from that same defect. When the debate on the sex discrimination legislation ensued we were assured that that Bill was not objectionable or revolutionary. My observation then was that it was providing a base on which successive affirmative action Bills would later erect an edifice, a system, which would be revolutionary, objectionable and itself discriminatory. It might be claimed that this Bill does not fall into that category, but it is the first step along the road. It will be joined by others and I fear it will lead us into the sorts of changes in society, in the family, and in attitudes that are not desirable. That is one of the reasons, even though I value the principles of equal opportunity, human dignity and human rights, for my objection to this Bill. We must not only examine the detailed provisions of the Bill, but also soberly consider where it will inevitably lead. Another reason is that it is an insult to Australian employers, for it is an accusation that the only way discrimination will be avoided is by force of legislation. Surely it is obvious that it is by education, by voluntary acceptance, that we can reach a goal. By coercion and compulsion we not only fail to reach that goal, but indeed create a society far different from what is desired. In introducing this Bill, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that initially it would apply to employers and organisations employing 1,000 or more employees, although it would then further extend to those employing over 500 and then, further to employers of 100, although that can extend even further if the number falls to 80 employees. In effect, he said that it involves only large employers and does not cover small business. Whilst literally what he says is correct, it is patently obvious that this is but the harbinger of further future legislation which will cover small business, for no one would believe that this would be the final and only legislation along the road to affirmative action. Quite obviously, the history of the Government shows the inevitability of that course. For example, in the accord conference where big business had a seat and small business was excluded, the compliance of big business, which was able to absorb the demands, the cost and the imposts of decisions made at that conference, resulted in those burdens flowing on to small business, which had no such capacity. When the Prime Minister states that this legislation will cover only larger employers, small business knows and can be sure that there will be no long term immunity for it irrespective of the dislocation and impracticability which it will visit upon it. The Prime Minister must have had his tongue in his cheek when he said that the Government was determined that this reform would not be unnecessarily bureaucratised and that employers would not be burdened with unnecessary paper work. In direct contradiction, he then went on to say that employers would be required to provide a least two reports a year, as well as other paper work and information. There has to be a breakdown of employees by sex and job classifications-more paper work. There has to be a description of the affirmative action program-more paper work. This is provided to a director who, presumably, like the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Taxation Office, the companies' office, the sales tax office and a host of other offices, will seek more information and will generate questions and correspondence-still more paper work and regulation. So we have bureaucracy, and we have a burden of paper work-both of which have the inbuilt propensity to multiply. There has to be a policy statement. Staff members must be allocated to the program; indeed, there is already an admission that employers will be required to allocate both staff and resources to the program. Who could possibly believe that this will be mainly in the initial stages, and who could possibly doubt that the requirements of staff and resources will increase as time goes on? I have never yet seen the director, or encountered the bureaucracy which reduces its demand. Indeed, was there ever a director or bureaucracy which did nor generate more and more, demands, requirements, forms and paperwork? Mr Deputy Speaker, did you ever see a director who so failed to uphold the traditions of the Public Service that he failed to create around him an ever expanding department? I suppose it is one way to create jobs, but they are the wrong types of jobs. In the private sector it will add to costs, it will add to regulation and it may well be the straw to break the camel's back. Inevitably, the unions will be directly involved, looking over the shoulder. A government so beholden to the trade union movement which is hell bent on compulsory unionism-the superannuation venture is an undisguised move towards that goal-now gives the unions another weapon. The unions must be consulted. They will be looking at classifications et cetera. The Prime Minister calls it a `profile'. I guarantee that they will demand each employee has a union ticket. The Director, the ever helpful unions, will review all policies and practices. The employer will have no peace and will have increased pressure on him. Then, in his spare time, the employer will be required to set objectives and forward estimates, to evaluate and monitor these annually, and to submit all sorts of reports on them. What a big brother situation is being created. The Prime Minister says that employers are not required to take any action which is incompatible with the merit system. This is both illogical and in contradiction with all the sentiments which preceded this profound statement. If the merit system is to prevail, and any employer who wants to maximise his efficiency and profits would employ on merit, why have we this legislation? Why the emphasis on obtaining statistical balance? Why the bi-annual reports to the Director? Why the consultation with the unions? Why all of the reports and all of the projections if the merit system is to prevail? Is the merit system to apply only if the applicant is female? Is the Director or the union going to be the arbiter if the applicant with superior merit is male and is preferred over a female but the statistical balance is askew? Obviously there are severe qualifications to the Prime Minister's statement that there is no requirement incompatible with the merit system. There is a severe restriction on the employer's capacity to choose the most effective staff. His rights of choice are circumscribed and he has the pressure of being under the eye of a director who must have more cognisance of the intent of the Act and his role than of the efficient operation of business. The Prime Minister also said that there will be no quotas and no reverse discrimination. Again, this is hard to visualise. If the merit system, no quotas and no reserve discrimination are to prevail, what can possibly be the purpose or point of this legislation or legislation like it? What a position of power is given to the Director, who not only is to receive the reports et cetera, but also is to advise and assist-whatever that means-which virtually gives him power to direct the employment policies of businesses. We come then to the nub of the matter. This new arm of government will have a director, presumably with a personal staff, initially an interim agency within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to be subsumed later, we are told, by a permanent agency and then representative advisory committees. Then the Minister `might'-I guess that should be `will'-appoint committees to provide general advice, or a committee to advise on a particular industry or occupation. What marvellous potential for a growth industry of advisers and supervisors-what marvellous opportunities to provide openings for jobs for the boys, retired unionists and militant feminists. Then there is the penalty, the punitive provision. If the Director does not receive reports or information or response to requests, or does not like them, he has the power to name in a report to the Parliament, a public document, the employer who displeases him. We are expected, of course, to be overjoyed and comforted that the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the de facto government of this nation, has prepared an affirmative action manual to assist trade union members and officials to make a useful contribution to the development of affirmative action in Australia. I will bet it has! That is who is leading the orchestra, that is who is pulling the strings-as if we did not already know. Mr Slipper —But they are out of tune. Mr ADERMANN —They are out of tune, indeed. The Bill also covers Australia's 19 universities and 46 colleges of advanced education. I would have liked to have said something about that but this matter has already been covered by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) and I endorse his remarks in that regard. The Prime Minister will be writing to the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on the matter of child care facilities for staff. Russia and China might be willing to provide the sketch plans for the system that seems to be envisaged here-a system that they have developed fairly well. However, we should note that the system is far from utopian and is destructive of family and family values. I come to another criticism of this legislation. With the Australian economy in tatters, with the deficit at an alarming level, with interest rates at record levels, with bureaucratic growth causing such concern, the Government chooses to divert to such projects as this funds and resources which certainly would be better applied to the alleviation of hardship and poverty. What queer priorities this Government has. With all the talk about the level of unemployment and the need for more jobs, we embark on this course. The only jobs it will create are those for more bureaucrats, but it has the inbuilt potential to destroy many jobs. It has the potential to cause unrest and uncertainty among employees who can lose their jobs if affirmative action deposes them. As more and more paper work, regulation and direction is imposed on business, employers are more and more loath to expand their work force and provide more jobs. Indeed, the reverse applies. For all the rhetoric and all the platitudes, it is difficult to comprehend how affirmative action, if it is effective and pursued, is not reverse discrimination. It must be. If all the soothing words of the Prime Minister were literally true, there would be so many qualifications that this legislation would be useless, toothless and meaningless. I repeat that he has said that merit will prevail, there will be no quotas and no reverse discrimination. Why then do we have the legislation, unless it is to be effective, punitive and the precursor of more legislation for affirmative action? Already this Government has penalised by taxation and regulated and interfered with business unduly and extensively. Now it proposes to intervene even further. Everywhere I go, people in business tell me that all they want is for government to get off their backs. They certainly will not offer any prayers of thanks for this new and ominous intervention. We already have enough laws and regulations to tackle discrimination, if we have the determination to apply them. Further regulation and compulsion is not the path to the desirable aim of equal opportunity. Women ought not to be denied equal opportunity. On the basis of merit women ought to be able to obtain jobs, and if their qualifications are superior they have every right to expect preferment. But legislation which, on the basis of statistical balance or compulsion, under the pseudonym of affirmative action, inhibits an employer in the capacity to consider merit and efficiency and places gender as the overriding consideration has no merit and is bad legislation. I abhor discrimination. I applaud equality of opportunity. I believe in the dignity of the human being. I oppose the denigration or suppression of human rights. The legislation this Government is trundling into the Parliament advances us not one centimetre along the road to attaining those aims-aims which I believe are common to every one of us, no matter on which side of the House we sit. Indeed, I have repeatedly said that compulsion in legislation is counter-productive and ineffective. It matters little whether it has a benign countenance; it will evolve into something more draconian, more intrusive and more confusing. We seek the voluntary and co-operative removal of the barriers of discrimination. For all the words of the Prime Minister about voluntary participation and the desire to avoid a punitive approach, this Bill does provide punitive recourse. It does set down targets-another name for quotas-to be achieved within certain time scales. It does coerce. It does subject business to providing staff and resources to comply with the provisions of the Bill. It does involve regulation. It involves massive paperwork. It involves reporting and inquisition. It does lay the groundwork for further expansion of the bureaucracy. It does direct funds and resources, at a time of economic upheaval, into a program which certainly must have a lesser priority than other areas to redress unemployment, dampen inflation, put people into homes and reduce interest rates. With the need to restrain government expenditure and control growth of the bureaucracy, with government paying lip service to those goals and in the same breath pledging to deliver on the trilogy and cut taxes, we have the spectacle of funds and resources-they will be massive-being directed into this new area and a bureaucracy being established to service it. For all the reasons I have stated and because the priorities of this Government confound all logic and common sense, I cannot support this Bill. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(11.34) —Affirmative action as an issue was placed on the political agenda by the women's movement in the 1970s but it took this Government to recognise it as an important electoral issue. I remind the previous speaker, the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann), that this is something the people of Australia want. It took this Government to set in motion the mechanisms needed to ensure that the status of women in Australia was recognised and that it would be one of equality with men. Our overall record is one of which we can be proud. In the space of three years we have legislated for the legal right of equal treatment through the Sex Discrimination Act. We have established an affirmative action pilot program for women in the private sector work force, and we have legislated for equal opportunity in the Commonwealth Public Service. Now, today, we are debating in this chamber the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, which will provide for the legal right of women to equal employment opportunity. The opposition to this Bill from reactionary forces in society and certainly from the reactionary forces opposite is quite extraordinary. One has only to mention affirmative action to those forces and the alarm bells are set off, producing deep emotional responses from both reactionary men and reactionary women. This very conservative minority feels threatened by this legislation and does not want to contemplate the prospect of change because it may affect their privileged position. Mr Slipper —Didn't you get here on that basis? Ms McHUGH —I am the only woman from New South Wales ever to get here. I abhor the fact that I am the only woman member from New South Wales in this chamber. I do not want to protect my privileged position; I want to see many more women come here. The women who fear affirmative action are those who were referred to by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) in his speech yesterday. He said that he had talked to women of ability and achievement who feared that affirmative action would be counterproductive. Do honourable members know why? They said it is because their value as role models will disappear. Do honourable members think I am happy in my position as a role model? I would like to be one of many women in this place. Do any men need role models to progress in the work force? I think the honourable member for Wentworth was speaking only to those women who have made it. This legislation aims to help a lot more women on the shop floor to equal opportunity in the work force. They are the women to whom this Bill is addressed. As well as ensuring that women have a place in the work force and are paid equal remuneration, this Bill has as its premise that women should not be treated as wives or mothers only because men are not treated as husbands or fathers only or, by the way, as role models only. Any program of preference which will ensure equal opportunities for different roles strikes at the very heart of traditional attitudes and the gender-based division of labour within the family and in the work force. Some opposition to the Bill will continue until it becomes clear that men and women working together on an equal footing can create the genuinely egalitarian society that most Australians desire and that we all boast about. It is not just over the last decade that women in the workforce have been struggling for equality; it has been going on almost since the turn of the century. Let us look at the situation in relation to wages. In 1907, the sexual division of labour was enshrined in the wage fixing system in Australia when Mr Justice Higgins, then President of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, was called on to decide what constituted a fair and reasonable wage. He determined the basic minimum wage of 42 shillings per week. That was the amount he considered an unskilled worker required to support a wife and three children. In 1912, the female basic wage was arbitrated under the leadership of Mr Justice Higgins. The single unit female wage was set at 60 per cent of the male family unit wage. Single female wage occupation rates were set so as to support a single woman. In 1916, Mr Justice Powers defined women's work as intrinsically of less value and determined that the basic value of women's work was only 58 per cent of that of men. In 1919, Mr Justice Higgins reduced it to 54 per cent. It was the view at the time that males were the proper breadwinners, and it is likely that a consequence of that judgment was the formulation of the social valuations of what constituted the appropriate female wage. The effect of this decision not only has helped maintain the existing framework of inequity in the work force but also, over the years, has discouraged investment in female education. It has also discouraged women from obtaining vocational training and has encouraged them to remain in occupations which are relatively lower paid. In 1942, the Women's Employment Board was established and a different set of judgments made. Female award rates for male jobs were set at 90 per cent of those of men. This had little to do with the acknowledgment of women's work in society. It would appear that it was a response to the labour shortage in wartime emergency. While this decision was for `the duration only', the war and changes in the Australian economy which followed it brought home to society in general and to women in particular the importance of women's labour. The Arbitration Court could no longer justify allowing women only 54 per cent of the male wage, and, in 1950, it increased the female basic wage to 75 per cent. Obvious changes in the social valuation perspective came about first in the equal pay case of June 1969, and the notion of equal pay for work of equal value was institutionalised in the equal pay case of 1972. So, it took from 1912 to 1972, a space of 60 years, to recognise and accept the notion of equal pay for work of equal value. Attitudes change very slowly indeed. In 1972, we won the equal pay case. In 1986, we still have not achieved equal pay and we still have a long way to go. Anti-discrimination policies are a very necessary part of achieving the goal of equal employment opportunities and the Government has recognised that. No legislation in itself is sufficient to improve the labour market position of women. Many issues still remain to be solved. Equal pay and child care are issues that are still not resolved. The provision of affordable child care facilities must be regarded as essential to any affirmative action program, not just for women but for men as well. Until enough child care places are provided, maternity leave provisions are useless for many women. The provision of and access to adequate housing for single women with children are other areas which must be addressed if equal opportunity is to be made available to women in all social circumstances. The evaluation of skills of women and the meaning of merit are issues which the women's movement must continue to raise if we are ever to achieve real economic justice for women. For example, 34 per cent of all female workers are in the clerical occupational category and 23 per cent of these are stenographer/typists. To put the value of their skills, their merits and talents is very different from suggesting that some stenographers might want to move into administration or management. In the nursing profession developing clinical skills is not financially rewarded, but moving into administration is. Some women prefer to be secretaries or nurses rather than becoming administrators and their work should be properly valued and properly rewarded. The undervaluation of what is traditionally women's work means that women continue to be doubly disadvantaged. Steps have been taken by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to address this question. It has a comparable worth case on behalf of Australian nurses before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, although the progress on this case is slow, I am confident that the ACTU will be successful in winning the case for equal pay because, if this case is rejected, the likelihood of achieving equal economic status between the sexes will be set back quite dramatically. Another consequence of this rejection would be that many males would continue not to be attracted into this traditionally female occupation because the incentives are simply not there. The concept of comparable worth is contained in provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and must be supported in light of Australia's ratification of that Convention. The affirmative action pilot program which preceded this legislation involved 28 large private sector companies and three higher education institutions. One significant employer of women in the private sector and a participant in the pilot program was G. J. Coles and Co. Ltd. I wonder whether the honourable member for Wentworth talked to any of the women working at Coles. Coles has approximately 3,000 managerial staff overseeing about 40,000 full and 30,000 part time staff and only a handful are women. It will be a long slow haul to rectify this situation, but at least Coles is willing to try. It has now appointed equal opportunity officers whose existence may remind management and staff that Coles is indeed part of a program to encourage women to apply for the same positions as men. Telecom Australia, another participant in the scheme, wasted no time in producing a comprehensive booklet outlining the program and offering practical advice on how to put it into practice in every department. In New South Wales, equal employment opportunity programs have been in existence for some time both in the public and private sector. One successful program conducted by Esso Australia Ltd originated from a women in management program in 1979. This program presented all the challenges of any program of change. The concept of introducing women into a traditional male industry was found initially to be uncomfortable for many male employees who felt threatened by the influx of the new women. They thought these women would be given special treatment. The company also found that the program was disruptive and that the initiative questioned values and attitudes that had been built into the company over a long period, but it persisted with the program. The result is that today the number of women in the management/professional area of Esso's work force has increased from 22 to 137 women professionals. These women include 11 engineers, 17 geo- scientists, 31 accountants and 20 computer specialists. Over the same period the attrition rate for women fell from 50 per cent to 10 per cent. I wonder whether the honourable member for Wentworth spoke to any of those women, because they are the women who have benefited from an affirmative action program. In the clerical and technical area the number of women has increased from 39 per cent to 55 per cent or from 181 to 291 women. This recruitment included technicians, apprentices and trainee gas plant operators within non-traditional working areas, and that is an excellent example of what affirmative action programs will achieve. Mr J. Kirk, the managing director of Esso said: The program has been a catalyst for reviewing existing management style policy practices and work environment. In terms of contribution to the company, the women, like the men, range from top performers to poor performers. They have added new perspectives to the way ESSO has dealt with issues, and they have changed the work environment for the better. Let me add that they have changed the work environment for the better for everyone including the male employees. As usually happens when there is any challenge to the existing system made by women on behalf of women, it also improves the position of the men working in that institution. Any challenge to the system on behalf of disadvantaged women helps the disadvantaged men. As I have said earlier, Australian women are disadvantaged by social attitudes and, once employed, they face systematic discrimination from training and promotion patterns in both public employment and private enterprise. Women also experience greater unemployment and under-employment. There are far more women than men in part time employment and less secure jobs partly because they bear the main responsibility for the care of children and other dependants. This Government recognises this. The affirmative action program will undoubtedly identify many more problems and clarify new challenges for government. Our Government has the commitment to face those challenges. We have taken the first steps in introducing the Sex Discrimination Act and the affirmative action legislation, both of which have been accepted programs in many countries for many years. It took a Federal Labor Government to take this important step in Australia. In the pilot program it has done so in a way which was not only efficient but attracted the acceptance and co-operation of the majority in the business sector, the tertiary education sector and the trade union movement. For those who doubt the need for this legislation-and that appears to be many honourable members on the other side-let me refer to a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report which states: Girls are underserved and channelled into educational and training paths to lower paying, lower status, jobs. Access to higher education is biased against girls and disadvantaged young people. This OECD report makes particular mention of the shameful situation in Australia. In another section of the report it is mentioned that, without extraordinary measures, girls and young women will not be able to overcome firmly entrenched patterns of discrimination, lower wages and occupational segregation. The Sex Discrimination Act and this affirmative action legislation are part of those measures needed to overcome those patterns. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.49) —The great difficulty in debating legislation of the kind presently before the House is that difficult and complex concepts are reduced to one line slogans. If one is for affirmative action legislation, one is automatically described as enlightened and supportive of women's rights. If one is against affirmative action legislation, one is described as prejudiced, narrow-minded and against the rights of women. In truth, neither cliche accurately portrays the proponents for and against affirmative action legislation. The same sincerity that is conferred without question upon proponents of affirmative action legislation is not extended to its opponents. It is a much employed tactic of strident minority groups to paint those representing the majority of the Australian community as repressive or in some way undemocratic. Equal opportunity for women is a much valued principle. No woman should ever suffer discrimination on the basis of sex, although we know that such discrimination occurs far too broadly in our society for any of us to be satisfied. The legislation before the Parliament is an attempt by the Government, and a number of genuine and perhaps even sincere members of the Government, to attack that discrimination. However, I must say that I, for one, oppose this legislation on two broad grounds. Firstly, I believe affirmative action legislation is reverse discrimination and inconsistent with the principle of equal opportunity and, secondly, I believe the cost to business, and in turn consumers, is not justified. I wish to summarise the main components of the legislation to substantiate the two limbs of my opposition. To whom will the legislation apply? It will apply to universities and colleges of advanced education by 1 August 1986. It will apply to organisations employing 1,000 and more staff by 1 February 1987, organisations employing between 500 and 1,000 staff by 1 February 1988 and organisations employing between 100 and 500 staff by 1 February 1989. You can immediately grasp, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this legislation will apply to a very large section of the private sector. To my mind there are a number of organisations employing 100 and more staff which can be termed as small businesses and to whom this legislation and all the red tape and reporting provisions imposed will provide and cause extra costs at a time when we know that no business can possibly sustain further cost pressures from government. These organisations will be required to provide two reports annually to a new Director of Affirmative Action. One will be a public document and the second, which will be in far greater detail, will be confidential. Failure to comply with the legislation requiring the handing in of reports to the Director of Affirmative Action will result in the Director of Affirmative Action naming those companies in the report to be tabled in the Federal Parliament. What must those companies do which they will report to the Director of Affirmative Action? A company must issue a policy statement to employees. It must confer responsibility for an affirmative action program within the company upon a person of proper standing or authority. It must consult at length and in great detail with the trade union movement or as many as possible of the trade unions which have members within that organisation. It must consult with employees. It must collect and record statistics and other information. It must review policies and practices. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see immediately that these organisations will be involved in a great deal of detail which will take a fair amount of time and at a certain cost. All of this is leading up to the most strident of the demands upon these organisations-that is, these organisations must set objectives and forward estimates. Every Government member will argue that this legislation does not set quotas; it does not in some way promote women on the basis of gender rather than merit. All Government members will argue that it is different from the American legislation, which requires that a certain number of women fill a certain number of higher managerial positions. But the Government is not just splitting hairs to differentiate between quotas and forward estimates; it is playing with the truth. It is a matter of semantics. Is something navy blue or dark blue? One cannot differentiate between those descriptions. If organisations are required to prepare estimates of promotion of women to certain positions, in my view this is certain to lead to quotas. I find the argument that this legislation does not impose quotas to be quite incorrect. The setting of targets will result in quotas. The legislation establishes a Director of Affirmative Action with some 25 staff and a budget of $1.5m annually. That is the initial expense. We have no doubt whatever that the number of staff and the budget will increase over the years. It is yet another statutory organisation to add to the dozens, if not hundreds, already in place. We know the Senate has had enormous difficulty in even obtaining the number of quangos and statutory authorities responsible to the Federal and State governments. This will add to that number. It is an unwarranted intrusion into management. It will mean extra cost and regulation and it gives further authority to the trade union movement in what is properly the sphere of management. The Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry have opposed this legislation. The legislation requires organisations to make forward estimates which under clause 8 (3) are defined as a quantitative measure or aim which may be expressed in numerical terms. Honourable members are delving into the realms of the ridiculous if they do not interpret `forward estimate' to be `quota'. It is a measure of this Government's dishonesty that it has not had the courage of its own convictions to introduce legislation which will properly and honestly reflect its intentions. This is merely a first step which it knows is certain to be passed by the Senate, thereby allowing it at a future date to increase the scope of the legislation. I oppose the legislation not only because of its impact upon business and hence the consumer, but also because philosophically I am unable to support it. I do not believe it will help women. I believe that the statement of the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), who told us in a grandiose manner that this legislation will help the woman on the shop floor, was nothing short of ridiculous. This legislation will not assist women for whom I think there are compelling reasons for affirmative action-women, such as migrants, who have language difficulties, women who work on true shop floors, on production lines. This legislation, as with the sex discrimination legislation, the Bill of Rights and the plethora of State legislation, will assist the tertiary educated women who are aware of their rights at law and who are qualified in any event. I do not believe it will help the women to whom I believe we ought to be giving far greater assistance. Goodness knows, it is quite irrelevant to that very large group of women in our society who have chosen to remain at home and raise children. As always, the Parliament, under this Government, is obsessed with women in the work force at the expense, I hasten to say, of women in the family home. A great many women oppose this legislation. The National Party is represented by women in every parliament, at both State and Federal levels. Women occupy positions at the highest levels of our political organisation. They oppose it. It is the formal policy of the National Party's women's section to oppose it. The Country Women's Association opposes it. A great many women in industry, in whatever managerial position one likes to think of, oppose it because in many ways it reflects upon them. Did they achieve promotion and success on the basis of merit and qualification or simply on the basis of gender? For that reason, I believe that it is demeaning to a great many women. It will give preference on the basis of gender alone, and the best people will not always get the job. In drawing to a conclusion, may I say again that I oppose this legislation. However much following Government speakers will seek to portray me as such, I do not in any way oppose the concept, principle and implementation of equal opportunity, but I do not support affirmative action legislation which is discriminatory in concept, expensive in practice, and which ignores the women and a great many people in society for whom we ought to have far more concern. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(12.01) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing that this Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill needs to be introduced at all. I refer to the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who said that, had we followed the philosophy and dictum of the philosopher John Stuart Mill that all people in our society should be treated equally, there would be no need for this Bill. However, that gentleman's words were not heeded, and it must be pointed out that such has been the discrimination against women in this country and the lack of response by employers, both public and private, to appeals to redress the situation and treat women as equal partners with men that the Government has been forced to step up the appeal through this legislative framework. In short, reason and moral pressure alone have failed. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in introducing this Bill, `this legislation is necessary to ensure that all large employers take seriously their obligations to their women employees'-and, I might add, to potential women employees. This legislation is the second of two Bills introduced into Parliament by this Government to honour Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which was signed, I point out, by the Fraser Government in July 1980 and which was ratified by the Hawke Government three years later. The first Bill, the Sex Discrimination Bill, passed into law in August 1984. This Bill, then, is further tangible evidence of our commitment to enhance employment opportunities for women. It is unbelievable that members of a former government which signed an international covenant now oppose in part or in full the principle of affirmative action enshrined in this Bill and hence deny their obligations under that covenant now that they are in the Opposition. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and his colleagues in the National Party of Australia have placed on record their intention to oppose this Bill. Their hypocrisy, confusion or desire for political expediency is exceeded only by their two-faced attitude towards the human rights legislation, now in another place, although they signed and ratified the international covenant on which that legislation is based. Many approaches can be taken to increase the entry of women into the work force and to promote women up the ladder of seniority. Quotas could be imposed and hard targets could be set to increase the number of women in the workplace and to ensure greater representation of women at different levels. But, contrary to what the honourable member for Gippsland said, the Government is not following the American approach; we are not setting targets or quotas. That policy of positive discrimination has been specifically rejected by the Government as being unworkable and undesirable. It is unworkable because our society for too long has been sexist in its promotion of people for different jobs. Women have been told to stay in the home, to stay with the family and to provide for the males of the household. When they undertake their education, girls and women are channelled into female studies-the `soft options' rather than the sciences, which are still dominated by men. When they enter employment they are channelled into assistant positions to male professionals and into what is known as traditional female work, usually the lowest paid and with the least prospects of advancement. A quota system or targets cannot work if we have not prepared and educated our women to accept equality themselves, nor men to accept women as equals. To work, affirmative action must be planned and introduced over a period and at a pace appropriate to particular workplaces. This Bill does just that. Positive discrimination, where women would be employed or promoted before or over men just because they are women, would be an undesirable route to take as it transgresses the principle of merit. For far too long the principle of merit has been largely ignored as men have been favoured over women on the ground of gender for senior positions and as men have been pushed into education opportunities which have led to higher paid and higher status positions in the work force. We cannot redress that bias by revising the impact so that it favours women. We cannot right one wrong with another without paying the penalty of eventual failure through hypocrisy and double standards. Further, let us heed the recent warning of Dr Peter Wilenski, Chairman of the Public Service Board, that the concept of merit must not be distorted and that it must mean that the best person gets the job rather than its being a tool of those in power for maintaining the status quo. Dr Wilenski said: Standards of merit, either deliberately or unconsciously, were often based on the values, style and priorities of the dominant male groups in the organisation. The tendency of organisations to recruit, train and select for similarity-in other words, cloning or homosocial reproduction, has become widely recognised. Merit, then, is the centre principle of this legislation and the Bill properly defines the affirmative action program as measures designed to eliminate discrimination and to promote equal opportunity for women; that is, to promote merit and to banish those practices, biases and prejudices against women which work to ignore merit. This legislation is not a whim of government; it is not hard ideology forced upon the public by a party but is the outcome of almost two years of consultation, pilot programs and reports. To test the Government's policy discussion paper tabled here in mid-1984, a pilot program involving large private sector firms and higher education institutions was run for some 12 months. A representative working party with members of government, trade unions, business, higher education, women's organisations, and even the Opposition, monitored the pilot program and this legislation is based on the report of that working party which was released late last year. Despite the various opinions of such a diverse group, remarkably, a common approach towards affirmative action emerged and recommended that legislation be introduced requiring all higher education institutions and private sector employers with 100 or more staff to develop and implement affirmative action programs for women. Australia's 19 universities and 46 colleges of advanced education will be at the leading edge of the affirmative action program and will be required to commence their programs by 1 August this year, with their first reports to be made to the Director of Affirmative Action a year later. I point out that many institutions have jumped the gun and commendably have already begun programs to improve women's employment opportunities. To be successful it was important that higher education be chosen as the spearhead for the fight against prejudice and in favour of merit. Universities and colleges play a crucial role in Australian society. They educate the educators and thus are instrumental in influencing, and indeed defining, our systems of belief, our knowledge and views about society and the roles men and women should play in society. It is essential, therefore, that these institutions be in the forefront of positive social change. They must provide genuine equality of opportunity for students and staff alike, and they must be seen to do so. Women will never achieve equality in society unless such equality exists in our educational institutions, which are the source both of career opportunities and of important opportunities for the self-development of individuals. The existence of female academics as role models for women students and potential students, at all levels and in all subject areas, is imperative if we are to achieve equal opportunity for women in education and in Australian society. I adamantly and wholeheartedly reject the comments made yesterday by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) that in his view the appointment and promotion of `notorious feminists' in universities has led to the dropping of standards. Our universities and colleges are also the centres which provide the education and training to those who wish to enter the work force or those who need to retrain or update their knowledge and skills. The broadening of access to higher education for women is an essential pre-condition for any broad based affirmative action policy or legislation to cover the Australian work force in general. The honourable member for Gippsland should note well that if we are to do anything for women on the shop floor, women in factories, we have to indicate throughout our education system that we are prepared to give them a better deal so that their daughters will see a different world from the one they themselves have experienced. The attitudes of our teachers, welfare and medical workers are also deeply affected by their experiences in higher education and it is important that they exit from higher education with attitudes towards women which exhibit all the best features of affirmative action. It can be seen that higher education institutions, as well as initiating affirmative action within their own walls and halls, can reinforce affirmative action by being seen to implement the program as well as talk about it. A week or so ago, a woman, Professor Di Yerbury, was appointed Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University in Sydney. A month earlier two universities in Victoria announced the appointment of women to top positions. The Council of the University of Melbourne elected Fay Marles as its Deputy Chancellor to replace Davis McCaughey, the new Governor of Victoria, and Margaret Cameron was appointed Pro Vice Chancellor of Deakin University. Surely, then, with these appointments, all is right in the academic world regarding equal opportunity for women. Sadly, these important and laudatory appointments do not represent the general scheme of things; they are isolated top level appointments. Professor Yerbury's appointment to Vice-Chancellor was in fact the first in Australia's history. I congratulate her on that achievement. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing women's employment in higher education, compiled by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the Government's Green Paper on affirmative action for women. Leave granted. The table read as follows- DATA ON WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1979 1980 1981 1982 1984 (Prelim) Universities Professor... 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.7 Assoc. Professor/Readers... 3.4 4.2 4.9 5.0 4.9 Senior Lecturer... 8.6 8.3 8.9 8.9 9.7 Lecturer... 17.9 19.0 19.1 20.4 22.7 Principal Senior/Tutor... 39.4 39.5 41.2 44.3 42.5 Tutor/Demonstrator... 39.4 40.9 43.0 41.2 44.2 Total full-time teaching and research staff... 16.1 16.2 16.8 16.6 17.1 C.A.E.s Above Senior Lecturer... 9.0 9.0 8.3 9.6 9.7 Senior Lecturer I... 10.4 10.0 9.9 11.6 11.2 Senior Lecturer II... 15.0 15.2 14.8 11.6 14.8 Lecturer I... 18.3 18.6 18.4 18.5 22.0 Lecturer II... 35.6 36.4 37.2 38.3 41.5 Lecturer III... 50.0 50.9 50.4 48.1 43.2 Other Teaching Staff... 39.0 40.5 41.3 44.7 45.2 Total Teaching Staff... 22.7 22.7 22.3 23.1 26.3 (Source CTEC data) CTEC = Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (Table 1, p. 79 Appendix A.) Mr LAMB —I thank the House. It can be seen that there has been only a minor increase in the total percentage of women occupying teaching and research positions over the six years 1979 to 1984 inclusive and that women remain heavily clustered in the lower ranked positions. This immense imbalance not only is due to bias in selection procedures towards males, and the discouragement towards women undertaking higher levels of post-graduate education over the years, but also can be traced to the obstacles placed before women who wish to pursue an academic career. Two major examples of those obstacles are the increase in contract or short term employment which has brought about a two-class structure of jobs within the system, and the absence of child care facilities on campus. The matter of child care facilities was covered, quite correctly and quite well, by the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) earlier in this debate. A peculiar feature of the higher education sector, which applies to some extent to the administrative, technical and clerical staff areas as well as to academic employment, is that a sizable proportion of the staff establishment is employed without permanency and all the advantages which accompany it. This binary or two-tiered structure creates serious industrial problems and lowers morale among academic staff in general, not just women. At least in the academic area, we find that women are concentrated in untenured positions. In universities for instance, in 1981-the latest figures available-only 45 per cent of women academics held tenured jobs, compared with 84 per cent of men. The specific nature of contract academic appointments in many institutions precludes individuals from renewing their contracts and holding their jobs for more than the three or five years their contracts specify. They are, therefore, forced into an itinerant employment pattern which requires geographic mobility; usually a greater problem for women than for men because their male partner's career considerations usually take precedence, even in their own minds, over their own. Responsibility for child care, usually primarily assigned to women, can also preclude their mobility. A serious outcome of this itinerant employment is that the necessary research these women should do to further their careers and to provide a women's perspective in research generally, is seriously inhibited. It would seem these disadvantages were being perpetuated in the absence of legislation and a program. For example, in the South Australian College of Advanced Education, at the beginning of 1984, when it began its affirmative action pilot program, 68 per cent of the appointments were awarded to men-up 2 per cent; 82 per cent of the 55 tenurable appointments went to men-up 10 per cent; and 43 per cent of contract appointments went to men-unchanged. At the same college a survey in 1984 showed that 40.6 per cent of female academic staff, compared with 14.1 per cent of male academic staff, earned less than $30,000 per annum and nearly 20 per cent of female academic staff were classified as Lecturer 3 or below, compared with only 5 per cent for their male counterparts-a ratio of 4:1. For general staff the picture is worse. Forty-five per cent of female general staff are classified as clerical officers grade 1, while the figure for males is only 3.5 per cent-a ratio of 13:1. For female general staff, 76.7 per cent earn less than $20,000 per annum, while the figure for males is 46 per cent. Obviously the lack of equal opportunity for women and the need for affirmative action programs is as much an industrial issue as it is a social one, for it affects the terms and conditions of the workers concerned. Recruitment, selection, promotion, staff development and part time or casual employment are all issues which are of major industrial significance to employers at our higher education institutions. The Prime Minister outlined the eight steps contained in clause 8 of the Bill which constitute an affirmative action program. Two of those steps require consultation with unions and employers, but to be really effective I believe that conscientious employees will need to consult with unions at each of the eight stages of the affirmative action program. It should be obvious that consultation impinges on all stages, from the preparation of the original policy statement, development of a program, collection of statistics, identification of discrimination in the work place, remedies and monitoring. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that there is no definition of `consultation' in the Bill. I grant that this may be difficult to draft but, without a guide, while some employers may consult widely and continuously, others will develop a program in vacuo and present it to the unions as a fait accompli, with an opportunity to comment only. I suggest that those employers who do not recognise that affirmative action is an industrial issue and do not work closely with their unions will not achieve satisfactory progress despite this legislation. Let me say this to those who believe that this Bill will impose extra costs on private and public firms: Affirmative action in employment which promotes the principle of merit instead of the bias of gender makes for sound personnel practice. Affirmative action which removes discrimination against women in their education, training and job opportunities makes for sound human resource management. This Bill goes a long way towards recognising-to use the words of the Chinese-that indeed women do hold up half the sky. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(12.20) —As we are confined by agreement to 10 minutes each in this debate on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, I shall endeavour to meet that objective. I have a number of contributions to make in respect of statutory authorities but I will first make some general observations. The House is well aware of my long-standing commitment to equality of opportunity between the sexes and, indeed, between all individuals regardless of their particular differences. I think it is fundamental to liberalism that the individual have equality of opportunity and, of course, from the national point of view it is essential that the maximum benefit be gained for the nation from each of our human resources. I merely remind the House that the obstacles to equality of opportunity for women do exist. Some of them were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). In particular he stressed five points. I believe that he is correct in those observations and that the Government must analyse and act on each of those five points and, of course, that it must act on those other items which were listed previously by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he introduced his statement on the National Agenda for Women. The House will recall that that was agreed to in principle by the Leader of the Opposition with some omissions pointed out and some areas of differences expressed by him. One of the most important points in that National Agenda for Women concerns educational curricula. Therefore, in addition to the points made today by the Leader of the Opposition, one of which obviously was the availability of quality child care, there is the fundamental matter of equality of opportunity in education. This is in order that women can then have a genuine choice of vocation having the same qualifications as men. Essentially what we are looking at is an attitudinal matter. Most men still think that there are some things which are naturally men's work and some things which are more naturally female's work. On the whole most men still do not regard women as equal when it comes to vocational activities. While there are some men who are exceptions, some of whom are in this chamber, they only prove the rule that there is a genuine attitudinal barrier. Therefore, the argument, such as it is today, ought only to be about the means of raising awareness and breaking down that attitudinal barrier. Sadly it is found not merely at all levels of management-the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) criticised employers-but also it is found, I am sure he would actually agree, throughout the trade union movement. I find rather hollow some of the criticisms which the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been making recently, including criticism of this legislation, when until very recently there was no acknowledgement on its part of the legitimate interests of female trade unionists. It is a very belated effort on its part. We have tentative recognition now by the ACTU and by the Business Council of Australia. I commend the Business Council for establishing its council on equal opportunity and for having on the council representatives of the Confederation of Australian Industry and of the Federal Government. It is important that every effort be made to create an awareness within enterprise of the rights of individuals regardless of sex and of the enlightened self-interest that can be gained by enterprises from the contributions of women employed by them or who are able to be employed by them. In order to show the deep seated nature of attitudes even in this building I recall that I was the only Minister in the Fraser Government who had a female senior private secretary. I think there are only two, at most three, of the 27 Ministers now who have female senior private secretaries. I find it extraordinary that it is thought that women cannot do the senior job in a Minister's office. I think that there is that underlying impression which ensures that men tend to get preference. Probably because that impression prevails so strongly as an attitude many women, who would be qualified to do the job, do not in fact apply. Therefore, progress towards equality of opportunity is exceedingly slow. As I have said, the Leader of the Opposition has rightly made a number of observations about where obstacles to equality of opportunity really lie. Those obstacles are not addressed by this Bill. I believe that the Government should accelerate action on its National Agenda for Women, which again, if one wanted to be carping, one could find some fault with. However, essentially it is a program which is supported by the Opposition. I think that we ought to have many more debates in this Parliament, by way of a ministerial statement rather than by way of legislation, so that we help in awareness raising among the men who predominate in this chamber so that the obstacles to the exercise of genuine equality of opportunity are removed. The honourable member for Streeton referred to that great liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill who, I must say, has been a constant source of inspiration as far as I am concerned. Mr Barry Jones —He has been in your mind recently. Mr MACPHEE —As the Minister at the table has rightly said, he has been in my mind recently in respect of the death of Alan Missen who was a great disciple of John Stuart Mill. I took the precaution of looking in the Library at some of Mill's writings on the subjugation of women. It is true that in the century or so since he wrote and acted, including the time when he was a member of parliament, some progress has been made. Women are no longer now totally bound to their husbands in the legal sense in which they were. They now have rights to property and so forth. Therefore, one would hope that over a century some substantial progress would have been made. However, it is extremely apparent that the things that Mill was writing about, talking about and acting on in the nineteenth century still prevail attitudinally. Men are still hung up with the fact that women have certain defined roles. Oddly enough of course the so-called traditional family, about which we hear so much, which is allegedly a dependent female spouse at home looking after children, has not been a reality in much of human history. In most of life until this century women were working with men in menial functions, especially in rural societies, but even in the early industrialised societies. It has really only been in this century that we have had the phenomena of the dependent spouse and dependent children. Of course there are grave misunderstandings about the education of dependent children. The nineteenth century debates on education arbitrarily chose the age of five years as the age when people went to school. In fact, we know that children benefit very much from structured pre-school education, as we now call it, and by high quality guidance and structured learning in child care centres as opposed to the unstructured caring that they can receive at home. Most primary school teachers now find that there is quite a difference between the understanding of those children who have had the benefit of pre-school and child care education-- Mr Barry Jones —But it is not absolutely cut and dried; there are some exceptions. Mr MACPHEE —There will be some exceptions. However, I make the observation that we are still locked into some nineteenth century assumptions that were seen to be radical in their day. Of course, if the views of some people were taken to their logical conclusion we would still have children down the mines and we would still have many of the so-called management prerogatives prevail-at the expense of the rights of individuals. I think that this sort of debate, if tackled maturely in this House, can help a national awareness of problems. For us genuinely to enable people to exercise choice we have to do a good deal more than any government has done in Australia to overcome the barriers that are so deeply entrenched, not least because of the educational curriculum. If one looks at the letters to the editors of daily newspapers one sees again ample illustration of these attitudinal barriers and why Dale Spender, that noted feminist writer, has said that there will always need to be women's movement. I have no doubt that the old habits will die very slowly indeed. Having spoken of letters to the editor, I would like to read one letter from a Jennifer Darling to the Editor of the Age on 15 March. She said: We've read many opinions lately asserting that feminism, women's careers, equal opportunity and affirmative action are denigrating women's role in the home, keeping men and youth from the workforce and the nation's future population down. As a woman with a profession, two marvellous children and a `guilty' armchair-feminist husband . . . I wish to say this- In our home children are an event of human experience for whom both parents are responsible. Their foibles drive us crazy. Witnessing their development gives us faith in the future. Their very being is not for the future of the nation but, realistically, a burden upon the future tolerance of the planet as a whole and its ability to sustain them. In return, we encourage them to love and respect the world and community they share, taking their own talents and interests beyond the home. The schools where they spend their weekdays are another door to the world not a symbol of status to set them apart. Rather than being resentful or neglected, they are growing up independent, resourceful and interested in the work I do. They have experienced care and guidance from private individuals and at a local government childcare centre which they recall with bemusement and affection. Being a professional may keep someone else from a job. I see my work as a product of my own talent and a contribution to my welfare for the service I provide. Involvement in feminism is not intended to drive homemakers into frenzied battle against professional neighbours. Feminism for me is a voice to remove inequities from the lives of those who do feel oppressed and exploited. As for my husband, he's simply a lovable male human being who appears to share the need to be heading in the same direction, from the same place, in the same time as me. Mr Shack —A top letter. Mr MACPHEE —It is a first class letter, as the honourable member for Tangney says. It seems to me that there lies the challenge to this Parliament and this nation to get that level of maturity in family life and in the community's understanding generally of what we are trying to achieve when we stress the need for equality of opportunity between people. I wish to speak briefly about statutory authorities. There are seven statutory authorities in the portfolio of Communications. I am currently the shadow Minister and the view that I take and I hope the Minister would take would be to ask those seven authorities to report in their annual reports in just the way that businesses are being asked to report here as a result of this legislation. I understand that the Government could prescribe statutory authorities to report in the same way as Public Service departments. I think it would be wrong to do this. I do not think the statutory authorities should be any more under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Board. However, I think that the responsible Ministers have an obligation to ensure that the equal opportunity programs in those authorities are subject to the same or similar scrutiny to that which applies to the private sector in this legislation. Mr Barry Jones —I have done that with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Mr MACPHEE —The Minister for Science says that he has done that with CSIRO and I commend him for that. I do not doubt that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) would look at his favourably too. There is expertise in the Equal Opportunity Bureau of the Public Service Board and that expertise might be availed of by some statutory authorities. For example the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, previously under Dame Leonie Kramer and certainly under the present Board with Ms Wendy McCarthy being the Deputy Chairperson, has a very well advanced program on equal opportunity. As its last annual report indicates, Telecom Australia also has a very advanced program. I would have thought that these organisations are probably already meeting the minimum standards of this legislation, but if other authorities are not as far as advanced they could augment their own expertise by reference to the Equal Opportunity Bureau of the Public Service Board. Perhaps they could do that by way of a contractual relationship and not by way of subjecting that authority to any jurisdiction of the Board itself. Essentially, the importance of this legislation lies in the fact that it enshrines the merit principle. Whatever the defects in its administration, as pointed out earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, no one can argue against the principle that merit should be the determining factor in employment. We must do everything we can to break down the barriers which exist. We have said that we will monitor the progress. We believe that the Government must tackle each of the barriers to equality of opportunity and, in government, we would commit ourselves to so removing those obstacles and to tackling equality of opportunity in what would then seem to be the appropriate manner. I hope that the Minister for Communications might indicate his view of the suggestion that I have made. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(12.36) —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill and I am particularly pleased that I have the opportunity to speak after the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). Legislation like this-important social legislation-does not just emerge from the support of one party or one section of the Government. It comes from everyone in our community feeling that it is about time to give this sort of legislation support. Without the support of people like the honourable member for Goldstein and Senator Peter Baume, who I am glad to see is in the chamber for this debate, we would not see this legislation before the House today. It is important for those people who are listening to this Parliamentary debate to understand that there is legislation like this which receives support from most members of the House. I know that there have been a few exceptions but on the whole most members have supported the legislation. Parliamentary procedure is at its very best when there is this sort of contribution from all parties. I am personally very much indebted to the honourable member for Goldstein for a particular event that occurred when I had just had my first child. I was still in hospital and there was considerable debate on whether I should return to the work force. At that stage the Government was about to bring down the Budget and I said `I am going back to work'. That did not seem to present any problem to myself, my family or my new baby but it seemed to provoke considerable controversy in the rest of Australia. One Opposition member decided that he would make an issue of it. He went on a radio program called PM and criticised me for returning to work. I was quite flabbergasted by this insight into his opinion of my ability to raise a child, but, rather than make a comment, I sat in hospital and fumed. I was very pleased to hear the honourable member for Goldstein on the radio making a comment. He said that it was up to me to work out how I ran my own life and to decide what I was capable of doing. I have never publicly thanked the honourable member for that, although I have thanked him privately. It is women like me, who work and try to set some example to other women in Australia, who could not do so without the support of men like the honourable member for Goldstein. I thank him for that. Honourable members may be interested to know that my second child was born in the middle of an election campaign and whether I returned to work was not an issue at all. I did not receive one abusive letter or one comment from anyone in the media. Mr Barry Jones —Did your vote go up? Mrs KELLY —Yes, my vote went up, so I think we can see that gradually society has changed. However, it only changes because men and women in our society change their views on life. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill which clearly demonstrates that the Labor Government and, I believe, the Parliament are committed to increasing women's opportunities, especially in the work force. The legislation shows that the Government is prepared to back up its commitment with action. The Bill requires certain employers to promote equal opportunity for women by development and implementation of affirmative action programs. It will establish the office of the Director of Affirmative Action and affirmative action will be phased in. Other members has discussed that in more detail. I wish to take up a couple of issues and discuss them. First of all, why is this legislation necessary? As a woman who previously worked in the private sector before I came to Parliament, I can assure honourable members that discrimination against women in the work place is alive and well. Life as a woman member of parliament is easy compared with working in the private sector. For years I worked as a consultant to a number of large companies and every time I attended a conference in my own right or with my employer it was always inferred that I was a steno-secretary. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a steno-secretary, but it is about time that employers realised that women can do a lot more in the work force than simply type and take shorthand. The facts speak for themselves. Where do women work? Australia has the most highly sex-segregated work force of all comparable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. An examination of Australian labour markets shows that women are concentrated in a very narrow range of occupations. In November 1985, 65 per cent of all women workers were employed in only three occupational areas-clerical, sales and services. They, of course, are also the lowest paid workers. Affirmative action is not an end in itself; it is a goal simply to provide equal employment opportunities for men and women. It is a term covering a wide range of programs which organisations can undertake to remove discriminatory practices. These programs can range from a review of employment practices to identifying how they discriminate against women to introducing special programs to encourage women to apply for a wider range of jobs within the organisation. Affirmative action is simply a series of management techniques which are employed to achieve a better representation of women in the work force. Surely that is a pretty good business principle. Affirmative action for women in employment is based on a few simple principles that I think all of us in this chamber would adhere to. Firstly, I instance equity and justice. Each individual should have the right to compete for employment, subject only to ability. Women should not have to prove that they are better qualified, that they have more experience than men, that they can manage their children or that they will not leave in two years time before getting the job. They should be treated like men and given the same opportunities as men. Secondly, there is freedom of choice. Each individual should have the freedom to choose his or her occupation, subject only to the constraint of available employment. Thirdly, there is economic efficiency. The skills and talents of all men and women who want to work become available through affirmative action programs. Increased access to all available talent and the use of the best qualified people promote efficiencies. If Australia is to build a viable, strong and sensitive work force it must get the best it can from all employees regardless of sex. Affirmative action is based on the principle of merit; it is not based on quotas. A quota would mean a fixed number or a percentage of women employees that must be reached regardless of the number of qualified female applicants available for the job. The quota was part of the American legislation; it is not part of this legislation before the House today. The principle in this legislation is getting the best out of all employees based on the principle of merit. The Government does set an example as it has with affirmative action for its own employees. The Government introduced legislation as part of the Public Service Reform Bill in May 1984 which requires Commonwealth government departments to develop and implement equal employment opportunity programs for women and disadvantaged groups in the Public Service. I have been pleased to see, when I have spoken to people at a number of training programs, the increase in the number of women attending those programs. We still have a long way to go. As at June last year, we had only 78 women-4.9 per cent-in the Senior Executive Service out of a total of 1,505. The Government has already made provision for legislative based equal opportunity programs under the provisions of the Public Service Act to be extended by regulation to Commonwealth authorities. I was interested in the comments made by the honourable member for Goldstein about affirmative action in statutory authorities. I believe the Government is looking at ways that it can extend affirmative action to these authorities. Mr Connolly —We are moving an amendment to help you on your way. Mrs KELLY —Good, I am sure that will be very welcome as many of the other comments in this debate have been. One area that is critical to the provision of equal opportunities for women in the work force is child care. Other members have made reference to that. I simply want to endorse the points made particularly by the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) in this area. Women also have to provide child care facilities to give their children the opportunities they require and to get the maximum opportunities for themselves in the work place. I understand that the Federal Government is requesting the States to relax regulations to facilitate adequate child care facilities and enable a greater participation of women in the work force, but I believe it is about time that this Parliament set an example for the rest of the community for work based child care by providing child care facilities in the new Parliament House. I understand this has been an issue under discussion since I first became a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House in 1980. We still have not got any further. When I went on a tour around the New Parliament House last Saturday I was impressed with the extent of the space in the building. I find it extraordinary that somehow we cannot manage to provide some child care facilities, not only for the members of the parliament but also, probably more importantly, for the employees who are going to work in that building. If the Government is establishing a tradition of having work based child care, it is very important that we set an example. Another area where the Government is showing leadership is the provision of more flexibility in working hours, and this relates particularly to the provision of part time work. Part time work is a very welcome addition to the Public Service. I understand that regulations are now being discussed with the relevant unions and I hope that by the end of the month we will have the regulations in place to bring about permanent part time work in the Commonwealth Public Service. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(12.45) —I speak today in the grievance debate on what I regard to be the extremely disquieting circumstances of a dogged 12-year search for justice by two members of my electorate, two of my constituents, Reg and Sylvia Faulkner. Their case will be known to many members of this Parliament, for a number of us from both the Government and the Opposition benches and from both this House of Representatives and the other place have given help and support to the Faulkners over these 12 years. Despite that support, as I say, from both sides of the Parliament and from both Houses of the Parliament, and their determined efforts over the years, the Faulkners seem as distant today as they were in 1974 from achieving the fundamental right of every citizen to have a matter of law considered and decided upon by the courts and judiciary of this country. When I raise this case, I in no way make a judgment on the merits or otherwise of either side of the question. What I am concerned about is this extraordinary delay of 12 years in a matter coming before the courts-and it still has not come before the court. I have been aware of the case almost since its inception. Initially I felt a growing exasperation that our legal system could be so ponderous, and that exasperation turned to concern when there came a suspicion that certain parties associated with this case might be deliberately delaying the course of justice. Now, after 12 years, I am very alarmed that the circumstances of this case and the nature of the delays are of such a magnitude as to be a serious reflection on the ability of the Australian legal system to provide justice and to redress wrongs. I do not think it is an exaggeration to suggest that a system which has traditionally been admired by world jurists has become an arena where all too often distress and injury are being caused. The alarm is heightened in my mind by the fact that on the one hand the defendants in this case are the Commonwealth of Australia and an ex-brigadier, while on the other hand we have Reginald and Sylvia Faulkner, a husband and wife, ordinary citizens, decent people, with what they regard as a genuine grievance that should have been adjudicated upon-not in 1986 or next year but, in fact, in 1973. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — I am loath to interrupt the honourable member but I am not quite sure whether he is alluding to a matter that is before the courts. Mr MacKELLAR —No, it is not before the courts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not before the courts; fine. Mr MacKELLAR —That is what I am saying. It has not come before the courts; it has taken 12 years to get to this stage and it is still not before the courts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —But has it been listed? Mr MacKELLAR —No, not as far as I am aware. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I just remind the honourable member of the sub judice rule, and he may proceed. Mr MacKELLAR —I understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Barry Jones —Is there a writ of something pending or in existence? Mr MacKELLAR —I am not aware of any writ in existence. The matter is still-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member has assured the House that to his knowledge the matter is not before the courts, the House-- Mr MacKELLAR —I am not aware of it being before the courts. That is why I am saying that I think it should come before the courts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The House may take the view that the advice we have-- Mr MacKELLAR —The interrogatories are in process at the present time. Mr Barry Jones —If there are interrogatories, there must have been a writ. Mr MacKELLAR —The point I am trying to raise is that these people have been trying to get to court for 12 years and the process has been delayed for this extraordinary period of time. How am I to assist in this process, if I cannot talk about it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The House has a problem in that we cannot reflect on matters that are in the legal process. I want to help the honourable member. Mr MacKELLAR —I understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said in the process of my remarks, I am in no way making any judgments about the merits of the case, one way or the other. All I am concerned about is the fact that it has taken this extraordinarily long time for the matter to be brought forward and for the people to have their day in court. Mr Barry Jones —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Could I assist the honourable member? Is he in fact making a complaint about the administrative procedures? Mr MacKELLAR —Yes. Mr Barry Jones —If he directs himself and says that there are certain deficiencies in administrative procedures, it seems to me that, if that criticism is aimed at, say, the Attorney-General or at the bureaucracy of a particular court, he may be on safer ground rather than, in fact, adducing the merits of a particular case and creating the impression, anyway, that there ought to be a judgment one way or another on the merits of that case. Mr MacKELLAR —Speaking to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am endeavouring, as I have said, not to canvass the merits of the case one way or the other. I am concerned about the administrative procedures. I am concerned about the delay. There have been, it appears, losses of documents. This sort of thing really concerns me in relation to an attempt by some constituents of mine to bring their case before a judicial body. I am not reflecting on, as I say, the merits of the case one way or the other. I do not know. All I am seeking is some attention to be drawn to the fact that this process has been going on for such an extraordinarily long period of time, and I do not think it is fair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think that that sort of criticism of a process of justice is reasonable. I think they are points that the Minister and I have made. The honourable member seems to be proceeding along that point, so he may continue. Mr MacKELLAR —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just to give some background to the case, it was in 1964 that a metal clip was invented for connecting wire ropes to heavy loads. The Australian Army expressed interest in the device, known as the Trisal clip. Companies were set up and there was an indication that the Army would purchase large quantities of the device. No orders were ever placed and the company was subject to a scheme of arrangement. Mr Maher —On a point of order: I hate to interrupt the honourable member but he does seem to be canvassing the issues of a case that he has admitted is before the courts. There are, under the rules of New South Wales courts, time limits for filing proceedings. If it is 12 years since something has been originally initiated as a writ, that is a reflection on the solicitors for both sides. There is no excuse for such a delay and I appreciate what the honourable member is trying to do, but we cannot really have the actual terms of the dispute raised here in the House today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Could the honourable member address himself to the generality rather than the specific? Mr MacKELLAR —It seems to me that the House should be aware of the nature of the background to the case. That was all I was establishing-that some 12 or more years ago a situation developed which has led, since that time, to people becoming bankrupt and to efforts on behalf of my constituents to bring the matter to court. There have been extraordinary delays in the administration of that process. The Commonwealth has been involved in the administration of that process. Still, 12 years after the initial efforts, this matter has not been finalised. All I am seeking to do today is to suggest that the process by which claims are heard seems to have been unduly delayed in this case. As I say, without making any judgment on the merits of the case, it seems to me quite wrong that the administration of justice should take this extraordinary length of time. If I am precluded by the forms of the House from debating or introducing any of the matter relevant to the case, so be it. The essential point that I am seeking to make is that I believe the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) should take a very close interest because the Commonwealth is involved in it. I know he is aware of the case. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) should be aware of the case. I believe that both of them should make every effort to assist in bringing this case before the courts so that these two constituents of mine have the opportunity of their day in court. If we are going to have a system of justice which involves a delay of 12 years or more in the hearing of a case of this nature, it is simply an inadequate system of justice. The Attorney-General is responsible for the Federal system of justice in this country. He is aware of the case-it has been made known to him-and I would entreat him to give it his closest personal attention so that people, ordinary people, decent people in the community, can at least have an opportunity to put their case before a court of this land and the matter adjudicated upon. I reiterate that I do not make any statements about the merits, pro or con, of the case, but I do say that, if we have a system of justice in this country which, after 12 years, sees a situation where two citizens of Australia still cannot get to court to have their grievances tested, it is a very inadequate system of justice indeed and something needs to be done about it very smartly. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(12.55) —Last Saturday at my morning interviews, I interviewed an Australian small businessman who went into a business and unfortunately lost the business during the recession in 1982. He had put his home up as a security with the bank and he lost his home. He was a man, born in Italy, who was extremely distressed by the experience and had no one to stand up for him. He had to go into a Housing Commission house. He is a man in his late fifties. So I was somewhat concerned when I arrived in Canberra on Tuesday morning and found trucks blockading the airport and the farmers protesting, because I thought that there was nobody protesting for the small business community; regrettably no one seems to care what happens to them. But I thought I would today raise the problem of the rural community because last night I had a telephone call from a farmer who in 1979 bought a property of 1,623 acres nine miles from Canowindra. This farmer is a cousin of mine. I had met him at his mother's funeral last week when he told me that things were bad in the bush and he was going under with interest rates. I know this man. I know that he is hard working. I know that he has always wanted to go on the land. In 1979, after 32 years in business, he sold a pharmacy and his home in Sydney and raised $600,000 and bought a property at Canowindra. Unfortunately, although he has worked very hard with his two adult sons and they have put $300,000 worth of improvements on the property, he has had nothing but bad luck ever since. Nearly every year he has struck a drought or rain or mice or frost and has had no crop. In 1979 the drought-no crop; 1980-no crop; 1981 was the only year that he had an average crop; 1982-there was a drought again; 1983-the harvest was wet and he lost money because of rain damage; 1984-50 per cent of the crop was lost because of frost damage, and mice took much of the rest; 1985-a wet harvest and he had dockage of $45 and $24 a tonne; and 1986 looks to be a disaster year in the bush in New South Wales. This man now owes the bank $720,000. His interest rate until last week was 21.75 per cent. No one can run a business and pay interest rates of 21.75 per cent. This has been dropped now to 19.5 per cent. His annual interest bill is $140,000. The newspapers have been searching for people who are in a crisis in the bush and I am raising this matter today because today representatives of the bank are at his property and are probably having lunch with him and his wife now. They do not know that I am saying this because there is no Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast of Parliament in Canowindra. I did say to him that it is time that people in trouble in the bush stood up and let their names be used, and he very reluctantly agreed. He has a great crisis and it must be known. I know that he is hard working. I know that he is an honourable bloke-not just because he is a cousin of mine. He is a man I believe in and he is a man who has sacrificed all to go on the land. His fear is that the bank may cut off credit. He is a good farmer. He is a graduate of the University of Sydney. He is a graduate of the Sydney Rural School of Science. In 1984-85 he won the district wheat competition. In 1985-86 he was second, only because they did not have enough money to spray against black oats. He has had a good district average price for lambs, and the lamb market in Australia has been indeed sick. I have great sympathy for this man, whose name is John Maher. Our grandfather had a property, a selection, out at Forbes on the Bundaburra Creek. Grandfather had to walk off in the 1890s drought because the banks forced him off. Our great grandfather had a farm on the banks of the Lachlan at Forbes. He also had to walk off because of money owed to the bank due to floods on the Lachlan River. Yet we have farmers blockading the airport and threatening to blockade the airport again on Friday to stop us getting home. I do not know what they are hoping to achieve. My cousin said that he was appalled by their kindergarten antics. How can they take three, four or five days off from their properties if they are really working their properties hard trying to make a living? This gentleman, this cousin of mine, said that farmers do not want a moratorium; they do not want a ban on paying any debts. They want to be able to get some means of setting aside the hard core debt. They need credit; they need money to plant their crops; they need money to pay tradesmen and creditors; but they need something to set aside the hard core debts, some sort of scheme so that debt can be paid off when viability returns to agriculture in five or six years. I do not want to see John Maher forced off his farm, as were his forebears, particularly as the banks in Australia are part of the most profitable banking system in the whole world. The high interest rates are making them a fortune every trading day. My cousin deplored what the Livestock and Grain Producers Association did. It is no use farmers coming and shouting abuse at people at the airport. They picked on all the wrong people; all the people dressed in nice suits turned out to be judges and businessmen. They did not know who the members of parliament were. It was the silliest demonstration I have ever seen. It did no good at all. Unfortunately there are genuine cases and tragic cases in the bush-people with appalling debts in the rural sector. That is why I raise this today, because I overlook the inanities outside. There are people in the farming sector who have great problems, and I think it is time that some of these people came forward. It is very hard for them to face the glare of of publicity, but they have to do this and stop some of the cant and hypocrisy. Even today we have a matter coming on for debate later about the farming sector of Australia, but it is this Government that has halved the rate of growth in farm costs. I am raising these matters today. I agree with everything that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr John Kerin) said about the LGPA protest. I say good luck to the people in the bush who are struggling, who are really facing eviction by the banks, because it is a national crisis. They are not multinationals; they cannot go somewhere else and sell out and just go off. This cousin of mine does have a small equity left in his farm; but, if facing debts of $740,000 and an interest bill of $140,000 a year, anyone would be worried, anyone would be sick to death and would not be able to sleep at night. I believe it is appropriate to raise these things in a grievance debate in this House so that the Australian people can learn of some of the problems of the rural community, the people who really do produce half of our exports-half of the exports of this nation are in agriculture. The economy is slowly getting better at a pace that is less than perhaps we had hoped because the rural sector can make very little contribution because of the drought in New South Wales. I hope that some of my comments today might be noted by the banks, the people who are making great profits at the expense of the rural community and the business community. I hope also that, in any package of assistance that is brought forward, we do not forget the small business people, because there is nobody down here protesting about their losses and their appalling situation. If they put up capital and lose, no one seems to care two hoots. I think it is time we had some sort of a package to stop people losing their homes, to stop them losing their businesses and to allow them to trade out when the situation improves. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(1.05) —I want to talk today about the issue of takeovers and the share market in particular. After all, in the last few weeks this Parliament and indeed the nation have been consumed by debates of the importance of takeovers and whether they should or should not proceed. The genuine concern that I have is not that people have the capacity to take over companies; my concern is the decline in public involvement in share markets. When Harold Macmillan was the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1950s, he talked about Britain becoming a property-owning democracy. He believed that by being a property-owning democracy that country would achieve greater social stability and greater development. When Harold Macmillan was talking about property-owning democracy he was talking about the ownership of property, being housing and land. I think that principle should be extended much further; it should be extended to the wealth-creating resources of our country-in other words, our companies and our corporate sector. Capitalism, I believe, would be all the more successful, and indeed all the more popular, if it became people's capitalism, if there was the involvement of ordinary Australians in those companies that create the wealth of the Community. The trend over recent years has been otherwise. Economic power in this country and throughout the Western world has become increasingly concentrated, with institutions gaining a larger and larger part of the share market and of the shares traded on that market. One only has to look at international comparisons to see how this trend has been world-wide. In the United States of America in 1970, 15 per cent of the population held shares, which by international standards is actually a very high proportion of the population. That percentage had declined by 1980 to just over 13 per cent. There has also been a very significant decline in the United States of the proportion of shares which are owned by individuals rather than by institutions. The findings in the United Kingdom are pretty much the same. Back in 1957 individual holdings in the share market amounted to about 65 per cent of all shares. By 1975 that figure had dropped to 37.5 per cent. I cannot get any more recent figures, but I doubt that that figure has changed very much since then. In 1975, 3.7 per cent of the British population actually owned shares, which is a tiny percentage of the population of that country owning the corporate sector of the nation. In Australia, which is what we are concerned about, there has been very much the same trend. Today in Australia the latest figures show that about 4 per cent of the population own all the shares traded on the Australian share market. The consequence of only 4 per cent owning the shares is a concentration of ownership in the hands of a few and particularly in the hands of institutions rather than individuals. Those shares are, in the main, held by the five large life offices in this country and by the enormous superannuation funds, which are likely, of course, to expand as this year wears on. In 1979, that is, the latest available figures that we have, 32 per cent of the shareholdings in Australia were owned by individuals. Yet in 1953 that figure was 75 per cent. The top 20 shareholders in this country, who are institutional shareholders, held about 30 per cent of shares back in 1953. In 1979 they held 40 per cent. Why is broad public ownership of shares important? I think there are a number of reasons: First of all, we want to reduce the concentration of economic power. With the rise of superannuation funds, and particularly in the future funds that will be controlled by the trade union movement, the last thing we want in this country is some kind of `pension fund socialism' where the corporate sector of Australia is basically owned by pension funds, many of which may in the future be controlled by trade unions. We want to diversify ownership of the resources of the community amongst ordinary Australians. We do not want to do that through government involvement and government intervention beyond a reasonable degree. We do not want government saying who and who cannot buy shares, as long as trading is done legitimately. What we do want is to get ordinary people more involved in the ownership of the community's resources, not just a few large institutions. Diversifying ownership of shares would have a second effect of making takeovers much less simple than they are at present. Where shares are held by a few institutions it is clearly relatively easy for takeovers to be successful. Where they are owned by large numbers of individuals, clearly the process is going to be considerably more complicated. A third reason I think we should have broader public ownership of shares is to give ordinary Australians a much greater stake in their nation's future. At the moment the vast majority of Australian's only stake in the economic development of their country is through the receipt of wages. If we could also ensure that large numbers of people owned shares, that would be a further way for those people to gain the rewards of economic success-not just by going to employers or to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or whatever it may be to gain a greater share of the success of the economy, but also by receiving the fruits of that success through the appreciating value of their shares and through the dividends and bonus issues and so on that those shares would bring. Fourthly, I think broader share ownership would have significant industrial relations advantages, particularly where there is employee share ownership in individual firms. The results of employee ownership schemes in existing firms, both in Australia and overseas, have been extremely encouraging. Surveys and studies have shown that it aligns personal and company goals; it involves, in other words, the employee in the institution or company in which he works and it takes him away from the role of what is rather emotively described as just a wage slave. It gives the employee a greater commitment to the company in which he or she works and it is also important from the company's point of view, and perhaps from the employee's point of view, that employees work longer in particular companies. It has the effect also of increasing the motivation and, therefore, the productivity of the firm. The question, of course, that is difficult to answer is how it is possible to create a greater degree of people's capitalism in the Australian economy. Very briefly, there are three ways we can look at encouraging that process. First of all, through the process of industrial democracy-a phrase which is so glibly used by those on the other side of the House-we can encourage companies to sell shares to their employees. In some instances it may be that companies would be willing to do that at a discount or on preferential terms to their employees, but I think it would befit all of us, as members of parliament, to encourage companies to look more closely at those sorts of schemes because where they have existed in Australia-and Fletcher Jones and Staff Pty Ltd, I suppose, is the best known example-they have proved to be a very significant success and they have also created harmonious industrial relations for the reasons I have explained. Secondly, through the taxation system there is no doubt that share ownership can be encouraged. The Government has announced that it is going to introduce the imputation system to eliminate double taxation of dividends, and I support the broad thrust of the scheme that the Government is introducing. I think that one of the consequences of having an imputation system is that it would encourage, in the longer term, greater individual participation in the share market rather than just institutional participation. In the United Kingdom, in the recent Budget introduced last month, that Government established something called a personal equity plan. Under that plan British citizens, ordinary citizens of that country, will be able to invest up to $5,000 a year, `in Australian currency' free of any capital gains tax and free of any tax on dividends received. To do such a thing in Australia may prove to be expensive and would have to be examined very carefully, but I think the British have set an example there, at least in terms of sentiment, that we ought to look at very carefully. Finally, this is an educative problem. Australians are scared of the share market; they do not understand the benefits they can gain. I think it is incumbent not so much on governments but on stockbrokers, on the stock exchanges of Australia and, indeed, on banks, particularly at the branch level, to encourage people to understand the benefits of the share market and to encourage people to put their savings not just into traditional forms of saving but also into shares out of which they can gain so much. Capitalism in this country will work if it is not just for the privileged. Capitalism should be for ordinary people. They should have the opportunity to participate in the process of capitalism. We need to get away as quickly as we can from a small number of institutions controlling this economy towards a broader community participation, and the way to do that is through the share market. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.15) —I also rise to express concern about the concentration of economic power in this country, but do so from a rather different point of view than the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). I suggest that there are some aspects of this matter in respect of which we would share common views, but I make the observation that his call for a form of people's capitalism has very little to offer, in my opinion, to the two million and more Australians who live in poverty. What I seek to do today is to raise in the House the opportunity for an honest debate about the question of government regulation, because it seems to me that there is at the moment in the community, and to a large extent in the Parliament, almost a zealot-like reliance on so-called free market forces in relation to the Australian economy. I believe that that approach to economic management spells doom and tremendous economic difficulties for this country in the years to come. What I seek to do is to raise for debate a different approach and to express some particular concerns about the laissez-faire approach that is being adopted in the area of corporate takeovers. My concern is that regulations in Australia governing takeovers are tipping the balance too far in favour of the offerors in takeover battles. I believe that it is time to inject some balance into the debate. It is clearly a myth to suggest that takeovers automatically lead to the replacement of weak and inefficient management by more efficient managers. Indeed, Mr Henry Bosch, who I think would acknowledge himself as a free marketeer, has gone on the public record as estimating that in his view this occurs in only a tiny minority of cases. The problem has been in part that, in attempting to resist takeovers, Australian companies are increasingly attempting to keep their share prices up over a short term. This means, of course, that valuable corporate resources are being diverted away from areas such as research and development and the regeneration of Australian industry and that long term planning is suffering as a result of this short term need to keep up share prices. I believe that, because of the inadequacy of takeover law in this country, there is no Australian company which is not under threat from a takeover. Of course, the current example of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd-BHP-provides a very important example of what I say. I do not seek to become involved in the personal assessment of the relative worth of BHP's existing board or the merits or influence that Mr Holmes a Court and his associates might bring to BHP. That is not my job. What I seek to do is to raise the general principles and to assert what I believe is unquestionably the nub of the issue in this debate-that there needs to be greater government involvement in assessing takeovers of Australian companies and that this general principle certainly applies to BHP. Overseas studies have shown that there is no improvement in the economic efficiency of companies following takeovers and as a direct result of those mergers. Indeed, Australia has reached the overkill stage with respect to takeovers. The managers of the offeror companies clearly have nothing in particular to offer by way of improvement to the management of the companies that they are seeking to take over. In fact, clearly many of them have no experience, expertise or involvement in the area of business carried out by the company which is the subject of the takeover. I believe that if we are serious in this Parliament about increasing national productivity, which is often a view trumpeted from both sides, we ought to be looking very critically at the impact of takeovers on the economy, because there is evidence that those takeovers are increasingly diverting massive financial resources from productive areas of investment. The records show that corporate borrowings overseas, largely to finance these takeovers, have increased by about $50,000m in recent years. In fact, the $2,000m to finance the Holmes a Court takeover bid of BHP will come from a foreign bank. If members of the Liberal Party and of the National Party and, indeed, of my own Party are serious about the level of overseas indebtedness of this country, it is an abdication of any honest debate about takeovers and the Australian economy not to give serious consideration to the question that I have raised. One of the other matters that I will turn to in a moment is the dirty tricks and taxation rorts that are used in the takeover battles. I do not believe that they are in the national interests which should be the primary concern of this Government and the Parliament. I have made the point already, but I want to reiterate, that the existing takeover law does not give sufficient consideration to the national interest and gives too much consideration to corporate interests. I am not surprised that the trade union movement has expressed great concern about the takeover of BHP. I make reference to the view of the national secretary of the Federated Ironworkers Association, who referred to companies in the steel industry being concerned only in the profitability of their shares and not in the welfare of the steel industry, the workers employed in it nor the network of family and municipal interests and relationships on which the prosperity of cities like Newcastle, Wollongong, Port Kembla and Whyalla is based. That trade union view, of course, is not just about employment. It is also about broader national interest questions and about the taxation matters that I have referred to. The President of the New South Wales Branch of the Labor Party, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions senior vice-president, Mr John MacBean, has of course gone on the public record calling for a public inquiry. His view, I believe, is still valid and is in no way diminished by the events that have occurred since he first made that call and reiterated it. A very good barometer of public opinion, certainly opinion within the Australian Labor Party, must be the views of the administrative committee of the New South Wales branch of that Party. I am quite sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would share, at least privately, my view that that august body, if it reaches a unanimous resolution or decision on a matter, is a body that ought to be taken some notice of. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Most certainly. Mr TICKNER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That body made a decision on 7 March and considered the widespread concern in the community concerning the rush of takeovers occurring in Australia. Importantly, it made the point that I seek to make: The takeover of BHP is an extremely important example of this very disturbing trend. The administrative committee of the New South Wales branch took the view that, not only in the Labor movement but within the electorate generally, the rush of corporate takeovers is regarded as unwelcome and is perceived to contribute nothing to the general economic and social wellbeing of Australia. It said, and I say, that the public interest should be the first consideration in such issues and that Labor governments are elected not to stand idly by, to use the words used by it, in splendid theoretical isolation, but to intervene in the public interest where appropriate. That body went on to talk about the need for a public inquiry, the need for more effective scrutiny of takeover bids and the removal of mechanisms relating to negative gearing of speculative takeover bids. Lest it be thought that only people within the Australian Labor Party are expressing concerns about this issue, let me again refer to the view put forward by Mr Bosch of the National Companies and Securities Commission. He was quoted on numerous occasions, but also in the Melbourne Age in the middle of last year, as criticising the laissez-faire approach that is all pervasive in the community: . . . when large numbers of loyal employees are swept aside for no better purpose than the aggrandisement of a paper entrepreneur, I feel serious disquiet. He is an acknowledged free marketeer but his view is that the existing laissez-faire, free market, zealot approach that is all pervasive in the community has gone too far. It is my view that it is time to turn back and have a more balanced and rational debate about this important question. I conclude with three calls. I call on the Government to initiate, firstly, public inquiry into the BHP takeover; secondly, an urgent review of the Trade Practices Act as it relates to takeovers; and, finally, an urgent review of the taxation law in this country that allows the rorts in the takeover area to be perpetrated. Mr COBB(Parkes)(1.25) —I believe the time is long overdue in this country when people who receive unemployment benefits should be expected to give some return for those benefits. Basically, what I propose is that all able-bodied recipients of welfare be required to do two days community work a week before they receive their cheques. Note that I use the term `able-bodied'. I stress at the outset that I am not talking about people in wheelchairs, nor am I talking about pensioners such as age pensioners who have served this country and contributed to the present standard of living that we all enjoy as a result of their past labours. What I am referred to is unemployed people on the dole. The single adult unemployment benefit today amounts to $91.45 a week and is to rise next month, I am told, to $102.10 a week. If one is married, one receives a weekly amount, compliments of the taxpayer, of $163.30, soon to rise to $170.30. For each dependent child one also attracts an extra $16 a week. Those figures for the dole for the single adult of around $100 a week are given with no strings attached provided no work is available. As $100 is approximately equivalent to roughly the wage rate for two days unskilled labour, I believe it is a reasonable request to expect two days labour in return for that money. Recipients who are married and those with children would also be required to work for only two days a week as clearly one should not be disadvantaged because one is married or has children. By requiring those who have access to the public purse to work two days a week, the cost to the taxpayer would also be roughly the same as the cost of the dole. Mr Gear —What would they do? Mr COBB —I will tell the honourable member in a minute if he will listen. I am against offering full time work. If we provide a full five days work as, for example, under the old regional employment development scheme, the cost to the taxpayer would be substantially more and consequently the need to get a productive return for the taxpayers' money would become much more paramount and difficult. It would also mean that anyone put out of a job in effect would automatically be granted full time work with the Government, which I am sure we would all readily agree is the last thing this country wants. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr COBB —I thank the honourable member for his support. However, with the scheme I propose, as the cost of the dole is approximately equivalent to two days unskilled labour, the only extra cost to the taxpayers would come from such items as supervisory costs and workers compensation, which I will deal with later. The advantages of requiring some form of community work are many. Firstly, as only two days of work each week are required, the person will still have three days of each week and weekends left over to search for other work. So, in almost no way will it hinder the finding of a job. The scheme will also keep people in what we could call the work habit. It is human nature that if we go for a long period of time without working many of us get used to that type of behaviour and find it very hard to motivate ourselves to start working again. I am sure honourable members opposite would know what I am talking about! This is a very important factor which should never be underestimated. Thirdly, it will give the hard-pressed taxpayers of this country value for their money. At present they are getting none. Virtually no taxpayers mind assistance going to the genuinely needy, but they resent their money being poured into permissive welfare policies such as the present dole scheme. The workers of Australia have to turn up and do five days work for five days pay and most of them believe it unfair that others in the community are given two or more days pay for no days work. A work for the dole scheme would also restore dignity to the unemployed. Mr Hodgman —Good point! Mr COBB —It is. In many ways, this would prove to be the most important benefit of all. Most people on the dole are genuinely unemployed and I have seen the degrading effect that getting that welfare cheque has on many of these people. However, if they have to work for that cheque like everyone else in the community has to work for their cheque, when they go down to the pub or wherever at the end to cash their cheques they will not have to slink in. They can hold their heads up high because they will have earned it. It means, of course, that the degrading term `dole bludger' will disappear from our language for ever and all the shame and all the resentment that go with that term will vanish also. Another remarkable advantage to this working for the dole or work force scheme, as it is sometimes called, is that it weeds out all the cheats and pretenders in the system. One of the greatest criticisms of dole payments is that so much goes to people who have jobs or people who illegally collect more than one dole cheque, or people who could get a job but do not because they are getting enough to live on compliments of the social security system. Every government has largely failed to correct this. In practice, it is impossible to stop it. The best intentions to clean the system up only nibble at the edges. I doubt that even the proposed identity card or Australia Card, whatever we like to call it, will help much either. I estimate that 30 to 40 per cent of recipients in my electorate of Parkes are cheating the system. Most of the cheats who get the dole are also working elsewhere. I have been into small businesses in my electorate with, say, 30 employees and been told by the employer that half of these are collecting the dole. However, I found that people are reluctant to dob others in. It is hard to track down false names used and a whole host of impediments arise to prevent any of these people ever being charged, let alone convicted in a court. Even from the handful who are convicted the taxpayer almost never sees a proper return of any of his money. Let us face it. The only way we will ever stop this sort of thing going on is by a work for the dole scheme. If these people had to turn up for two days work before they got paid, they could not be in two places at once and all cheating would stop stone dead. It would also weed out the bludgers from the system. I am referring to those who could find jobs but do not try and those who turn up for job interviews in thongs and stubbies and with tired looks on their faces, hoping that they will be refused. Mr Hodgman —And reeking of marijuana. Mr COBB —How true. We all know about those who get a job and leave after a few days to go back to the dole because that is easier. In some cases, a married person with a few kids is actually better off on welfare than working, especially when tax and the cost of travelling backwards and forwards to work, work clothes and so on are taken out. The stories are legion and we have all heard them before. My scheme would eliminate all of that overnight, and I know of no other way in which it could be done. Let me emphasise that putting these people to work will displace no one who already has a job, so the unions need not scream at this suggestion. There is ample work to be done in every centre I have seen right around Australia. Council work alone would accommodate nearly all of them if need be. The work to be done on roads is virtually limitless and the councils have had lots of experience in occupying such people in recent years with schemes such as the community employment program. With my scheme the councils would get the labour for nothing. They would be up for only the supervisory costs and other incidentals such as tools. With the CEP scheme the councils had to pay 20 to 30 per cent of the wage costs, so they would be much better off with workfare. Even if these unemployed people did nothing productive, the scheme would still be worth while. Just the fact that these people had to turn up would be beneficial by itself. There is plenty of a productive nature to be done and the scheme could get more sophisticated as it got under way. At the beginning, the unskilled jobs could include road work, weed control, street cleaning, tree planting and maintenance, hospital grounds beautification, meals on wheels, mowing pensioners' lawns, parks and gardens maintenance and so on. No one would be put out of a full time job. All this is extra to what can be afforded now. The people in these schemes would have to be covered by workers compensation, but this would amount to only about $7 a day, a small cost to pay for the advantages that would follow. Even if the Federal Government footed the bill for the whole scheme, the cost of this could well be paid for three or four times over by the savings made by having the cheats drop out of the system. Those genuinely on the dole would welcome it. Not only would they retain dignity and the work ethic, but they would acquire skills as the scheme developed. People could be given workfare job cards. When they did apply for real jobs, at least they would have something to show their prospective employer and he could see their record. The scheme would be especially valuable for the young. Of course, instead of workfare involving all physical work, some of it could be substituted by having retraining schemes, technical and further education courses and the like. Some will cry that all this is forced labour and, therefore, breaches the International Labour Organisation conventions to which Australia is a signatory. Apart from the fact that I think we are signatories to too many of these international socialist treaties, let me assure the people who have such concerns that this scheme does not breach the ILO conventions. To begin, no one is forcing these people to work. We are told that these people are looking for work. Well, we are offering it to them and paying them for it. Of course, if they do not turn up for work they do not get paid. But what is unusual about that? If people with jobs do not turn up for work they do not get paid. Why should it be any different for others in the community? What would be the public acceptance of a workfare scheme? I have floated the idea everywhere I have gone for years now and the response to my suggestion has been not only good but overwhelming. In fact, I found the most enthusiastic groups are the Labor-voting, pay as you earn taxpayers. They have had a gutful of being ripped off over the years, and justifiably so. This country cannot afford these payments any more. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(1.35) —The story that underlines my grievance today is as unjust as it is disturbing. It related to the circumstances of a Mr Brian Cox, a resident of Newcastle and a former member of the New South Wales Police Force. Mr Cox joined the Police Force in November 1970. In 1972 he was cited for bravery for wresting a gun away from a man who was wielding it during a domestic dispute. He was transferred to Newcastle in 1973 as a constable on highway patrol duty. In April 1974, whilst directing traffic around an accident, he was hit by a car whose driver was drunk. He was carried on the bonnet of the car for some 60 feet, suffering several fractures of one leg, a dislocated shoulder, general injuries to the body and so on. He required extensive surgery to reconstruct his knee. He was placed back on full duty in 1976 and in 1977 was injured during a high speed car chase of a stolen vehicle. The police car suffered a blow-out and crashed into a concrete fence. Mr Cox's old injuries were aggravated as well and he was off duty for another three months. On 14 December, 1979, Mr Cox was called to the scene of a very serious accident at Adamstown. He was directing traffic around the accident when again he was hit by a car whose driver was drunk. He was thrown into the path of an oncoming car and suffered serious head injuries and leg injuries. He had an operation for subdural haematoma and was off duty until 1982, when he was pensioned off as unfit for duty. Mr Cox subsequently went to the United Kingdom in late 1983 for medical treatment, then unavailable in Australia, consisting of laser treatment to heal scarring on his brain. It was aimed primarily at curing the epilepsy he suffered as a result of his injuries, but it also greatly improved his speech and other aspects of the dyslexia that had developed. A few weeks before going overseas in 1983, Mr Cox had purchased a Jaguar car. He arranged for this vehicle to be shipped to the United Kingdom so as to have it available for his use there whilst undergoing treatment. He also arranged with the Australian Customs to re-import the car. During the time that he and his wife were making these arrangements Customs at no time indicated that he could either have Customs duty or sales tax suspended if he was to re-export a car without having driven it in Australia or that, if he bought a new car in the United Kingdom and kept it for more than six months, he would pay duty on its depreciated value. Be all that as it may, Mr Cox acted clearly in a quite straightforward way. He had owned the car for less than two weeks before shipping it across to England. He was at no time aware that there may have been more financially attractive ways of owning a car in the United Kingdom. In September 1984, shortly before he was to return to Australia, he was a passenger in his own car which was being driven by an English policeman friend when it was involved in an accident to a degree that necessitated its being written off. The car was insured through Commercial Union who insisted that the value of the car was the English market value. After a great deal of argument the company eventually agreed to pay Mr Cox enough to allow him to buy a replacement vehicle-a sum of just less than #19,000 sterling or $38,000. The vehicle had cost him, in Australia, some $55,000, which included a significant amount of duty and sales tax. Mr Cox was a front seat passenger in this accident and was unconscious for nine days afterwards. He suffered a head injury, a burst fracture of a lumbar vertebra, a fracture of a facial bone and a fractured patella. He suffered extensive further hospitalisation and treatment and eventually returned to Australia in February 1986. In June 1985, he had purchased a replacement Jaguar, which he was committed to do from the insurance settlement. This car has now arrived in Australia and Mr and Mrs Cox have had to mortgage their home to raise the $32,000 to pay the duty and sales tax, as well as a surety of over $12,000 to Customs. In effect, Mr and Mrs Cox have a Jaguar car that they can now drive in Australia. They outlayed $55,000 in 1983 and a further $32,000 in 1986 to have the privilege of driving a car which is probably worth some $60,000-that is, of course, apart from the shipping costs and so on. Quite clearly, a young man with an impeccable record of public service who has been left largely incapacitated as a result of injuries sustained in the course of duty is now financially crippled as well. I am sure that honourable members will agree with me that this is an intolerable situation and one that neither I nor Mr Cox should accept. In July 1985, I wrote to the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Technology (Senator Button) seeking assistance with Mr Cox's case. In those letters, I requested that consideration be given to giving Mr Cox a credit equivalent to the value of duty and sales tax on the vehicle that he had exported against the duty and sales tax on the vehicle that he had imported as a replacement. In other words, I was suggesting that Mr and Mrs Cox had paid duty and sales tax and so on on a vehicle in Australia that they had exported very shortly afterwards and had been unable to reimport through no fault of their own. I proposed that the duty paid should be refunded as an offset against the duty that would be paid on its replacement. I also forwarded to the Minister a detailed letter from Griffiths and Bonallack, a firm of English solicitors acting on Mr Cox's behalf, outlining the circumstances of the accident and subsequent negotiations with the insurance company. Senator Button responded to my letter on 16 October 1985 and indicated that there were no provisions within the Customs Act for writing off any amounts. He further indicated that there were provisions within the Audit Act administered by the Minister for Finance and indicated that use of such procedures was not a routine matter. On 12 November, I forwarded copies of the various correspondence to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and drew his attention to Senator Button's remarks. I lodged a request with the Minister's staff that I be allowed to discuss this extremely complex matter with the Minister prior to his making a decision. In late February, the Minister telephoned me to indicate that he would speak with me during the next session. I attempted to discuss the matter almost daily for the two weeks of the session in March and, apart from a few very brief words on 19 March, the discussion that a matter as complex as this necessitates never took place. On the evening of the 20th, I approached the Minister and was told, without explanation, that the request was refused. I later telexed the Minister's office seeking a written explanation to the correspondence. I finally received a letter dated 24 March, which states: I have been unable to identify any special factors which would justify my circumventing the necessarily very strict terms of the Customs Tariff Act by agreeing to waive collection of the duty and sales tax payable by them. I find the response of the Minister to be absolutely abhorrent and unjustifiable. If special factors could ever exist, they must exist in Mr and Mrs Cox's case. This couple have suffered grievously through no fault whatsoever of their own. The case submitted is as strong and as detailed as one could ever imagine and to have it dismissed in just 11 lines does not do the Minister justice, let alone Mr and Mrs Cox. I believe that the request to allow Mr and Mrs Cox a credit or an ex gratia payment equivalent to the duty and sales tax paid on a car that is no longer in Australia to be credited against the duty and sales tax on a car that they imported to replace it is not only reasonable but also humane. Not to do so for a man with Mr Cox's record of dedication in public service is an insult. None of the evidence put forward in this matter has been rejected or even queried. The response seems to be that the law does not demand that any action should be taken, therefore no action will be taken. The Minister has the legislative authority to assist in this case but has chosen, for reasons that I cannot perceive, not to use it. I have made this speech because I fervently believe this matter must be aired. I believe Mr Cox is a victim of the system, of the procedures, of the red tape of all the facilities that are aimed and designed to protect our industries in terms of the importation of vehicles. I believe he is a victim of a system that was not meant to inflict this kind of damage. I have aired the matter because it is my intention to submit it to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with a strong request that the case be reviewed and because I cannot believe that this decision reflects fairly on this Government. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(1.44) —On behalf of the overwhelming-I repeat, the overwhelming-majority of Australians it is my privilege to extend a very warm welcome to Mr Caspar Weinberger, the United States Secretary of Defense, who is in Canberra for two days of talks at the highest level. Caspar Weinberger is without doubt one of the great men of our time. Mr Katter —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member, a former Minister for the Army, for his comment. Mr Weinberger is especially a very long-standing and trusted friend of Australia, having first visited our shores during the darkest days of World War II when he was attached to the personal staff of General Douglas MacArthur. He served alongside General MacArthur right through to the ultimate victory. Mr Weinberger is a champion of freedom, as his distinguished record over more than four decades proves beyond any doubt. He is admired by millions and millions of people all over the world as a man of principle and commitment who stands up for what he believes in and who says precisely what he thinks. His character and integrity are acknowledged by even those who oppose him and his meticulously proper, truthful, honourable and scrupulously ethical approach to the performance of the duties of the high public office which he holds stamps him without doubt as one of the great leaders of the free world today. Having recently been in Washington, during which visit it was my great privilege to meet Mr Richard L. Armitage, United States Assistant Secretary for Defense and universally recognised as Mr Weinberger's outstanding lieutenant, I believe it is appropriate that I speak today on the Australian-United States alliance so critical and fundamental for the preservation of our way of life in our two great countries and to ensure that the freedom for which we fought together and which we successfully defended in World War II is preserved and maintained without any qualification or reservation whatsoever. The historic alliance forged between those two great leaders of World War II, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Curtin, must be maintained and must be strengthened, not just for the present but to ensure the future for our children, our children's children and continuing generations. In the light of the foregoing, it is absolutely imperative that the discussions which take place between Mr Weinberger and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and senior members of the Hawke socialist Government are utterly frank and completely candid. I have no doubts at all as to Mr Weinberger's position. My grave concern is in relation to the views which will be expressed to him by the Hawke socialist Government and in particular as to whether these views truly reflect the will of the Australian people. Mr Cobb —It is unlikely. Mr HODGMAN —It is a problem the honourable member and I both agree upon. It has been said before and it gives me no pleasure to say it again today that the Australian-United States alliance, by accident or design, has been grievously weakened because of the actions of the Hawke socialist Government since it came to power. Mr Goodluck —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —In so many ways this Government-and I acknowledge the presence of the distinguished and honourable member for Franklin-the Hawke socialist Government has been guilty of weakening, white anting and downgrading this vital alliance to the dismay of Washington and to the obvious delight of Moscow. Through a combination of incompetence and blatant appeasement of the mad Left represented in this Parliament by those who occupy Moscow corner, we have seen Australia's standing as a trusted ally of the United States diminished. I do not believe that Washington today regards the present Australian Government in the same light and in the same high esteem in which it regarded the Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon and Fraser governments. Whilst Australia has not reached the depths to which New Zealand has sunk under comrade Lange, it must be said that if the lunatic Left in this Parliament gets it way that position could well be reached before the Hawke socialist Government's present term of office is brought to an abrupt end, at the next Federal election. I feel obliged to repeat today the remarks I made in this House on 25 February 1985. I quote verbatim: The Hawke socialist Government . . . have betrayed Australia's interests in the international scene. The ANZUS Treaty fiasco of recent weeks has done more to damage the national security of Australia than anything else since World War II. For this to occur in peacetime is an appalling indictment of a Prime Minister who is prepared to put appeasement of party factions ahead of national interest. As the (then) Leader of the Opposition so eloquently stated on Friday, this is a Government whose actions in recent times have done enormous damage to the ANZUS alliance. I can see no difference in principle between the actions of comrade Lange and his Government and the actions of Prime Minister Hawke and the Hawke socialist Government. I am absolutely convinced that the United States will never be able to trust the word of Australia while the Hawke socialist Government remains in office. We now see publicly exposed a Prime Minister who has let his country down. Quite bluntly, we now have a situation in which a second grade Prime Minister has tried to turn this great country-Australia-into a third world country in response to the urgings of fourth graders and fifth columnists. That is what the Government has done. The Prime Minister's recent visit to the United States was a disaster of unparalleled proportions. The headlines of the United States Press tell it all. Listen to this, Mr Deputy Speaker: `Australia balks on the accord to aid in United States test of MX; Premier cites split in Party' that was on the front page of the New York Times-`Australia takes middle position in the US-New Zealand dispute' . . . The Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt), a future Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, said: `What paper?' I repeated, I said-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member should be aware that he cannot anticipate or revive debate in the House. If the member has something original to add as a contribution, he should do it. I ask the honourable member to cease reading what he has previously said in the House. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed; and, Mr Deputy Speaker, your timing, as well as your support for ANZUS, is impeccable because I was not going to quote myself any further. I was simply going to quote what Bernard Gwertzman, a leading American writer, wrote at that time. This was read by millions of our American friends. He said: Mr Hawke sought to put himself in a middle position between Australia's two allies in the alliance. That was a fundamental error which is perpetuated today. To pretend that the Lange backdown is simply a matter between New Zealand and the United States is to completely misunderstand that ANZUS is a vital and fundamental tripartite defence treaty. It is like a three-strand cord. If we take away one strand it put increased strain on the remaining two strands. To Australia's great shame, we have not played our part in bringing New Zealand back into the fold of the ANZUS alliance. Mr Goodluck —When I go there next month I might. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member will be going there next month. Mr Lange and his Government have diabolically damaged the most fundamental defence treaty for this part of the world-not just for Australia and New Zealand but, as Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has pointed out in the last 10 days, it is critical to the defence of this area. The reports in the United States Press were obviously mirrored by the reports in the Soviet Press. I simply say, noting the presence of some interesting honourable members in the chamber right now, that it was no surprise that Pravda greeted with great excitement, joy and adulation the revision, as it put it, of Australia's position in relation to the United States. I simply quote as I think I should, direct from the Novosti Press Agency-APN-of Zubovsky Bulvar, 4119021 Moscow, well known to many members opposite, exactly what it said because it greeted with delight the situation that the ANZUS position had been revised. Really, as I said earlier, if anybody has been made happy over the last three years as to what has happened to ANZUS, it is Moscow. I am surprised that the agency has not put through an official signal that the Prime Minister from now on is to be paid in roubles, because quite frankly every time he has moved on defence or foreign affairs it has upset the United States, he has upset our allies and he has delighted Moscow. Now good times are ahead, because when this Government goes out-as it will at the next election-an incoming Liberal-National Party government will do two fundamental things: It will restore and uphold ANZUS, it will bring New Zealand to boot and it will ensure that this three-fold cord, this tripartite treaty, is restored to the strength it had under Curtin and Roosevelt. Secondly, unlike those shimmy-shammy Moscow supporters opposite, we will support Australian participation in the strategic defence initiative because the SDI is vital to the maintenance of the free world. It is the only thing that will bring the Soviet Union to boot. We will not crawl around on the edges we will say: `No. We will be in it; we will give it total 150 per cent support.' Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(1.55) —I hope that I can bring the debate back into the realms of reality and talk about a real world, rather than the nightmares and the fantasies of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). Mr Hodgman —Go back to the Soviet embassy, Peter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw. Mr CLEELAND —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That there are difficulties in rural Australia is without question. We in this House may debate the intensity and location of this downturn. We can debate the reasons, though it is fair to say that it is difficult to debate anything in this House with members of the Opposition, who are concerned more with rhetoric than fact, and more with fiction and fantasy than with reality. Of course, we heard a great deal of that a few moments ago. However, the matter which I raise today I feel sure will be supported by members of the Opposition; it is so simple that they will indeed understand the issues. I have in my hand a small jar of marmalade. It is only half full, because I have taken the trouble to sample the contents. The marmalade was made by W.A. Baxter and Sons Ltd and, as the label informs us, Baxters are the makers of Scotland's finest preserves since 1868. That is a claim I do not wish to dispute, for after all they are by appointment the Queen's marmalade makers. I have in my other hand a container of marmalade made by Kraft Australia. I can assure the House that while this container is unopened, I have sampled Kraft products in the past and they are excellent. Unlike Baxter's marmalade, Kraft contains Australian fruits and is made by Australian labour; and Kraft is not appointed by the Queen. There is no doubt that many members of the Opposition, knowing that the Queen enjoys her Baxter's, would reach for the same label, but I am concerned that the majority of honourable members would prefer the Australian product. My concern is that the Baxter's marmalade was served to me whilst on a Trans Australia Airlines flight. The Kraft marmalade was served to me on an Ansett Airlines of Australia flight. In the same week I received the Baxter's I was served by TAA with a jar of raspberry jam made in France. It does little for the image of Australia to have a publicly-owned airline serving foreign-produced rural products when Australian farmers and Australian workers arguably produce a better product. It does not help that the European product can compete on price only due to unfair and anti-trade subsidisation. It is time that all Australians realised that European rural products are inferior to Australian-produced foods. Our preserves, our dairy products, our fruits are without question fresher and superior to their European counterparts. The Livestock and Grain Producers Association and other similar farm groups in Australia can become as radical as they like and they can protest around the precincts of this House, but their radicalism will not change the international commodity market. We certainly do not see the Agricultural Council of the European Economic Community losing sleep over statements made by Mr Ryan, Mr Tooth or, for that matter, Mr McLachlan. My concern is the great malaise which affects this country when an Australian-owned airline, a publicly-owned airline, can serve, without question, foreign-produced goods. I believe that to be fundamentally wrong. Another matter which concerns me is the fact that TAA serves butter in a container on which the name of the manufacturer and the area in which it is produced are not listed. I firmly believe it to be made in New Zealand. My attitude to this is very clear, and I hope that all members of this House and the Australian community will support me. I call on all honourable members here to tell TAA in no uncertain terms that, until such time as it serves Australian-produced rural products and Australian-produced foodstuffs on its aircraft, we will not use its airline. I, for one, will announce today that I will refuse to fly TAA until such time as TAA tells me that it has changed its policy and that it is not going to produce European jams or use New Zealand butter. As Ansett is using Australian-made butter and Australian-made jams on its flights, I will certainly fly Ansett; and I call upon every member of this House to do the same thing. It goes beyond TAA; it goes beyond jams; it goes beyond dairy produce. One of my great concerns is that in travelling around Australia as a member of the rural task force I see Volvos and Mercedes Benz throughout rural Australia. If Australian farmers, who are crying out for changes in the tariff situation in regard to our balance of trade payments want to buy foreign-produced cars, they should be told they are only adding to the balance of payments problem this country has; and it is time every Australian started thinking seriously about where they are buying their products. That includes farmers. They also add materially to our foreign problems today. I hope that, by this speech, all Australians will start to buy Australian products-and that includes farmers and everyone else-so that in future we can recognise that our problems can be solved internally, that we can do a great deal to help ourselves and that we can do a great deal to help our Australian farmers by very simple techniques, very simple measures, which are of great importance to every producer, both secondary and rural, in this country. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr TUCKEY —I direct my question to the Minister for Trade. I refer the Minister to the question which I directed to him yesterday and to his answer. Why, last night, did the Minister initially deny knowledge of this mother's 30,000 Bell Group Ltd shares valued at nearly a quarter of a million dollars and later change his story, subsequently admitting that he did in fact know? Mr DAWKINS —I, of course, did not change my story. Perhaps I should say that when the ministerial committee was established I raised with the Cabinet the need to ensure that none of the members of that committee had a personal or direct interest in either of the companies involved. When I asked the Prime Minister to join that committee, because of the major contribution that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd makes to exports from this country, I naturally considered whether I myself had a conflict of interest. Having no shares myself or in any of my immediate family, I determined that I had no conflict of interest. While I was generally aware that my mother had an interest in shares in the Bell Group, I had no idea as the the magnitude of that interest. I knew that it had existed at some stage and assumed that it still did exist. But the fact that I was generally aware that my mother had an interest did not mean that I had an interest. Her shares were not my shares and that did not involve any direct or, indeed, indirect interest as far as I was concerned. I complied with the rules as established by the Prime Minister for Ministers and, indeed, the rules accepted by this House for members of this House. To say that my mother's shares constitute an interest for me is greatly to extend the rules, not for everybody but just for me on this occasion. It should be obvious to at least some members of the Opposition that Ministers are called upon on a daily basis to take decisions which may advantage or disadvantage companies. To say that it is necessary for Ministers to declare the interests, even those of which they are aware, of their extended families-where does it end: Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins-and presumably those of the extended families' spouses as well, not to mention the interests of their business or professional partners, or even close friends, is to extend the rules unreasonably and, if I might say so, nonsensically. I support the pecuniary interest rules, which is more than I can say for the Opposition. However, I insist that the rules need to be both universal and workable. If I might quote the authority of Erskine May, the following comment is made in the publication Parliamentary Practice: . . . this interest must be immediate and personal, and not merely of a general or remote character. Indeed, the committee of this House which looked at the registration of interests has referred to the problems involving the registration of the interests of a member's spouse. Those problems, of course, to the extent that they exist, are magnified tremendously the more remote the person who holds the interest becomes from the member or Minister. I am absolutely convinced that to extend the existing rules would cause chaos. Might I say that to have the suggestion that the existing rules should be extended coming from the Opposition, which does not even support the existing arrangements for registration, is little short of rank hypocrisy. Mr JENKINS —Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the latest statistics confirm that there is continued strong employment growth? Mr HAWKE —The labour force statistics for March were released today and they provide what the Government judges to be an accurate picture of the labour market at the moment, with the level of unemployment below 600,000 and with continuing growth in employment overall. Significantly, the level of unemployment in March rose by 27,200, bringing the total rise in employment since the low point of April 1983 to 617,600. The level of unemployment in March fell by 4,500 to 595,600. As an indication of the strength of employment growth in recent months, employment increased by over 80,000-80,100 to be exact-between December of 1985 and March of 1986. On the figures for this financial year, employment has now grown by 3.7 per cent, which is, as I think all honourable members will appreciate, very substantially beyond Budget projections. I am not suggesting that this very buoyant rate of employment growth will be continued for the rest of this year, but the general picture is one which I believe must continue to give very substantial satisfaction to the Australian community. The commitment of this Government to creating jobs is very clearly being sustained and the economic policies that the Government is pursuing will ensure that these results will be maintained. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. I refer to his previous answer. I again ask the Minister: Why did he at first deny any knowledge of his mother's ownership of shares in Bell Group Ltd and subsequently change his story? Mr DAWKINS —One of the reasons the Leader of the Opposition has a popularity rating of 30 per cent is that he persists with irrelevant issues such as this and has decided to get down into the gutter with other members of his front bench. To answer specifically the question of the Leader of the Opposition, as I said in answer to the first question that was addressed to me this afternoon, I did not change my story. A series of questions were put to my office at various times after Question Time yesterday. None of the questions was put directly to me. The story, when it was asked directly of me, was as I have given it to the House this afternoon. Mr SAUNDERSON —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction, refers to the agreement by the Government in relation to housing interest rates. I ask: Are the banks firmly committed to lending $6 billion for housing in 1986-87? What are the arrangements for the payment of the subsidy by the Government? Will the Government closely monitor the banks' lending performance? Mr WEST —The banks' commitments are firm and the Government intends to have them in written form as well as a commitment to a suitable effort to make low start loans available to low income borrowers before paying the first instalment of the envisaged subsidy. Continuation of the payment of the subsidy will be subject to review. Payments will be withheld if banks fail to meet their commitments. As members of the House will recall, the major savings banks are offered a maximum subsidy of $120m, equivalent to two-thirds of one per cent of those banks' deposits in savings investment accounts and statement accounts. The total of those accounts held by the banks is $18 billion. So the Commonwealth, as far as the four major savings banks are concerned, is committed to a maximum outlay of $120m and the banks are to meet the other one-third, that is $60m. I inform the House that the Treasurer has already written to other savings banks that have made home loans available within the ceiling, offering them a subsidy payment on the same basis as the major banks on the condition that they also take early steps to lend more for housing and that they continue to lend their share of aggregate savings banks' lending of $6 billion for 1986-87. That picks up the State savings bank. This will mean a moderate increase to the Commonwealth's financial obligation as outlined in the package. We will be willing to pay 40 per cent of the total sum in the first quarter of 1986-87-that is, the June quarter 1986-25 per cent in the next quarter, 20 per cent in the next, and 15 per cent in the next. The need to continue the payments will be assessed before the end of each quarter, taking into consideration interest rate developments and whether the banks continue to meet their side of the bargain. We intend to introduce as soon as possible legislation giving effect to the subsidy scheme. The first subsidy payments will be made after the banks concerned have given firm commitments to use that subsidy to provide improved deposit interest rates, to take early steps to lend more for housing in the present quarter, and to continue lending so that aggregate lending for housing by savings banks will be $6 billion in 1986-87. We intend that the legislation will provide the Treasurer with the power to withhold subsidy payments from any individual bank which does not fulfil the undertakings made at the inception of the subsidy arrangements. Finally, with regard to monitoring, we will be using the resources of the Reserve Bank and the Treasury to monitor the use made by the banks of the subsidy, the rate of new lending for housing by each bank, and the availability to low and middle income borrowers of low start loans and other loans which are structured to meet the borrowers' requirements. We are confident that those arrangements will give a significant lift to housing construction in this country and will greatly assist in meeting the genuine housing aspirations of our fellow Australians. Mr SINCLAIR —My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. In the light of his advice to the House that prior to the meeting of the sub-committee of Cabinet of which he had asked to be a member he had asked his colleagues to disclose whether or not they had any direct or indirect interest in shares in either of the companies concerned, did he at any time consider that the deliberations of that sub-committee could have a material effect on the value of the shares in Bell Resources Ltd in which he knew his mother had at least some shares, albeit he might not have known that they were 30,000 in number? Mr DAWKINS —I have answered the substance of the question. What I actually said was not quite what the Leader of the National Party of Australia said. It related to the personal and direct interests of those people who intended to be members of that ministerial committee. That was the case in relation to other Ministers. That was the case in relation to me. Mr SIMMONS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. In a question addressed to the United States Secretary of Defense on this morning's Today show, the interviewer referred to the Government's defence capability review as advocating a Fortress Australia strategy. Is this an accurate characterisation of the thrust of the Dibb review or, for that matter, of the Government's defence policy? Mr BEAZLEY —Madam Speaker- Mr Coleman —Just say yes and sit down. Mr BEAZLEY —I will say no and I will not sit down. That statement is not an accurate reflection of the Government's defence policy or of the Dibb review. The first thing I say about the Dibb review is that I do not intend to canvass its contents at this stage. Mr Coleman —The Bulletin did it very well. Mr BEAZLEY —No, it did not. I intend to table a public version of the report in this place, make a statement on it, and allow a thoroughgoing debate on it in about four or five weeks. That is about the amount of time it will take to get that version properly produced and printed and a statement approved by Cabinet. The policy of the Government is one of defence self-reliance, and that is a very different matter from a policy of Fortress Australia. Over time, Fortress Australia has come to mean a country bristling with weapons, essentially unconcerned with anything beyond its borders. It is an extraordinarily expensive and also an extraordinarily selfish policy perspective. Neither of those elements are contained in the Australian Labor Party's defence policy and the policies that are being pursued by this Government. We pursue a strategy of defence self-reliance, which means that Australia should be capable of dealing with threats which arise to its security from its own region or from across countries within this region, not in conflict with a major super-power. We regard that as a minimum condition for the proper exercise of national sovereignty. To do less than that, to be less capable than that, is both demeaning and potentially dangerous. We will not support policies which contradict that. However, we fully recognise that we have obligations in this area and that there are a number of countries in this area which seek reassurance from Australia both in the relationships we have with them and also the relationships we have with the United States of America. We have an extensive defence co-operation program in place, both formally and informally, for exercising and for other purposes with most of the countries of our region. We are assuming very carefully and modestly additional responsibilities in the south-west Pacific. That is reflected in the way in which we have approached the obligation on us to provide some maritime surveillance in the area with our Orion PC3 aircraft and also to provide a surveillance capability for countries in the region with the Pacific patrol boat program. They are all important as indicators to the countries in that area that Australia regards their security problems as matters of concern to it. We do not pursue, therefore, an isolationist, selfish or inordinately expensive policy. That is what is implied by the term Fortress Australia. I am glad that the honourable gentleman asked this question, because I do not think that it is going to assist the type of debate that will take place in this country if areas of honest agreement, disagreement or whatever, between various sides are going to be prohibited or in any way compromised by resorting to terms which simply do not represent the case that is being put before the community or the policies of the Government. Mr N.A. Brown —Can the Minister for Trade answer a very simple question and answer it in a straightforward way? In light of the request that he made to his own colleagues to declare any interests that they may have had in Bell Resources Ltd or the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, why-and I repeat the question-did he not then declare the full extent of his own knowledge of the interest held by a member of his own immediate family in one of those companies? Secondly, when he went to the Cabinet, did he make any declaration at all at the Cabinet meeting itself or make any requests that other Ministers should make a declaration? Mr DAWKINS —I do not expect anything other than simple questions from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but this happens to be simple-minded as well. He will get a simple answer from me, and that is that the rules as they have been determined and laid down, where they have been laid down in Australia, including in this House, define `immediate family' as being that of the honourable member, a spouse if one exists, and any children if they exist, that is, children who are dependent on the honourable member or the Minister. They are the rules which have been established by this Government and are not, I might say, supported by the Opposition. So if there is any allegation of hypocrisy, I would suggest that members of the Opposition look to themselves rather than to this Government. I have complied with the rules as they have been laid down. As I said before, I have no interest. Anyone would think that this was the only occasion on which Ministers might be involved in decisions which affect the fortunes of companies, but contemplate for a moment the situation confronted by the Treasurer dealing with a Foreign Investment Review Board application involving a foreign takeover of an Australian company or indeed a recommendation from the Commissioner of Taxation relating to the taxation of a firm or collection of firms; the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce dealing with a recommendation from the Industries Assistance Commission to increase or decrease the amount of assistance available to a firm or firms; the Attorney-General dealing with a recommendation from the Trade Practices Commission or the National Companies and Securities Commission; the Minister for Resources and Energy in relation to a proposal to increase or decrease crude oil prices; the Minister for Trade in relation to the export price for coal; the Minister for Health in relation to the price of pharmaceuticals; the Minister for Communications in relation to media ownership; the Minister for Aviation in relation to the two airlines agreement; the Minister for Defence as he awards defence contracts-in all those cases one thing is absolutely clear and has been observed by this Government scrupulously and that is that the Minister ought to declare, in general terms publicly, and in specific terms to the Prime Minister, what his interests might be that would conflict with any of those decisions. To extend that to require those Ministers to be aware or to declare the interests that might be held by their mothers, fathers, their spouse's mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters and so on would simply be extending the rules to an extent that would make them entirely unworkable, and I suspect that that is what the Opposition really wants. Mr N.A. Brown —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Secondly, I asked the Minister whether he made any declaration whatsoever. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has answered the question. There is no point of order. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, it is a point of order. Would you hear me briefly? Madam SPEAKER —If the Minister did not answer the question in the manner that the honourable member wanted, that is unfortunate. Mr N.A. Brown —The point of order, Madam Speaker, that I still have not put is that I asked the Minister whether when he went to the Cabinet he made a declaration. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr LINDSAY —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services tell the House what the Hawke Government has achieved in developing child care in North Queensland? Have government policies, including funding charges which came into effect a week ago, encouraged the expansion of child care in line with the Government's commitments? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. Nothing more marked the destruction of community infrastructure under the Fraser-Howard Government than its failure to meet the needs of society pertaining to adequate child care. When we came to office in 1983 there were only enough government care places for 4.5 per cent of Australian children under the age of five years. This was one of the major causes of difficulty many women faced either in staying in or getting back into the work force. It was also one of the major causes of poverty amongst sole supporting parents. That is why the Government made a major commitment to double the number of child care places. The planning, building and equipment for 20,000 places that this involves are well under way. Agreement has been reached with all the States that these child care places are located in areas of greatest need. In areas north of Townsville the Government has approved a third more centres involving 160 new places. This includes four long-day care centres, two Aboriginal child care agencies and four outside school-hours care. In all, we have approved 12 new centres in addition to the 36 that were there before 1983. The Government has been assisted in all of this by the advice of the honourable member for Herbert and his colleague, the honourable member for Leichhardt. This steady growth in child care will lead to an extra 6,000 jobs for teachers. nurses and holders of child care certificates around Australia. It will help all women, including sole supporting parents, to take their rightful place in society. So it is very disappointing to see that, at the same time when the Government is trying to break down barriers for women, the Queensland Government is busy pushing the most reactionary and conservative of attitudes. All this week the Queensland media have been full of the astonishing views of the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs, Mrs Chapman. Mrs Chapman has a quaint commitment to rather old fashioned values and wants to stop payment to sole supporting parents after the first child. She asked: `Where else in the world does a taxpayer pay for someone else's love life? The male has his lap of luxury for the night and then nicks off. Every child should have a mother and father who share the responsibility of raising that child half and half'. Mrs Chapman, who appears to live in at least the eighteenth century, reminds us that, once upon a time, if a child were born out of wedlock, the matter was kept quiet and the child was raised by the mother's family or else, as she suggested, the child could be sent to an orphanage or adopted out. In this afternoon's Brisbane Telegraph she says that she has a list of single mothers who are living on taxpayers' money. These ludicrous views are typical of much of the hatred of the poor coming from the extreme right wing fringe behind the Opposition. I ask the honourable interjecting-the honourable member for Richmond, the spokesman for social security and other members of the National Party of Australia-to dissociate themselves from the kinds of comments that we have had from the Queensland Minister who belongs to the same Party as the Leader of the National Party. Mr Sinclair —Why do you hate little Australians? Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting at once. He will heed the Chair. Mr HOWE —It will be an almighty change. I think it is extraordinary in this day and age that when a Minister of the Queensland Government indicates those sorts of punitive and insensitive attitudes to the poorest group in Australian society no member of the Opposition, in either the National Party or the Liberal Party, takes the time to dissociate himself from those remarks. Let me say that this Government does dissociate itself from those kinds of attitudes. We hear about women who are unfortunate enough to be supporting parents, but nothing is said on behalf of the liable parents who are not carrying the load. The punitive attitudes of those people towards supporting parents ought to be rejected. We do reject them and we believe that the policy that I have referred to in terms of the provision of child care places is one constructive way in which we can seek to enable people who are in difficult circumstances to participate in normal community life. Mr TUCKEY —I ask the Minister for Trade whether it is a fact that, at the time when the meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee of which he was a member and which inquired into the Bell Group Ltd takeover of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd took place, there was a reasonable expectation that he would be a beneficiary to his mother's estate. Mr DAWKINS —This is not the first time that the honourable member for O'Connor has decided to drag my mother's name into this House. On the question of hypocrisy which seems to be exercising the minds of some members of the Opposition, I remind them that it was the Fraser Government which in 1978 established under Sir Nigel Bowen a Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. Mr Sinclair —You are not going to answer this one, either? Mr DAWKINS —Yes, I am coming to the answer, but I thought I would remind honourable members opposite of their former, more principled position. When the Committee reported and established what it recommended as a code, it stated: When the interests of members of his immediate family are involved, the officeholder should disclose those interests to the extent they are known to him. In the description of immediate family and dealing with the question of family interest, the Committee used the accepted terminology of `spouse and dependent children'. On 22 November 1979, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, stated: The Government has accepted the code of conduct in principle. He went on to say that the Government reiterated the Committee's emphasis on the questions of privacy. The Committee established by the Fraser Government-the recommendations of which were accepted by the Fraser Government, a number of whose members now sit here, stagnating on the Opposition benches, and they are likely to stay there for some time-stated that the questions of privacy involving the interests of people other than the member, Minister or officeholder were to be given the greatest possible emphasis and those people were to be protected. Now, of course, not only do we have the Opposition, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, dragging into the public arena the interests of my mother-which I would have thought she was entitled to have protected, as indeed any person is entitled to have protected if not elected to public office-but we are being invited to speculate, apparently, on the contents of her will- Mr Hawke —And her demise. Mr DAWKINS —Indeed, the portent of her demise. From my point of view I can say that she is in very fine fettle. I have no idea what is included in her will and I would have thought that that was something quintessentially for her to determine. Mr CROSS —I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has noted a rather shrill article by David Barnett, presently a journalist with the Bulletin and sometime personal secretary, speechwriter, confidant and adviser to former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. Is there any justification for Mr Barnett's claims of unbalanced staffing between various branches of the Department of Foreign Affairs; that officers refuse hardship postings more often than in the past; that officers transfer in and out of the Department to speed their progress up the ladder, service ministerial officers and join political parties for advancement; and his declaration that homosexuality is a sin? Mr HAYDEN —It certainly is true, as the honourable member points out, that David Barnett was chief speechwriter, confidant and adviser to Malcolm Fraser. Look where Malcolm Fraser ended up! The article is unbalanced and misleading and, more than that, it is mischievous and maliciously so. It has quite consciously distorted the facts, and I will give some of them in response to the points which were made in that article. I suggest before I start, however, that it is about time that Mr Barnett remembered that he is no longer working for a political party and that he should be seeking to disseminate information on a more balanced basis. Mr Howard —Oh, you have got to be joking. Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the Opposition is jumping around because he has a problem. He has saddle sores on his brain. Every time he thinks, it hurts. I will attend to some of the matters which were raised by David Barnett. In regard to staff deployments, all the branches and sections named in the article are better staffed now than they were in October 1982. In particular, the United States of America Section has more staff now than it had in October 1982, while the Canada, Caribbean and Latin America Section has the same number as it had in 1982. The South East Asia Branch had 11 officers in 1982. It has 16 today. There are three branches-nuclear policy, disarmament and arms control, and peace and disarmament-in the nuclear disarmament area, not two, with a total staff of 20. The number of staff in a branch or section does not in itself reflect accurately the state of relations with a country, nor does it account fully for the commitment of resources to relations with the countries concerned. For example, in the case of relations with the United States, for instance, aspects of the relationship relating to matters such as economic relations, civil aviation and arms control are handled in other areas of the Department. They make a demand on a fairly large number of our available resources. In the case of Japan, in addition to the officers in the Japan Section, the Japan secretariat has four officers and the Australia Japan Foundation has seven. In considering resource deployments, account should also be taken of the number of staff in overseas missions. All of these things, I repeat, are relevant to points which Mr Barnett made. In the United States, in Washington, there are 153 A-based officers. In Canada there are 22. In all of Central and Southern America, where there are eight posts, there are only 58-fewer on average than eight per post. It is, of course, inaccurate to claim that Australia plays no significant part in nuclear disarmament affairs. To date, no overseas position has had to be left unfilled for want of an officer willing to take it. But there is no doubt that there are quite a number of overseas posts which by any measure are hardship posts. They are not attractive and it takes a great deal of dedication for an officer to be prepared to fill some of those posts. It is also unreasonable to say that working in a ministerial office is necessarily a guaranteed escalator to promotion. An officer who worked for one of my predecessors for an extensive period, as far as I am concerned is one of the most highly regarded officers in the Department. I rely on his judgment, analysis and advice quite implicitly in those areas where he has represented this country. When he recently completed one post, I had no hesitation in moving quickly to appoint him to a very senior post at another place overseas. He has my complete confidence. I do not think that we ought to introduce that element into differences between us, because that is being unfair to professional public servants. Mr Barnett seems to have discovered that it is a sin to be a homosexual. I think that this Parliament has debated that issue well enough previously. It is a matter of personal pride on my part that, in the early 1960s, before this issue became fashionable as being an issue to defend on behalf of a minority group, I raised this issue in this Parliament. I have no hesitation at all in maintaining my defence of the rights of all groups in our community, including minority groups such as homosexuals. Legislation has been passed by this Parliament, the Public Service Reform Act 1984 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which in fact make it an offence to discriminate against people on grounds such as homosexuality. The only other thing that I want to say is this: Policy decisions are made by the Government of the day. The political objectives of the Government certainly colour those decisions. That is understandable. Debates are conducted in this chamber between us in relation to those differences. In determining what our policy is, we go through certain processes and we then instruct the public servants as to what we expect to be done. In all my experience as Minister for Social Security and as Treasurer in an earlier Labor government, and now as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have nothing but praise for the officers with whom I have worked. They have worked diligently and faithfully, and they have worked despite any political differences that they might have personally held. To the extent that those officers held those views or might hold them, I do not care; as long as they serve the government of the day and this country well and faithfully we cannot ask more of them. Madam SPEAKER —I draw to the attention of the House that we have in the gallery the former member for Hughes, the present Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand, Les Johnson, and we welcome him. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement of 22 September 1983 on the subject of public duty and private interest, in which he said: Ministers had to make a declaration at meetings of the Cabinet or its committees of any matter which may give rise to a conflict of interest. I suggest to the honourable gentleman that that is the only relevant point at issue in this matter. As the Minister for Trade knew of his mother's shares in the Bell company and that such knowledge may or might give rise to a conflict of interest on his part, and as he failed to inform the Cabinet sub-committee meeting of that knowledge, will the Prime Minister now demand the resignation of the Minister for Trade, or will he have the courage to sack him? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the question from the Leader of the Opposition is no. I have complete confidence in the integrity of the Minister for Trade. Madam Speaker, let us attempt to bring an end to this disgraceful episode on the part of the Opposition. Mr Howard —We are going to have some simulated outrage now. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —The facts are quite clear. Let me go through them. As I said in my brief statement last night, the Minister for Trade advised me yesterday evening that he had been generally aware that his mother held some Bell shares but that he was not aware of the details of the holding. Following my conversations with him, I repeated the immediate statement that I made after Question Time in this House yesterday, of my complete confidence in the integrity of the Minister. Now, Madam Speaker, let us look at the factual situation. The position in regard to Ministers-and it is in the context of that matter that I have spoken before in the House-is contained in paragraph 2.15 of a document under the heading `Declaration of interests'. The paragraph reads: Apart from these formal declarations, Ministers at meetings of the Ministry, Cabinet and committees must declare any private interests, pecuniary or non-pecuniary, held by themselves or members of their immediate families in matters under discussion where those interests conflict or might possibly conflict with their public duty as Ministers. That is the statement with regard to Ministers and their immediate families. That is reflected in the explanatory notes which were sent to Ministers. Those notes are headed `Return of Private Interests Explanatory Notes'. In that document, these words appear: Note the need to include under all headings interests of immediate family members to the extent they are aware of them (Spouse including de facto spouse, and dependent children). That statement as to immediate family is completely reflected in the recent statement on the registration and declaration of members' interests flowing out of the resolution of this House in 1984 and amended by this House on 13 February 1986, in which the reference is: . . . the registrable interests of which the Member is aware (a) of the Member's spouse and (b) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support. It is quite clear that that is a sensible delineation of the proper area of responsibility of a Minister in these matters. I ask you, Madam Speaker, and honourable members of the House to contemplate, as the Minister for Trade properly has asked this House and the people of Australia to contemplate, where we go if we extend the area of delineation beyond that. Mr Howard —Look at the rest of it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —You did. Your side did. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting across the table. Mr Howard —Well, he ought to answer the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —He ought to answer the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. If he continues to interject across the table, I will name him. Mr Howard —Well, why don't you tell him to answer the question? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the Prime Minister. Mr Carlton —Why does he not read the rest of it? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Carlton —Read on. Read the rest of it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar! I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I ask the House to contemplate the stupidity, the unreality and the unworkability of extending that concept of `immediate family' to the area to which, by their questioning, these paragons of virtue sitting opposite would seek to extend it. Let me make it clear that in seeking to explain the stupidity of their position by this example I obviously intend no reflection on, no disrespect to and in no way do I raise any question of the integrity of the people involved. I simply go to this example to show the fatuity, the stupidity, of what has been suggested on the other side. I refer to the situation of my predecessor, Malcolm Fraser, who has a mother who, I understand, is a woman of reasonably considerable wealth. Mr Howard —Holding attacked his father-in-law. Mr HAWKE —Is it suggested that when Mr Fraser was the Prime Minister and any matter came before the Cabinet for consideration which possibly could have gone to some matter in which Mrs Una Fraser had an interest Malcolm Fraser should have said: `Colleagues, I'm sorry, stop. I cannot consider this'? Mr Howard —He did. You are wrong; he did. Mr HAWKE —Yes? Every time-- Mr Howard —Clyde Holding attacked his father-in-law. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —You are wrong. That Minister attacked his father-in-law. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —That is exactly what he did. You are wrong. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —He can't get away with this. He is getting away with murder. You are wrong, Hawke. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr Howard —Clyde Holding attacked his father-in-law. You are wrong. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition that he has now gone beyond what is acceptable to the Chair. At his next utterance, I will name him. Mr HAWKE —It beggars description that in the case of either Malcolm Fraser or any of the Ministers in the previous Government when matters came before them in which their mothers or their fathers or their brothers or their sisters could have had an interest that the proceedings were interrupted on every occasion and that Ministers were jumping up saying: `I am sorry, I cannot deal with this matter because my mother, my father, my brother, my sister, the members of my extended family have an interest in it'. The fact is that of course that did not happen. It would render the processes of government absolutely impossible. Just as it was not the characteristic of the previous Government that that was done by either the Prime Minister or other Ministers in regard to their non-immediate family members, neither is it required under the provisions of the Cabinet handbook to which I have referred. It is quite clear that it is not required. In the case of the Minister for Trade it is quite clear that he addressed his mind to this question and that he came to the conclusion, properly in my judgment, that there was no conflict of interest as far as he was concerned. The fact is that members of this Opposition from the depths of their hypocrisy, while rejecting for themselves and their immediate family the concept of declaration of interest-they will not accept it for themselves or their immediate family-in this case seek to extend it beyond the immediate family for my friend and colleague the Minister for Trade. They are nothing but a bunch of incompetent hypocrites and will be judged as such by the people of this country. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the 123rd meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Hobart on 10 February 1986. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the first meeting of the Australian Soil Conservation Council held in Hobart on 11 February 1986. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 19c of the National Measurement Act 1960, I present the annual report of the National Standards Commission for 1984-85. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —by leave-I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Government has decided to continue with a program of untied grants to local government following its consideration of the findings and recommendations of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance. In announcing the inquiry on 9 May 1984 the Prime Minister stated that the review provided `a unique opportunity for a historic reappraisal of Local Government functions and resources. The Inquiry should lay the foundations for a more stable, efficient and equitable system of resourcing Local Government's expanding functions'. The inquiry was commissioned with a view to improving the program of general purpose financial assistance for local government. The program had not been publicly reviewed since its inception in 1976. There were differences of State practice regarding the distribution of grants to local government. The reasons and methods accounting for these differences were not evident to the Commonwealth; nor were the methods of allocation by the State Grants Commissions always clear to local government bodies. There were no criteria available to the Commonwealth for assessing the adequacy of the funding level for achieving the purposes of the program. The program warranted review. The committee of inquiry undertook extensive investigations and consultations with the States and local government. It produced a comprehensive report which is an invaluable contribution to the future development of local government. On 13 November 1985; I tabled the report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance and indicated my intention to seek the views of the States and local government prior to the Government making any decisions concerning the recommendations of the report. These views were received at a meeting of the Local Government Ministers' Conference, in subsequent correspondence from State Premiers, and in consultations with the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. A considerable measure of agreement was reached on fundamental issues. The consultations were extremely helpful to the Government in its consideration of the report of the inquiry. I would like to thank the States, particularly my fellow State local government Ministers, and the representatives of local government for the spirit in which they responded in what was a necessarily tight time frame. The overall finding of the inquiry was that the Commonwealth should maintain a program of general purpose support for local government, but that the character of the program should be changed in certain respects. The Government accepts this. We propose to replace the current Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act in this session with an Act that allows for the provision of a program of general purpose financial assistance to local government. The program will be funded on a base equal to the payments in 1985-86. Payments in 1986-87 and 1987-88 will be subject to a real term guarantee. Subject to that guarantee the percentage increase in payments to local government in each of these two years will be no less than the percentage increase in the sum of the general revenue grants plus general purpose capital assistance to the States in each of these years. In subsequent years, the percentage changes in the amount of general purpose financial assistance provided to local government will be no less than the percentage changes applying to general purpose and capital payments to the States. The principal objective of the new program will be to provide financial assistance to those local councils who are most disadvantaged in respect of their ability to raise revenue and to provide services. That is, assistance will be provided principally for the purposes of horizontal equalisation. At the same time, the Government recognises that local government, as a whole, has a restricted base from which to raise revenue to finance expanding functions. Because of this it is proposed to provide for a guaranteed minimum per capita entitlement to each council. This would be calculated using a base of 30 per cent of the funds available to each State. This will ensure that every council continues to receive benefits from the program. This will allow local government a stable financial base from which to develop its forward plans. It will eliminate the volatility that was characteristic of the previous tax sharing arrangements. The Government has accepted the view that the basis of distribution between the States is now outdated. In the interests of simplicity, it proposes to phase in new relativities based on population distribution between the States and then to adjust these yearly to account for changes in population. Subject to the Northern Territory Government agreeing to a offsetting reduction in its general purpose assistance from the Commonwealth, we have also decided to include the Northern Territory under the new arrangements so as to place councils in the Territory on the same footing as those in the States. Provision will be made for Aboriginal local government in the Territory to receive funds under the program. I believe this is an important step forward and commend the Northern Territory Government for its initiatives in this area. An interdepartmental task force will be established to examine with the States and the Northern Territory Aboriginal issues raised by the inquiry. The Government recognises the important role played by the State Local Government Grants Commissions and intends that they continue in their present roles of recommending the distribution of assistance to local government. Contrary to the recommendations of the national inquiry, the Government does not propose to make grants for local government conditional upon States maintaining their assistance to local government. Nor will the Government seek to interfere with State policies which limit rate increases. Should the Commonwealth act in these areas, it would only serve to penalise the local governments concerned for decisions in which they had no part. Maintenance of State assistance, however, will be one of the matters subject to future review. The principles under which the funds are to be distributed will be formulated by the States in consultation with local government and will be approved by me as the Commonwealth Minister responsible for Local Government. It is the Government's intention to seek a greater uniformity among the States as to how the funds are distributed, while at the same time recognising that there are real differences in State local government systems which must be provided for by a flexible approach. It is recognised that in order to achieve a greater equity in the distribution of financial assistance some better off councils may receive less than under previous arrangements, while relatively disadvantaged councils will receive more. I share the concerns expressed by both the States and local government that any changes to be implemented should be gradual-I stress the word `gradual'-and not unduly disruptive to individual councils and the local government system generally. Consequently, it is proposed that any significant changes be phased in over a five-year period. The phasing arrangements and other details will be announced when the new legislation is introduced into Parliament later in this session. I believe that the proposals that have been outlined today represent this Government's ongoing commitment to the strengthening of the local government system. They will lay the foundations for a more stable, efficient and equitable system of financing local government than operated under the previous personal income tax sharing arrangements. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-Financing to local government became a matter of course when the Fraser Government introduced it in 1976 and the present Government's move for an inquiry by Professor Self into the proposition was well received by the Opposition, as there was no doubt over a period that certain changes were worth looking at. However, I am bound to say that the development of local government in recent years, which really caused the Federal Government to look at the question of funding, has been brought about by the imbalance in some areas between new areas of heavy capital commitment and some inability to raise the sort of rate levels necessary to fund the capital projects. This was noted and an arrangement was entered into to make certain contributions to local government. As time has gone by, it has become a practice in some local government areas to take up services which were normally the domain of State governments and, in some areas, of the Federal Government, and at the same time not to charge the appropriate level of fee for those services or, in some cases, not to raise the level of rates that would be most appropriate to the council concerned because the amount involved coming from the Federal Government was taken as the balancing figure rather than the overall amount. The Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance addressed these matters and, in the main, I believe it did an excellent job. Certainly the background material and the presentation of it show the very wide interest there is these days in local government and its power within local communities. In the main, the Opposition welcomes the Government's response, but there are some notable problems coming from it. First, I think it is fair to say that the approach to funding has been more on the basis of seeking to salute what money might be available, rather than the principle of the Self inquiry itself. As a consequence, while funding is guaranteed on a real consumer price index basis, any extra amount of money will be wholly dependent on the performance of the State Premiers at the Premiers Conference, and whether they get the CPI plus 2 per cent, which is the current negotiated position with the States and the Federal Government. The Federal Government has been making a lot of sound about cutting out the 2 per cent. I have heard comments expressed privately by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to the effect: The Labor State governments have been re-elected, the Tasmanian State elections are over and there is only the Queensland one to come, so why should the Government worry about the 2 per cent? Anyone in local government who is sitting outside waiting to pick up the CPI indexed element of the reduced base figure plus 2 per cent should not hold his breath, because the writing is on the wall that that is going down the drain. By saying here that the amount is dependent on the performance of the Premiers, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) has indicated that the Government is saying: `Oh, well, we tried, but blame it on the Premiers'. That is how the Minister has walked away from that one. Mr Uren —I have not. We are following the Self inquiry's report which recommended that we should get the same as the State governments. Mr MOORE —Well, the Minister lost the first one. In relation to the other elements, element A of the proposed contribution has been endorsed. This is a total filling on a per capita basis. Element B of the grant extends to an equalisation factor. Some of the local government associations regard the application of element A in this fashion as nothing more than a crowding out of the effect on element B. That is the view of the Queensland Local Government Association. Without any doubt, there are some areas of local government which need more assistance than others, but the criteria of judgment of what areas are most disadvantaged will definitely vary from State to State. The elements within the north are different from elements within city councils. There is substantial infrastructure in the city areas; but, because of the socio-economic factors which apply in certain of these areas, the demands for money there are critically different from those that are necessary in a developing area or a rural area. Element B, when judged by the State grants commissions, will be something which I hope the Minister will bear in mind when he looks at the guidelines. I hope he will consider the differences there because they have a unique effect. It is also noticeable that the Minister paid a fair amount of attention to his success in negotiating with the Northern Territory on the position of Aboriginal councils. I wonder why he did not mention the States. There has been no mention of what he intends to do about the substantial areas of Aboriginal councils in Queensland and in the north of Western Australia. Mr Ian Cameron —That's right. Mr MOORE —Yes, as the honourable member for Maranoa would know; hence his concern in that area. Mr Uren —It's only what the Northern Territory Government is doing, not what I am doing. Mr MOORE —There is no reference in the Minister's statement to what the States are doing. There are Aboriginal councils in those two States. It is interesting, and it will be more so in the future, to see exactly under what criteria the State grants commissions will be required to make decisions under element B. There is no mention of it in this statement. It is critical to all councils that something be done and that they know where they stand. There has been no attempt to deal with the question of rate pegging which is used by State governments to enforce upon certain shires and councils limitations on their ability to raise funds. At the same time as the State governments are saying to councils: `You must now carry out these services' the States are saying: `You must not raise your rates above a certain level'. The first on the phone to the Minister in relation to this item of the Self Committee report was none other than his friends in the New South Wales Government which practises this to an art form-starve the councils, send them to Canberra and let Canberra give money to the councils to provide more services than the State Government does. The Minister's own State machine is one of the greatest offenders in this area. The Minister has also totally failed to address in this statement the question of what we do about rate exemptions in which there are millions of dollars of rates tied up. The Government has glossed that one over because it did not want to offend all its mates in the States. This Government would not require them to pay rates to local government. No, this Government would not do that. The State governments say: `What about the Federal Government'? Uncle Tom says: `No, we will not do that either. We will just not mention it; it is well written up in the Self Committee report; we will let that one go past so we won't bother too many people'. I also wonder at this great term `to seek to enforce uniformity among the States in relation to funds'. This is another classic backoff that the Minister has involved himself in. The Self Committee quite clearly says in that report that a genuine effort should be made to enforce a standard procedure or a standard distribution. What has the Minister done? He says he is going to seek that. He does not say what `seek' means or how it might be sought. He has played with words and has backed away from the problem. Why? Because all the Labor local government Ministers have said: `Look here, this is not your concern'. They play with words on matters like the giving to them of constitutional recognition. They say: We will promise to do that in government; you will not, you have backed off again in this area'. It is no wonder that those people in local government look in hope to the continuation of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. It is the only hope that people in local government in Australia have to stand themselves apart from the State governments which stand over them, which direct that they provide services, which peg their rates, which dismiss councils on occasions totally without reason, and which at the same time do not put their hands in their pockets but expect the Feds to pick up some of the differences in the funding of these operations. This Minister is about to recommend the dissolution of the Advisory Council. Therefore the last vestige of independence, the hope of local government, at which they can sit with their peers, with the Ministers for local government and the Federal Minister, and get some protection will disappear. But the Minister is going to walk away from that too because he has been told by the local State machines `We cannot have any of this interference. We must at all times look after the constitutional position of the local government associations in the States because that is the place where the powers are'-some very good deals in local government have been done in the Sydney area; some of those State Ministers would not like to do without that ability to handle those matters-`and because of that we will not go near those sorts of areas'. The response to the report is piecemeal, halfway and has touched the areas that are easy to handle. Anything that has been difficult has been pushed to one side, and we now await the Act to see whether any of the elements that have been missed in this response will be taken up. 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 petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Connolly,Mr Reith and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Lloyd,Mr McArthur and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Leo McLeay and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government of Australia to intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka: to desist from airship attacks and seek a military solution; to offer refuge, under humanitarian and compassionate programmes, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation to any Tamils who have sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; as a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Grace,Mr Price and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are dissatisfied with the present Federal Government's policy on Community Languages. And request that the Australian Government take urgent steps to formulate and approve a policy for the teaching of Community Languages, on a permanent basis, in the day schools, in order to safeguard the linguistic and cultural heritage of all Australians. Moreover, with the present petition, we request the Community Languages Resources Centres be instituted, to operate within communities, in order to assist schools in the implementation of Community Languages programmes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of certain electors of the Division of Gwydir respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses: any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not `windfall gains', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the Flags Amendment Bill, 1984, as presented to the Senate and passed, which ensures that the Australian Flag cannot be changed except by referenda, be brought before the House of Representatives. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Will ensure that the Flag Amendment Bill, 1984, will be presented to the House of Representatives at the earliest possible time and your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the May expenditure savings which introduced funding cuts to children's services will cause hardship to many low and middle income earners. Families relying on these vital services will suffer, as will workers within the industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any form of compulsory Identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned concerned Australian citizens respectfully point out: That we recognize the Commonwealth Government's genuine concern and respect for United Nation's initiatives and policies. We, your petitioners, humbly pray that your Honourable House will take notice: 1. That the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organisation has stated that ``All seeds and other plant breeding material is the heritage of all mankind, and should be freely available to all''. 2. That by the granting of Plant Variety Rights and Patents thousands of plant varieties and plant genetic diversity have been lost forever and many countries now regret having legislated for such patents and rights. 3. That we reject the principle that P.V.R. Legislation is either just, necessary or desirable for Australia. 4. That you will remember the U.N. statement as outlined above and reject any moves to have P.V.R. Legislation enacted by your government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Staples. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners in duty bound ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that in this International Year of Peace 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; And, to the Australian Government. This petition of certain concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that, a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: Inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is strong support for the establishment of Australia's first Arid Lands Botanic Garden on a site at Port Augusta. Such a garden will be the only facility of its type in Australia and one of only a few in the world. Australia is largely arid and South Australia is the driest state. The development of the Port Augusta Arid Lands Botanic Garden has been recommended in ``A Report on the Collection of Native Plants in Australian Botanic Gardens and Arboreta'' compiled by the Royal Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation in October 1984, a copy of which was forwarded to the Prime Minister. Benefits of the garden would include: 1. Centre for research and study of all aspects of arid land flora. 2. Provision of appropriate extension and advisory service to pastoralists, councils, settlements, mining companies and individuals in arid areas of Australia. 3. Display both native and exotic plant material. 4. Valuable educational resource at all levels. 5. Significant tourism potential. 6. Creation of employment. 7. Ideal site available at Port Augusta which is the centre for a vast area of arid Australia, and readily accessible. 8. Ideal centre for production of seed of arid land plants on a commercial basis for local and overseas markets. 9. Display of plants used by Aboriginal people in arid Australia. 10. Ideal development in which to display and demonstrate technology appropriate to arid Australia e.g. solar power, desalination, appropriate building design, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take all possible measures to ensure that Australia's first ``Arid Lands Botanic Garden'' is established at Port Augusta as an urgent priority. We ask that all possible avenues of funding be investigated as this project will be a very important first for Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. The Petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia being residents of South Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully seek a delay in the new funding arrangements planned for April this year for Subsidised Child Care Centres in Australia; and express total opposition to the cuts in child care which are beginning to have a deleterious effect on children's services in South Australia. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the instigation of: 1. Urgent discussions with State Governments, peak bodies representing children's services, and the A.C.T.U. 2. That such discussions ensure that funding mechanisms are fully explored and ensure more appropriate funding guidelines. 3. That such discussion examine regulations for the quality assurance of children's services. 4. That such discussions be mindful of the need to retain high quality children's services and trained personnel to work in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney,Mr O'Neil and Mr Young. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the house to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free,Mr Grace and Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that the proposed capital gains tax - Penalises small business and farming enterprises, - discourages long-term investment, - hinders capital formation, - will freeze existing investment patterns, and - limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. 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 Queensland respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Parkes in New South Wales respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the Total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade unions. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in New South Wales respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the right to work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade unions. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Mallee electorate respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws the attention of the House to the fact that amendments to the Child Care Act, by reducing operational funding to centres, threaten to destroy the existing high standard of child care. Your petitioners therefore request that there be no changes to current funding arrangements until a full and proper review of the Children's Services Program takes place, which includes full community consultation and tripartite discussions between three levels of Government. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Land Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: The total disallowance by the Hawke Labor Government of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Sutherland Shire and New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain members of the Nerang and Districts Business Community being both citizens of Australia and electors of the Division of McPherson respectfully showeth: 1. Whereas the Federal Labor Government by a decision of its Cabinet after consultation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions has indicated to the Australian public its intention to bring before this Honourable House a Bill for an Act for the introduction of a National Superannuation Scheme. 2. And whereas certain members of the said Nerang and Districts Business Community are desirous of expressing to this Honourable House their objection to and disapproval of the concept of a National Superannuation Scheme in the form of that proposed to be introduced by Bill by the Federal Labor Government to this Honourable House for its consideration. 3. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: (1) The Federal Labor Party in government will carry out a thorough review of the terms of any proposed Bill for an Act to introduce a National Superannuation Scheme and in the course of any such review consult with and have regard to the seriously formed opinions and concerns of the members of the Australian small business community and of representatives of employer groups with respect to the practicability and viability of a National Superannuation Scheme in so far as it relates to the future of Australia and Australian citizens. by Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will reject the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 for the following reasons: 1. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and its implementation will result in attacks on the Christian church and the promotion of a State religion based on secular humanism; 2. That there is no need for legislation of this kind since the principles of freedom are already enshrined in Common Law and that it will cause more problems than it seeks to solve; 3. That there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of which do not share a common heritage and do not practice many of the principles that they have covenanted to uphold; 4. The methods being used to introduce this legislation are secretive and a blatant misuse of the external affairs powers under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution and that furthermore are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; 5. That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational initiatives will result in a centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Young. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for positive and constructive actions to overcome the economic and social crisis facing rural Australia. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.22) —The subject of this matter of public importance has been the main thrust of the demands of thousands and thousands of people around Australia who have attended rallies. Last July 40,000 people attended a rally in Canberra. Hundreds of people have also attended a rally here in Canberra in the last two or three days. Mr Blunt —Four thousand at Wagga. Mr HUNT —Four thousand attended a rally at Wagga, and they were mostly women. These people want a fair go. They want the Government to take positive and constructive actions to overcome the economic and social crisis facing rural Australians. Not only the farmers and the farming families but also business people, the wives and children of people living in country towns and the work force in our rural centres, which is subject to the ever growing threat of unemployment, are facing a crisis. Let those people in the Australian Labor Party who are undertaking political analyses understand that it will not be just the farmers who will judge them at the next election. It will be the people generally-whether they are on farms or living in towns, working on farms or in factories, shops, service stations or whatever. This Government has failed rural Australia. In spite of the drought breaking rains in 1983, in spite of the fact that the economy of the United States of America staged a major recovery and in spite of the fact that the wage pause that was instituted by the Fraser Government gave a breathing space for inflation in this country, we have seen nothing but a deterioration of the economy in rural Australia. We have had three good seasons to enhance rural production. It is an outrage that the Hawke Government has embarked on a systematic program of slashing Budget outlays for farmers and, worse still, diverting resources from the sector by other more indirect and insidious methods. Despite its multi-billion dollar ripoff from the farmers, it now appears that the long awaited statement next Tuesday will return only about $200m. Today net farm incomes have crashed, with the individual farmers earning one fifth of the average wage and paying interest bills double their income. A new major drought situation is now threatening to exacerbate the situation. Every Australian has a stake in the welfare of the farm industries, which provide about 40 per cent of Australia's export income. It does not matter whether people live at Bourke, Boulia, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth or Adelaide. Every Australian, every trade unionist, has a stake in the welfare of rural Australia and our ability to be able to maintain our markets. Every Australian should know what the Hawke Government has done to our farmers. Every Australian needs to know what will happen to him personally if we have a wholesale national smash in agriculture. If this agricultural smash occurs, which I believe is almost inevitable if another drought plagues Australia, we can hold this Government as a principal culprit. Listen to what the Government has ripped off the farm sector in its Budgets since 1983. The Hawke Government set out systematically to discriminate by cutting depreciation allowances, failing to renew the investment allowance, abolishing the in-out provisions of tax averaging, increasing export inspection charges by 200 per cent, freezing the diesel rebate for 18 months costing farmers $50m, gutting the income equalisation deposits scheme, imposing sales tax on wine, all but abolishing the petroleum products freight subsidy, imposing sales taxes on oils and lubricants used on farm and cutting outlays for rural and debt adjustment, to name just a few. Never forget that the cost to the farmers was $442m. This is an accumulated cost about which the Government should be ashamed. The cost of its additional measures to country Australians in general was $648m. These anti-farmer measures are small fry against the deliberate manipulation of the money supply, increasing interest rates to record levels and giving the exchange rate a blatantly dirty float. In the past 12 months Labor policies have added to the farm bill to the tune of $750m in extra interest payments, $500m in extra costs from devaluation and $75m in extra fuel costs, despite handing back the full distillate off-road rebate. The future looks even bleaker with the prospect of the anti-farm tax package due to come into the Parliament within a month. Individual farm industries have been treated with contempt. This Government has tried to bludgeon the Queensland Government into a sugar industry price support scheme when no contribution was expected from any other State government for the steel or the multinational motor vehicle industries. Mr Braithwaite —It has never been done before. Mr HUNT —Exactly. The Queensland Government has put up nearly $200m in loans and other assistance to the sugar industry, including $50m cash up front. Yet we are waiting to hear whether the Government will underwrite the price of sugar as it promised prior to the last two elections. The Government has led the dairy industry up the path. Prior to the last Victorian election, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) supported the general thrust of an industry plan to stabilise dairy production. Yet, after the election, the Government back tracked and attempted to introduce its plan, which would have had brutal social consequences on those people associated with the industry. Although negotiations have taken place, there has been no public statement from the Minister to give some security and stability to this industry. Yet, the Australian Dairy Corporation has advised that the industry is facing a desperate situation on world markets. The Hawke Government has not hesitated to subsidise our Big Australian, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, the multinational car manufacturers and the major banks as a matter of urgency. But when it has come to farmers it has played a game with the same cruel intent as a cat plays with a mouse. The Government's interest rate policy is probably the worst feature of Labor's record. It is Labor's worst blow to farmers. When speaking on interest rates at the National Agricultural Outlook Conference this year, the Westpac General Manager for New South Wales, Mr Chatterton, gave the following answer: Undoubtedly the Prices and Incomes Accord must shoulder much of the blame. Interest rates have fallen overseas but the farm rates in Australia have leapt 7 per cent in 12 months. It is crippling not only the farmers but also the small businesses. The small businesses in the front line of attack are in our country towns. Last year, when world interest rates were falling, the Government's reaction to the dollar's collapse was to push up interest rates to a record level, although not for home buyers in the western suburbs of Sydney or in the sand belt of Melbourne. While interest rates were falling, to 9 per cent in the United States of America, 7.5 per cent in West Germany and 4.5 per cent in Japan, farmers copped a 7 per cent increase on their record debt-an average increased interest bill per farmer of $4,425 in 12 months. Their average net income this year will be $3,800, and that gives some idea of the extent of the damage that has been done to the farm sector. Labor's impact on the farm does not stop at interest rates or sky-rocketing debt. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics Director, Dr Andy Stoeckel, warned the closing session of this year's Outlook Conference: Macroeconomic policies can . . . affect the exchange rate, inflation and interest rates, which have a direct bearing on both the total availability of resources to the export sector and the efficiency with which those resources can be used. The dirty float has resulted in a 2 per cent increase in export returns. I have heard it said so often that the farmers are lucky because of the devaluation, and nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Braithwaite —Two per cent. Mr HUNT —There was a 2 per cent increase in returns, while farm imports rose by 25 per cent. The inflation rate of this nation is running at double the average of our main trading competitors. In the space of 12 months, we have slipped from being the country with the fourth lowest inflation rate to the country with the second highest rate of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries. Labor's policies have disadvantaged farmers at all levels of policy making. The Government has attempted to misrepresent its record on farm cost increases. Farm costs have risen 30 points, from 123 to 153, in three years while prices received have risen only seven points in that time. Never let this Government try to defend its record by saying that relative farm costs are down and by trying to make out that costs are better now than they were when we were in government. The truth of the matter is that at that time our level of inflation was at the low end of the OECD scale and now it is at the high end. The truth of the matter is that our costs are far worse than those of our competitors. Next Tuesday's statement will be worthless if it fails to change the policy directions by fundamentally reversing the devastating impact of monetary, exchange rate, interest rate and wage rate policies. The Parliament needs to know from the Minister right now whether an attack on farm input costs is central to the Government's primary industry policy strategy. Once again, I recommend to the Government the constructive 14-point plan which I tabled in this Parliament. Mr Ian Cameron —A good plan. Mr HUNT —I thank the honourable member. With regard to fuel, the full benefits of falling world oil prices should be passed on to all consumers, while fuel excise indexation must be abandoned, sales taxes on lubricants used on-farm removed and a more equitable freight equalisation scheme restored. Mr Porter —Real assistance, not band-aids. Mr HUNT —I thank the honourable member for Barker. He is so right. Mr Lamb —A smart little medical fellow, too. Mr HUNT —He was right on the medical issues too. In particular let us scrap the capital gains tax, the farm loss quarantine provisions and the fringe benefits tax. Can any honourable member think of more idiotic, more discriminating, more selective or more destructive tax than the quarantining of farm losses, which will lock people into their debt situation, giving them no hope of selling their farms? Throughout New South Wales and elsewhere the market has been brought to a standstill because people outside the farm sector will not bother buying under those sorts of discriminatory arrangements. Mr O'Keefe —Next you will want them on the stock exchange in Pitt Street. Mr HUNT —The honourable member should think about the stock exchange and the rackets that have gone on-money being borrowed overseas, and so on. The 3 per cent productivity superannuation deal must go. Wages policy must be freed up, the dollar given a clean float and the economic strategy changed so that interest rates can drop from their record heights. The farm situation is so serious that substantial extra funds must be allocated for debt adjustment carry-on purposes and farm reconstruction. There must be steady, predictable cuts to tariff protection with those tariffs on farm machinery, chemicals and parts replaced by bounties. Taxation initiatives could include restoration of a more equitable income equalisation deposits scheme and the abolition of export inspection charges to producers. There are actions which would substantially reduce farm costs at a time when average real rates of return to capital are expected to be minus 6 per cent. There is little we can do in the immediate future to overcome the international scene, but there is a lot this Government can do to overcome the domestic price structure of the Australian farm sector. Finally, I support the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to examine and report on actions necessary to address the problems facing farmers in rural communities. However, it should not be used as a device to protect the Hawke Government from taking urgent actions to change its overall policies which are discriminating against rural Australia and bringing so much misery and suffering to hundreds and thousands of men, women and children, many of whom are spending their last cents to come down here and to go elsewhere to protest. It is an outrage. The Government needs to face up to it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.36) —The alleged matter of public importance proposed today is: The need for positive and constructive actions to overcome the economic and social crisis facing rural Australia. I am quite happy to stand by that statement. I do not disagree with it. We have been doing just that and next Tuesday night we will continue to do exactly that, taking positive and constructive actions. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), means very well, but it is pretty obvious from many of his comments that he simply does not understand what is happening. I welcome very much what he had to say. I am very pleased that the honourable member has finally acknowledged on behalf of his Party, the National Party, the whole of rural provincial Australia. I believe that it would be a great achievement if the National Party could stick with that, because it has always approached the rural sector-that is, rural provincial Australia; the four million people living outside the major metropolitan areas-purely and simply in terms of agricultural policy. The assumption has always been that, if enough money is poured in and if one just listens to the agro-political leaders, problems such as rural poverty and rural unemployment will be solved. So I welcome what the honourable member said in that regard. The wording of the matter of public importance was pretty soppy. It was unspecific. It gave him a chance to repeat the National Party's 14-point plan. I think it was the 14-point plan of 14 February. Mr Simmons —Is that the latest? Mr KERIN —I think that is the latest plan. No, an 18-point plan was released on 28 February. That is all right. That is what oppositions are for. They must bring up their policies. It would be marvellous if they did. Let us have a look at the rural policy of the Liberal Party. Goodness, gracious me, I think it has five items. The Federal Liberal Party has never taken rural or agricultural policy seriously. Let us look at the National Party rural policy. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), when he was Opposition shadow spokesman on agriculture before the last election, to his great credit, came up with a policy. I think that is the first time that the National Party seriously applied itself to actually putting something down on paper. The Liberal Party has never done that. The Opposition is trying to capitalise on the presence of the friendly hordes outside. There is no way that I, along with the honourable member for Gwydir and many other members of this House, do not understand the problems, feelings and attitudes of those people in farm Australia, in rural provincial Australia today, because many of us have gone through it. He is trying to capitalise on that, trying to get a few Brownie points before next Tuesday, but it is rather transparent and not very convincing. If honourable members go out in the bush today they will quickly get some idea of the disregard and disrespect in which the National Party is held by many of the people. When times are tough people generally try to face reality. I think that the more people demonstrate, the more they come in contact with what is happening and with people in Government, who then get a better understanding of the problems. That is why I am heartened by some of the people who are coming forward. They have thought long and deeply about those matters, and I welcome some of the ideas put forward. Although I think a lot of people are very confused, one thing that is clear to me is that they are not concerned about attacking just this Government, they are concerned about attacking all governments, because they see the problem as having started quite some time before the Hawke Government came into office in 1983, and, of course, some of these demonstrations are effective. In other revolutions the peasants used to hang the aristocrats; now they sing songs to us. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is becoming very switched on by some of the songs being sung outside his window. We ought to look at this matter very seriously because many processes have led to the situation with which we are faced today and they have been happening over a long period. The fundamental changes occurred at the end of the 1960s and in the early 1970s when the monetary agreements broke down. The speculation in currencies and commodities then became very pronounced. Through the 1970s we had two oil shocks. People sought to purchase land as a shelter and the price of land for agriculture in Australia went up by as much as seven times during that period. World trade in agricultural commodity prices peaked in 1979-80. That was a time when land prices were still rising and inflation was on the up and up, partially because of the oil price shock at the time, and prices were reasonably high. The farmers were confronted with the 1982-83 drought after they had invested very heavily and there had been a fair amount of adjustment in the early 1980s. At that time some parts of the continent had faced up to four years of drought, but 1982-83 was certainly the drought year for the Australian continent. It took the previous Government about two years to react to that drought. As a result of the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, I hope that some of the ad hockery of the conservative parties is at an end and that they too have faced the reality of the situation and will not go for band aids, but will try to put forward policies in an overall setting, as the Government has been doing. The ad hockery of the past was rather staggering. I go back to the wheat problems of the late 1960s and the quotas the coalition parties put on, to the fact that they stood around dumbstruck by the wool industry crisis in the early 1970s, to the fact that they actually did nothing about the dairy industry, other than the continuous silly subsidy, when Britain entered the European Economic Community. When the Whitlam Government went out of office in 1975 the National Party and the Liberal Party were very big on promises about what they were going to do for the beef industry because it was in a critical situation. The beef herd went down from approximately 34 or 36 million to about 22 million in a short space of years. The coalition parties were going to do marvellous things, and it was not until good old Malcolm wanted an early election in 1977 that they cooked up the beef incentive payment scheme. In relation to the drought, they really stood around like stunned mullets for two years. The honourable member for Gwydir said that we have been slashing the Budget, slashing the amount of money going to the primary industries. The figures simply do not stand up. There have been additional expenses in some areas, but there have been many other areas where there have been a lot of offsets. We heard the same old litany about some of those cuts, regardless of the general principles involved. I can go back to the Razor Gang for another tired old litany of where the cuts were and all that nonsense. The former Government savaged the wheat industry and the Wool Corporation. It tried to wipe out the Australian Wool Testing Authority, and it even thought that locusts could not fly across State borders. Peter Nixon was on the Razor Gang. The former Government was going to set up a soil conservation program in 1978. Poor old Kevin Newman was in this House promising all those things, and then his Party let him down rather badly. Of course, one of the more important offsets has been the devaluation, which is still calculated to have given a gain to the farm sector of about $1.4 billion. The decision we took in the last Budget regarding import parity pricing in a full year is worth about $270m for a distillate. There are many other offsets. If I can address some of the points made by the honourable member for Gwydir, in relation to a drought, of course we are all very concerned about that. I am happy to inform the House that we believe we will have sufficient information over the next week or two to provide a decent sort of analysis as to whether or not we have on our hands some part of what is now known as the El Nino phenomenon. The 1982-83 drought was the worst in this century. With the El Nino phenomenon, people are now looking back through the statistics and studying surface temperatures, erosions, what is happening in Peru and other such matters. They are saying that there is this effect every four to six years. Given the intensity of the drought in 1982-83, statistically it is highly unlikely that we are heading into a drought anywhere near the severity of that one. I believe that all political parties are in a difficult situation with the farm sector. There is an enormous amount of fundamentalism out there and a lot of wrong thinking. The fact that the farmers are just as disenchanted with the National Party and the Liberal Party is evidence of that, and there is evidence that we should put in place in this House policies that go beyond just immediate reaction. That is what this Government has been trying to do. There is plenty of evidence for this because there is a lot of talk about a new political party. I often think that the Government is not going too badly. We have some evidence of a Green Party, some of the disaffected are out on the Left, and out on the Right we have the Katharine Wests and John Leards and Des Keegans of the world trying to whip up a new party. We are right in the middle. If honourable members look at the rhetoric of the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Howard), it seems to be all 1950s Democratic Labor Party stuff. The National Party does not even believe in democracy in Queensland. I can understand why the farmers are pretty disenchanted with the conservative parties. As an example I take the wages policy. The state of the Opposition is such that, if it ever came up with a wages policy, no one really thinks the Leader of the Opposition will make it stick. Either the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) or someone else will break loose and the whole thing will fall down in a heap again. That is the great problem. What the Liberal Party really cannot handle is the fact that the accord is working and that it is doing something for employment, profitability and investment in this country. The Liberal Party cannot handle the fact that the devaluation is effective because of the accord. It does not want the people of Australia to remember that under its system there was a $39 a week wage blow-out for the metal trades in 1981-82, and that is when a move was made away from centralised wage fixation. I will not go back to the Transport Workers Union case, but that is what happened. What has happened under this Government? The cost of wages, the real unit labour cost on an annual basis, is down by 7 per cent, or down by 11 per cent when comparing the peaks of 1982-83 with the current situation. Industrial disruption is the lowest it has been for 16 years and, instead of unemployment going up as was the case under the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), we now have 608,000 new people in employment, and the figures released today by the Prime Minister are even better. The accord is working and the Opposition cannot handle it. We have in place a very viable growth pattern in this economy. In the long run it will benefit all industry and all investment in this country, because one cannot run an economy unless one gets all the people in the economy back to work. That is what we are doing. We heard all of the nonsense about the dirty float. The Deputy Leader of the National Party repeated the same tired old propaganda of the LGPA-the Livestock and Grain Producers Association-in New South Wales. What people and what the LGPA forget, of course, is that we should not look at the United States of America and Australian dollar rate that is fixed every day. For each commodity one ought to look at its effect from a trade weighted basis. So we have had a depreciation of about 30 per cent for the wool industry in terms of the basket of currencies faced by exports of that commodity. Even in the area of wool, in which we are a price maker, the rise in wool prices has been very low-about 2 per cent. That was pretty unexpected. But we are not running a dirty float. The Reserve Bank of Australia has been indulging in some operations because of the overshoot. But people must understand why interest rates drop when the exchange rate moves up a bit. They drop because there is an indication that the fundamentals are right. One could easily have much lower interest rates and have masses of imports, pushing up the prices of these imports, which are farm inputs. What would happen down the track? There would be another burst of inflation and one would lose one's international competitiveness. That is a nonsensical approach. It is true that the policy is hard to swallow. It must be tough, but it is responsible. Above all, this Government is responsible because we are taking steps that are putting in place the grounds for this economy to move onwards. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(3.53) —In March 1983 the bruised and somewhat beaten Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) panted up to the Press gallery and said that a drover's dog could have won the election. Mr Deputy Speaker, the drover's dog who won that election is currently having a great deal of difficulty in giving the flock for which he is responsible any direction at all. Australia is seeing no shepherding from this drover's dog. In fact, if the direction that the Australian rural industry is currently taking, continues, the drover's dog will have no flock left to shepherd. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) is to be congratulated for focusing the attention of the nation on what is a major problem, as he rightly says, facing every Australian. All we have heard from the Government is some sort of half-hearted concession that there is some sort of problem. We have had little more than a half-hearted concession, while the National Farmers Federation has been rightly critical of the Government's inaction. There has been little more than a half-hearted concession while the daily Press and television are full of the present rural demise and while the Livestock and Grain Producers Association has spent three days alerting the Government to the problems the farmers face. During the grievance debate we had the astonishing spectacle of the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) talking about his cousin who, along with a majority of other Australian primary producers, happens to be facing some problems on the land. The honourable member for Lowe had the sheer effrontery and the audacity to say that the LGPA was engaging in `kindergarten antics'. He said that the demonstration currently occurring in Canberra was the silliest demonstration he had ever seen. Furthermore, he added that if these same demonstrators really had a problem they should be home on the farm. The farmers who are protesting in Canberra this week are not here because they can afford to be, but because they cannot afford not to be. The fact that they are here is a measure of their concern about the direction the nation is taking and the direction that agriculture is taking. The honourable member for Lowe and all those who currently suffer from his urban mentality should come to grips with the fact that the present dilemma facing Australian farmers does not result from a lack of rain. They are facing a dilemma after what have been climatically good conditions. The farmers are not complaining about the weather-or at least, not yet. Their concern is not a meteorological one. Their concern is the cruel reality of the current economic climate. I stress that the farmers of Australia are not currently complaining because things are tough. Let me reiterate that point for the benefit of the few Government members who are here: Farmers are not complaining because it is tough. They are complaining because it is tough for them and not tough for the rest of Australia. They are complaining about the gross inequity of the present system which means that farmers carry the burden of Australia's economic mismanagement. The farmers of Australia do not even expect, as do the wage earners, an element of predictability. They are prepared because of their very lifestyle to tolerate unpredictability. What they cannot tolerate is the simple truth that they are currently the carriers of the bloated bureaucracy that this Government has inflated. The farmers of Australia, as the honourable member for Gwydir eloquently said, are currently earning one-third of the average weekly earnings of most Australians. They do not have any sort of cost of living index, any sort of consumer price index adjusted weekly wage structure. Since 1980 they have faced a 40 per cent increase in farm costs and a 13 per cent increase in farm returns. That is what they faced to 1985. When the figures are issued for this year they will undoubtedly be much worse. As the honourable member for Gwydir rightly pointed out, this has a multiplier effect which is estimated to be to the tune of 14 to 1. So it is not only the farmers who are affected, but every member of the rural community. As recently as today's Australian there appeared an editorial which focused on the problems of costs in Australia, and which stated: Each of these sombre documents provides further evidence that our products remain uncompetitive with those of our trading partners because our costs are pricing us out of international market-places. Our costs are pricing us out. The farm dilemma affects not only the farmers but every member of the rural community. A feature page in the Australian ran an article on what is currently happening in Nyngan. Anthony Hoy reports that in Nyngan farm retailers are suffering a quandary almost as real as that facing the farmers. In the heart of my electorate, in an area where it always rains, there are farm retailers who are facing the simple reality that they have sold nothing in the way of tractors or four-wheel drive utilities, even though there is not a drought. They have sold nothing because the farmers cannot afford to buy anything and the farmers have no confidence in the capacity of this Government to solve their problems. The Opposition's call in this matter of public importance is a call for constructive action. All we have had from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his comments on the matter of public importance was a promise that he will continue the action. What action? The farmers are in the streets because there has been no action. This matter of public importance calls for some commitment from this Government which will provide relief for our beleaguered farm industries. The Minister claimed in his response to the matter of public importance to understand the rural dilemma. But what illustration have we seen of this understanding being expressed in action? The Minister has the audacity to stand here and be critical of what he says is the Liberal Party's absence of policy and the National Party's absence of policy. Let me remind honourable members opposite, few as they are, that as recently as last Friday I sat in a hall with Mr McLachlan from the National Farmers Federation, at which time he commended the Opposition parties for the work that they were doing on policy development. Honourable members interjecting- Mr ANDREW —Honourable members opposite may well scoff, but he did that at a public meeting and it is on public record. Furthermore, he commended the parties for having what will be one policy document, as they did before the last election, and not two documents, as has been mischievously alleged by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister had the audacity to say that there was no such thing as a dirty float, although he did mention that the Reserve Bank of Australia had been `indulging in some operations because of the overshoot'. What are we playing? Is it archery? There is a dirty float, and it is in place solely because of the cosy arrangement between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That dirty float is forcing up interest rates, as the honourable member for Gwydir has said, estimated by the NFF to cost the average farmer $3,500 a year. If it costs the average farmer $3,500 a year, in fact what is it costing those farmers who are most in debt? We are on our feet because this Government has been imprudent in its stewardship of the national economy. These have been good climatic years for Australia's farmers, but government borrowings are up. If we cannot reduce government expenditure in what have been good years, how on earth can we survive the difficult ones that might well be around the corner? The coalition Parties are committed to reducing government expenditure. Our record is one of reduced government expenditure. Our record is one of fewer people employed in the Public Service. That is the commitment that we give to the farmers of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(4.02) —I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I note that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) was the first on his feet to support the discussion today of `the need for positive and constructive actions to overcome the economic and social crisis facing Australia'. The fact of the matter is that the Government agrees that there is a need to overcome these problems-and the Government is addressing the problems. I must say that I am absolutely astounded that the Opposition should raise this matter in the House today. It can only be some cheap politic-king because this week farmers are demonstrating around Canberra. There can be no other reason for Opposition members to so blatantly expose their weaknesses in the area of agriculture. Before I refer to the wide range of things that the Government is doing to address these issues, I want briefly to outline a little of the problems and to help honourable members opposite understand the reasons for some of the problems. Mr Hollis —Go slowly for them. Mr O'KEEFE —`Go slowly' my honourable colleague says, and I agree. This is a very serious matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. The heart of the problem has been the failure of the previous Government to understand the problems of the rural sector and to come to grips with them. I am pleased to note here in the chamber today so many members of the Government's Primary and Provincial Affairs Committee, and also members who are appointed to the Prime Minister's special country task force, which is getting right down to talking with rural Australia and coming to grips with the problems that exist. We have heard some discussion today about the need for policies, in particular the need for the Liberal Party to develop policies in this area. I note that in answer to a question without notice asked in the House yesterday the Minister for Primary Industry referred to the range of policies that are around at the moment from the other side of the House, from not only the Liberals and the Nationals but also outside organisations which have chosen to start voicing policies because of the absence of anything substantial coming from the other side. We now have 10-point plans, five-point plans, 17-point plans and 18-point plans. We have a range of groups which are purporting to speak for the Opposition on rural policies. What is the need for the development of this range of policies? It is because honourable members opposite do not have policies, they have not developed policies and there is now a need for them at least to have a face that they understand. I must say that that need was acknowledged as recently as 4 April by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in a speech to the Liberal Party Rural Seminar in Adelaide. I quote from the notes of his speech. He said to that gathering: Never before has it been more important for both the Liberal and National Parties to understand and intelligently respond to the concerns of the people living in rural Australia. I could not agree more. The Leader of the Opposition then went on to praise the National Farmers Federation and to point out that the NFF is out there doing the job. In relation to the NFF, the Leader of the Opposition said: I welcome the higher profile and greater aggression which has been shown by the National Farmers Federation recently. I welcome it because the National Farmers Federation and its President, Ian McLachlan, have been clear and responsible in what they have been saying. First, why would the Liberal Party feel so confident about the position of the NFF? I refer to the now infamous and incompetently leaked document. When talking about competency, I cannot help referring to the note on the front of the document, which states `carefully selected, the chance of a leak should be small'. It should be remembered that this document was written within the Liberal Party secretariat by a consultant on lease from the National Farmers Federation to the Liberal Party. In relation to the NFF, it states: If you wish I can arrange for the support of the NFF and also that of its commodity councils and State member bodies. That is a very interesting disclosure by the Liberals. Of course, that has deeply embarrassed the NFF. That statement led Mr McLachlan to say at the Liberal Party Rural Seminar held at Adelaide-and I am quoting again from a Press report of his speech: The coalition had not formed policies to provide a suitable alternative. He also said that `the coalition was not a credible alternative to the Government'. So, with that little piece of incompetence the Liberal Party has forced the NFF to say clearly that the coalition is not a credible alternative to the Government, and I could not agree more. So, the reason for there being such an emphasis on policy is that the coalition knows that it must develop an understanding. I also note comments made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt), who has led this debate today. He also exposed one of the aspects of the Opposition's approach to the problems that exist. There was rhetoric but not substance. In a speech at a meeting of farmers at the Biloela RSL Club on 4 April this year he said, in a nice little bit of juicing up to start his speech: We have the world's most efficient farmers. We have more potential to produce agricultural products at competitive prices than most countries in the world. No one has any argument with that, but having buttered everyone up with that sort of stuff, he then said: Rural Australians in general have also copped severe cuts to funding programs such as roads, aerodromes and water resources. Let us look specifically at those three areas that he mentioned. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) made it clear in the House just a couple of days ago that, since the present Government came to office, there has been an 85 per cent increase in government expenditure on roads, and that has occurred primarily in the rural and arterial roads sector. When we came to office an amount of $22m was allocated to country Australia for the water resources program. Under our Government this year some $38.3m has been allocated for rural water resources. Just this week in my own electorate we announced three more programs to improve water resources for country towns in central Victoria. Here is the substance of the argument: Members of the Opposition go out and talk rhetoric about things such as efficient farmers but then bucket the Australia Labor Party and the Labor Government with straight out lies. That is what the Opposition has been serving up. That is the sort of stuff that country Australia has come to realise it is not interested in hearing any longer. Last Christmas the Federal Government was called on by the United States Government to boycott live sheep exports as part of the Libya deal. The Cabinet took the view that we could not isolate one particular sector of the economy, that we could not knock-off live sheep exports as part of a boycott. We agreed that live sheep exports were vital to small farmers. We expected to be supported by the Liberal and National parties on that. What did they do? They came out and criticised the Government. They engaged in cheap politicking at the expense of small farmers. That is why I am far more prepared to listen to the farmers, with whom I meet daily, to my colleagues on the rural task force and the rural and provincial affairs Caucus committee, who are out there meeting the farmers on a day to day basis, and to our Ministers at both a Federal and State level who are out there talking to farmers, than I am to listen to them. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) raved on about interest rates. An article on the front page of today's Australian Financial Review is headed `Rates fall to lowest level in six years'. Our farmers need high quality economic management. They need a government that is economically responsible and which will not just give them band-aids and sops of cheap rhetoric. That is the sort of government Australia has in power at the moment. That is the sort of government that will stay in power in Australia. That is the sort of government that rural Australia needs, and which it will continue to get. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Assent reported. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the first report for 1986 of the Committee relating to the construction of a new telephone exchange building for Telecom Australia at Dalley Street, Sydney. I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —The recommendations and conclusions of the Committee's report are as follows. The Committee accepts that there is a need for new generation equipment and services to meet the current and forecast needs of Telecom Australia in the northern sector of the Sydney central business district. The Committee agrees that it would be impractical and uneconomical to upgrade the existing telephone exchange building in Dalley Street. The construction of a new telephone exchange building is necessary. It should be built alongside the existing Dalley Street telephone exchange. The proposed three elevated cable bridges to link the new and existing telephone exchanges at second floor level will ensure compatibility of operation and cost savings by utilising the existing cable chamber. The design and construction of the proposed new telephone exchange building at Dalley Street appears satisfactory. The estimated cost of the proposed building is $13m at June 1985 prices. I might say that the project is well within the parameters of conventionally and, accordingly, the Committee recommends construction of the work in this reference. I thank the House. Debate resumed. (Quorum formed.) Mr SHACK(Tangney)(4.16) —I thank honourable members for flocking into the chamber to hear my contribution as we resume debate on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. In my discussion of this Bill I intend to deal with its application in higher education institutions and its likely impact on employment opportunities for young women-both matters which are part of my shadow portfolio responsibilities of education and youth affairs. This Bill will have one positive effect. It will raise employers' and employees' consciousness about the position of women in the Australian work force. It will not cause a revolutionary transformation of the position of women in the work force, but it will remind everyone that a large and talented pool of women exists-women who are just as capable as, and in some cases more capable than, the male half of Australia's population at performing a diverse range of occupations diligently and professionally. I would like to make my own position clear. If any society denies itself the creative energies and talents of 50 per cent of its population such a denial not only is morally indefensible in respect of the individuals; it is also socially unjust and plainly economically stupid. Under this legislation higher education institutions will be the first group of employers required to implement the equal employment opportunity program and to report progress under the Act. It is supremely ironic that this should be so, for it is in the higher education sector that the limitations of the Bill's effectiveness will be most clear. The internal labour markets of higher education institutions are amongst the most highly regulated sections of the labour force. The strictures of tenure and existing Federal Government constraints on the growth of the higher education sector have combined to create the worst of all possible worlds for high quality potential academics seeking employment within it. In my comments on tenure I differ markedly from the contribution made earlier today in this debate by the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb). Fresh, young, vigorous and well-qualified scholars of both sexes currently are unable to obtain academic posts or are relegated to minor positions for extended periods because of the lengthy queue of tenured academics jamming up the system ahead of them. While many tenured academic of course are able and productive, there are some who provide a much poorer return to the students they teach and the institutions which employ them than might be provided by young scholars who are currently being shut out of our higher education institutions. Mr Deputy Speaker, you well know that tenured academics enjoy a clear cumulative advantage over non-tenured and unemployed academics. Having obtained tenure, they are in a position to maintain an exclusive grip on the upper echelons of the academic tree until retirement, with all its attendant benefits. Individual academics can, in some cases, occupy tenured positions for three or four decades if they are appointed sufficiently early in their careers. The downside of this cumulative advantage is felt most keenly by young scholars of both sexes. This Bill will assist talented young female scholars to get a fairer share of academic employment opportunity, in theory-I repeat, in theory. In practice, however, the virtually non-existent employment growth in the higher education sector, combined with the high proportion of lifetime tenured academics, will allow for only the most marginal advances for women in the near future. The new academic job opportunities which would need to be created if this Bill were to have a truly positive effect on the position of women in higher education are simply not in the pipeline and are not likely to be under the education policies of this Government. As a result, statistics on the employment of women in the higher education community will continue to look very sick until well after the turn of the century unless the generation of tenured academics, overwhelmingly male, presently cemented into the system, relinquish its right to continuing employment until retirement age. Arguments for the dismantling of the tenure system seem to be generally regarded as reactionary and an attack on the continuance of academic freedom. Members of the higher education community who hold what is, in my view, that unfairly simplistic outlook, would do well to reconsider their position. In the case of equal employment opportunity, much more decisive advances could be made by pursuing the option of dismantling tenure than will be achieved by pursuing incremental improvements within the present arrangements. By spilling the system open in this way, by the removal or overturning of tenure, the representation of women in the academic ranks would be bound to improve as the talented amongst them replaced the dead wood of the present incumbents. As to academic freedom, that could be equally well guaranteed under an employment system based on medium term contracts. Certainly, the higher education community would be more vigorous, more dynamic and genuinely based on merit if a better balance could be achieved within institutions between the need for institutional flexibility and the need for effective mechanisms to protect academic freedom. Ideally, new arrangements which would more effectively satisfy these goals should be worked out within the institutions themselves, by the academic community itself, rather than being imposed legislatively by governments. On this side of the House, we believe fervently in the sanctity of the higher education community's autonomy and independence. In government we will encourage institutions to develop and embrace more effectively progressive policies from within, rather than legislating for such change from above. In summary, the Bill we are now debating addresses a matter which requires attention, namely, the need for a heightened awareness of the value and talents of half our population-the value and talents of Australian women. As such, we do not oppose the Bill. Despite the defects of the Government's approach to promoting equal employment opportunity, the reminder it will provide to the academic community in particular of the talents of its female scholars, many of whom are locked out of the current higher education system, and their worthiness of promotion compared with those who are currently in our institutions is very worth while indeed. Before closing, I wish to comment briefly on the impact of the Bill on young women entering the work force for the first time. One of the prime reasons for the lower average earnings of women in the work force, compared with men, is what is known as occupational segregation. This is the concentration of women in a fairly narrow range of occupations and industries. There are encouraging signs and success stories of women breaking out of the occupational bounds of recent labour market history and entering a wide range of occupations in which traditionally they have not been employed. The present pattern of occupational segregation has developed because of a number of factors, not least of which is the activity of male dominated trade unions which have regulated access to many occupations and industries. There are a number of occupations in which one simply cannot be employed without a union ticket and union officials have been as guilty as anyone in cutting women off from the range of employment opportunities which should be open to them. Let me be very clear about my own view and that of the Opposition: There should be no occupation from which any women would be excluded by virtue of her sex. It will be a measure of the Government's genuine resolve to establish equal employment opportunity in Australia if the unions are pushed as much as employers are being pushed to improve their employment policies. We on this side of the House will be vigilant in examining the position and comparing the Government's rhetoric with its actions. We will wish to ensure that the pressure being applied by the Government for change applies equally to both parties which are at present the major forces in the Australian labour market, namely, the employers and the unions. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(4.27) —I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, a very important piece of legislation. This Bill concerns equal employment opportunity for women-it is not legislation that promotes women; it is legislation that ensures that they can obtain promotion on the basis of merit. Essentially, it takes the form of a reporting system and, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in his second reading speech in this House, it records yet another milestone in the Government's record of improving the status of women and is evidence of the Government's firm commitment to enhance women's job opportunities. The Bill requires certain employers to have an affirmative action program for women and to report their progress to the Government through the Director of Affirmative Action. The objects of the affirmative action program will be to eliminate discrimination against women and to promote equal employment opportunities for women. Initially it applies to universities and tertiary institutions and then to large employers with more than 1,000 employees and so on, year by year. A pilot system of affirmative action for women has been operating to promote recognition that women are not just people to be employed in the lower echelons, but that they have a right to a place on the boards of management and among the directors and in all the professions. My attention has been drawn to an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 February 1986 which talks about `Hawke's blow for women'. The summation of the editorial writer is that this is at least a valuable first step. Women may feel that it is not going far enough but it is a valuable first step and is an action to eliminate discrimination and promote equal opportunity for women. I do not wish to canvass any of the ground traversed already, but will try to introduce some new matter in relation to opportunities for girls and women. My researchers have turned up the 1984 figures for enrolments at universities, which are the latest figures available. Those figures show that the pattern in tertiary institutions in Australia is that girls and young women are not entering some professions, such as engineering. The total number of students studying engineering in 1984 was 14,406. Of that number, 13,330 were men. The situation is the same in architecture and agriculture. Regrettably, even in medicine there is a male domination-6,600 men to 4,800 women. In law there is also a slight bias in favour of males. When one looks at the fine arts, teaching and similar professions there is a heavy domination imbalance of women. I have talked to principals of government and non-government secondary schools in my electorate. I have asked the principals of girls high schools why the girls go into teaching and not chemical or civil engineering, where they would be assured of employment. A bright girl should have access to any profession she wishes. I believe, from my conversations with principals and educational authorities, that it is not the fault of the schools. The girls are bright and they have access to the higher levels of mathematics. I have been told that one problem, particularly with ethnic families, is that there is no expectation that the girl will do anything other than something traditional, such as teaching or nursing. There are also peer pressures and there is a need for girls to have more confidence. In this regard I contacted the Catholic Education Office in Sydney, and the Director, Brother W. X. Simmons, made a submission to me. His summation is that the girls are competent, but need confidence. The acting head of the Burwood Girls High School said that some girls just need convincing that they have the ability to go into something such as engineering, law, medicine or dentistry. One principal told me she thought that the girls are hesitant and frightened to do something a little different because they do not want to stand out from the other girls. Today the students from Concord High School in my electorate visited the Parliament. The students asked me what was happening in the Parliament, because they could not quite follow the debate before lunch. Concord High School is one of only two co-educational high schools in my electorate; the other 20 are single sex high schools. I said to the girls that because they are female they should not be excluded from any occupation. I told them that when I visit factories in my electorate and talk to the directors and management, I see no females; it is a totally male world. Women must be brought forward to have the opportunity to advance into managerial positions, into accountancy, engineering and all the other areas that are dominated by men. I said that to the students and they were very responsive. I feel that it is a matter of time, and that girls need more encouragement at the school level. Brother Simmons, a Christian Brother of great experience, indicated in his submission that there should be more Government funding for female counsellors in Catholic regional or diocesan offices to assist schools enrolling female secondary students with information and advice on subject options, career paths and academic options. His point is that if we are to make an all out effort to get girls into jobs that have been traditionally the preserve of the males, there needs to be a bigger effort in counselling and career advice. This need not necessarily be in every school, but certainly in the State and non-government systems there need to be people who can advise teachers and career advisers on the facilities and opportunities which are available. I want to touch on the matter of large companies in industry that will have to report on the composition of their work forces. They will have to reveal how many males and females are employed and their status. I have discussed this problem with the Minister for Education and Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan), because in my electorate I come upon women who are working in very menial jobs and have great trouble with English. The Minister has assured me that companies will be encouraged to teach English in the work place and employees will be encouraged to learn English and become fluent in it. The real problem arises when one is dealing with people who are not able to read or write in their own language, let alone English. I have taken the opportunity to talk to Mr Jules Weinhausen at the Adult Migrant Education Service in New South Wales, which is totally funded by the Commonwealth. Mr Weinhausen admits that if people are illiterate in Roman script and their own script, there are problems in teaching them English. Considerable funds need to be made available for language classes because such classes cannot have more than 10 students. I have found, through constituency interviews in my electorate, that a number of people, often older women, cannot sign their own names. It is very sad and they are embarrassed, but I try not to embarrass them in any way. Through no fault of their own-because of such things as wars and poverty in the many countries from which they have come-they are illiterate. These people tell me that they wish they could read and write English, but teaching them to read and write is a problem if they are illiterate in their own language. The Adult Migrant Education Service in New South Wales runs about 200 classes in which there are some 3,000 students. About 50 per cent of the people in that program are women. The classes held in industries are attended mainly by men, because the classes are held mainly at the State Rail Authority, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board. The only industry-based classes where women dominate are those in hospitals which run English language programs or in the hotel and catering industries, where there are a number of women in menial jobs who are encouraged to learn English. It appears to me that there must be a commitment to funding for the teaching of English, particularly to women who have had no opportunity to learn written English and who, I believe, will have an enriched life if they have the opportunity to learn it. Several honourable members have mentioned the problems of child care. In my area I have extracted figures on the number of places available for long day care for the children of women who wish to work or have to work. Many women in Sydney go out to work because they have to. Homes are more expensive in Sydney than in the rest of Australia, and women have to work to meet the large mortgage repayments. There are only 370 child care places in the whole of my electorate for children of five and under. The 1981 census showed that there were 7,481 children in my electorate so about 5 per cent have the opportunity to enter a long day care centre There are some wonderful centres in all municipalities in Lowe, except the one in which I live, Drummoyne. There is no long day care facility in that municipality, yet some 30,000 people live there. I know that the Council and the Mayor are very concerned about this. Community centres have been moving to obtain long day care facilities. It highlights the situation in New South Wales. Sydney is historically short of long-day care centres, unlike Victoria and other States where child care was promoted in the 1950s and the 1960s, and more recently. The lack of child care facilities is a very serious problems in my own electorate. There is a lack of before and after school child care facilities. The option has to be given to a women who wants to work. I see women who want to return to work, who must return to the work force because they need to pay their mortgage or they need to buy a home, but there are no long-day care facilities. I have made my views known to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). He is doing everything possible and I am expecting additional funding to create new facilities in my area. I will not delay the debate but I say again that I hope that this legislation, which is quite epoch-making, will encourage industry, education and all the areas which are training, employing, and giving women the opportunity to realise that they cannot be denied advancement and promotion, that industry is no longer a male preserve and that the professions are no longer a male preserve. I commend the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education for bringing this legislation forward. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.42) —It is my pleasure today to oppose the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. In doing so I point out to the House that I believe there are many more serious problems confronting our society today than affirmative action. We had today the matter of public importance dealing with the problems of farmers. Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen, a National Party senator, has been in Wagga today addressing 4,000 concerned women from the farming community. The National Party of Australia supports the family unit. The family unit has been torn to shreds by this Government and by some of the legislation that has been put through this House in the last five to 10 years. We have only to look at the statistics and see the enormous costs that are imposed upon taxpayers today to see how that problem is propped up. The family is concerned about its financial plight and here we have the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) saying that all women in Sydney have to go out to work to support themselves and to buy themselves a house. Of course they have to do that, for the Government has just increased the interest rates by 2 1/2 per cent. Why would they not be out working? They are suffering the highest real interest rates that this nation has ever experienced. Australian women and men are suffering from these interest rates now. The honourable member for Lowe has the audacity to say that these poor women have to go out to work. Of course, some of them have to work. I do not believe they should be forced out of the home to work. They should be encouraged to stay at home and to look after their families. That is what the National Party is on about; we are on about supporting the family and giving women incentives to stay home to look after the family and to bring up young Australians as they ought to be brought up, not in some socialised, ratbag, Russianised-type childminding centre set up at the factory door. That is what the Government wants. The Government is giving tax incentives to factories to build childminding centres; yet it is not prepared to give any tax incentives to the mother who is at home looking after her family. What is the Government going to do? It will flatten the tax rate on child endowment. It will reduce the amount of money paid for child endowment. It will reduce the encouragement given to women who are prepared to stay at home and look after their children. That is what the Australian Labor Party is on about. It will reduce the amount of money paid to families in this country. That is what honourable members opposite are on about. It is an absolutely disastrous policy. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. They should not be governing; they do not deserve to govern. What do we hear about the financial crisis? The Government talks about jobs. What jobs? We have seen the number of jobs in the Australian Taxation Office increase by 3,000 since the Government came to office. People are paying record interest rates to keep themselves in business. Many speakers have spoken before me on this nonsense. I have never seen such a wank of a Bill in all my life. Why on earth do we need this sort of legislation? Why should women be encouraged to go into the work force? Fifty per cent of women in Australia are in the work force now, for God's sake. How many women do honourable members opposite want in the work force? What about the men these women are displacing who need a job as well? What about the unemployment figures? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has the audacity to tell this House that the unemployment rate is down. What a lot of nonsense! The real unemployment figure has gone up substantially since this Government has come to office. In 1981, 5.6 per cent of our work force was unemployed. The current rate is 8 per cent. The real rise in unemployment since you characters came to office is 2.4 per cent. The Prime Minister has the audacity to tell us that the employment figures are up. What absolute nonsense! There are 600,000 Australians unemployed. Thirty-three per cent of those people are aged between 15 and 24 years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I remind the honourable member that he is discussing a Bill which relates to affirmative action. I ask him to return to the subject of the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —The unemployment figures are very much tied in with the affirmative action Bill because what the Bill does is fine companies for not employing women. I put it to the House: When we have such a high unemployment rate, particularly among young people, why should women be forced into the work force when their own children are home without a job? That is the problem we have in Australia today. That is the social problem we have and the Government will not fix it by forcing more women into the work force and by compelling employers to take more women on, and by fining employers if they do not take women on. If employers do not put in two reports a year to the Director of Affirmative Action they will be fined-shades of Russia. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the leader of the left wing in Victoria, knows all about that. I will not withdraw that statement. Employers are required to allocate staff and resources to carry out this program and to put in annual reports. Statutory officers will be employed, with five-year appointments; a staff of 25 will be set up in Sydney-all this nonsense. Farmers have been here in Canberra once again today screaming their heads off for help, yet we see this Government creating another bureaucracy; more people to be employed in Sydney. It is a pity the Government could not decentralise its work force a bit. Why does it not set this thing up in the electorate of Calare? Even Maranoa would do. Why does everything have to be established in Sydney, for God's sake? Companies will be named in this Parliament. What is this? It is like the statement by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) that we heard all about today. Companies will be named in this Parliament. What absolute nonsense. Most members of the Confederation of Australian Industry do not support affirmative action. They say it is unnecessary. Of course it is unnecessary. Why would it be necessary if half the people in the work force are women? What does the Government want-80 per cent? The Australian Council of Trade Unions considers all employers should be covered by the legis- lation. The Prime Minister says he will start at 1,000 employees and work down. Mr Simmons —What does Mrs Cameron think of this? Mr IAN CAMERON —She thinks I am the best thing since sliced bread. As the House knows, I have had a few things to say about this Bill prior to making such a fantastic speech on it here today, and I have been involved in a little bit of controversy, but it is amazing how many people throughout Australia support me on that stand. I received three letters and phone calls from people who were opposed to what I said. I also received 30 responses from Ministers, women's groups and all sorts of people across the nation who were in favour of what I said and who supported me. They were not opposed to what I had said. They supported my stand on the family unit, about which we on this side of the House are so proud. The married people in this place get sick and tired of what is going on. I have four children. I am sick and tired of working my guts out and paying taxes which are used to support unmarried mothers. I support our Minister in Queensland who said yesterday that it is high time we cut off this nonsense. I would not even pay an allowance for the first child. I do not believe that unmarried mothers ought to be encouraged to have any children out of wedlock. The fathers do not get paid. I ask honourable members opposite to give me one example of an unmarried father who is collecting a pension. I have never heard of such nonsense. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) ought to know better. It is absolute nonsense. Of course, this Bill is quite unnecessary for a number of reasons. I have mentioned that the cost for the first year will be $1.5m. That figure will blow out to $5m or $10m before we know where we are. Companies will have to waste millions of dollars of funds to provide for the cost of providing the facilities alone. We have to take into consideration the bureaucracy that will be involved. All this legislation is about is giving more power to the trade unions. The Australian Council of Trade Unions runs this country and the trade unions will be given more power. We are sick to death of paying our taxes to the trade union movement. We are not only opposed to paying for affirmative action. We are also sick to death of paying for all the other nonsense, such as superannuation, that the Government is putting up. We cannot afford to do it and we are sick to death of our taxes being used for these purposes. What about a bit of affirmative action for men? What about the nursing and the teaching professions, clerical staff and others? Practically 90 per cent of flight attendants are women. I do not see anything in the Bill about men who are missing out on jobs. Jobs are not being created for them. I believe that a Bill of this nature should cover these areas. Although I am personally opposed to the present Bill, I believe that if we are to have this sort of legislation there should be a little bit of equality. As I said previously, women who choose to stay at home are downgraded under this legislation. There is no freedom of choice and democracy will be impeded. I wonder where members of the Australian Labor Party stand on this matter. The National Party of Australia has always encouraged women to be members of the Party. We have not needed affirmative action legislation to do this. Sixty-five per cent of members of the National Party in Queensland are women. There are 56 women's branches of the National Party throughout Queensland. The women have an annual conference which attracts 300 to 400 women delegates. I would just like to explain to honourable members opposite that without any of this nonsense and cost to the taxpayer we have involved women in our process for many years. Women are completely absorbed into the National Party in Queensland. They play a tremendously important role in politics in Queensland without the need for affirmative action legislation. The Government should be committed to giving support to the family and encouraging one parent to stay at home with young children. According to the latest figures, 31.4 per cent of children under 12 not at school and 46.9 per cent of children under 12 at school are looked after by persons other than the family or close relatives or not at all. These facts come from a publication entitled `Facts on Women at Work in Australia-1983'. I ask honourable members to think about the fact that 46.9 per cent of children under 12 at school are looked after by persons other than the family or close relatives or are not looked after at all. As I said, the only thing the Labor Party wants to do is to reduce the family allowance which was introduced by the Fraser Government. We should also be concerned about the money that is allocated to child centres. The rate of growth in Australia is down. Two days ago we saw the latest move by the Labor Party, which was to increase immigration. What is wrong with encouraging more Australians- Mr Maher —Are you against them? Mr IAN CAMERON —No, I am not. However, the Government is not encouraging the family in Australia. That is what it should be doing. Mrs Kelly —We are. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Government is not. The figures show that child endowment is down. The population figure is down. No encouragement is being given to the family. The real cause of unemployment has been the number of married women in the work force. According to the population figures, the average number of children per family in 1961 was 3.5. The average number now is two. Therefore, the population is down. As a means of increasing the population the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) is now going to increase immigration, for God's sake! What is wrong with encouraging Australians to have a few more kids? One of the reasons why the population has gone down is that so many women are going out to work. They are not prepared to stay at home and look after children. We ought to be giving them some encouragement to do so. Mr Deputy Speaker, I note you have been very patient in allowing me to say what I wanted to say. My Whip has been winding me up. He seems to think that I have not been going strongly enough on this Bill. Actually, I am just getting wound up. However, I think I had better sit down and give another member a go. I would just like to say that, of course, I am very vocal in opposing this Bill and I will not be supporting it. Debate (on motion by Ms Mayer) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.56) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1986) The Proposals I have just tabled relate to a proposed alteration to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1986) formally placed before Parliament, as required by law, a tariff alteration introduced by Gazette Notice No. 3 (1986) under the authority of section 160B of the Excise Act. The Proposals increase the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $50.36 to $50.77 per kilolitre operating on and from 1 April 1986. This change was announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) on 27 March 1986. I commend the Proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Debate resumed. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(4.59) —I am glad we have had a little interlude of sanity after the overexcited contribution of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). If ever there was a demonstration of the need for affirmative action legislation, the House has just been treated to 15 minutes of a superb demonstration of that. In fact, so well did the honourable member for Maranoa demonstrate the absolute need for the legislation that it hardly seems worth while carrying on the debate at all. We should all be taking as read that the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill should be approved. I have been really interested in listening to the debate, particularly the contributions from some Opposition members who seem to want simultaneously to support the Bill and to throw it out. It is a classical case of wanting to have a foot in both camps while having principles in neither. I would like to quote from a study that was done in 1975 by Westgaard and Resler. In any society, the pattern of people's lives and their living conditions take the form which they do, not so much because somebody somewhere makes a series of decisions to that effect; but in large part because certain social mechanisms, principles, assumptions . . . are taken for granted . . . The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill challenges those take it for granted mechanisms and assumptions and requires that they be put to the test of planned and deliberate change. In spite of what the honourable member for Maranoa says, the evidence is overwhelming that employment and promotion practices have largely discriminated against women. In many cases this has not been an articulated policy or the subject of an explicit statement of preference; it has occurred because of the assumptions made about the preferences and abilities of women in the work place. Supporting the legislation will be a number of government projects. I mention the Girls into Engineering project and take up some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). A while ago I had the pleasure of attending a maths and work seminar at Sydney University for Year 9 girls. Part of the seminar included giving to the girls who were there an opportunity to partake in a problem-solving project normally given to first-year engineering students. I am happy to say that some of the girls there came up with a solution to the problem which had so far eluded the first-year engineering students and demonstrated quite conclusively to me that girls have a very good place in the engineering profession. I am glad we are going to encourage them in that regard. I think some of the assumptions that are made about women, their preferences and their abilities are very well illustrated in a pleasant little book put out by the National Times which contains a collection of its `Women's Role' snippets. This is a good one which came from the Australian Computer Bulletin: Now, a brief comment on what the impact of computer technology will not be in 1984- or 1985 or 1986, perhaps- Management will not be talking to `electronic' secretaries. Dictaphone usage will advance and the typewriter will give way to the word processor, but the `lovely ladies' who answer the phone, organise luncheons and business trips and buy anniversary gifts for the wife will remain a necessity the way they always have. That is an employer's notion of the place that women have in employment, the need for this Bill is fairly conclusively demonstrated. I have one more choice one to offer: Increasing numbers of women graduates in medicine require special training if they are to be productive members of the workforce and competent family doctors whilst, at the same time, fulfilling their childbearing and domestic role in society. The item continues and remarks that women now comprise about 45 per cent of medical graduates. I ask honourable members to understand and note from that statement that there is some confidence that women can fulfil their careers, their roles as domestic people and their childbearing roles at the same time, and all they will need is a little extra training. It is possible to try to achieve change by encouragement, expostulation and argument, and some time this side of the year 3000 change may take place. The evidence is, however, that change is made to occur by action and not by argument. There needs to be a reason to make change. However convincing the argument for change, that alone does not supply the energy. Legislation is one way of providing a reason to act. This Government is very firmly of the opinion that the nation will benefit if the `taken for granted' mechanisms are replaced by objective and considered change aimed at making the best use of available skills and experience. Dame Roma Mitchell, a woman of great achievement, recently said: I have no doubt that had I been asked twenty years ago whether affirmative action was necessary or desirable I would have replied in the negative. I no longer believe this. The Government shares with Dame Roma that lack of belief in the undesirability of affirmative action. However, the Government is taking a path, not of authoritarian prescription, with heavy sanctions for lack of compliance-a type of action so dearly beloved by some in the Opposition-but rather the path of legislation which provides a framework for change with built-in checks of progress. Those who prefer the do it or else approach may find themselves uncomfortable with the legislation, but their discomfort is a penalty which they will pay for being unwilling to examine their own assumptions, actions and motivations. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), in his speech last night, seemed to have some problem with the name of the Bill. He might be able to understand that the use of the phrase `affirmative action' is a message to Australian women that the Government is prepared to view women positively and that it affirms its belief in the competence and skill of Australian women and the already great value of their contribution to Australian life. `Affirmative action' is a title which implies that a positive attitude is expected from all concerned towards the idea and practice of change. The importance that the Government places on being positive is demonstrated by the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) introduced the Bill. The Prime Minister has consistently supported measures which recognise the value that this Government gives to improving the status of women in the Australian community. The Prime Minister also this year introduced the National Agenda for Women. The three aspects on the Agenda are: Giving women a choice, a say, and a fair go. Women cannot be given a proper choice, or a fair go, if employment and promotion practices give an advantage to male employees. The choice of women, then, is indeed very much a Buckley's choice of take it or leave it at low standard employment. For too long women have been expected to pay a career penalty if they chose to bear and nurture children. That seems to be a version of choice which assumes that having a family is less important than being in paid employment. The experience that women gain if they make that choice is ignored if they wish to continue working after time out of the paid work force to fulfil a role, the importance of which is recognised more by rhetoric than by reality. We need to affirm the value of that experience by accepting rather than penalising it, and understanding that bearing and raising children is as demanding and responsible a job as any other, and in fact more demanding and more responsible than most, and provides a worthwhile work experience. The Affirmative Action Bill provides a framework for women to be given a real choice and a fair go in employment. It is impossible to quantify the loss to Australian commerce, industry and education of skills and resources which has probably occurred through biased employment and promotion practices. If we look at the statistics that show the place that women have had in employment and promotion and more particularly in employment in industry and commerce and also in a higher education, we can get some idea of the real loss of capacity which Australia has suffered through its employment practices. Now that we recognise that such a loss has occurred, we know that it should no longer continue. Were that recognition universal, this legislation would not be necessary, but it is all too clear that such recognition is still limited. One has only to examine the gender make-up of tenured positions in higher education institutions to find that women scholars seem to disappear, somewhat unaccountably, between the lower level untenured positions and the more secure and higher status tenured positions. The honourable man for Canning (Mr Gear), with his statement on the sanctity of the independence of higher education institutions, seems to hope that a light will shine from somewhere or other and will provide enlightenment for the present incumbents of those tenured positions which have been so overwhelmingly taken by men. I think it is pointless, however, to blame employers for following practices which were acceptable in their experience and the experience of their peers; however, it can be only beneficial to question that experience and to examine its assumptions. Changing the thought and behaviour patterns of a lifetime is a very big step to take, and the legislation recognises the size of that step by providing for a clear program to be undertaken, most of which will provide information as important for the employer as it is for the employees and government. The consultation provisions which are written into the legislation provide for an exchange of ideas for the appropriate implementation of the legislation within an organisation. It is also fairly widely recognised by those of us who have had some reason to have a look at this question, and by plenty of those who have not had too much reason but have done it anyway, that the best employment practices include consultation and those which include consultation bring about far better productivity. That is something I think is important to all of us. One of the honourable members on the almost exclusively male Opposition side seems to be scandalised that employers should be required to report on their employment practices. I wonder whether the women employees who have seen less experienced and less qualified men preferred for employment and promotion would be so scandalised. I wonder whether the honourable member has any idea of the damage that can occur to productivity when employees correctly perceive themselves to be unfairly treated by the employer. I wonder whether honourable members have any idea of the whole series of minor irritations which, in total, form an unpleasant working environment for women. Those irritations are the result of a lack of understanding and respect for women as working colleagues. I could cite a number of examples, but let me cite the one I have from my own working life and that is being addressed as a bloke. I do not mind being one of the fellows, I suppose, but I would like it recognised from time to time that there are those of us in the House who, by and large, are not blokes. Another irritation is being addressed as `love' by all sorts of people who seem to assume that, because I am a woman, I do not mind being addressed in a very familiar way by people who would not even dream of addressing any of the fellows as `love'. I hope that one of these days they try it and see what happens. The bogy of paperwork was raised as a reason for failure to legislate for change. I think that that is quite peculiar. The proposition seemed to be that, if you had to report to government about what you were doing, then you could not have the legislation because reporting to government was unreasonable. If we have affirmative legislation that requires people to report to government, I for one would be very, very interested to hear those reports and I think it is a very good motivational operation. I find the pious statements of support for equal employment opportunity for women while at the same time bemoaning the necessary requirement for changing unequal employment opportunities hypocritical in the extreme and I am very sad to see quite young members of this House indulging in that bit of hypocrisy. It seems to be a case of having 100-year-old heads on 20-year-old shoulders. I would like to quote from a conference paper prepared by Dr Anne Summers and Ms Valerie Pratt when they were talking about employment, who is employed, and for what reason. They stated: Increasingly young married working women are applying for maternity leave and returning to work. Many older women, their child-rearing responsibilities completed by their early 40s, are preparing themselves for a return to the workforce with a degree, qualification or skill. They return with high motivation, energy, vigour, maturity and new ideas-energy which is being recognised and harnessed by more astute employers. I think we will still find that those same energetic, mature, vigorous and creative women are at the moment suffering because they did something which, according to some employers, was unforgivable: They had families. However, in the light of that statement perhaps some honourable members may care to re-examine their fear of change and recognise that affirmative action legislation is long overdue recognition of the value of the choices being made by the women described above. The Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry have been quoted as being opposed to the legislation. That may be true. Nevertheless, those two organisations recognise the need for change. They have formed the Council for Equal Employment Opportunities and have invited the Government to be represented on the Board of the Council. The Government has accepted the invitation and has asked me to be that representative. The Council recognises that employers will need assistance to introduce new concepts into their employment practices and plans to provide that assistance. I wish to pay tribute to the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry for the positive way in which they are responding to the perceived need for change, and I look forward to being involved in their important work. I also wish to pay tribute to the work of the companies and higher education institutions that took part in the pilot program. In some cases the previous experience of those companies was a valuable resource in determining the way in which affirmative action programs could be implemented. I believe that this Bill will have a wider impact than ensuring that women have more equal opportunities in employment: It will eventually promote much greater respect between men and women as people equal in their capacity and equal in their worth. I congratulate the very committed and competent Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) and the talented and hardworking people in the Office of the Status of Women on their achievement. This legislation is yet another step by the Government towards improving the status of Australian women, in giving Australian women a choice-and a proper choice, not Hobson's choice-and in ensuring that this country does not waste half of its resources. I commend the Bill to the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(5.16) —It is interesting that in a speakers list of over 40, at the last count I made, six women will be speaking on this Bill. It was not very long ago when, if such a Bill had been considered in this House, no women would have spoken because there would have been no women members. There are those of my male colleagues who seem to believe that, because I am here, there are therefore no barriers to women entering Parliament. The fact that I am the only one here shows that there are indeed barriers to women entering Parliament. It is also a fact that there are amongst my male colleagues those who resent my pointing out those barriers, both in parliament and more particularly outside it. They point their finger at me and say: `You are here. Doesn't that show that it can be done?'. There are many reasons for my being here but, despite most of those reasons, I would not be here if it were not for three very particular ones. Firstly, when I was being educated in the 1950s I had enlightened parents who did what parents in the 1950s because of social attitudes generally did not do. They educated their daughters right through tertiary education, at great expense and sacrifice to themselves. In order to do that my mother was one of those first working wives. Although I was still at primary school when she undertook that course, I was not abandoned. I trust that there are those who do not think that I prove the argument that, if mothers go to work with primary school-age children, no good will come of it. The second reason is that I went to a girls school. I was interested to hear an earlier speech by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who in his speech paid particular attention to the subject of the education of girls. I have no doubt at all that, if I had not gone to a girls high school, my own attitudes and aspirations would have been quite different. I say that confidently, because in my primary schooling I went to a co-educational school. I could give many examples, but time will not permit today, of the difference in treatment of girls at a co-educational school in those days versus the encouragement that was given to girls in single sex schools, not the least of those encouragements being that all the teachers were female and my role models in my quite impressionable adolescent years were successful professional women. The third and most significant of the three reasons-the two previous ones I have mentioned are not essential-is the fact that I am childless-not through choice but just because of the hand fate dealt me. If I had had to take time out of my professional life and career, as I would have for the bearing and rearing of children, I have no doubt at all that I would never have overcome the disadvantage at which that would have put me in competing with men in any attempt to pursue a political career. In other words, my conditions in life have not been that of the average woman. However, I recognise that, and I believe that I can appreciate the position of the average women or, rather, the average situation of women. I would appreciate it if my colleagues did not use me as an example of why this legislation and similar legislation is not necessary, because I-of all people-am only too aware of how important it is. I welcome the interest of so many members in this subject. I have to admit that, despite 12 years in this Parliament, I was unaware of this remarkably high level of interest in and concern about the subject of barriers to the fair employment of women in Australia. In particular, I welcome the participation of so many of my coalition colleagues in such large numbers in the debate. I look forward to their future contribution on directly related subjects, such as the unreasonably restricted access to child care in Australia. On that point, I refer very briefly, and I hope not unkindly, to the speech by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). I fear that the honourable member for Maranoa must be unaware of the statements made by my parliamentary Leader this morning when he spoke on this Bill. The honourable member for Maranoa quite rightly expressed concern about the position of children who had no adult to care for them during working hours because the adult or adults in whose care they were, were at work. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in his speech this morning gave at least one excellent example of how this can come about. He gave an example of rigidity of approach to working hours and inflexibility of attitudes of people involved in the arbitration and industrial system as a contributing factor. He gave the example of an inner Sydney suburban company where the women employees requested a change in their working hours, to start earlier and take a shorter lunch time so that they could finish earlier in the day and be home by the time their children finished school in the afternoon. The employer agreed. However, the Arbitration Inspectorate stepped in and the employer and employees were forced to go back to the laid down pattern of hours and, as a consequence, those women could not be at home with their children after the school day finished. It is that sort of situation and that sort of work structure that equal employment opportunity is about. It is unfortunate that many of the people who have made contributions on this Bill-and I am not necessarily talking about contributions in the House, but also contributions outside the House-simply do not understand what equal employment opportunities are, or even what affirmative action is, if one must call it that. I do not mind calling it affirmative action, provided the term `positive discrimination' is understood to be the term that refers to employment quotas. However, affirmative action used to be synonymous with quotas and people still have that concern about it. So we will leave that one alone and I will talk about equal employment opportunities. Many people simply do not understand what this subject is. Figures are put forward from time to time, contributions are made, examples are given, such as the example given by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, and the reality of life for many women is not understood. The phenomenon of an increased percentage of our workforce being married women-not only married women, but married women with children who are still what we would call of dependency age-has been the matter which has brought this very much to the fore. It has been the growth of the women's movement in the last 15 years, its articulateness and its ability to organise itself, which has brought forward this issue as a priority issue. The reasons that married women enter the work force are of course, legion. I gave the example of my mother, to whom I am enormously grateful, whose reason was to pay for the education of my sister and me. However, when that need no longer existed my mother chose to stay in the work force as a professional, as a nursing sister, because she enjoyed her work. She particularly enjoyed work which gave her personal satisfaction. It is really quite futile to be looking in this debate at the reasons why people go to work. I do not think it is a bad thing that people have to go to work to get money. We expect that of men in the community. We call young men who do not want to do that `dole bludgers'. No one would approve of that attitude to work. I do not really think that that is the issue. I believe there are many more women who would want to go to work, and not be in a position of dependency on government, if there were suitable programs showing an understanding of their needs. There has been some debate in the last couple of days on the subject of the supporting parent's benefit. That benefit goes to a number of categories of people. Some of it goes to men who are widowers or divorcees who are rearing children. Less than 10 per cent of recipients come into that category. Not all of the rest of the women recipients are divorcees or unmarried mothers. A number of them are widows, and that is a substantial category. Nevertheless, the most substantial category is female divorcees, followed by unmarried mothers. I do not intend to join in the debate on that subject as it has presented itself in the last 24 hours. But I do want to say something on the subject of the position in which supporting parents, particularly women, find themselves. I am deeply concerned about the hundreds of thousands of children in this country who are being reared in welfare families. I have a particular concern when that is a one parent family. They grow up, frequently surrounded by families in the same position, and their understanding of life in the end is that the wherewithal for sustaining life comes through the letterbox. I understood through my childhood-I was fortunate enough to have a secure and stable family-that the wherewithal for my life came from the fact that my father went out the back door at eight o'clock in the morning to travel to work. I understood that. Nobody explained it to me. I absorbed it through the pores of my skin. I am concerned that hundreds of thousands of Australian children are not observing and learning that fact, namely, that a family's needs are paid for by earning money through work. I am not saying that this large percentage of women who are rearing children on a supporting parent's benefit ought to be pushed out the door to work; not at all. It is a matter of individual situations. I know that many of them would like to go out the door to work but because of structural barriers they cannot do so. One of those structural barriers is often the absence of adequate child care facilities, but that is not the only problem. There is a legacy of a generally low level of employment and training of young women in Australia which means that when a woman who is still young-say, in her thirties-suddenly finds herself without somebody to be the breadwinner, and with dependent children of primary school age to rear, she simply does not have the skills that are relevant to today's work force. If she ever had good skills they are out of date. Because of the number of years she has been out of the work force she lacks confidence, as the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) said earlier. Many of those women would dearly love to go to work, to get more money, to have the prospect of getting more money and to have something other than young children as the total part of their company and life, as much as they love those children. A lack of access to education, training and retraining is the reason that so many of those women get locked into welfare and the supporting parent's benefit. By the time their children are no longer dependent on them to be there when they leave for school in the morning, when they come home from school in the afternoon and during the school holidays, many of them feel it is too late, and in psychological terms, for many of them, it is too late. I feel very strongly that there are many delinquent fathers in Australia who ought to be making a contribution to their children's care and upkeep, whether or not they have been married to the women who bore those children. I wish some of the men who run the State governments and this Federal Government would put it higher on the list of priorities of their governments. A lot of words are spoken about it. But all of those bodies which need to get together to organise a program of action to do something about it simply do not act. I hope Mrs Yvonne Chapman has a quiet word with her Premier some time this week and suggests that he might lift it up the agenda of the Queensland Government so that not only will the taxpayer receive some relief but also those mothers who are trying to be good mothers will have the prospect of receiving some relief in the future. There are many assumptions enshrined in patterns of work that go back many years and are even more than 20 years out of date. When one considers that the high percentage of members of the work force who are mothers of school age-children but that very little change has taken place in working hours, working weeks and working conditions-the patterns of those conditions being essentially the same as when nearly all the work force was either male or single females-one might start to have an inkling of the difficulty. Mr Deputy Speaker, time is short and there are a couple of things to which I particularly want to refer before concluding my speech. Many matters, of course, could be raised. One thing I wish to refer to in particular is that there has been some mention in this debate and outside the Parliament of the cost of implementing equal employment opportunity programs. In fact, one of the speakers in the debate has made this statement: The Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University has told us that affirmative action will cost his university alone $450,000 a year in additional affirmative action staff, superannuation advertising procedures and so on. I am aware that there have been some Press reports to that effect, and some time ago I checked up on just where that figure could possibly have come from. I could not understand how it could cost a university $450,000 to implement affirmative action programs, given that in my profession before entering this Parliament I was a university administrator. So, I could not understand that figure, given that it related to an area that I know something about. On checking, I found that the Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University had written for the University of Sydney News of 10 April 1984 an article in the `Comment' column about the cost to the Sydney University of complying with the anti-discrimination legislation in New South Wales. I would like to refer to some specific points that he made, because they are good examples of what concerns people who support equal employment opportunities legislation. Because of limited time I can refer to this only briefly, but he states, in part: The costs will be for additional advertising, for more elaborate administrative processes than at present in respect of appointment and promotions, and for more elaborate forms of grievances procedures. At present not all academic positions are advertised; for example, temporary appointments and certain research assistant posts may or may not be advertised. Few non-academic positions are advertised externally because, by arrangement with the union, vacancies are advertised internally and external advertisement follows only if no suitable internal applicant is available. He refers to `no suitable internal applicant' being available-not to the best person for the job, but to there being no one who could possibly cope with it. That is really astonishing. Mr Peacock —It sounds like a closed shop. Mrs SULLIVAN —Yes, it is, thanks to the employers and the unions. Referring to the effect of that, he states: A universal policy of advertising all vacancies, except the most temporary, will more than double our advertising costs. At present they amount to about $90,000 a year; they are likely to be increased by $100,000. So, that is $100,000 out of the $450,000. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard some tables relating to employment patterns in tertiary institutions in Australia. These tables come from Parliamentary Paper 201 of 1984, the appendix to the discussion paper on affirmative action for women. I have not yet shown them to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) but I have mentioned them to him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is leave granted? They will be incorporated subject to the guidelines that have been laid down. Mrs SULLIVAN —I do understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have done some checking and I trust that they do meet the guidelines. Leave granted. Table II.22: PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN IN FULL-TIME NON-ACADEMIC OCCUPATIONS IN UNIVERSITIES 1977, 1982. Occupational classification Women as % of all employees in occupation 1977 1982 Academic activities Teaching and Research Technical officer... 11.5 13.0 Technical assistant... 26.9 30.3 Administrative... 89.0 88.6 Research only Technical officer... 24.7 44.4 Technical assistant... 49.8 *60.5 Administrative... 76.2 82.3 Academic services Library Professional... 72.3 71.7 Other... 65.5 67.0 Computing Professional... 6.5 11.9 Other... 53.0 47.8 Audio-visual Academic/professional... 0.0 0.0 Other... 30.1 28.0 Animal Houses Academic/professional... 7.7 *0.0 Other... 34.6 40.2 Scientific services Academic/professional... 0.0 7.5 Other... 15.0 18.5 Language Laboratories Academic/professional... 25.0 19.4 Other... 63.8 67.3 Teaching & Learning centres Academic/professional... 28.1 30.5 Other... 50.8 67.9 Other academic services... 45.3 41.4 Student services Health services Academic/professional... 30.4 53.2 Other... 97.3 100.0 Counselling & accomm services... 59.3 58.5 Emp services & appt boards... 63.6 67.2 Other... 48.2 53.8 General university services Chief admin services... 0.0 0.0 Senior admin services... 4.8 4.4 Admin officers... 7.2 12.0 Admin assistants... 17.2 23.7 Clerk, typists, etc... 66.9 69.8 Other... 27.9 29.4 Building planning and maintenance Professional... 3.0 6.2 Tradesman... 0.0 0.2 Other... 24.0 23.4 Ground Maintenance... 0.3 3.3 Cleaning and caretaking... 43.4 41.8 Other... 26.7 18.8 Public services... 53.5 55.1 ALL OCCUPATIONS... 35.7 *34.4 (Source: Tertiary Education Commission, unpublished data) * excludes 3.5% (1,090) of the total number of full-time staff where data by sex was not available. Table II.23 PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN IN FULL-TIME OCCUPATIONS IN UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENT OPERATIONS 1977, 1982. Independent operations Women as % of all employees in occupation 1977 1982 Students union, etc.... 61.3 64.4 Student residences... 67.8 *60.8 University press... 64.4 *58.7 University bookshops... 75.8 77.0 Staff club... 76.3 *66.3 Other... 54.7 *47.9 ALL INDEP. OPERATIONS... 62.5 *60.6 (Source: Tertiary Education Commission, unpublished data) * excludes 7.8% (144) of the total number of full-time staff where data not available by sex. Table II.24 FULL-TIME AND PERMANENT PART-TIME ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES 1972, 1977, 1982. Job classification 1972 Total No. staff Women as % of all employees in occupation 1977 Total No. staff Women as % of all employees in occupation 1982 Total No. staff Women as % of all employees in occupation Teaching and research: Professor... 857 1.6 1,072 1.6 1,076 2.4 Assoc. Prof.... 837 2.6 1,147 4.0 1,346 5.0 Sen. Lecturer... 2,245 5.5 2,997 8.4 3,583 8.9 Lecturer... 2,314 13.3 3,011 16.2 2,508 20.4 Prin. Tutor... . . . . 96 54.2 94 46.8 Senior Tutor/Demonstrator... 641 31.4 815 36.0 625 42.0 Tutor/Demonstrator... 1,289 35.8 1,387 37.0 1,163 41.2 SUB-TOTAL... 8,183 13.8 10,525 15.9 10,397 16.6 Research only: Professor... 68 0.0 68 0.0 13 0.0 Assoc. Prof.... 131 3.8 56 1.8 19 21.0 Senior Lect.... . . . . 163 3.5 61 6.5 Lecturer... 568 10.2 491 11.8 413 24.4 Jun. Positions... 748 51.6 877 49.0 979 45.3 SUB-TOTAL... 1,551 30.2 1,662 29.8 1,484a 37.1 TOTAL... 9,734 16.4 12,187 17.8 11,881a 19.2 (Source: Tertiary Education Commission, unpublished data) a. excludes 815 staff at the ANU Research School, where data by sex was not available, and the job classifications were: Professors-65, Associate Professors-52, Senior Lecturers 150, Lecturer-318, Junior Positions-230. Table II.25 FULL-TIME AND PERMANENT PART-TIME ACADEMIC STAFF IN COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION 1977, 1982. Job classification 1977 Total No. staff % of women 1982 Total No. staff % of women Above Senior Lecturer... 627.5 8.4 715.5 9.6 Senior Lecturer... 1,579.0 12.3 2,046.4 11.6 Lecturer... 4,473.0 24.3 5,110.8 27.0 Other teaching staff... 843.0 40.5 598.5 44.7 TOTAL... 7,522.5 22.3 8,472.2 23.1 (Source: Tertiary Education Commission, unpublished data) Mrs SULLIVAN —The tables show for example, that there has been very little improvement in the position of women employed at universities and colleges in both the non-academic area and the academic area from 1977 to 1982-the time span that is used for this table-it may just be because the universities were not advertising vacancies. If an institution's employment pattern is heavily biased towards one sex or the other and promotions and appointments are made almost exclusively from within the ranks of existing employees, particularly for more senior positions one would expect it to take a very long time indeed for changes in the percentage of women employed by that institution to occur. In this context when in the past employment has been overwhelmingly male, that requirement to advertise is an essential one. I wonder how many men who have involved themselves in this debate knew that or had any thoughts about the implications of that aspect. That is what equal employment opportunity legislation is about, that is, affirmative action programs. As I have said before, the program referred to by the Vice-Chancellor was one brought on him by very strong anti-discrimination legislation in New South Wales, and this example is only part of the type of behaviour covered by that Bill. I am aware that several other universities will incur costs amounting to about 20 per cent of the estimate made by the University of Sydney, as a result of the legislation that we are debating today. Those costs will arise from the employment of a couple of people and on-costs. However, those universities are already advertising vacancies and have been doing so for some time, so at least the cost of advertising vacancies is one special to a university which has overlooked for a very long time something very basic to equality. Before concluding, I want to make one further comment in relation to a point that some people have latched on to. I think the provision for reporting to Parliament is a good one. Those people who have said that it is weak, that it is not good enough-that is it is somehow meaningless-have completely overlooked the fact that it is the device we use to make the Ombudsman effective publicly; they have completely overlooked the fact that it is the device that is used to make consumer affairs bureaux in the States effective. Of course, in the end it will depend on who are-or are not-up there in the Press Gallery. It will depend on whether those who write stories on parliamentary reports choose to give this subject some priority. I hope that they will do so, and I expect that they will. I believe this piece of legislation is indeed a very mild version of affirmative action. Whilst late on the Opposition will be critical of some of its details, it has, I believe, sought to accommodate the views of those who have considered this matter. It is quite reasonable. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(5.37) —It is with very great pleasure that I follow the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) and the honourable member for Chisholm (Mrs Mayer) in this debate. I am very pleased to rise today to speak on this Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. It represents a major government initiative designed to remove existing obstacles which prevent women from fully participating in the Australian work force, it is the culmination of an exhaustive process of consultation and discussion and it incorporates the lessons learned from the pilot program which finished in July last year. During the pilot program the participants agreed that affirmative action made good business sense and that it was sound personnel practice. It certainly makes good common sense to me and to many women and men in Australia. Our Government believes that it is important to encourage all employers to conform to the principle of equal opportunity for women in employment. The measures contained in this Bill are similar to those required to be taken by Commonwealth government departments at present. I understand also that appropriate mechanisms are being devised for the same sorts of measures to pertain to Commonwealth statutory authorities. This legislation will require private sector employers of 100 or more employees to promote equal opportunity for women in employment by developing and implementing an affirmative action program. Higher education institutions will also be required to comply with the terms of the legislation. The Bill is based on a program of phased-in implementation and will have only a minimal financial impact on industry. Its effect on women, however, will be significant because it has the capacity to remove the structural barriers which currently confront them in many areas of employment and which limit their potential for advancement. Preceding speakers on both sides of the House have spent a considerable amount of time already on outlining what they deem the Bill to be. Therefore, perhaps I can better employ my time by using some of it to dispel a number of myths surrounding the Bill and to emphasise what it is not. It is not a punitive approach to affirmative action. On the contrary, the Government seeks to foster the development of affirmative action programs in a climate of co-operation between employers and itself. The only sanction in the Bill is the power of the Director of Affirmative Action to name in a report to Parliament any employer who fails to lodge either a report or further information on request. I commend the honourable member for Moncrieff on her comments in that area. I, too, believe that that is a very important sanction in the Bill. Further, the Bill is not a proposal involving reverse discrimination or the use of quotas. Objectives and forward estimates are self-determined by the company or the institution concerned and therefore reflect the requirements of the individual employer. They are not imposed by an outside body, and are not rigid or fixed numbers which must be met regardless of all other factors. They simply represent the employers' own views of what is achievable within a determined time frame. Furthermore, the setting of objectives and forward estimates does not undermine the question of merit. This legislation is based on the merit principle. Sub-clause 3 (4) of the Bill states that nothing in the Bill shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. As Senator Susan Ryan said in the past: . . . critics who claim that the affirmative action program will destroy the merit principle have failed to grasp the fundamental principles of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity. They also present the concept of appointment and promotion on merit in the present system as value free and clearly defined. That is not so. This legislation is not an attack on the family. Criticism of this kind is completely unwarranted but it does provoke legitimate concern amongst those who are genuinely committed to the welfare of children. Contrary to the comments earlier today of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), no woman will be forced into the job market as a result of this legislation. On the contrary; the Bill may actually help her access an opportunity for better pay or conditions in the employment she currently holds, to the ultimate advantage of her family and herself. Of course, it is the case that where mothers are more involved in paid employment fathers may become more concerned with child rearing and domestic duties, although this does not necessarily happen. Such a change in parental responsibilities is something which needs to be worked out according to the circumstances of each individual family and ought not to be regarded as necessarily detrimental to the welfare of children. In some families the father may be unemployed and the mother may be able to obtain a job. In others the mother may be a sole supporting parent. Whatever the particular situation of a family, no general rule of thumb can be, or should be, applied by this Parliament or anyone else to the question of the women working. The individual concerned has a fundamental right to freedom of choice. Surely those women who choose to work or who need to work ought not to have to contend with outmoded prejudices in respect of their role, or to suffer harsh judgments of their capabilities as parents. The Bill is not totally or primarily concerned with women moving into senior or middle management. The affirmative action program is designed to examine all areas of the work force, all occupations and qualifications and all types of work, and to develop strategies to ensure that women in all occupations and industries are included. Under affirmative action legislation such as this, and the programs it will generate in the longer term, barriers which have prevented women from moving across occupations or divisions of any organisation will be examined and, where possible, dismantled. This rethink will enable the employers to utilise fully the skills available in the organisation's work force, both male and female. In devising training courses and selecting the individual employees who are to attend them those sections of the work force which traditionally have been forgotten or overlooked will need to be considered. Naturally, keyboard and clerical staff will be included in any such review. However, I emphasise that no pressure will be applied to force women wanting to work in these areas to change their occupations or to seek promotion when that is not their wish. A reappraisal of occupations which are traditionally female is vital for any strategy aimed at changing the structure and recognition of women's work. Another area which requires close examination by employers concerns the introduction of women into what are seen as non-traditional female jobs. It is hoped and anticipated that affirmative action programs will reduce some of the difficulties confronting women in non-traditional employment and make it less unusual for a woman to be employed in these areas should that be her ambition, inclination and aptitude. Obviously, if we are able to effect a labour market in which women can realistically aspire to any job for which they are qualified we need to ensure that our education system does not continue to stifle girls' expectations for themselves, as the present system often does. As a parent of two daughters I am anxious that this situation be addressed seriously by governments and educators generally across Australia. The spirit underlying this legislation is not new. Nobody on this side of the House pretends that it is. It has existed for many years and has motivated many eminent figures in our country's history-many of whom have been female. Among these was Edith Dircksey Cowan, after whom my electorate was named. Edith was a fighter for the advancement of women in Australian society and for the recognition of their ability to contribute equally in every field of endeavour. Edith Cowan was firmly convinced of the need for women justices of the peace, lawyers and jurors. In 1915 she became one of the first five women magistrates appointed to the Children's Court at a time when women were still debarred from becoming justices of the peace or from practising law. In 1919 the Government finally legislated to enable women to become JPs. In 1920 Edith campaigned through the Press on the Government's failure to implement the Act. Not surprisingly, later that year the Government appointed nine women JPs, including Cowan. She was also awarded the Order of the British Empire in 1920 for her war work. As I mentioned in my first speech in this House, Edith Cowan was the first woman in Australia to gain a seat in Parliament. She was involved in and benefited from the post-war agitation of women's organisations to end the legal bar to women entering Parliament. Legislation was passed in 1920 and in the 1921 elections Edith was one of five women candidates. She successfully contested the Western Australian Legislative Assembly seat of West Perth, defeating the sitting nationalist Attorney-General. In 1923 Edith Cowan introduced a private member's Bill relating to the legal status of women. As introduced it was similar to the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act passed in the United Kingdom in 1919. It laid down that a person should not be disqualified by sex or marriage from exercising any public function, from holding any civil or justicial office, from practising law or from entering any other profession. However, the Bill was amended to outlaw exclusion only on the ground of sex. Marriage remained a permissible ground for the exclusion of women at that stage. Nevertheless, this Bill, which became the Women's Legal Status Act 1923, was a major breakthrough in enabling women to enter law and other professions. I am indebted to Marian Sawer and Marian Simms, who wrote a book called A Women's Place, from which I got some of that information. Edith Cowan was an independently minded nationalist and a pioneer of women's involvement in public life. I am certain that she would applaud the passage of the legislation we are presently debating-although she was never a member of the Australian Labor Party. Likewise, I am sure that many of the working women in my electorate will approve of this Bill, as undoubtedly will many of the men. In concluding I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Senator Susan Ryan for their persistence and their commitment to this historic legislation and for their endeavours to maximise community and employer agreement on the provisions it contains. I proudly commend the Bill to the House. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(5.49) —Before proceeding to my speech on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill I must say that I feel a little overwhelmed, because if the records of this House are examined it will be seen that not many male speakers have had the privilege of following three very eloquent lady speakers who have delivered the views of different sides of the House. It is somewhat amusing to find the Government introducing this Bill which is designed to promote the rights and status of women while it is currently demanding of male parliamentarians that they treat their wives as mere appendages when detailing publicly their extra-parliamentary pecuniary interests. I mention that in passing. Ms Jakobsen —And their husbands. Mr WEBSTER —And their husbands, as the honourable member for Cowan has pointed out. The Government claims proudly that this Bill is a milestone in our nation's legislative history. I can think of a number of reasons why this Bill should cause disquiet in this place and in the community. Notwithstanding declarations to the contrary which have already been made in a number of speeches here today, the Bill ignores policy lessons from the United States which have been documented since the early 1960s. The United States saw policy progress from commitment to equal opportunity, to affirmative action based on informing disadvantaged groups of flexible employment policies, to presumption of employer guilt based on statistical under-representation, to the creation of specific rights legislation and bureaucratic policing bodies and, finally, to the imposition of penalties, quotas and damages. This can be seen very clearly by anybody who cares to make a study of the literature that is available. The United States started out with targets; but, through the incremental growth of legislation and specialist bureaucracies similar to those we are now creating, it ended up with quotas and positive discrimination. Employers in the United States came to know, as employers in Australia will soon come to know, that failure to reach targets was seen as evidence of bad faith and discrimination. They knew that, if they wished to avoid adverse publicity, costly inquiries and loss of government favour, the solution was quotas. The Bill reflects either a lack of proper preparation or an intention to mislead by claiming that there will be no sanction facing an employer who receives an adverse report from the Director of Affirmative Action. To make this point, I would like the House to consider the following scenario: In scene one, an employer fails to submit a report to the Director or refuses to develop a full or partial program and receives an adverse public report. In scene two, individual women, a group of women acting as a class, a trade union and the Commissioner for Sex Discrimination, having been alerted to this employer's discrimination-assumed in this Bill-by the adverse report, lodge complaints with the Human Rights Commission under sections 5, 14, 50 and 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act. In scene three, an inquiry is undertaken by the Commissioner or an officer of the Human Rights Commission and the employer is required to attend a conference, to submit certain documents and to submit actuarial and statistical data concerning employment patterns. He refuses all three demands and so faces personal fines of $1,000 and corporate fines of $5,000 for each refusal under sections 87 to 89. In scene four, the matter is formally referred to the Human Rights Commission by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and an inquiry is held. A summons is issued for the employer's attendance and for certain documents under section 90. If the employer refuses, he again faces fines. If he agrees, he faces either a private or public inquiry where he is cross-examined by the Commissioner's counsel and he must answer all questions or face fines. He is disallowed even his own legal representation. In scene five, the Commission makes a determination finding the respondent guilty under sections 14, 50, 51 and 87 to 90; recommends that the respondent develop an affirmative action program as restitution; and publishes the facts, many of which, whilst supposedly confidential under this Bill, cannot be withheld under the Sex Discrimination Act. In scene six, the Commission instituted proceedings in the Federal Court to enforce its determination. In addition to such pressures, the employer faces industrial action and, in certain cases, similar complaints and inquiries under the proposed Bill of Rights legislation. He can avoid the adverse publicity, cost inquiries, industrial action and loss of favour with the Government if he just develops a program and meets its targets, which he knows are best achieved by watering down the selection criteria and by preferential employment practices. I believe that the Bill fails to define or defend the principle of merit and can be interpreted only as part of the trend to water down that principle. Let us consider the impact of targets, which are wrongly called `forward estimates' in the Bill, on the principle of merit. A target can be meaningful only if it results in appointments of women in addition to those appointments based on normal merit criteria and that could be achieved only by watering down the qualifications required for a position, which is a way of disguising preferential employment. Let it be clear that by requiring targets the Bill establishes henceforth an unspoken, unadvertised criterion for any selection panel or personnel officer who will not be able to resist pressure to prove good faith in reaching the target. The Bill reflects, in the words of Dame Leonie Kramer, an obsession with numbers and the concomitant equation between equality of opportunity and numerical equality. It also reflects the assumption that under-representation of a group statistically is proof of discrimination and assumes in its definition guilt for all relevant employers. The Bill not only reflects a rejection of the possibility that statistical under-representation is the result of social, educational or other circumstances for which the employer is not responsible at all, but also reflects the view that employers should bear the burden of ameliorative schemes. The Bill rejects the possibility that, even without discrimination, skills and interests might be unevenly distributed between men and women; it is confused by the possibility that uneven representation might reflect legitimate and informed choices by individual women. The Bill fails to consider the economic and social significance of work undertaken by women in the home and so fails to develop policy to support women who choose that job opportunity and who wish to pursue excellence in that field. It reflects the attitude of this male dominated Cabinet that work in the home is not real labour. The Bill indicates the failure by the Government to make a judgment as to whether there is a socially preferable mix of home duties, occasional child care and casual employment for a woman in the first years of her responsibility as a mother and whether an appropriate review of government policy would encourage such a mix. This Bill is not a milestone, it is a millstone; and this Parliament, the business community and that very group for which it was mistakenly drafted-women-will rue the day that it was placed around this country's collective neck. Of course, the Australian Labor Party could abandon the Bill in favour of an action of far greater symbolism if it really wanted to influence popular consciousness. It could assist Senator Susan Ryan, for example, to gain a safe seat and elect her leader and therefore Prime Minister. But, of course, such an outstanding example of affirmative action-obviously Senator Ryan merits such elevation and is handicapped only by structural discrimination in the ALP-will never come to fruition-- Mr Hand —What about Ms Jakobsen? Mr WEBSTER —Despite the interjection from the honourable member for Melbourne, this will never come to fruition because the right wing of the ALP-I am not blaming the left wing as the honourable member for Melbourne might think-will not give the overriding weight to gender that it demands from private employers. Similar discrimination was revealed by the left wing of the ALP when it worked to have someone other than the Right's choice proposed as Speaker of this House, notwithstanding the social significance of the election of a woman as Speaker, irrespective of ideology. Mr Hand —She was unopposed. What are you talking about? Mr WEBSTER —I am talking about the activities that led up to her being unopposed. I conclude by saying that the Government will not retreat from this Bill, as we all know, and the Opposition has indicated its intention to allow the legislation to pass, notwithstanding its concern as to its inadequacy in certain instances and excesses in others. This being the case, I can only hope that the Government or the Australian Democrats in the Senate at least support the Opposition's proposal to include a sunset clause in the Bill. I believe that such a clause will be the most appreciated aspect of this Bill within months of its proclamation. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(6.00) —I think we can safely say that the Opposition has reached rock bottom over this piece of legislation. I thought that that point had already been reached, but I was wrong. The Opposition continues to slip and slide as it makes up its mind on what it is going to do. The Opposition does not know whether it is coming or going over the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. One Opposition speaker says he supports the Bill and the next speaker says he is opposed to it. What an extraordinary way to run an Opposition. Half of the coalition supports the Bill and the other half says it cannot tolerate the legislation. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and another honourable member-I have not heard him speak yet, so I will not mention the one at whom I am looking-are opposed to it. The simple answer is for them to have the guts to come in here and oppose the legislation, instead of making all these flowery speeches; but they are frightened of the electoral backlash which would result if they voted against it. They should let the people of Australia, particularly the women of Australia, know exactly what they really think of them. The reality is that the people who have made those speeches are opposed to women furthering their opportunities throughout the broader society. It is clear that not all honourable members on the other side share that view, I concede that, but a substantial section of the members on the other side have expressed views, one after another, of opposition to the advancement of women in any area. They have made that perfectly clear. We have heard some amazing contributions. We are lucky in a sense-I am sure the Australian Broadcasting Corporation appreciates it-that this is a broadcast day, because the people of Australia have heard at first hand what some of these people have uttered. If they have not heard it, they can ring their local member of parliament and get a copy of Hansard to read the quite extraordinary comments that have been made, particularly by the members of the National Party of Australia. Those comments should be read and taken note of when people cast their next vote. In discussing this Bill it is worth examining in some detail the sad and sorry history of the coalition's attitude to this issue. It helps us to understand why the coalition is in such a confused and unhappy state on that side of the House. It is a history which, not unexpectedly, involves numerous twists and turns. We should begin with the Opposition's response to the Sex Discrimination Bill in 1983-84. As is well known, the then shadow Minister responsible for the status of women, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), failed to exact bipartisan support for that legislation, even after the affirmative action proposals were removed. In the subsequent free vote, most National Party members and a number of Liberal Party dries voted against that Bill. The response of the dries in that instance indicated just how socially conservative their political philosphy really is. Behind the rhetoric about the free market is a basic philosophical approach which, in essence, accepts the traditional division of labour between men and women. That approach is premised on a market role for men and a domestic-motherhood role for women. For the ever diminishing group of wets in the coalition a small victory was achieved just a year after the sex discrimination legislation was passed, when the Opposition endorsed the Government's Green Paper on affirmative action and agreed to participate in the pilot program. Given the forces arrayed against them, this was a remarkable achievement, and I pay tribute to those members of the Opposition. However, the victory was short lived. Wham-in came the conservatives! The dries had suffered only a minor setback and by September they were ready for the kill. The newly elected Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) wasted no time in clarifying the directions of the coalition. At a Press conference soon after he had disposed of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) he set the record straight on a number of policy areas, including affirmative action. The Leader of the Opposition said then: `I would be extraordinarily sceptical myself, and opposed, in fact, to any kind of prescriptive action.' That was the end of the honourable member for Goldstein and those people who supported him. This position of the coalition was confirmed by Senator Peter Baume, the Opposition representative on the affirmative action working party, who, by this time, had replaced the luckless member for Goldstein as the Opposition spokesman on women's affairs. It was a tragedy for this Parliament that that occurred. Senator Baume issued a minority report on affirmative action legislation in which he made it quite clear that the Opposition totally rejected the introduction of prescriptive legislation. The reason for rejecting the legislation was not because he and the Opposition had doubts about whether legislation was the best course of action to adopt in an area involving attitudinal change. No, it was much simpler than that, and I want Opposition members to listen. I do not think even the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) could understand this. It was because Senator Baume and the Opposition considered such legislation to be unnecessary regulation of the private and tertiary sector. So the Opposition way back then, opposed any advancement of women. Let us not beat around the bush, because that is quite clearly the position of the Opposition. Opposition members can butter it up and make flowery speeches in here, but that is the overwhelming majority position of the Opposition. This response is a perfect example of the dogma of economic rationalism being employed yet again to protect and justify the continuation of sexual inequality and mainstream social conservatism. Once that opposition to legislation became the official line, some of the more neurotic fringe within the coalition ranks let fly with what they really believed about the place and role of women in society. We heard some of that today from the honourable member for Maranoa in an extraordinary speech. I hope it was covered by the media. A number of the Press came in and took notes, and I am sure that they will publish it. Then we had from the honourable member for Franklin another pearl. He will be best remembered for his late night television interview after a recent wedding in Tasmania, where he- Mr Slipper —I wish to take a point of order. Is it in order for one honourable member to refer to another honourable member as a fool? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — I thought the honourable member said `a pearl'. Mr HAND —I said `a pearl'. You are so damned ignorant in Queensland that you would not know the difference between a fool and a pearl. Perhaps if you looked in the mirror you might see it. Mr Slipper —I take a further point of order. I resent the inference in that statement and I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honour- able member for Melbourne will withdraw. Mr HAND —That he is a pearl or a fool? I will withdraw both and we can reach our own conclusions on what he is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honour- able member for Melbourne will withdraw. Mr HAND —I withdraw. (Quorum formed) Before I obviously dented the pride of Opposition members, I was attempting to remind them of what some of their people had said in relation to this Bill. I am interested to see the shadow spokesman on affirmative action from the other place here to hear about the appalling performance by some of his colleagues. The honourable member for Maranoa said that the solution was to spend more money on kitchens and to keep women in the kitchens. He was answered by a close relative of his who put him straight the next morning on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation AM program I understand that it was some time before he went back to Queensland because he had some explaining to do about what he really meant. He was also severely criticised by Senator Vanstone, a Liberal Party senator, for his actions. If people would like to read his speech they should contact their local member and get a copy of it. He is a man who I understand is pushing hard to take a more senior position on the front bench for the National Party and is engaged in the leadership tussle in that group. He made some of the most outrageous comments about women. This should be clearly understood. The honourable member for Franklin talked about his challenge to the leadership. This happened late at night after a wedding when he was interviewed recently on the 60 Minutes program. He was reported as making some quite extraordinary comments, that women are not physically fit to carry out certain things, that they cannot stand the sight of blood. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) is another person who made an extraordinary speech. I hope all the women in his electorate read what he had to say. It is quite clear that his attitude to women is back somewhere in the nineteenth century. We are trying to bring him out of that time into the modern day type of thinking. We are trying to educate those honourable members opposite. It is extremely difficult but we are prepared to try so that when they represent their electorates they will have a great understanding of the needs of women. Time is very short in this debate and I did want to continue at great length about what those honourable members opposite had to say, but it is hardly worth it. The fundamental question must be asked: Will the National Party oppose this legislation? Is it going to vote against the legislation? I hope members of that Party do not make these great speeches because they are on air and let the people back in the electorate think that they will oppose it and then come in here and not have the guts to have their names recorded. I want to see members of the National Party vote against it, so that we can show the people what their real position is. I think an interesting phenomenon has occurred in this debate and it is this: An inverse relationship has developed between knowledge of affirmative action and outspokenness. By and large the loudest and most virulent opposition to affirmative action legislation has tended to come from individuals who have the least knowledge and understanding of what it will mean in practice. The examples I have given demonstrate this clearly enough, but the following definition of how the legislation will work by none other than the honourable member for Maranoa-and I have to keep quoting him because he is such a good spokesperson for the National Party's position-says it all. He believes that if a factory has a 100 men, it has to employ a hundred women to balance the 100 men by dragging more women out of the house. What a ridiculous, stupid statement to make. That is not what the legislation says. Members of the National Party come in here, mouth off and do not even take time to read the legislation. The honourable member for Gippsland was a classic example; he was pulled up a couple of times during the debate because he obviously had not read the legislation. That was an example of the National Party's poor contribution. People ought to read what some honourable members have had to say. National Party members did not take time out to read the legislation. They just parrot off and think that that is going to win them votes in the electorate. Quite clearly, it will not. Much to the horror of some honourable members, the Opposition has officially shifted its ground. Shifting ground is a very difficult thing for the Opposition. Honourable members opposite are normally considered very slow, but on this issue they have outdone even their normal performance. One day they will support it, the next day they will not, then they will again. Then we hear undercurrents; we hear of little secret meetings of the National Party and threats to roll the leader. Then they put out the gem of all; a joint statement by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) saying that they have overcome their difficulties and will speak against it, move the odd amendment and vote for the legislation. Today they have all come in and have rejected the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). They have turned their back on the old leadership-they are gone. The Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party have been rejected. Members of that Party have rolled the agreement they made with the Liberals and they are going to vote against it. What a shambles. How do the Liberals feel about this? They have to justify this lunatic fringe within the Opposition. I wonder how much longer the Liberal Party can afford to carry around such liabilities as the honourable member for Maranoa and the right honourable member for New England. Obviously the right honourable member for New England is a liability because members of that Party will not abide by his agreement with the Liberals. I am quite sure honourable members on this side will join with me in supporting their continued presence in the Opposition for a very long time-the longer the better for Australia. I think that becomes clearer every day. Their outbursts are an almost watertight guarantee that the Labor Party-that is this side of the House in case those honourable members opposite do not know-will remain in office for many years. I address my remarks to the substance of some of the amendments to this legislation to be moved by the Opposition. One of those proposed amendments seeks to change the title to `The Equal Opportunity in Employment Bill'. The purpose of the Bill is for equal opportunity and should be so specified. The Government completely rejects this proposed amendment. If that concept of affirmative action is removed, the very guts of the Bill will be destroyed. The Opposition obviously knows that and that is why it intends to move such an amendment. The Opposition pretends that it supports a fair go for women and that it is committed to tearing down the barriers against women. We have heard that we should tear down the barriers, to quote Senator Baume. But when the means of achieving that outcome is put in front of honourable members opposite they reject it, undermine it, attack it and drag it down. They drag down any advance that is being attempted for women in our society. They come in here and pretend to do otherwise. There is an exceptional group over there, members of which are known to the Parliament and to the people, such as the honourable member for Goldstein, and they have a good record on this issue. It seems to me that honourable members who oppose this legislation either fail to understand the concepts involved in affirmative action or they understand them very well but are completely dishonest when they say that they support equal opportunities for women. The Opposition has claimed that the title of the Bill is dishonest. I contend that those who oppose the Bill quite clearly are the ones who are dishonest. The reality is that affirmative action provides the means for remedying the pattern of the disadvantages experienced by women in the labour force. It is not only consistent with equal opportunity but is essential to its achievement. For the purposes of the legislation, affirmative action involves the introduction by employers of positive programs which are designed to overcome the sometimes hidden and systematic discrimination found in apparently neutral employment practices as well as addressing the more obvious forms of discrimination faced by women. This is not a piece of social engineering. It will not impose unnecessary regulation on employers nor lead to greater inefficiencies. The very opposite is true, as thinking members of the Opposition know full well. The Opposition will also move to amend the provisions relating to the trade union consultation and to lighten the so-called regulatory burdens imposed upon the employers. Those proposed amendments are completely at odds with the establishment of effective affirmative action programs. The regulation imposed upon employers could hardly be described as heavy-handed. Any further reduction would basically create a voluntary system which is, of course, exactly what the Opposition wants. Such a system is completely unacceptable to those on this side of the House. As for the proposal to exclude trade unions, what else would we expect? God, strike these people opposite would not know how to make a boss angry. Almost none of them has had to work on a factory floor. Those opposite would not know what it is like to work in a canning factory or a textile factory. Most honourable members opposite would not know what it is like to start work at 11 p.m. Mr White —You would be very wrong there. Mr HAND —I said `most'. Most honourable members opposite would not understand what it is like to work at home all day and to work in a factory at night. Mr Andrew —Nonsense. Mr HAND —The honourable member would not know; so he should not say he does. He is privileged. Most honourable members opposite have had a privileged spoon-fed life. To say that the trade union movement of women should not be allowed to have these sorts of changes is a total outrage. Those opposite will be condemned at the ballot box for their performance in this House. They have engaged in two-faced, slick politics, and they do not even have the guts to say in their contributions that they will vote against it. They come in here mealy-mouthed and pander to a conservative electorate back at home. The women in those conservative electorates will vote against them because on this issue they are wrong and they will be proven to be wrong. Consistently in this place there is a feud over there. The feud is about conservatism versus progression in the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Goldstein and the people who support him will win because the people of Australia will keep us here in power for a very long time. The conservatives are trying to attack the leadership of the National Party. God help us-it is a measure of how bad things are going when they try to roll someone as conservative as that lot. The honourable member for Gippsland is destined, like Dad's Army that sits behind him, to grow old in opposition. He will be there for a long time. He will probably never move to this side of the House and he is 21 1/2 years of age now. It is a pity that I do not have 40 minutes in which to speak because I am up to only page 14 of a 28-page speech. I am proud to be associated with this legislation. I am sorry to have had to waste the time of the House by devoting so much of my speech to talking about what the Opposition has done. It is important that people listening to the debate understand what honourable members opposite have said. If people get a copy of what they have said they will see what that lot on the other side of the House really think about women. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr McGauran —A great member. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(6.21) —I thank the honourable member for Gippsland. (Mr McGauran). It is always interesting in this House to follow a speaker such as the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the leader of Moscow corner or the BLF Norm Gallagher faction of the Australian Labor Party-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Fisher shall withdraw that remark. Mr SLIPPER —Which remark, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Fisher is aware of what he is required to withdraw, and he shall withdraw. Mr SLIPPER —Mr Deputy Speaker, if it is offensive, I withdraw However, it must be of dubious comfort for you to know that the honourable member for Melbourne has said publicly in this House that he supported you in your election for the position of Deputy Speaker. Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I wonder whether you could clarify for me and perhaps for others why you requested the honourable member to withdraw that remark? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I requested that the honourable member withdraw, and the honourable member withdrew. The honourable member for McPherson heard the exchange. There is no point of order. Mr SLIPPER —It is indeed a sad day for this country when we find this bumbling Government bringing this sort of legislation into this Parliament. It is a sad day when the Government of Australia is not game to stand up and bring into Parliament the legislation it threatened this nation with such a short time ago in relation to affirmative action. We in the National Party of Australia are 100 per cent in favour of equal opportunity. No doubt our opponents will endeavour to suggest that our commitment to equal opportunity is less than complete. But that is incorrect. Indeed the most sexist party in Australia today is without doubt the Australian Labor Party. We were elected to represent our constituents in the House of Representatives in the Federal Parliament. It is a tragedy that we are being asked to support bad legislation under the threat of being branded as being anti-women. It is outrageous legislation. We do not apologise for being in favour of-and I will repeat this over and over again-equal opportunity because we believe that in today's society it is the right of anyone, regardless of gender, to be able to seek and obtain a position on the basis of merit. We find that this legislation endeavours to say that we should discriminate in the cause of anti-discrimination. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honour- able members will cease interjecting and listen to the honourable member for Fisher in silence. Mr Sharp —It's a great speech. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for his perceptive remark. I am opposed to this legislation on a number of grounds. Firstly, it is constitutionally dubious. Secondly, affirmative action is reverse discrimination and incompatible with true equal opportunity. Thirdly, I am opposed to the cost to business and increased bureaucratic regulation which will result from the implementation of this legislation. It is of note that the Government is desperate to grasp every possible constitutional head to try to justify this legislation becoming part of the law of the Commonwealth. One has only to look at clause 5 of the legislation to find that the Government has gone from the corporations power right through to broadcasting. It has even hit upon the external affairs power. The Tasmanian dams case resulted in a win for the Commonwealth on the basis of a 4:3 majority in the High Court of Australia in regard to the external affairs power. With the current change in composition in the High Court-and the High Court, of course, changes in composition from time to time-it is by no means certain that a future High Court deciding a case on similar grounds would come to the same conclusion. So this Government has been grabbing at every straw in the wind to try to justify the basis of this legislation. The treaty power-the external affairs power-is contained in clause 5 (a). It states: By virtue of this sub-section, this Act has the effect it would have to the extent that this Act is appropriate to give effect to, or carry out the purposes of, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a copy of the English text of which is set out in the Schedule to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The people of Australia are sick and tired of this Government endeavouring to subvert the Constitution by signing an international convention and then crawling into this chamber to say that Australia must give effect to its international obligations. We believe that it is wrong to try to circumvent the Constitution by dubious means. It is quite wrong for the Commonwealth to expand its area of legislative power by signing conventions and then trying to use those conventions as the basis for taking legislative authority away from the States. So there is a question as to whether this Bill should be debated in this Parliament at all or whether it is a matter which is appropriate for discussion in the State parliaments of this country. It could well be, because of the extensive litigation which will no doubt result following the forcing of this Bill through the House and through the Senate, that it will be an expensive exercise for the people of Australia. I am pleased and proud to be able to stand in this Parliament and join my National Party colleagues in opposition to this Bill. This legislation, in fact, initially affects universities as from 1 August this year. It affects businesses or corporations with more than 1,000 employees from 1 February 1987. It affects businesses with between 500 and 1,000 employees from 1 February 1988 and business with between 100 and 500 employees from 1 February 1989. Mr Cobb —Where will it end? Mr SLIPPER —Who knows where it will end? The Confederation of Australian Industry has stated that it is opposed to small business being included. Small business is not included at this stage. But will it be next on the Government's hit list? Are the small businesses of Australia, which are presently languishing under the highest real interest rates in 50 years and which are going bankrupt at an unprecedented rate as a result of the disastrous policies of the Hawke Labor Government, to be the next on the Hawke Labor Party's hit list? What is going to happen next year and the year after? I believe that this legislation is simply the thin edge of the wedge. The National Party has no hesitation in allowing and in fact encouraging women to participate in all Party areas. In fact, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) mentioned today, the Federal President of our Party is Mrs McKerrow. She has led our Party successfully in that capacity. Indeed, the people of Australia who are listening to this broadcast will no doubt realise that the National Party has, in the various parliaments throughout Australia, the greatest representation that it has ever had. We saw the cowardly and sordid attack today by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on the Queensland Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs, Mrs Yvonne Chapman. It is a sad day when a man comes in here and attacks a lady who is without doubt one of the best Ministers we have in Queensland. She is in fact the first woman ever to be appointed to the Queensland Cabinet from any party. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SLIPPER —Before the suspension of sitting for dinner, I was about to point out that the National Party is a party which always emphasises the role of women, a party which ensures that women in fact take their rightful place in society and, indeed, in government. I referred to the cowardly attack by the Minister for Social Security on that excellent Queensland Cabinet Minister, Mrs Yvonne Chapman, the member for Pine Rivers, who represents a State electorate which is partly within the Federal division of Fisher. (Quorum formed) I thank my colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) for calling for a quorum to ensure that a large number of Government members come into this House to listen to the very important and the very worthwhile matters I have to deal with relating to this Bill. I was saying that Mrs Yvonne Chapman is an excellent Cabinet Minister in Queensland and I referred to the utterly cowardly attack upon her earlier today by the Minister for Social Security and that she represents Pine Rivers, a State electorate which is partly within my Federal division of Fisher. I have had the pleasure of working with Mrs Chapman on many occasions, and I have no doubt that Mrs Chapman will be in parliament for many years to come. We on this side of the House recognise the role of women. We do not knock women in the way the Australian Labor Party seems to in so many ways. We have in the National Party Senator Lady Bjelke-Petersen. She is a person who would not have an enemy in the world and who is making a tremendous contribution, not only to Queensland but indeed to the whole of Australia. I ask honourable members to contrast our attitude to Senator Flo with the attitude of the ALP to Dame Leonie Kramer, the lady who was in charge of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation until she was given the chop by Labor. Is that affirmative action on the part of the ALP? Is that the approach which it would have us believe it supports? The lady did a good job. She competed on an equal basis against the whole world, and the people who gave her the chop were in fact members of the ALP. It is a tragedy that that happened. The people of Australia recognise the tremendous contribution of Dame Leonie Kramer. I am certain that they will not forget the treatment she received at the hands of the Hawke Labor Government. This legislation is opposed by wide sections of the Australian community. The Confederation of Australian Industry is opposed to it and, quite appropriately, has drawn our attention to the confusion under which the Government seems to labour. It gets mixed up between equality of opportunity and the goal of equality of outcome. The CAI has pointed out that it is opposed to the Government's legislative approach. The Country Women's Association of Australia is also against what the Government is trying to inflict upon the men and women of Australia. I wish to read into Hansard the text of a letter dated 20 February 1986 from Miss Dorothy D. Ross, National President of the CWA. She said: My dear Prime Minister, The Country Womens Association of Australia is concerned with all matters affecting the welfare of women and consequently has made an exhaustive study of the Affirmative Action Legislation. In the process we have consulted with both men and women in country and city areas in order to arrive at a balanced judgment. Members of the Country Women's Association from throughout Australia have considered the matter having been following the matter since the release of the discussion paper in May 1984 and Volume 2 in June 1984. The Country Womens Association of Australia does not support the proposed Affirmative Action Legislation. Details of our objections and reactions to the proposals are set down in our submission. No legislation can alter attitudes and the dangers of efforts to enforce employment of women by private business with threats of punishment if the laws are infringed is seen by us to offer up more problems than the legislation can solve. That is the attitude of the CWA. The Business Council of Australia is also opposed to the legislation. That very important group of women-members of the National Party Women's Section-are 100 per cent opposed to what the ALP is trying to impose upon the people of Australia. I mentioned the Confederation of Australian Industry has made its opposition clear. I quote from the CAI News of March 1986: CAI has made clear at all times its unequivocal opposition to affirmative action legislation. Legislation of this nature is unnecessary and divisive, and in the long-term will be completely counter-productive. It will involve the imposition of further cost burdens and regulatory requirements on industry at a time when the inflation rate is double the level of that of our major trading partners, and when Australia has severe balance of payment difficulties, and excessively high interest rates and levels of unemployment. The Government could well take note of what the CAI has said. The Government should note that inflation in this country is not coming down the way it has in other places. The Government should take note of the bankruptcies which are being forced on business in Australia, and it should change its policies. But what does it do? It crawls into this Parliament with yet another Bill which involves not less regulation but more regulation of business and more costs. Businesses will now have to report to a person called the Director of Affirmative Action. We are told that it will cost $1.5m in the first 12 months to run the office of the Director and 25 people will be employed initially. We all know how the bureaucracy tends to grow and grow and grow. The people of Australia will note what the Government is doing in this regard. What will happen if the companies in this country refuse to go along with what the Government is suggesting? They will be named in the Parliament. We will have shades of McCarthyism. The Government will come into this Parliament and it will name those people who refuse to go along with what it is advocating. There will have to be more consultation with the trade union movement. What we should be talking about is the right of a person to join or not to join a trade union, but the Government is enshrining yet again into legislation the obligation to consult trade unions. We in the National Party are strongly in favour of equal opportunity. We remain strongly in favour of equal opportunity, but this Government seems to have a down on those women who have made a contribution to Australia, those women who chose to remain in the home and raise their families. We believe that a woman should have the right, if she wants to, to stay in the home or, if she wants to go to work, she should also have that right. Margaret Thatcher, who if she lived in Australia would be a member of the National Party, recognised the role of women in the home. She stated: Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country. We know the tremendous amount of good Mrs Thatcher has done in the United Kingdom and we should recognise this fact once and for all. We have been elected to represent the people of Australia. This legislation is garbage legislation; it is rubbish legislation. It fails to achieve its aim of equal opportunity and it should be consigned to the scrap heap. I have no hesitation in joining my National Party colleagues in opposing this legislation. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(8.11) —We have just heard a brilliant exposition of the kind of moronic objection that any type of legislation of this sort will attract from the people from the side of politics of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). We heard that women ought to have the right to stay at home, as if this legislation involved any elimination or reduction of that right. Really, what this legislation seeks to do is to remove- Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I object to the honourable member for Sydney calling the honourable member for Fisher a moron and I ask that the remark be withdrawn. Mr Baldwin —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not refer to the speaker as being a moron. I referred to the remark as being moronic, and there is a distinction. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I think that there is offence taken on the other side of the House. I would ask the honourable member for Sydney to withdraw it. Mr BALDWIN —I withdraw. This legislation really seeks to remove the impediments to women taking their proper place in the work force and having the same access to employment opportunities as men have. It does not make any statement about whether or not women should stay in the home. It was the honourable member for Fisher who made the statement that existing impediments to women's advance in the work force ought to remain and, therefore he is the one who is seeking to place an impost on women. The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill is a continuation of the Government's commitment to equal employment opportunity for women. It follows on from the Sex Discrimination Act, which was introduced in 1984 and did not include affirmative action provisions. That was quite deliberate at the time in the sense that it was felt desirable that the maximum possible consultative process should be gone through before this legislation was adopted. Since that time we have had the operation of a pilot program and a most extensive consultative process. I do not think anybody could object to the processes which have been adopted in order to introduce this legislation and the processes leading up to its being placed before the House today. A number of concerns have been expressed about the legislation. Far from it being seen as some kind of draconian attack on the family, there has been quite cogent criticism of the legislation coming from such women's groups as the National Women's Consultative Council, and also from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which feels that the Bill has not gone far enough. It cites a number of aspects where it thinks the Bill could go further, and I mention three. Firstly, it believes that the Bill ought to cover private companies with fewer than 100 people. Secondly, it believes that the penalty provisions ought to be somewhat tighter. As things stand, really the only sanction is the possibility of being named in Parliament. Thirdly, some concern has been expressed by the organisations to which I have referred about the length of time for first reports from private companies. For example, companies with between 100 and 499 employees do not have to produce their first reports until 1 February 1989. So in fact a number of objections have been expressed by organisations representing women on the basis that in some respects the legislation lacks teeth. I believe that this Bill is a step in the right direction, and the sort of processes that have been followed in the formulation and development of the legislation, particularly the consultative processes, have been very good. The object of the Bill is to assist able women to have real opportunities in the pursuit of their employment and careers. The Green Paper, and I refer to Volume 1, page 3, defines affirmative action for women in employment as follows: A systematic means, determined by the employer in consultation with senior management, employees and unions of ensuring the achieving of equal employment opportunity for women. Affirmative action is compatible with appointment and promotion on the basis of merit, skills and qualifications. I think the reference to the merit principle is worth emphasising. It is simply not the case that this legislation seeks to place women in positions for which they patently might not be qualified. The legislation does not constitute discrimination against men or discrimination in favour of women. What the Bill does have as its underlying principle is a recognition that women have been and currently are discriminated against in their employment and that methodical, deliberate and positive steps need to be encompassed in legislation in order to redress this unacceptable situation. The Bill recognises that women are disadvantaged in the work force because in Australian society they are, firstly, differently educated from men, generally to their detriment in employment; secondly, the child bearers and, almost invariably, the child rearers of the family; thirdly, the ones who carry the major burden of family responsibility, whether or not they are in paid employment; and, finally, are less likely than their male counterparts to be promoted to managerial positions. The Bill attempts to ensure that these factors are taken into account by employers rather than being used against women. Where possible, and in a gradual manner, work place programs and practices would be altered to accommodate women's situations. For example, where women leave the paid work force to have children, this period would be recognised by the employer as being valuable and therefore credited to her work history rather than being seen as time out from constructive labour. Surely the educational, planning and managerial skills that are strictly necessary for the successful running of a home and the rearing of children should be acknowledged by employers, because these skills are certainly to their advantage. In relation to this issue, specifically as so many women and their organisations constantly point out, women cannot possibly have equal employment opportunity and affirmative action without readily available, good quality and flexible child care. The Government is working actively on this and is making excellent progress towards its goal of 20,000 more child care places by 1988. This Bill, quite rightly, is not about quotas, because they have been proven in the United States and elsewhere to be counterproductive in that they sometimes mean that unsuitable, inappropriately or inadequately skilled people are appointed to positions simply to satisfy quotas. Generally, this was to the disadvantage of both the employer and the employee. However, the Bill is about realistic goals and objectives which will be set by the employer in consultation with management, employees and appropriate unions. I think it is worth emphasising the point about quotas. Certainly, when the matter was discussed a few years back within the Australian Labor Party-I can recall the National Conference in 1981, which carried a resolution favouring the introduction of affirmative action-we saw the adoption of a program that talked about making available to a woman one safe seat in each State per parliamentary term. A few of the advocates of affirmative action in the parliamentary party turned distinctly pale at that suggestion and, as things turned out, nothing further has been heard of it. Quotas have the effect of devaluing the positions that women obtain on the basis of merit and, far from establishing desirable role models, they tend to create a situation where positions which might have been obtained by women on the basis of merit are devalued and the view is taken that those positions were not legitimately obtained. I think quotas would be directly counterproductive. This legislation seeks something rather different from that situation. It seeks to adopt positive programs that will have the effect of removing the impediments to women's advance in the work force. As such, I think it is perfectly reasonable legislation, and the screeching we have heard from the ultra-conservative section of the Opposition needs to be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(8.20) —This is not affirmative action in terms of the 1981 Sex Discrimination Bill of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). That provided for affirmative action in both public and private employment and was favoured by Article 4 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The United Nations Convention talks about temporary measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women not being considered discrimination; that is, actual discrimination against men should not be regarded as such. The Government sensibly dropped the affirmative action proposals from its 1983 Sex Discrimination Bill. The Government's Green Paper outlining the need for affirmative action was then issued as a prelude to public debate and the introduction of the legislation now before the House. It should be remembered that it is the strongly held position of private sector companies, including the 28 companies in the Government's much-publicised pilot program, that legislation is unnecessary. It should also be recognised that the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill now before the House can only touch a minority of the work force in the private sector. Sixty per cent of employees in the private sector, of course, work in businesses which have fewer than 100 employees. These businesses are the backbone of the nation. The 28 companies participating in the Government's pilot program made a joint submission to the Representative Working Party on Affirmative Action Legislation in which they said: We believe that a voluntary self-managed approach for business is a practical and viable alternative to legislation. We believe there are a number of advantages in the Government showing strong support at this stage for the voluntary approach. Such an approach would be widely accepted by the Australian community. It would be consistent with government policy on deregulation and it would create a positive environment for women in the promotion of equal opportunity ideals. The advantages seen by the companies in continuing with a voluntary, self-managed approach included: It would be more appropriate to the current economic climate. A voluntary program would be more acceptable to the electorate and some union members at a time of high unemployment. A voluntary program would be cost effective. It would not require a bureaucratic enforcement process, nor would it impose rigid and inappropriate demands in particular circumstances. I should like to contrast these views with those expressed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in a series of motions which were passed at a Special Unions Conference on Affirmative Action in October 1984. These included: That in the event that a company involved in the Government's affirmative action pilot project fails to properly consult with the appropriate unions on that company's program, the ACTU will assist those affiliates involved to mount a campaign to ensure that adequate consultation occurs. That the ACTU and its affiliates as part of their involvement in the Government's affirmative action pilot project, give priority to the unionisation of those work places covered by the project where eligible employees are not members of the appropriate union. The ACTU, in its submission to the Working Party on Affirmative Action, said it saw affirmative action as an industrial relations issue. The ACTU sought, and has been granted through this legislation, the ACTU's requirement that compulsory consultation with unions by employers be embedded in the Bill now before the House. It is akin to the head of John the Baptist being handed to the ACTU on a plate! The very organisation which sees affirmative action as an industrial relations issue, which demands that employers consult with unions on this issue, will frequently find itself locked in consultation with itself. And why? Because women in the union movement are notable by their absence from the top levels of the union movement in Australia. Australia's wage fixing system has been developed, since 1906, on concepts put forward by a male dominated trade union movement, and assumptions that the full time male breadwinner had a dependent female and children, and should receive an adequate wage. Australia should be looking to a more flexible approach of setting wages and conditions, with the objective of accommodating the aspirations, and often the dual roles, of women in the work force. All too often the conditions of work are set with a nine to five, five days a week mentality, whereas a more flexible and practical rearrangement of hours and conditions could make women's lives easier, more satisfactory, and provide much greater job opportunities. For instance, the application of a basic hourly rate would assist women to gain either part time or full time employment. I am pleased to see that the Bill makes it categorically apparent that the employers have the right to make jobs available on the basis of merit. This important criteria is contained in the legislation and set out quite clearly in Clause 3 (4), and I quote: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. It is interesting to note that the Women's Electoral Lobby has stated that it sees 10 dominant issues in 1986, starting with affirmative action. WEL's list of priorities ranges across issues as diverse as equal pay for work of equal value, child care availability, legalised abortion in all States and a Bill of Rights. Last on the shopping list is education opportunities for women, including technical and computer courses for girls in schools. This list of issues is, of course, upside down. In my opinion, the creation of education opportunities for females is the major challenge, not only for this Government but for all governments. If women are to enter and compete in the labour market on an equal footing with men, they must be educationally equipped. They must be prepared for the roles envisaged by this piece of legislation. The business community wants to employ the best people for particular jobs. That usually means people with the best skills. It does not matter what sex they are; it does not matter what their ethnic origin is. What is important is that Australia uses its human resources to the greatest effect in order to maximise its economic and social potential. Adequate education for females, the right education, must therefore be the foundation on which any equal opportunity program for women is built. Without an affirmative education program for females, all the rhetoric about women making up 40 per cent of our work force, but holding only 2.5 per cent of the administrative, executive and managerial positions, will come to nought. Helen Hughes in the 1985 Boyer Lectures identified this educational problem and brought it sharply into focus when she said: The training of women is dominated by outdated attitudes. They are not entering highly paid trades such as plumbing or electronics in significant numbers. It is rare to see a female crane driver or commercial pilot. The Air Force has difficulty in recruiting women for its electronic maintenance needs. In tertiary education women still enter predominantly women's occupations such as nursing and teaching, and they are not well represented in engineering, economics or graduate studies. A large part of the Australian education system still encourages girls to opt for second class citizenship. They do not take their career prospects seriously. Many are still afraid of appearing to be `too clever'. Schools are not doing enough to prepare girls and boys for a society of equals. Most Australian girls now in school are going to spend 40 years or more in the paid work force. They need training for the same occupations as boys. If they miss out on education while at school their work will be largely in `women's' occupations, earning less than men of equal ability. The equal employment opportunities Bill, introduced to overcome so-called discrimination in the work force, will not in fact affect the availability of jobs. That is determined by the distribution of job opportunities throughout the community. The availability of jobs for women is the main deterrent for women seeking jobs. For instance, there has been a reduction in the number of jobs in the traditional female dominated areas of clerical, administration and retailing, by the introduction of new technology such as computers, word processor and photocopying equipment. Nor will this Bill lead to a large number of females in the work force realising their full potential. That will only be achieved when governments in Australia-both Federal and State-acknowledge that the doors to greater job opportunities for 40 per cent of Australia's work force cannot be opened fully until the wage fixing system is freed up and a full range of educational opportunities created. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(8.30) —I do not intend to go over again the details of the legislation as referred to by many previous speakers. Rather, I feel that it is necessary to give an indication of the reasons that this legislation is necessary, in view of the negative comments and attitudes expressed by members of the Opposition in relation to the need for and effects of affirmative action legislation. In brief, affirmative action is necessary because women are still extensively oppressed and discriminated against in our community. The aim of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill is to provide encouragement to employers by means of mild legislation-and I stress that it is mild-to employ women in more representative numbers in senior middle level positions rather than allowing the process to take its so-called natural course. It is felt that this so-called natural course would be far too slow. The argument one often hears against affirmative action is that women should continue to wait and that over time they will be occupying senior positions in proportionate numbers. The question is, however: How much longer do they have to wait? One estimate is that, without programs such as the one we are discussing, it would take another 200 years for women to achieve full equality with men in the work force. At the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Conference held in Canberra in May 1984, Leoni Still and Jennifer Jones claimed that anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity policies had made very little difference to the position of women in the labour force, especially in relation to management positions and that if present trends continued without further action the year of equality would be 2180! The Government believes that is not good enough. Numerous studies of employment statistics in this country have demonstrated that, despite women possessing equal skills and qualifications, in the majority of cases they are not able to reach levels equivalent to male employees, in private enterprise as well as in Public Service and educational institutions. A Sydney academic, Dr Gabriel Moens, has written a book entitled Affirmative Action-The New Discrimination. In it he says that, if concerns for the rights of minority groups and women is carried too far, affirmative action could lead to reverse discrimination, that is, discrimination against males. We have heard that kind of prejudicial comment made in this House over and over again, but the fact is that that is not the case and it does not apply to this legislation. Unfortunately, however, there have already been intimations within the Public Service of a male backlash, and that has been due to a lack of understanding of the aims of the affirmative action philosophy. It is not intended to give women-and nor do women want it-any unfair advantage. The intention of programs such as affirmative action is rather to remove the structural barriers which exist and which discriminate against women achieving any greater representation in the upper levels of bureaucracy and industry. (Quorum formed) Before that nonsensical quorum was called I was making the point that, without affirmative action legislation, it would take 200 years for women to achieve equality in the work force; that is the reason that this legislation is absolutely essential. Jane Elix, the national Co-ordinator of the Women's Electoral Lobby, said: Affirmative action is making sure that the merit principle is held to-that the person who is the most qualified for the job gets it . . . they are not going to promote women over the head of men who are more qualified. All it means is the removal of barriers to equal employment opportunities. It is not going to mean that men are going to be losing their jobs and women are going to be taking over. This, of course, is contrary to the foolish comments of honourable members opposite. As I have said before, there are various forces which act against women in achieving their full employment potential, beginning with the educational system, which has been shown to militate against equality for girls and culminating in the structural factors within the work environment. The Government is taking steps to alleviate these disincentives within the education system by means of the participation and equity program being implemented by the Commonwealth Department of Education and the development by the Commonwealth Schools Commission of a national policy on education for girls. Further, there is the problem of breaks in continuity of employment due to child rearing acting against seniority and promotional opportunities. It has been suggested that there is a need to do here what is done in some other countries in relation to credit for years of service, whereby the years taken off from employment for child rearing are counted as equivalent years of service experience. Our failure to do this is an indication of our society's undervaluing of women's skills. The skills required for managing a household should be taken into account in considering a person's total experience. Obviously other factors operate to deter or delay women continuing to contribute and to utilise their academic and vocational training. One of the factors involved is that the time that women spend away from the work force for child rearing purposes delays their careers and in some cases completely deflects them from those careers. As a nation we cannot afford to allow half the population, in whom a considerable economic investment has been made in terms of education, to waste their skills. Of course, some women prefer to remain out of the work force for family support reasons, and it is their right to choose to do this. However, those who do not wish to follow that course of action must not be deterred, as they have been, by the existing employment circumstances. To a large extent, allegations of unreliability due to absenteeism by women can be attributed to the lack of provision of universally available child care facilities. The Labor Government has made a commitment to provide 20,000 new child care places in subsidised centres throughout Australia by 1988. But this will still mean that less than 10 per cent of children under five years of age in this country will have access to full day child care. We must recognise that in 1983 an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey found that 37 per cent of females who wanted to work would have done so had adequate child care facilities been available. Further, we must recognise that this country cannot afford to underutilise the intellectual and vocational capacity of 51 per cent of its population. In the affirmative action discussions that have taken place I note that consideration has been given to work based child care as a partial solution to this problem of impending heavy expenditure by governments for child care places. However, I point out that surveys that have been carried out on this matter have indicated that the majority of women-and parents-still have a preference for child care centres to be located near their homes rather than near their places of employment. I feel it cannot be stressed too often that the provision of child care facilities by government is absolutely fundamental to any program of the kind we are discussing. It is a waste of time establishing any such program if the matter of child care is not taken into consideration and given due prominence in rearrangement of the working conditions which women face. The Age editorial of 22 February, referring to this legislation, stated: The legislation is admirable. However, it would make more sense if it was also accompanied by a more effective and extensive child care program. There is not much sense in asserting the right of women to enter or work their way up in the workforce if their family responsibilities prevent them from exercising that right. I therefore support the extension of child care as a very important part of achieving the goals of this legislation. These are some of the structural barriers against women: Firstly, a system based on seniority rather than merit; secondly, a system which relies on continuity of service as an indication of performance and capacity to achieve; thirdly, a system within which until only 20 years ago, for example in the Commonwealth Public Service, it was required of women to resign after marrying and to convert a permanent position into a temporary position if they wished to continue their employment; fourthly, a system which did not, until recently, recognise the need for adequate child care. That structural barriers against women do exist can be extrapolated from the discrepancy between the academic performance of women at secondary and tertiary levels and the final result which they achieve within their employment. For example, in 1983 females represented 41 per cent of law students. However, the percentage of lawyers who are women is only 11.4 per cent. Some 42 per cent of students of medicine were women but only 17.6 per cent of medical practitioners are females. Within the work environment factors such as selection procedures need to be altered. It is not sufficient simply to have one woman on each selection panel, even though this minimum requirement is often very hard to achieve in itself. This can be held to be tokenism. There is a need to achieve attitudinal change in order to avoid this situation, often the only concession to affirmative action. It is often said: `Okay, we have a women on the panel in a middle management position-on the board of directors or in Cabinet-therefore, we do not need to have any more. We have made our gesture'. There is a need for ongoing monitoring of the situation and for going beyond sheer tokenism. I commend the Victorian Government's approach. In order to overcome the lack of applications from women for important positions the Government of Victoria and the Premier, Mr Cain, have developed an action plan wherein names of women considered suitable for senior positions are provided to departmental heads. Mr Cain has said that a big problem in moving women into new Public Service positions is that in 34 per cent of advertised positions there are no women applicants. The Victorian Government now has a register of the names of 1,500 female public servants held on computer at the Equal Opportunity Unit of the Public Service Board to provide potential candidates for senior positions. It believes, not that there is discernible bias against women at the interview stage but that the problem was obtaining applications from them. Under the new system, if there are no women applicants for a position the head of a department can invite women on the register to apply. The action plan for women in the Victorian Public Service, since its establishment in July last year, has resulted in a increase in the numbers of women in senior executive positions from 5 per cent in 1983 to 13.5 per cent in 1985. In the coming year the action plan will be extended to the full public sector to overcome the lack of representation of women on Government boards and authorities. The Victorian Government sets the example for all governments in this country in its implementation of affirmative action for women. Permanent part time employment provisions such as those affecting Commonwealth public servants, which are in the final stages of legislation at present, will be of great benefit to women. I commend them. In November 1984 79.8 per cent of all part time workers were women. To date part time employees-most of them women-have been most seriously hampered by the non-availability of superannuation, the lack of workers compensation cover and the loss of promotional opportunities due to breaks in service. Part time workers so far have not had access or entitlement to study leave or participation in management training programs. Peter Wilenski, the Chairman of the Public Service Board, is reported as saying of this program in the Australian Financial Review of 22 January: In discussions of this program, distinctions must be drawn between targets and quotas. This legislation does not require the imposition of quotas, which are mandatory, and require selection of a certain number of people from a particular group regardless of merit. Targets are an estimate of the number that might be selected if barriers are removed and positive steps such as recruitment and training programs are undertaken. Selection for each job . . . continues to be based on the relative merit of the applicants. In speaking of the opponents to legislation of this kind, Peter Wilenski also felt it necessary to say: It is relevant to ask why these new found defenders of non-discrimination remained silent during years of massive discrimination against women and disadvantaged groups in the workforce. This discrimination (now often of a more subtle and systematic nature) still remains a major barrier to efficiency and equity in Australian workplaces. This is the question that needs to be asked of members of the Liberal and National parties who have made speeches here today and said: `We are really in favour of equal opportunity for women. We don't really want discrimination, but this Bill is discriminatory'. I ask them where they were for the many years when they were in government. Why did they not do anything to help promote opportunities for women in these areas? They now sit in this House and pretend that they believe in equal opportunities for women. What a nonsense. Those honourable members who have spoken against this legislation are full of hypocrisy in their claims that they believe in equal opportunity. As soon as we introduce anything in an attempt to achieve these goals they are totally opposed to it. The response by participating organisations in the working party on affirmative action legislation in general has been favourable. In fact, the Australian Council of Trade Unions stated that the legislative proposals were not as strong as it had advocated. Did honourable members opposite hear that? It said that they were not as strong as it had advocated. It considers that all employers should be covered by the legislation and that a range of sanctions and penalties should apply to employers failing to comply with the legislation. The ACTU welcomed the Government's legislative proposals as an important step towards the achievement of equal opportunity employment for women, but it certainly did not get its own way as claimed by the many speakers in this debate from the National Party. Even the Business Council of Australia stated: . . . equal employment opportunity for women is a social change issue critical for Australia's future growth and well being. It identified the need for critical steps to be taken to reassess and upgrade the status of women in business and to eliminate obstacles and influence attitudes which had in the past limited their opportunities. Overall the Government's initiative in establishing this program was welcomed by the Business Council. In academic areas, the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee supported the legislative proposals and recommended that all universities be covered by Commonwealth legislation. The Australian Committee of Directors and Principals of Advanced Education agrees with these views, as do other education bodies. I repeat my opening remarks: Affirmative action legislation is necessary. It is necessary because women are underrepresented in the middle and higher levels of bureaucracy, industry and management. The United Nations Decade for Women is now over, but this should not mean that women no longer need to be given equal employment opportunities and it is no reason for men to think that women will stop demanding them. The legislation goes some way towards redressing these inequities in the social system and employment environment which prevail in this country. I strongly support this legislation and urge the House to do so. Mr MILES(Braddon)(8.50) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I-- Motion by Mr Young put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N, Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen,B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Dawkins, J.S. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. GEdwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A.G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R. Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C. Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Uren, T. Hurford, C. J. West, S. J. Jacobi, R. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. J. Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C. Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Poter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack,P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Spender, J. M. Milton, P. Cowan, D. B. Keating, P. J. Jull, D. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 (Short title). Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.00) —Every woman in Australia needs to know that the Government thinks so little of affirmative action that it has just voted to close the debate. The total hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party is such that it has neither the wit nor the capacity to perform. Government members have all the will to try to pretend that they believe in the causes they affect, yet not one word of what they say is worth two bob. The Labor Party is so retrograde in its attitudes, so backward in its views, and so inadequate in its expression of them, that it has brought into the House legislation which it regards as a symbolic measure but which means nought. The Government has come in here with a bode of ill will which is designed not to advance the cause of women in our community, but to pretend that there are a few women in this community who really have been working hard in order to establish their place in society. The Labor Party in government could not give two bob about them. If the Government is prepared to close the debate on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill, it really does not have either the wit or capacity to pretend to get the support of even that 50 per cent of our population whom all on this side of the House not only regard highly but also believe participate more than equally in everything that goes on. The first amendment stands in the name of the Opposition spokesman on this matter, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I move: (1) Clause 1, page 1, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Short title ``1. This Act may be cited as the Equal Opportunity in Employment Act 1986.''. This amendment is designed to ensure that those who for the time being, albeit briefly, are in government accept the fact that this is not an affirmative action Bill, nor is it a Bill designed to implement anything like equal opportunity; it is designed to pretend that the Labor Party at last cares. Government members have gone out wearing their hearts on their sleeves and have neither delivered nor performed. It is about time that they lifted their game and started to perform instead of pretending. I suggest that in the title we should delete the words `Affirmative Action' so that the pseudonym of the Bill will be the Equal Opportunity in Employment Bill 1986. We might then get a little closer to the realities. This piece of legislation should never have been introduced into the Parliament, not because we do not believe in the cause but because the Bill does not even pretend to implement that cause. We on this side of the House believe that the cause can be achieved properly if people are honest and genuine in representing women in this place. Unfortunately, the Labor Party does not accept the idiocy. What it calls the affirmative action Bill is a Bill which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said would be inadequate. The Government presented this Bill only because it was unable to have what it wanted accepted by Caucus and the Parliament. The only way in which we can impose reality in this situation is to delete `Affirmative Action' and replace it with the new title of Equal Opportunity in Employment Act 1986. I suggest that is more what this Bill seeks to achieve. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said in the debate earlier today, if this objective had been achieved by voluntary means, without the obligations that regulations impose, we would all be a lot better off. Far too many costs are imposed by the sorts of measures this Government wants to take. We have to look only at the farmers, small businesses and home owners in this community to realise what the Labor Party is imposing on them. It is about time the Government started to deliver instead of talking about it. The least we can do is to modify what is supposed to be an affirmative action program to something that is a little more symbolic of what it is supposed to be. I do not believe that the Bill is necessary or that it will promote equality between the sexes, but let us at least call it what it pretends to be-the Equal Opportunity in Employment Bill 1986. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(9.05) —It is interesting that the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), has objected to the very first clause of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. He wants to change the title to the Equal Opportunity in Employment Bill. I say that this Bill's title is the correct one, because that is what we are talking about. Mr Beale —Where is the affirmative action in the Bill? Mr HOLLIS —I notice that the Liberal Party of Australia is now starting to interject. I thought that the Liberal Party was supporting this Bill. I can understand that many members of the National Party are not supporting it; really, they are playing to the gallery today. Over the past three days some farmers have been here and the National Party members have played to the gallery. The Leader of the National Party has come in this evening and played to the gallery again. We know that the right honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) are on the skids in their Party and some of the young Turks from the National Party are putting up their arguments. Mr Beale —Where is the affirmative action in the Bill? Mr Slipper —What about your farmers? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) -Order! I draw the attention of honourable members to the Standing Orders, which indicate clearly that honourable members are entitled to be heard in silence. More importantly, for the Chair to acquit itself in terms of its responsibilities to the Committee, it must hear what the honourable member is saying. The Chair is having difficulty in that respect, so I ask honourable members to refrain from interjecting and to reduce the level of their conversations. Mr HOLLIS —They are such important words that it is important that not only you, Mr Deputy Chairman, but all members hear them. The members of the National Party are objecting not only to the first clause but also to the whole Bill because they are terrified that some of the women will take their seats. We heard today some members of the National Party assuring us that there is no discrimination in their Party. I ask how many women members are in this chamber representing the National Party. We have the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and other women members on our side-we have put affirmative action into practice-but not the National Party. Another member who has been interjecting quite a lot is the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). The honourable member said today in an interjection that this Bill is garbage. I tell him that I originally came from the area he now represents. Many of my family will be listening tonight and he can rest assured that they will not vote for him, especially as he regards this Bill as rubbish. It is important that we retain the title of the Bill as set out in clause 1, because we are talking about affirmative action. For an example of where affirmative action is needed, let us look at the universities. It always amazes me that the media pick up just one speech. We have had a long debate on this Bill, yet the Sydney Morning Herald today picked up the speech of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman). It was not the most brilliant speech ever delivered in this House, but the honourable member for Wentworth was talking about all the feminists at universities. He said that he did not believe most universities needed affirmative action. It is interesting that only in the past couple of weeks the first woman vice-chancellor been appointed to a university in Australia. It happened to be in New South Wales-another one up for New South Wales. If we look at the number of senior lecturing staff and academics at universities, we will find out how many women are there. We should look also at the top section of the Public Service. I see the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) here tonight. He would agree with me that in the area that he represents, which is the area that I used to represent, there are about seven local government areas. There is not one female town clerk in his electorate. There are only three local government areas in my electorate and there is only one woman in a senior position in local government. The town in my electorate in which a woman holds a senior local government position is Kiama. It has a female town planner. So who says that affirmative action is not needed? Of course it is needed. Honourable members opposite can look at any criteria they want-look at newspapers. On the wall in my office I have a list of people accredited to the Press Gallery. There are 234 names on that list, of which 34 are women and 200 are men. So who says affirmative action is not needed? We can criticise aspects of this Bill. I have criticised aspects of it, but what I criticise is that it does not go far enough. We know how many rednecks are over there in cockies' corner, and we know that over the last couple of days they have been playing to the public gallery because the farmers have been here. I cannot understand how the National Party can be opposing this Bill when the women of outback Australia have built up the farms. If there is one place where Australian women have really played their part it is in the rural community; yet we have these male members of the National Party opposing this Bill. We even have the Leader of the National Party wanting to change clause 1 of the Bill. As I said, the Bill in many respects does not go far enough; it should go much further and there should be stronger measures in it. As the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) said, there should be accompanying legislation dealing with child care and things like that. At least it is a start. My belief is that any kind of legislation that attempts to redress the imbalance has to be supported. I put it to members of the Liberal Party and the National Party: Why is it that they think that women in Australia are less intelligent and less capable than say women in Scandinavia, in Great Britain and in most European countries? Honourable members opposite have condemned themselves with their own words. Honourable members interjecting- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! Honourable members are not responsive to the exhortations from the Chair. They must be mindful that the Chair has a reluctance to intervene, but the Chair is in charge of the Committee. If honourable members persist with their outrageous interjections and disorderly behaviour, it leaves the Chair two options-to progressively name members and have them suspended from the chamber or, alternatively, to suspend the sittings of the Committee, which would be seen as a grievous reflection on the conduct of honourable members. I ask honourable members to behave in a manner consistent with their role as parliamentarians. Mr HOLLIS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I endorse your words entirely. It is really a great pity-and I do not want to be provocative; far be it from me to be so-that members of the National Party try to dish it out when a humble member such as I tries to put them on the correct track by pointing out a few of these things and how important this legislation is. As the seriousness of the situation hits them the only response shown by them-this shows their lack of intellectual vigour-is to interject and try to howl a member down. We, on this side of the chamber, will not be howled down. We support this legislation. Many of us would have liked to see it go further, but we accept the realities under which we operate. It is good legislation. As I have said, any legislation that attempts to redress this imbalance is to be supported. I do not agree with the amendment moved by the Leader of the National Party. I commend the legislation to the chamber. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.15) —I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). I would like everybody in Australia who has followed the debate on this legislation to note that the Hawke socialist Government is so cynical and so uncaring about putting proper law on the statute book that it has gagged the debate and eliminated 22 members of Her Majesty's Opposition-- Mr McGauran —Loyal Opposition. Mr HODGMAN —Loyal Opposition, who wished to speak on the Bill. Twenty-two members of this Parliament were listed to speak in the second reading debate on this Bill. As soon as the Government saw that the heavy stuff was coming into action-and we have had some magnificent speeches this evening-it gagged the debate and guillotined 22 members of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. Mr Slipper —How many? Mr HODGMAN —Twenty-two. I have said it before and I will say it again: Given time, that coat of arms over the Speaker's chair will be replaced by a hammer and sickle or a completely new coat of arms with a bandicoot on one side and a ferret on the other. I now come to the direct matter which is the clause. This Bill is fraudulently described. It is a classic example of false advertising, fraudulent misrepresentation and utter deception. I say quite bluntly that those who have been most betrayed by this Bill are those who have worked hardest for it. I take a devil's advocate brief for the women of Australia who genuinely but, I believe, with respect, erroneously believe that this Bill will serve their cause. They have been shockingly and shamefully betrayed. This is not an affirmative action Bill. I believe the Leader of the National Party did this Parliament a great service tonight when he made the first and fundamental point that the title is a fraud. Dr Theophanous —Rubbish. Mr HODGMAN —I will come to the honourable member for Calwell in a moment. He has a big surprise ahead of him before he is much older. I believe that honourable members opposite are so incompetent that they have not read the Bill, they do not understand it or they have become accessories after the fact to a cruel and monstrous deception. Some of them who raced into the chamber to speak in the debate are in for a very big shock, because just before I came into the chamber I was given-it arrived anonymously, I will admit-a notification of some of the proposed affirmative action that is going to take place on the benches of the Hawke socialist Government which, of course, after the election will become the Hawke socialist Opposition. I will read into the Hansard the seats which have been listed, which are currently represented by male persons but which will be represented by females after the next election. On top of the list is the seat of Calwell in Victoria. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is about to be removed on the grounds of sex. On the list in the State of Western Australia is the seat of Moore. In New South Wales, would the Committee believe, the seat of Lowe which is currently represented by Mr Maher will, after the next election, be represented by a female. The seat of the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) is on the list. He will go along with the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin). The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) will become Ms Geraldine Hand after the next election. He is on the way out. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), one of the most inoffensive members of the Government I would have thought-- Mr Slipper —Ineffective. Mr HODGMAN —Ineffective? No, inoffensive. I am sorry, Dunkley is to be taken over by a feminist member after the next election. But the Australian Labor Party has not set its sights low. Just listen to the last three on the list given to me. The seat of Blaxland-do not tell me that the ferret is about to be removed-we are told, will be represented by a member of the female sex after the next election. In the seat of Port Adelaide, Michael becomes Michelle. Michael Jerome Young will become Michelle. He is out. Last but not least-and heavens this gives me pleasure-is the seat of Batman. Mr Hand —I raise a point of order. We are discussing a Bill. We are not discussing redistribution and this speech is totally irrelevant. I ask you, Mr Deputy Chairman, to ask the speaker to get back to this very important Bill. If the honourable member wants to crack jokes he perhaps ought to go back to the bar. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The question of relevance is a challenging one for the Chair in all situations but some latitude exists to challenge the contents of clause 1. However, I must confess that I was becoming persuaded to the view that the honourable member was finding it difficult to sustain strict relevance. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Chairman. I can understand the concern of my friend Geraldine. I might say that I have come to the end of the list. Batman will be represented by Batwoman after the next Federal election. Hopefully, she will be on our side of the House. It will not be the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). The Minister with his gold fillings, and his assets test and his knock, knock, knock will be gone, and the sooner the better. Mr Deputy Chairman, I come back to the clause. In speaking to the title of the Bill I want to emphasise-and this is basic and fundamental to the Acts Interpretation Act-that the title of a Bill represents to the people of Australia what a Bill is about and what it does. The title of this fraudulent legislation before the Committee tonight is a misrepresentation of grotesque proportions. It is a misrepresentation almost as bad as the sex discrimination legislation which came through this Parliament on an earlier occasion under the colours of the Hawke socialist Government. If I believed in affirmative action, if I were a supporter of the feminist cause, if I believed that it was necessary to pass a law to win that cause and if I had worked my heart out for the last three years to get this Bill to the barrier, the first person I would brand as the greatest hypocrite in the history of Australian politics is the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), because he promised those people that they would have affirmative action. Mr Cobb —Another broken promise. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member is quite correct. He promised Senator Ryan that he was genuine about the issues for which she had worked and worked. I disagree with Senator Ryan and I think everybody on this side of the chamber would disagree with her. But one must give credit that she has worked and toiled for a cause in which she passionately believes. Mr Downer —She has been deceived. Mr HODGMAN —And she has been deceived. The Prime Minister is exposed as a deceiver and seducer of the feminists of Australia. Mr Chynoweth —I take a point of order. I would like that withdrawn. Opposition members interjecting- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The wishes of the honourable member for Dunkley in the matter will not be treated with contempt. But the fact of the matter is whether or not the remarks contravene the standing orders which preclude reflections on the character of another honourable member of the House. The Chair is inclined to accept that the honourable member for Denison was using those terms, together with the term `hypocritical', which is coming into increasing use, in a rhetorical sense. However, I would urge him to express himself, as he is well able to do, in parliamentary language. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Chairman, I am grateful. The point has hit home. The strongest argument against this clause is the argument that the title is a deliberate fraud and misrepresentation. People ought to know that we are not permitted, during the Committee stage, to speak on the whole ambit of the Bill. I certainly do not intend to rise on every single clause. However, 22 members of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition wanted to speak on this Bill to put views both for and against its varying provisions. Because we cannot, I conclude by supporting the amendment proposed to clause 1. The Bill is a fraud. It does not achieve the purpose for which it was brought into this place and which the Government said it would achieve. It will further regulate employment in this country, it will add costs to industry and it will keep thousands and thousands of decent women out of the work force. It is totally counterproductive and fraudulent legislation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(9.25) —I rise to address the Committee with a great deal of enthusiasm which is stimulated by my deep inherent respect for women. I do not want women changed. The people opposite have over the years exploited certain sections of the community to their own political advantage. Whether we call the legislation before us the opportunity in employment Bill or whether we call it the affirmative action Bill, the motives of members of the Australian Labor Party are similar to those they have demonstrated in the past. First of all it was Aboriginals. I can remember sitting at the table on duty as a shadow Minister and listening to the the then Leader of the House, still a very well-known figure who is in public life, saying at 2 o'clock in the morning when someone got up to speak on some Aboriginal Bill or other: `Oh, bugger me. There is not a vote left in the bastards'. They are the words that were used. The Labor Party then exploited pensioners. However, pensioners did not fall for that because they remember that during the Great Depression of the early 1930s-I admit that another one is looming-the Labor Party reduced the pension. So honourable members can see that the Labor Party has used pensioners as well. Now it is the turn of our womenfolk and so-called equal opportunity. My purpose in addressing the Committee is to point out what will happen as a result of the greater incentive for women to get into the work force. God bless women. I think we began the whole operation to recognise women, their rights and their status. The person on my left, the Serjeant-at-Arms, Lyn Simons, is the greatest proof of all. I do not think there is a person in the House who could disapprove for one moment of the fact that our Serjeant-at-Arms and our Speaker are women. I say-and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) stated this so well during the debate this afternoon-that if the family is to be put at risk we should forget this legislation. If opportunities are going to be created and if women are to be suitably employed in suitable occupations well and good. Some honourable members opposite-and I hate to use this word-are so totally hypocritical. I do not refer to all of them because there are some nice blokes on the other side of the chamber. I am referring to the people who make the decisions. They sacked Dame Leonie Kramer. All Australians know that she was not only a national figure who demanded the focus of respect throughout this nation but also a person who was internationally respected. What did they do? They appointed a deputy chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation whose name was Wendy. I am too much of a gentleman to expose again to the Committee this lady's most infamous claim to fame. Let us forget that because I am too much of a gentleman. However, I say to you, Mr Deputy Chairman, to honourable members and to the people of the nation that this country is continuing to slide to the status of a banana republic. If we examine the operations of this Government we will see how standards are being destroyed. The one big danger in all of this is that the attraction for people to abandon the family will be so great that women will lose their God-given gift-that is to be a feminine person, to be lovable and to take their place in the home and not be a chattel. Honourable members opposite will play that up. They will ask: `What does Katter want? He wants a woman in the house to be a chattel'. Regrettably I lost my first wife and I married again. My wives have been anything but chattels. They have been pretty good captains of the ship most of the time. Let me reiterate: Whatever the motives of this Bill may be, and they are quite hypocritical, they infringe on two things, as does the Bill of Rights. They infringe upon free enterprise, they upset the whole basic balance of business and they could destroy the family. Destroy the family and the nation is destroyed. Honourable members should think about that. That is what occupies the minds and hearts of my Party the National Party, and the Liberal Party. We constantly think of the basic security of the nation, which is based on the family. After all, 50 per cent of the members of the work force are women. I wonder how this great necessity for change has come about. This Bill is purely hypocritical. It is purely an attempt to exploit another section of the community. The Aboriginal issue was used until there was nothing left; as one former member said, there was not a vote left in the bastards. The pensioners were then exploited. Mr Slipper —Who said that? Mr KATTER —That comment came from a former Leader of the House. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member is fast losing relevance. I remind him that we are talking about the specific question of the short title of the Bill. Mr KATTER —Mr Deputy Chairman, if I am losing relevance I think I have said all that I have to say. I respect the Chair and I conclude on that note. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(9.32) —Mr Millar, as you rightly pointed out, we are tending to get away from the substance of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. I believe it is important to come back to what I think is one of the central points, and that is that the affirmative action program is to be based on merit, not on quotas or targets handed down by regulatory bodies. It is rather important that that point be looked at in a great deal of detail because, quite frankly, the notion of merit, which is, as I said, central to the Bill, encourages a reappraisal of how that merit should be addressed in terms of job suitability. If one talks to many of the women who are participating in the work force at present and to many of those who would like to do so, one finds that they are vitally concerned with how job suitability is considered and how, when they go for jobs, they are examined in terms of suitability. Let us take the case of women who for one reason or another leave the work force, be it to have children or whatever, and come back to work. Often very little consideration is given to how effective those women have been in their other lives and to the training they may have picked up during their time away from a specific job category. It has often been said-I think some people during this debate have also said it-that even a home environment offers a learning experience and certain qualities and characteristics can be brought back to a specific employment area because of that time away from that area. Indeed, many women take the opportunity when they are out of the specific work force to improve qualifications and to go on to higher learning. Many have taken the opportunity to enter universities as mature-age students. Mr Hollis —At the university at Wollongong. Mr MARTIN —At the University of Wollongong, as my colleague the honourable member for Throsby indicates. They go to improve their qualifications, not because they are somehow inferior but because they want to be treated as equals. They want to be seen by their peers as having particular relevance to the life-style that they wish to embrace. There is no competition with males. We have long gone past that. What we are talking about in this case is affirmative action to ensure that women are given a fair go. I know that that is an appropriate term, given that the Government is publicising this matter widely. This legislation will give them a fair go. Dr Peter Wilenski has commented on a number of question associated with merit. He has been quoted as saying: Merit has become an important tool of those in power for maintaining the status quo. He has gone on to say: Standards of merit, either deliberately or unconsciously, often were based on the values, style and priorities of the dominant male groups in the organisation. Sadly, that is true. The point was made very succinctly by Hester Eisenstein, Assistant Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment in New South Wales, when she said employers must: . . . cease the practice of discounting women's achievements, or of thinking (and saying) `but a woman couldn't stand the pressure' or `but a woman wouldn't fit in with this group of employees'. Quite frankly, that practice is absolute nonsense. Prior to becoming a member of parliament, as I have said on a number of occasions, I was working in the New South Wales Public Service. Mr Hollis —A distinguished career. Mr MARTIN —A distinguished career, indeed, over nine long years. The person to whom I reported directly in the organisational structure of the Public Service was a woman. I did not regard her with any form of animosity, nor did I think that she was in any way superior. She was an equal and she treated me in the same way. It just so happened that in the structure she had a position that required her to have supervisory capacities, and she performed her tasks with great aplomb. I am pleased to say that the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning is probably one of the greatest adherers to the concept of equal employment opportunity in the whole of the New South Wales Public Service; at least it certainly was in the nine years when I was working for that organisation. It is true that, while women are still more likely than men to leave the work force for a few years, on re-entering the work place they are often penalised for gaps in their employment and no credit is given for the skills acquired by them during that time. Employer prejudice is evident in statements such as that women employees are more committed to their families than to their jobs, that they will leave when they marry or when they have children and that there is a higher staff turnover with women. That any of those claims are accurate is likely to be a reflection of the poor conditions and prospects experienced by women in the work place. How true it is that for so long in so many organisations, women have not been able to progress through organisations and seek the levels that they more properly should attain. On talking to many of these women one finds that all they are seeking is to be treated with equality. They are looking for the opportunity to be judged on merit. If they go for positions in the work force, they wish to be examined by selection panels and judged on merit. They do not want simply to get a couple of extra brownie points because they are women or, conversely, to get marked down some brownie points because they are women. They are looking, in fact, for equality. This Bill will go a great deal of the way towards ensuring that this will happen. This Government is also concerned-this was pointed out in a number of speeches from honourable members on this side of the House this afternoon, not least of which was the contribution from the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous)-about the supply side of the equation and it is actively promoting the education of women for jobs in non-traditional areas. I think that is rather important, because for too long we have tended to categories women as being appropriate for certain jobs. Whilst they have eminent qualifications for those jobs they have not been given opportunities in other areas. The Commonwealth Schools Commission, to its credit, aims to develop a number of educational measures, such as a national policy on the education of girls, the Girls into Engineering project, an equal distribution of traineeships, the reduction of occupational sex segregation in traineeships and, finally, the collection of data on the outcome of girls' education. The existing participation and equity program has already gone some of the way along this road. Of course, the community employment program has also given women training for a broad range of non-traditional jobs. Very recently, I had the opportunity to tour around my electorate looking at some of these CEP projects which, I am sure, are near and dear to the hearts of those who sit on the National Party benches. It was with a great deal of pleasure that I had the opportunity to talk to a number of people in jobs provided under CEP projects. It was quite surprising to see the number of women who were participating in non-traditional roles. A number of women were employed on the construction of a cycle way in Camden, which the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) is coming to open next week. While I was talking to them they said they absolutely loved the job because it gave them the opportunity to be outside and to participate in something somewhat different from the traditional role. Yet these people were just normal, everyday women with families who, unfortunately, were at the wrong end of the employment scale. They were getting a great deal of benefit from the opportunities presented to them. In conclusion, this Bill before us does not so much dictate what must be done by companies; rather, it says that they must consider the issue, set targets which they deem suitable and appropriate and then report to the Government annually on how they are going in relation to those targets. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. To use the argument of efficiency, at least this approach can only maximise the use of the talent available for all given positions rather than subconsciously restricting the pool of suitable applicants by defining `suitable' in terms of what has been done before. I think that is a very important point. Too often people going for positions in the work force, particularly women, are assessed on what happened before. There is no going beyond that to look at other skills that might be brought into an organisation. I believe that this legislation goes part of the way towards repairing that position. I believe that the whole question of merit is central to this issue and is one that should not be glossed over or treated glibly, or indeed criticised because it is seen as being something which it is not. I certainly commend this Bill to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(9.41) —I support the Opposition's amendment, which seeks to change the name of this Bill to the Equal Opportunity in Employment Bill. I think this matter of changing the name of the Bill is important. By changing the name, instead of having a description which, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) pointed out, is grossly misleading, the Bill will have an honest description. Some time ago the Government spoke about the need for so-called affirmative action programs, and I refer particularly to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan), who made it perfectly clear that her understanding of affirmative action and what the Government was about was to introduce a system of quotas and a system of positive discrimination. As a result of a great deal of pressure from the Opposition, from the business community, and indeed from all over Australia, the Government has had to make an ignominious retreat from its original intentions. In other words, the Government has caved in to the pressure of the Opposition in terms of its original and quite unconstructive proposals. Those proposals of affirmative action, of quotas and positive discrimination, would have been patronising to women and would have reduced rather than enhanced their standing. I welcome the fact that the Government has abandoned the original proposals put forward by Senator Ryan, but I think it ought to be honest about this matter and ensure that the name of this Bill reflects what it is really about, namely, equality of opportunity. Of course, in general terms-this can be raised later-regardless of the costs this Bill imposes on the business community and so on, the whole concept of equality of opportunity is a vastly important concept. As a member of the Australian Liberal Party, it would be wrong of me to make any suggestion that I did not support very fundamentally that concept of equality of opportunity. I believe in the importance of the individual and, to be consistent, I must also believe in equality of opportunity. I also recognise that in Australia, over the past one-and-a-half centuries, women have not always had the equality of opportunity which, in my view, they obviously deserved. There has been a very strong case over the past few years for employers to be encouraged to ensure that equality of opportunity exists in the work place. That has been in progress and schemes have been developed. In particular, I refer to the scheme developed by the Business Council of Australia, which is designed to enhance the equality of employment opportunities in the business community. I would have to say that I still get the feeling that there is a need in the community to change some attitudes towards women, and that does not apply solely to employers. Those attitudes also need to be changed in the councils of the trade union movement, that body so beloved by those on the other side. Those attitudes do have to be changed, but they must be changed in a persuasive, constructive and progressive way. They do not have to be changed continually by big brother government imposing more and more regulation on the community. I, along with most members of this House, recognise that over the past decade or so Australia has undergone enormous social change and, whether one likes it or not, the stereotype view of women is a view that is really no longer applicable to the real world. One has only to look at statistics to see precisely how that social change in Australia has happened and the full impact of that change. An advertising firm called Clemenger produced a very interesting report in 1984 which was based on surveys conducted in relation to women in Sydney and Melbourne. That survey produced some very interesting results. It showed that only 36 per cent of all women over the age of 18 years are, if you like, traditional housewives; 39 per cent of women work; and the balance of 22 per cent are over 60 years of age and are therefore, by broad definition, retired. It is also interesting to note that 53.4 per cent of married women work, so there is obviously a very high proportion of married women, many of whom have children, who are out in the work place. Of those who do not work, it is important to understand that many of them want to do so. Indeed, approximately half the women who are not in the work force but are of an age to work would like to be in the work force. In other words, the Clemenger study, which I believe was a very important study and which should be examined by all honourable members of this House, showed that only 26 per cent, that is, around one-quarter, of all women wanted to stay at home; 74 per cent of women, that is, three-quarters, either wanted to work or in fact do work. Some honourable members may think that women who are out in the work place feel guilty about being in the work place. The survey showed that only one woman in ten felt any sense of remorse or guilt about being in the work place. To deny choice to women, to step back from providing equality of opportunity, is in my view to spurn the desires of 74 per cent of the women of Australia. Make no mistake about it: According to this survey and certainly according to the anecdotal evidence I have, the careers pursued by these women are enormously important to them. Some 68 per cent of women, or nearly 70 per cent, said in that survey that a career was as important to them as it was to a man. In other words, women believe very passionately in equality of opportunity and they deserve to have that equality of opportunity brought home to them. It is also interesting to look at the attitudes of women towards their total lives and to compare the attitudes of women who stay at home with the attitudes of women who are out in the work place. It is sad to report that, in general terms-of course, no two women are the same; they all have different views about this-the survey showed that women in the work force were more satisfied with their lives than women who stay at home, and women in the work force were shown overwhelmingly by this survey to be people who had a much greater sense of freedom than those who stayed at home and a much greater confidence in terms of their social standing. When trying to understand the problems of our society in a mature way, I think it is important to understand what the real desires, in terms of employment opportunities for women, really are. It is my contention that this attitudinal change of women is an attitudinal change which is likely to expand in the years ahead. There is all sorts of evidence that suggests that that is the case. For example, looking at the sort of women who are going out and pursuing a career, those women tend to be very much younger and they are women who, I might also say, tend to have tertiary education. So if we take the view that there should be more education in our society and that the younger generation is more oriented towards employment, then clearly this trend towards female participation in the work force, and indeed towards ensuring greater equality of opportunity, is something that is going to go ahead. If we look at the women who do not want to work, in response to this survey it was interesting to see that 67 per cent of those women were over the age of 50 years. So that also suggests that the change is one that will continue. In the couple of minutes left to me, I want to make three brief points about the way I think society needs to adapt to these changing circumstances in our community. Firstly, as is the theme of my speech, we do need to ensure that women have greater opportunities in the work force. There is no doubt that, at the present time, women are predominantly in lower white collar jobs as opposed to upper white collar jobs. That is certainly the case in comparison to men. That seems to suggest, although it is not conclusive evidence, that women are not getting the equality of opportunity that they really deserve. The figures for upper white collar jobs, at managerial professional level, show that 5 per cent of the work force are women and 21 per cent are men. Certainly there is a very disproportionate bias in favour of men. In terms of promotions the same thing can be said. Expectations of women for promotion are very much lower than the expectation of men. So there is a very strong case for a change in attitudes. Women need to be given more opportunities also when they have children. I do not think there is any doubt that married women with children are hampered by the very great lack of child care facilities in this country. At the moment governments are finding child care centres too expensive to fund. So we must look at things such as tax deductibility and more private sector child care centres to cope with that problem. Finally, we need many more opportunities for women in the area of permanent part time work. Awards need to be adjusted to make that possible. We must give women a chance by creating more opportunities for them and ensuring that they have much greater freedom of choice than they currently have today. I think all members of parliament need to understand that times are changing. We must move with those times. We must ensure that women do have the opportunities that society should make available to them. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(9.52) —I want to reply to some of the comments that have been made so far in the wide-ranging debate that has taken place in relation to this clause. I must say I was somewhat surprised by the comments of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), because it appeared to me that there was no particular reason why he should be supporting the amendment. It would appear to me from his comments that he ought to be supporting the legislation. He talked at great length about the need for attitudinal changes. He said some of those changes had taken place, but he said there was a need for further additional changes. He also said there was clearly a need for more to be done. In that case, why is he opposed to the concept of affirmative action which is embedded in the legislation? I must say I was very surprised by those comments. I was less surprised by the comments of some of the previous speakers, especially speakers from the National Party of Australia, who seemed to persist with the idea that somehow all one has to do is maintain the existing processes, the existing situation, and things will improve for women. All one needs to do, according to their view, is to take out all of the aspects of this legislation as proposed in the various amendments which refer to the concept of affirmative action, and put in some vague clause about equal opportunity. They hope in that way to get around the central issue, which is that affirmative action is necessary because women have been oppressed for a long period and it is necessary to do something to support that group in the community. A generalised equal opportunity clause would simply mean that it would be ignored and it would be directed to its goal, which is the promotion of women so that they can achieve the kind of positive goals which they have missed out on in the past. Let me give some facts which underline what I am saying. Even in the Australian Public Service-as was noted on the Four Corners program of 17 February this year-which already has some affirmative action programs, the picture is bleak. Women fill half the positions in the lowly Fourth Division, but only a quarter of the public servants who make it to the Third Division are women, and a pathetic five per cent make it to the Second Division. As for the First Division, there has only been one female permanent head since Federation. So that is the sort of bleak picture which we are facing. Let us consider the private sector. The 10 top Australian companies interviewed by Four Corners were asked how many of their managers were women. The AMP Society has 419 managers of whom 63 are women. Ansett Airlines of Australia has 1,600 supervisors of whom 343 are women. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd has 2,500 managers of whom 54 are women. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has 180 senior managers of whom 7 are women. Caltex Australia Ltd senior management, 35 strong, is all male. Esso Australia Ltd, supposedly a leader in affirmative action, has 140 women amongst its 1,100 executives. IBM Australia Ltd numbers 47 women amongst 960 managers. Qantas Airways Ltd senior executives total 707 of whom 33 are women. The Westpac Banking Corporation has 3,250 branch managers and only 45 of them are women. This is a dreadful situation and obviously one which needs to be changed. The universities do not fare much better when one considers that only 2 per cent of all professors are women. So the picture is clearly quite bleak. The other factor that needs to be emphasised is that often we have the sex typing of occupations. In other words, there are particular occupations which are overwhelmingly dominated by women and there are other occupations which are overwhelmingly dominated by men. This situation must be changed. In the final part of my comments I want to refer to some earlier comments by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who got virtually everything wrong in his comments. Let me refer to one thing that he got wrong. He said that the affirmative action program was nothing more than a quota program. That is wrong because there are various ways in which one can promote affirmative action other than simply by way of quota program. But the other thing that he said was that female workers and trade unionists in employment in factories would not be advantaged by this legislation. He got that wrong as well. The fact is that it is possible for an employer, as part of the affirmative action program, to implement the program to assist women in disadvantaged positions in factories, especially, for example, migrant women. Let me say something about the migrant situation. Part of a program that can be put forward by an employer in saying `We want to do something about discrimination and we want to do something to promote women', is to help the migrant women factory workers in that factory through programs to assist in the teaching of English. It is possible for an employer by way of the affirmative action legislation actually to put forward as part of that program English courses and courses to assist those people to promote themselves in the community generally through the promotion of English. So let us not hear any more of this nonsense from the honourable member for Gippsland, who got it completely wrong, who said that it is just a matter of quotas. There are many and varied ways in which one can promote women through the affirmative action program. I particularly urge employers who have an unskilled work force, especially a migrant work force, to adopt these sorts of strategies because one of the major problems in the promotion of women of migrant background has been the lack of knowledge of English. If employers can meet their obligations to the program through the promotion of English, that will be of very great assistance and will assist those people to be promoted in employment during the rest of their lives. So let us adopt the positive aspects of this legislation. It is clearly an affirmative action program. It is not merely some vague equal opportunity Bill. It is directed towards the promotion of women who have been oppressed and disadvantaged in this community. Therefore, we reject the amendment and we support the original legislation. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.00) —I rise to support the amendment. Perhaps it would be putting it too strongly to say that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who has just resumed his seat, is calling black white, but I point out that the essence of the Opposition's objection is precisely that this is not an affirmative action Bill but a Bill for equality of opportunity for women in employment. That is the purpose of the Opposition's amendment. I indicate that there is a good deal of common ground in relation to this legislation. It has been alleged that there is disagreement to the legislation-and there has been disagreement here today-but certainly there is also a good deal of common ground. Over the past 10 or 20 years women have made considerable strides in the work place-although it should not be wrongly deduced that nothing further needs to be done-have made considerable strides in terms of the participation rate of women and, in an anecdotal way, one can point to the very fact that the Speaker in this place is a woman. Notwithstanding that, members of the Opposition recognise every bit as strongly as do Government members that significant discriminatory practices, traditions, attitudes, conventions, and even legislation, operate against equal employment opportunity for women. I submit that is virtually common ground. Most honourable members on this side of the chamber would also recognise, without in any way downgrading a woman's key role as mother and homemaker, that together with concern for that role women today increasingly also value a job and a career in the same way, one could say to the same extent, as men do. So, I underline the fact that honourable members on this side of the chamber are every bit as concerned as Government members to foster greater equality of opportunity for women in employment. However, one can go about that in various ways. There are two broad ways: One can legislate for a prescriptive mandatory approach, which is what the Government is attempting to adopt with this Bill, but still not going so far as to implement a program of affirmative action, to which I will refer in a moment. The other way, which would be the Opposition's preferred option, is to allow for a voluntary approach to be taken. I believe that the possibility of such an approach achieving meaningful and effective action has, in fact, been demonstrated. I take this opportunity to make clear to the honourable member for Calwell-and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), in the light of some of the remarks that he made earlier in the debate-the essence of the Opposition's position on this matter, namely, that we are strongly committed to equality of opportunity for women in employment-- Mr Hand —Some of you are. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I would say that most members on this side would be so strongly committed. Mr Hand —Don't include the National Party. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne has already contributed to this debate. It is now the turn of the honourable member for Berowra. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The Opposition is strongly committed to greater equality of opportunity for women in employment. We recognise it as an issue of major social change. The Government has opted for a mandatory approach to this matter. While we have many reservations about that approach-and we will seek to amend the legislation in a number of ways-nevertheless, because of our strong commitment to the objective of equality of opportunity for women in employment, we have indicated that we will not vote against the Bill. But for my part, and I think I speak for many members of the Opposition, I would prefer to see a voluntary approach taken. The essence of the argument at this precise moment, however, is not the distinction between a mandatory or a voluntary approach-though there are elements of clobber in the approach adopted by the Government we could not support, which one would expect because that is what the Australian Council of Trade Unions would want. With this ACTU-ALP coalition Government one would expect the Government to move in that direction. Yet the legislation is about achieving equality of opportunity for women and not affirmative action in the strong sense or in the sense that it is used in the United States for instance. That is the important distinction that must be made, and that is why the Opposition wants to change the title. To some extent the point has been reflected in criticism made by some of the Government's supporters, some of those who pressured the Government to go ahead with this measure. For example, activist women's groups and the ACTU say that it is `weak' and `toothless', that it does not provide for compulsory, often court backed, quotas for the employment of women, which system is prevalent in the United States. It does not provide for gender preference in employment, which we would not support. The Opposition would not be prepared to let the Bill go through if it did so provide. Again the principle of selection and promotion on the basis of merit in employment is asserted explicitly in the Bill, and that is its thrust. Certainly, it does refer to quantitative measures in the form of forward estimates, but those are not employment quotas to be met, as occurs in the case of the United States. As I said many honourable members on this side of the chamber would prefer a voluntary approach to be taken in this area, and it is certainly my belief that a voluntary and self-managed approach for the private sector is a practical and viable alternative. In closing, I draw to the attention of the Committee the efforts of those firms that participated in the pilot program, which efforts were subsequently supported by the Business Council of Australia, towards the implementation of a voluntary program. A considerable amount has been done in that area. In fact, in September last year a decision was taken to establish a private sector Council for Equal Employment Opportunity as a positive self-regulation initiative with the objective of fostering the continuing goodwill of business and the securing of a genuine commitment in the private sector to equality of opportunity programs. That Council comprises a board, and there is to be a small but highly qualified staff headed by an executive director. The general purpose of the Council will be to establish a registrar of participating companies, to provide manuals to assist companies and to actively promote equal opportunity programs and attitudes. That Council is up and running. In my judgment, as I have said, such a private sector self-managed and voluntary approach has a great deal to offer in achieving effective and meaningful change towards greater equality of opportunity for women. I would strongly urge that the procedures and pace of the implementation of the present legislation take cognisance of the progress and efficacy of that private sector Council for Equal Employment Opportunity in employment. In any case the voluntary program will certainly assist companies to meet their obligations as they are imposed under this legislation, and the more successful it is the less expensive action in accordance with this Bill will be to the taxpayer. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.10) —I hold serious reservations about the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill because in my opinion the title is not descriptive of what is included in the Bill. Hence I support the amendment moved by the Opposition. I note at the outset that opposition in whole or in part to measures of this kind of deceitfully entitled legislation usually invokes a somewhat patronising response from certain quarters. At best this sort of critic is shallowly judged either to have failed to grasp the subtle complexities of the concept of affirmative action as developed in Australia or to have failed fully to appreciate the pragmatic way in which the legislation has been drafted only after claimed and so-called extensive consultations, discussion papers, interim reports, voluntary pilot projects, working parties and the like. At worst it seems to me to be assumed that any critic has an outmoded, if not overtly reactionary, attitude to the role of women in society. However, my views on this amendment are arrived at only after giving a great deal of thought: Firstly, to the title of the Bill; secondly, to the substance of the Government's proposal; thirdly, to the report of the working party on affirmative action legislation; fourthly, to the available evidence, at home and abroad, as to the practical effects; and, fifthly, to the considered opinions of distinguished experts in the field. Finally, my views are arrived at after having thought not merely about the immediate legislative implications of this inappropriately entitled Bill but also about the longer term effects, with particular attention to Australia's increasingly assertive judiciary. I am aware that a number of other important amendments are proposed by the Opposition in an attempt to render this Bill more coherent and to secure better protection and fairer treatment for affected employers. I particularly commend proposals suggested by and pursuant to this amendment to do the following: To remove reference to any reliance on the external affairs powers; to impose a five-year sunset clause; to limit ministerial direction; to limit the powers of the Director of Affirmative Action by ensuring that any guidelines issued by the Director are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and, if necessary, to disapproval by this Parliament; to limit the appointment of consultants to those with ministerial approval; to remove from clause 10 (1) (e) the capacity of the Director to conduct `other programs'; to remove the requirement for so-called consultation by employers with trade unions; to prevent sub-contractors being classified as employees; to ensure that material in confidential reports by companies does not appear in public reports; and to increase the penalty for improper release of confidential information. After careful consideration, I must say that the proposed amendments to which I have referred do not go far enough in meeting my concerns about this Bill. My reservations about this Bill go to the heart of both the Government's practical and its philosophical arguments for affirmative action. It will be recalled that the Government defined affirmative action in its 1984 Green Paper entitled `Affirmative Action for Women' as: As systematic means, determined by the employer in consultation with senior management, employees and unions of achieving equal employment opportunity . . . for women. Affirmative action is compatible with appointment and promotion on the basis of the principle of merit, skills and qualifications. This has direct relevance to the amendment to the title of the Bill. It has more in common, at least at this initial stage- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.15) —The Australian paper manufacturers are heavily protected by a tariff which makes it impossible for Australian printers to purchase certain better quality papers from overseas at a much cheaper price. Australian printers have the expertise to produce magazines of high quality but this quality is dependent, to a large degree, on the quality of paper used. To achieve the desired results for colour reproduction a paper of high stability characteristic and surface is needed to ensure precise print registration. Unfortunately, our papers do not yet compare favourably with the imported products to which I refer. The Australian printer, who must meet stringent quality specifications, is placed at a disadvantage because of the 20 per cent tariff on the imported paper. If a magazine is printed overseas it may be imported into Australia without incurring any duty. The book bounty for magazines is inadequate for competition. The paper manufacturers get support but the printing industry which employs so many more people does not. It is a great pity that the excellent publication Australian Geographic which was published in December by Dick Smith was printed overseas. Dick Smith should not be accused of being unpatriotic. I must agree with his response to criticism, when he said: We live in a global village and I believe every person has the same right to the world's resources. He then cited the fact that a large percentage of motor vehicles on the road are of Japanese manufacture. It should be noted that the conception, layout, typesetting and make-up for the Australian Geographic is performed in Australia but that the colour scanning, printing and binding are not. The Printing and Allied Trades Employers Federation of Australia and the Printing and Kindred Industries Union are both concerned at the escalating preference of publishers to place orders overseas, even though problems may be encountered in communications and prompt deliveries. The 20 per cent advantage is seen as the factor which is the determinant in placing orders. It would seem advisable for the tariff on the papers, so necessary for competition by price and quality, to be removed and an adequate bounty paid to the Australian paper makers. The Australian printing industry, from medium to large companies, has been faced with enormous capital investment in recent years occasioned by changing technology. The speed of change has made it difficult to recoup the investment within a reasonable period and before further changes have to be introduced. The printing industry is in an area of expensive on-going modernisation. This is not unique to Australia but at a time when more and more large publishing orders are being lost the situation is of great concern. I am also concerned for the employees in this industry. The Printing Employers Federation and the union have displayed a degree of responsibility in these periods of change. The union has recognised the inevitable changes to its craft and the new skills and operations which have emerged. Many of the demarcations have been eliminated. That has been of great help to the industry in general. Employers too have endeavoured to retain employees in excess of requirements during these operational changes. I urge this Government to initiate an investigation into the effect of policies which place the printers of quality colour productions in Australia at a disadvantage and to endeavour to support the campaign of Australian printers to keep printing in Australia. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.20) —The Great Barrier Reef is the largest of the world's reef complexes and is recognised internationally by its inscription on the World Heritage List. It rims the north-east of the Australian continent and comprises a vast chain of separate coral reef platforms, each made up of limestone rock covered by a veneer of living corals and algae. The massive-type corals can grow as individuals for a thousand years or more, forming huge domes as big as a suburban house. Research by scientists at the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville has revealed that the huge coral colonies on the Great Barrier Reef are veritable storehouses of historical information about past climates. A team led by Dr Peter Isdale has developed a unique and successful technology for unlocking the environmental secrets held by the corals. Long cores are drilled from living colonies of corals, using a specifically devised underwater pneumatic drilling rig. The success of this rig is a testament to the innovative technical expertise available to researchers at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. The designer, Mr Ted Daniel, recently won an award for his ingenuity and workmanship. The coral cores contain the life histories of the colonies in the form of skeletal bands-much as tree rings do-and the chemical compounds caught up in the skeletons as they were deposited. Using newly developed analytical techniques, these histories can be unravelled to reconstruct the conditions the corals have grown up in over the centuries. Dr Isdale's discovery in 1984 of fluorescent bands in inshore growing coral, which was published that year in the prestigious international journal Nature, has led to collaborative research with other Institute scientists such as Dr Kevin Boto. His expertise in analytical chemistry led to another paper being published in Nature the following year identifying the land-derived compound which forms the glowing bands in the coral cores. Drs David Barnes and Bruce Chalker provided the inspiration and effort leading to the pioneering techniques which showed how density changes in the coral skeleton reflect climatic patterns such as drought through the centuries. The discovery revealed that substances derived from land plants-which flow from rivers to the ocean-are incorporated in the skeletons of certain corals. The pattern build-up, viewed under ultraviolet light, can show river run-offs and resulting rainfall patterns with an accuracy of less than a month through the life of the coral, which could be 1,000 years. By using gamma rays and X-rays to determine the density of coral, a record of drought in past years and a picture of future drought patterns can be established. The corals can also tell when there were devastating El Nino events halfway around the globe, periods of drought, what the temperature of the water was at any given time, what the vegetation along the banks of rivers was and of devastating cyclones in certain areas that many may never have known about. For example, in 1958 the Burdekin River flowed in February, not in March and then again in April. The corresponding double band can be seen, with the naked eye, in the coral. The scientists believe that it will soon be possible to reconstruct the history of major rivers, using the startlingly faithful fluorescent indicators of freshwater input to coastal regions contained in the huge corals. Since these coral species are the most widespread on earth, these reconstructions will be available to countries throughout the world's tropical regions. It will be possible to view the history of a nation's weather on at least a monthly basis for many hundreds of years past. The world-wide distribution of the corals ensures that the timing and intensity of such extreme events as the El Nino phenomenon have been faithfully recorded for at least the last 1,000 years. Much of the world's weather is driven from the tropics, and knowledge of its history will lead to a better understanding of the most important natural process on the earth's surface-the weather. The potential uses of this knowledge in agricultural, engineering and economic planning are almost incalculable, leading as they do to a better understanding of the likelihood of future environmental changes. An accurate knowledge of past coastal weather patterns would be of great value to anyone who needs to know what the weather may be like at a given period in the future. Eventually, it will enable the production of an historical map of the climate of tropical Australia, and an even longer goal is to compile similar maps for other tropical countries. The task of interpreting all the data stored in the corals will involve significant scientific studies over several years, both within Australia and overseas. The international application of this discovery is particularly important to Australia's relationship with countries in South East Asia and the Pacific region and to all tropical countries where corals are found. The Australian Institute of Marine Science has given a service to mankind. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.25) —In the past few days we have witnessed a series of demonstrations here in Canberra by farmers who have been rallying outside Parliament House and in a number of locations throughout the city. The reason they are here is to demonstrate to the Government here in Canberra that what is going on out there in the Australian rural landscape represents a scene of disaster. The farmers are trying to get their message across so that on 15 April the Government will bring out a package which will be of real benefit to the industry in which these people work. We have been told that these people have acted in an irresponsible fashion, and I have heard many comments to this effect over the past couple of days. I say that these people have not acted irresponsibly; they have acted in a most reasonable way. They have obtained plenty of publicity for their cause, they have done so without causing too much disruption to the normal goings on here in Canberra and they should be commended for the way in which they have carried out their demonstrations. The reason they are here-and I am sure they will be back again-is that they are dissatisfied with the attitude of this Government to the problems that prevail within their industry. We are frequently told by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and, indeed, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the problems of agriculture in this country are the fault of overseas countries and organisations. We are told that the problems of agriculture are all the fault of the European Economic Community and the United States farm Bill and this is why our farmers are in strife. When he is pressed further, the Minister for Primary Industry says that it is also the fault of the previous Fraser-Anthony Government. There is some truth in the first point-problems have been created for our agricultural industries by overseas actions-but the point that the Minister and the Prime Minister continue to deny is that a great number of the problems of Australian agriculture today are internally generated by this Government. The farmers have been demonstrating here for the past few days because they are concerned about matters such as the high interest rates which prevail in this country, interest rates that are as high as we have ever seen in the history of this nation. These interest rates are crippling ordinary Australian men and women who are trying to get on and make a decent living for themselves. Tonight I wish to take the opportunity to talk about one such person who lives within the electorate of Gilmore, near my home town. I come from Young in south-western New South Wales. The person I refer to is a farmer by the name of Mr Chris Beck. He lives on a property, owned jointly by himself and his father, called Santa Maria. Last season he produced some 1,600 tonnes of wheat and one might say that that is quite a lot of wheat. It certainly is. Mr Beck is one of the better farmers in the Young district. He is a very hard worker, is in his mid-30s and is one of those people who should be getting ahead in the world. Mr Beck received a total of $208,000 for the sale of that 1,600 tonnes of wheat. After paying dockage, handling charges and other fees, he was left with about half the value of his crop. Most of the remaining money was needed to cover the fixed costs in running the property and very little was left over to meet the normal living expenses of his family. About three years ago, Mr Beck, like any other red-blooded young Australian trying to create some prosperity for his family and his country, purchased some additional land. When he purchased that land the interest rate he had to pay on the money he had borrowed was 13 per cent. Today the interest rate is 21 per cent and as a consequence he is paying an extra $120,000 in interest. Mr Beck and other farmers like him in this country are going broke not because they have to pay $120,000 more in interest resulting from external factors. Mr Beck is not paying $120,000 more in his interest bill because of the Fraser-Anthony Government. He has to pay that amount of money because of the policies of this Government which are crippling people like him-decent, honest, hard-working Australians who are trying to get ahead. These policies are crippling people throughout our rural industries, and that is why those people have been here for the past few days and will come back again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(10.30) —Yesterday in this House the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) tabled three documents as well as making statements, all of which had some reference to me. The matter raised was in relation to a claim by two Newcastle doctors that they had been offered involvement in a 24-hour medical service. The document consisted of a transcript of an interview of Dr Court and Dr Parker by two members of the staff of the Health Insurance Commission and statutory declarations by Dr David Parker and Dr Ian Walker. In the transcript of interview, Dr David Parker refers to a meeting that took place between himself, Dr Ian Walker and me on the evening of 7 March. The discussion was long and complex but one that I believed at the time was constructive and fruitful. In the interests of an accurate public record it is imperative that I outline what took place before, during and after that meeting. At about lunch time on Friday, 7 March I had a telephone call from Michael Belcher, a member of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation staff in Newcastle. He advised me that he had been contacted by Dr Ian Walker of the Hunter Medical Association, the regional branch of the Australian Medical Association. Dr Walker outlined to him a series of events involving Dr David Parker, including contact he had had with some Sydney doctors and businessmen, a brick being thrown through his window, and his fears for his own and his family's safety. In discussion with Dr Walker, Mr Belcher had suggested that they should contact me. This apparently was in the context of Dr Walker indicating that he was considering taking up the matter with the Federal Opposition. Apparently Dr Walker was not responsive to the advice that they should contact me and the purpose of the call by Mr Belcher was to seek advice as to the most appropriate course of action. We discussed the matter and its implications, and finally I suggested that he should advise Dr Walker that he or somebody else should contact the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into medical fraud. I understand that a call was made that afternoon by Mr Belcher to the honourable member for Canberra; however, the honourable member was out of the electorate that day. In the meantime, Dr Walker had rung my office and made an appointment. I finally spoke with him and Dr Parker at about six o'clock that evening. The discussion we had was long and complex. I suggested that if we were all seriously concerned about the underlying implications of the events outlined, the worst way to raise it would be for a politician, from any party, to make a speech on it. The effect of such an action would be immediately to make it a political issue and the matters of concern would be obscured. Dr Parker made it clear that he had no hard evidence to substantiate his perceptions, but he was apprehensive for his and his family's well-being. It is important to realise that between making the appointment to see me and actually speaking with me, they had spoken to Mr Gavin Gilchrist of the ABC. This interview was subsequently broadcast on Monday morning on AM. I advised the doctors that in my view the matter would best be dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, which consists of members of all parties from both Houses. It could be dealt with in camera and its capacity to take evidence and call witnesses was excellent. Perhaps more importantly, the Committee, because of its ongoing inquiries, may well have information that related to these allegations, which we all acknowledged in themselves lacked substantiation. I also pointed out that medical fraud had been occurring and was being investigated by the PAC long before the advent of Medicare. The conclusion of this aspect of the discussion was that they agreed to request Gavin Gilchrist to hold back his broadcast for a few days and I promised to speak to the honourable member for Canberra on my return to Canberra on the following Monday. I believe that an approach was made to Gavin Gilchrist following this meeting, but he declined to hold back the broadcast. I approached the honourable member for Canberra and a member of the PAC secretariat contacted Dr Walker on Monday, 10 March. I have been advised that he was invited to make an initial written submission to the PAC. To date, a month later, this has not been done. The fears I expressed about the politicisation of the matter have now been proven to be well founded. Dr Parker and Dr Walker are able to write substantial statutory declarations, but cannot be bothered writing to the PAC. During the discussion the question of Edelsten-type clinics was raised. Dr Walker suggested that the Government was turning a blind eye to these clinics. I denied that. Whilst it may look attractive to him on the surface, it was fundamentally nonsense. It is quite clear that the way I have acted in this matter has been both proper and sound. The advice I gave was good advice; unfortunately, it was not followed fully. The fact that the Opposition has attempted, in cahoots with Dr Walker and Dr Parker, to make political capital of this issue does it no credit. It denigrates the issue and imputes actions and motives where none exist. The imputations and references were fallacious and absurd and I reject them out of hand. Mr Porter —But you do not deny the contents. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I do, as I have indicated. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.35) —When the Trade Practices Amendment Bill was debated in this House on 20 March, I was quite outspoken in calling for an inquiry into the bid being made for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd by Bell Resources Ltd, headed by Mr Robert Holmes a Court. The Government refused to accept my call to hold an inquiry into that takeover bid, but all members of this House would agree that subsequent events have merely reinforced the need for an inquiry to be held. The latest disclosure at Question Time today-exposed by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey)-that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has a pecuniary interest which was not declared to the Cabinet sub-committee, merely reinforces the need for an inquiry to be held. The honourable member for O'Connor was correct in disclosing that a decision had been made by the Cabinet sub-committee to recommend to its Caucus colleagues not to hold an inquiry into the takeover bid by Mr Robert Holmes a Court. That decision was made behind closed doors. The reason it was made was never disclosed to the Government Caucus or to the Parliament, yet we have had the astounding revelation today hat a key figure in that decision had a pecuniary interest to hide. I will go on further to outline the reasons why an inquiry should be held. We have only to look at the ruling brought down by Mr Justice Marks on 26 March. Honourable members will bear in mind that legislation was passed in this House on 20 March. Subsequent to that legislation being passed, Mr Robert Holmes a Court withdrew the bid he had on offer for BHP shares. On 26 March, Mr Justice Marks in his ruling made these comments: Although the hearing before me has been cut short, it was quite well advanced. It was cut short by a Bell capitulation following hard on the heels of a refusal by the Court to set aside a subpoena calling on documents disclosing details of the $2 billion loan facility itself preceded by strong prima facie evidence pointing to their importance and other possible breaches of the requirements of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) (Victoria) Code. Mr Justice Marks further said: The Court is driven to the inescapable conclusion that the Bell interests have always been and are still bent on keeping the loan facility arrangement secret. That secrecy in the circumstances of the take-over scheme is impossible. Honourable members will recall that during the debate on the Bill the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) pointed out that the loans were being raised from South African sources, yet Mr Justice Marks said in his ruling that Mr Holmes a Court had gone to extreme lengths to cover up the source of those loans. Mr Justice Marks went on to say: This conduct has been compounded recently by the highly misleading, if not deceptive, statements of the chairman, one Holmes a Court, to the effect that the present offers have been withdrawn merely because of the length of the court hearing with overtones that this was connected with the length of the B.H.P. case. . . . . The resistance in these proceedings to the disclosure is significant enough, but the secrecy is particularly ominous against the backdrop of statements of Holmes a Court to which I have referred.It is against that type of secrecy, which Mr Justice Marks tried to expose; against the disclosures of the honourable member for Denison; against the proceedings that are now going on for a new offer; and against the Minister for Trade not disclosing his pecuniary interests in this business, that I repeat tonight the call for an inquiry by the Trade Practices Commission into the takeover proceedings for BHP. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.40) —On 9 October 1985, I made a speech in the adjournment debate regarding a gentleman called John Wiseman of Flat 11/9 Findon Street, Hawthorn, Victoria. Mr Burr —Is he a member of the Labor Party? Mr HAND —No. He was not. He recently died and I thought I would talk about Mr Wiseman here tonight. On that occasion I talked about a dispute that Mr Wiseman was having with the Department of Transport and the Department of Communications. The former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), was also involved in this case. It was a case that had been going on since 1976. Mr Wiseman, unfortunately, recently passed away. I level blame for his death at the bureaucracy that runs those departments. That bureaucracy was one of the major reasons for Mr Wiseman's recent heart attack. Mr Wiseman, I believe, was persecuted by both these departments. He was found to be correct in his claims. In 1976 he refused to go to sea on a vessel called the Silver Harrier because he believed that the wireless aerials on that vessel were unsafe. He was dismissed from his position as a wireless operator. He engaged in a fight against the bureaucracy under the freedom of information legislation and it was proven beyond doubt that he was correct and that he was wrongfully dismissed. All the gentleman wanted was for the departments to concede that so he could get work in his profession. He had been denied continuous employment over many years. He was victimised by the bureaucracy, by the ship owners and, unfortunately, by the people within the work force. This is best summed up in a footnote to a letter dated 9 January 1985 from the Acting Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman to Mr Wiseman. A handwritten note on the bottom of the letter reads: Mr Wiseman is probably on sound technical ground and we may have `missed the boat' in our earlier investigation, understandably because the insulator resistance seawater conducting question was never satisfactorily explained to us. In fact, the truth is that documents were withheld concerning the Wiseman case. I am sure that the honourable member for Kooyong would support me in saying that this is a tragedy. This man was persecuted and his health suffered. He became obsessed to the point where his health suffered greatly. He visited my office on many occasions. He was a man of huge build, of incredible intelligence, and was able single-handedly to demolish the arguments put forward by representatives of the Department of Communications and the Department of Transport. As I said, he was highly intelligent. I believe that he was driven to an early grave by the treatment he received. All he wanted was justice in terms of people conceding that the arguments he put forward were correct. The ironic part about this matter is that his claims, some years later, were found to be correct. The aerials on the ships were replaced because the salt did have an effect on these types of aerials. Mr Wiseman made a valuable contribution to the shipping industry, and the price he paid was an early death. In Safety at Sea, August 1985, which is published in England, there is an article attributed to Mr Wiseman which is headed `Rest Assured, your Government is looking into the matter (Don't Hold your Breath)'. I guess I should conclude by repeating the comments I made in my last speech: What about giving Mr Wiseman a fair go? Mr Wiseman did not get a fair go. Mr Wiseman died. His workmates who have contacted me believe that one of the things that contributed, if not the thing that contributed, to his early death was the way in which he had been persecuted and ignored when all he asked for was justice and for people to admit that they had made a wrong decision. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.45) —I rise tonight to alert Government members to the desperate plight that farmers and small businesses now find themselves in. Of all the extra costs that this Government has imposed on these people, the high interest rates have been particularly devastating. It was only as early as the beginning of last year that a farmer or a small businessman could go to a bank and take out a loan at 14 per cent interest. Now such people find that they are paying 21 per cent, before one starts to add on bank charges. If a person has taken out a loan of, say, $100,000, that means that the payments that he is up for now are $150 a week above what he would have budgeted for-I repeat-as early as the beginning of last year. No business in the bush is profitable enough to service an interest rate that high. The financial position in country New South Wales has deteriorated markedly, even in the last couple of weeks, and especially in the towns of Nyngan, Peak Hill and Tullamore and in the Gilgandra district. The situation in Nyngan has become desperate for many, with a number of farmers having their credit cut off completely in recent days. They do not even get $10 a week with which to buy corn flakes. I suppose that they can go out of their back doors and kill a sheep to eat. But already we have had to arrange food parcels for some of these farmers. This has been of tremendous assistance and has lifted their morale to a certain extent; but we have cases of some people even sharing their grandparents' pension cheques. In the old days when the banks foreclosed on people, they used to draw the bottom line, sell the person up, clear the debts, and if there was anything left at the end of the day the person would be given a cheque. Nowadays the bank cuts off their credit, allows them to stay on their properties but do not give them any cash; so they cannot put in a wheat crop. If they cannot put in a wheat crop, that does not give them the wherewithal to get a cash flow to service the interest rate. Mr Goodluck —People have to have that cash. Mr COBB —They do. Every three months, of course, they have the interest rate ticking away. In some cases it is $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 a week. What happens is that these people's equity, every three months, is going downwards, dropping all the time. Some people have rung me and said: `We would be prepared to go now with nothing. If we could just put the keys on the desk of the bank and go, and would go; but we are terrified that we will be going with a debt of $100,000 or $200,000 around our neck that will saddle us for the rest of our lives'. Of course, while they are on the property they cannot do anything except run the few livestock that they have. If the property is not being worked, how will they sell it? Even if a prospective buyer came along, because they are not working their property and putting in a wheat crop, that makes it so much harder to sell. Of course, the banks know that no properties are selling. Possibly, at the most, there would be one or two sales in a district. But if people are forced to sell over and above that, the values of properties would be more than halved. On 15 April these sorts of people will be looking to the Government for some sort of assistance. I guess that they do not expect that the general macroeconomic circumstances will exist to correct things such as flexibilities in wages and tariff reductions, but they are particularly looking for some sort of short term carry-on finance that will give them the ability to get their wheat crops in for this year, and particularly next year if the drought hits hard this year. I guess that people will look upon this as a handout for farmers. But if he can get the wheat crop in, the average farmer in these sorts of districts would be earning $100,000 in export income for Australia. The people themselves might be living on $50 per week, but they are earning $100,000 in export income for Australia. So we should look at this matter in terms of this being a great investment for the taxpayers. If the Government does not assist, it will not be a matter of these people moving out of their properties and someone else moving into them and working them; it will be a case of these fellows staying on but earning nothing for Australia and getting into a very depressing situation. The situation is already putting tremendous stress on their families as well as themselves. These fellows might not be paying direct tax, but they are paying enormous amounts in indirect tax. Only the other day I was talking to one average farmer who said that he paid $12,000 last year in fuel tax alone. These fellows are contributing to Australia in every way. I ask the Government even though it may not be favourably disposed towards them, to give some consideration to these farmers in the package it announces next week. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.50) —I speak tonight with a sense of deja vu because I too want to talk about the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and Holmes a Court situation. Whilst the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) had some good things to say-and I must pay tribute to the position taken by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman)-I think he completely undermined his argument by his scurrilous attack on the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). I know the Minister well and I know that there is absolutely no substance to what the honourable member said. Honourable members opposite know that. They are simply muck raking in the belief that something will stick. Perhaps now I can get on with what I want to say. The bid for BHP has implications whose impact extends far beyond the day to day activities of the Australian stock market. BHP is Australia's largest company, employing some 60,000 persons directly and tens of thousands more indirectly. This company is now the subject of a takeover offer by one man who proposes to control its assets and resources. The national issue-that have been raised are a result of the prominence of this company in the Australian economy and the methods by which it is possible for one man to gain control of such a corporation. The control of BHP by one man, Mr Robert Holmes a Court, concerns me and many Australians as it appears that the control of this monopoly will be achieved without any inquiry, under the grossly false pretences of protecting the right of the Australian stock market to operate in a free and unfettered manner. For the record, I have never felt any obligation whatsoever to protect the right of the stock exchange and would have thought accountability was the overriding requirement. BHP represents 10 per cent of the capitalisation of the Australian stock market. In the United States of America this is the equivalent of the following seven companies. IBM, Exxon, General Electric, General Motors, A T and T, Dupont and Sears and Robuck. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, regulatory bodies exist whereby acquisition of control of major national monopolies is reviewed in an unprejudiced manner. It is extraordinary that we are prepared to allow one man to control the equivalent of the seven companies without an unprejudiced, formal inquiry. In fact, the lengths to which we have gone to ensure than an inquiry is not held brings into question our impartiality on this issue. An argument has been advanced that if the Government were to interfere foreign investors would be reluctant to invest in Australia as it would be seen as an example of government interference, in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Japan, our major investor nations, the governments would not stand by and allow such an event to take place. I might add that that would apply also to West Germany. Furthermore, we have in Australia the Trade Practices Commission, which used to have the power to hold an inquiry. The current shareholders of BHP were aware of the existence of this power and were happy to buy and hold their investment with full knowledge of the possibility that, in the event of a takeover bid, the free market would not be able to decide the final outcome. I would like to make a few remarks about Mr Holmes a Court. This is a matter about which I am most concerned. For all BHP's faults, that company has never owned or had any interest in the media. This is not the case with Mr Holmes a Court, who owns the Western Mail in Western Australia and also controls Channel Seven. I believe that Mr Holmes a Court has used the financial pages of his paper unmercifully to run shares. The writer of that paper's financial column, Mr Tim Threadgold, at Mr Holmes a Court's beck and call, has either plugged or dammed shares, according to whether Mr Holmes a Court wanted to buy or sell. The effect of this is that little people in the market have been hurt. Little people operate largely in a vacuum of ignorance and they get frightened out very easily. I go back to the time when a company called DTX Australia Ltd was listed on the second board in Western Australia. I was very interested in this company. I declare my interest by informing the House that I bought some shares in this company because I thought it had tremendous potential, a potential which I believe it has since demonstrated. When it was listed somebody shortsold about $1m of shares. I do not know who that was. The Western Mail immediately started to bag the company. It made all sorts of allegations about the propriety of that company, all of which were unfounded. It forced the company to two Trade Practices Commission inquiries, both of which found that the company had nothing to explain. As I say, I do not know who was responsible for that shortselling. However, the only man I know who has $1m to spare and a newspaper is, of course, Mr Holmes a Court. His attacks on DTX have not ceased. He was reported in the paper the other day as saying that this company has debts. This company is expanding very rapidly and for a short time it did have substantial debts. Then, of course, so has Bell Resources Ltd. We do not see Mr Holmes a Court launching into print and denouncing Bell Resources for having debts. Any company which is growing quickly will have substantial debts. The position with DTX has been rectified. I believe the management of that company is excellent. It is a shame that small investors have been shaken out of a very profitable investment by the actions of this company. I have a lot more to say on Mr Holmes a Court, but I am going to run out of time. I will speak about this matter at a later opportunity. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.55) —Tonight I saw the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) on television talking about home heating oil. She really repeated what I had said a couple of nights ago in the adjournment debate. Mr Hodgman —Everything you said. Mr GOODLUCK —She mentioned something about the price of oil. I do not mind Canberra. The people in Canberra have been pretty good to me. They are just ordinary, decent people. It is quite cold in Canberra, as it is in Hobart. The honourable member for Canberra said that the people of Canberra were being disadvantaged because of the price of home heating oil. Of course, in my normal, calculating way, I just happened to telephone a dealer. I said to the dealer: `What is the price of home heating oil in Canberra?' I was told. I said: `Are you sure? If you delivered this home heating oil to me, what would be the price?' I was told 43.5c per litre. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr GOODLUCK —I was told 43.5c a litre. So I rang the distributor in Hobart just to check my sums to make certain that I was absolutely right. I was staggered. It is 54.5c a litre in Hobart. I think the people of Canberra will agree that Hobart is a little bit colder and the winter is a little bit longer and, therefore, the poor ordinary pensioners, the poor ordinary people who depend on home heating oil are being taken to the cleaners once again by the oil companies. My attack is against the oil companies because the Prices Surveillance Authority does not fix a maximum price for home heating oil. Nobody has jurisdiction over the price at all. The oil companies can charge whatever they like. I am afraid that instead of the price of heating oil going down in Tasmania it has gone up because we are going into the peak of winter. Mr Hodgman —Shameful! Mr GOODLUCK —It is absolutely shameful as the honourable member for Denison said. I believe that it should be the subject of an inquiry. I have already written to the responsible Minister, as I mentioned the other night. I just want to let the honourable member for Canberra know that the people in Canberra are not being disadvantaged as much as my people and the people of the honourable member for Denison in Hobart. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) who is sitting at the table will be interested in this matter. I went down to the Royal Hobart Hospital. We all know that the motor vehicle is a necessity, but we all know that the motor vehicle and the motor cycle cause undue problems to many people in Australia. Every day 10 people die as a result of motor accidents. One of those people invariably is a young motor cyclist under the age of 25 years. A lady rang me and said: `Bruce, would you come down to the Royal, ward 1C, to have a look at my son?' I went down. There were five other young people there. It was tragic. They had been involved in either a motor cycle accident, a motor car accident or had been injured as a pedestrian. One young lady was injured as a result of being kicked by a horse. They were all suffering from brain damage and were all completely incapacitated. The parents were mindful of the fact that they were needed there nearly every day. I wondered what would happen if they did not have parents. They are the forgotten statistic of which we all need to be aware. The parents mentioned to me that the physiotherapists and the doctors are doing all they can but they cling to that little bit of life. They want their children to have the best of care. They want to see that they have a chance to survive in this world. I think that governments need to do a little bit more about it. It hurts me. The honourable member for Denison may correct me, but we have a very good Douglas Parker Rehabilitation Centre that is underutilised. There is a bit of red tape there. Some people do not like to get their carpet dirty or their hands dirty with some of these poor unfortunate young people. Some of the bureaucrats who run it need a bit of straightening out. They need to know that they have to work and look after these young people. That is what the honourable member for Denison and I need to do when we go back. Mr Hodgman —And the Leader of the Opposition. Mr GOODLUCK —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) understands what I am talking about, as does the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). He understands exactly what I am talking about. If we are going to keep these young people alive we have to make absolutely certain that they get the best of care and attention and are not hidden away as a statistic just to die and to be forgotten. But there is a place in Hobart that is being underutilised-- MR DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 672) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full-time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: TAA, Qantas and the Independent Air Fares Committee have provided the following details Number of full-time employees: TAA (a) 30 June 1983...7,874 (b) 30 June 1984...7,946 IAFC (a) 30 June 1983...12 (b) 30 June 1984...12 Qantas* (average staff level) (a) 12 months to 30 June 1983...12,150 (b) 12 months to 30 June 1984...1,419 * Qantas is a Commonwealth owned public company. (Question No. 1120) Mr Wright asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) Is a Canberra based firm trading as `Leisuremail', involved in the interstate sale and promotion of pornographic videos and books through the mail on an unsolicited basis? (2) What action can be taken to prevent this practice? (3) Is it illegal to publish brochures promoting videos with titles such as Tied, Tormented and Loving It, Husbands Anal Revenge and Flesh and the Priest and in turn to send such material unsolicited through Australia Post; if so, what penalties apply? Mr Lionel Bowen —Following consultation with the Minister for Communications, and based partly on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, the answers to the honour- able member's questions are as follows: (1) A number of firms based in the Australian Capital Territory, including the firm trading as `Leisuremail', are currently under investigation by the Australian Federal Police to ascertain whether any breaches of the law have occurred in relation to the advertising, selling, hiring or distribution of videotapes and associated literature. (2) It is an offence under the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 to advertise, sell, hire or distribute an objectionable publication or a prescribed publication. If it can be established that an offence has been committed the penalties, in the case of a body corporate, are a fine not exceeding $5,000 for an objectionable publication and a fine not exceeding $10,000 for a prescribed publication. It is also an offence to advertise, sell or otherwise publish a Category 1 or Category 2 publication or an `R' or `X' film otherwise than in accordance with the conditions applicable to that material. If it can be established that an offence has been committed the penalty, in the case of a body corporate, is a fine not exceeding $2,500. (3) Whether the publishing of brochures promoting particular videos contravenes the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 would depend on the content of the brochures concerned. In relation to sending promotional brochures of the type referred to through the post, Postal Services Regulation 53 makes it an offence to send knowingly by post an article consisting of or containing unsolicited material which advises, notifies or advertises the existence or availability of matter of an indecent, obscene or offensive nature. If it can be established that an offence has been committed, the penalty is $200 or 6 months imprisonment or both. (Question No. 2518) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. Those aviation organisations to which grants are provided are national in character. Some may be represented in the ACT, but are not ` . . . operating in the ACT . . .' in the sense intended by the question. (2) to (5) Not applicable (Question No. 2703) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra & South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora-Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) to (7) Not applicable. (Question No. 3097) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What funds were allocated to (a) road grants legislation and (b) Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program schemes in (i) 1982-83, (ii) 1983-84, (iii) 1984-85 and (iv) 1985-86. (2) What (a) amount and (b) proportion of funds was specifically allocated in each year for projects to be undertaken in NSW. (3) How and by which body were the funds administered in each year for each scheme. (4) How and by which body were decisions made in each year on the detailed allocation of funds for projects under each scheme. (5) What specific projects were funded under each scheme in each year in the electoral division of Richmond. (6) For each project in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant, (b) which individual or group received the grant, (c) what was the amount of the grant and (d) what evaluation has been made to determine if the grant achieved the original objectives for which it was made. (7) What specific projects were denied funding under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (8) For each project denied funding in the electoral division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant sought, (b) which individual or group applied for the grant, (c) what was the amount of grant sought and (d) what was the reason for refusing funding for the application. (9) How does funding for projects under these schemes in each year in the electoral division of Richmond compare on a per capita basis with funding for projects under the schemes in the electoral divisions of (a) Wills, (b) Reid, (c) Parramatta, (d) Robertson, (e) Shortland, (f) Cunningham, (g) Werriwa and (h) Blaxland. (10) How and when were applications sought for grants under each scheme in each year. (11) Was any specific advertising undertaken to alert residents of the electoral division of Richmond to the existence of these schemes. (12) Will he ensure that in future comprehensive information concerning grant availability and eligibility under these schemes is drawn to the attention of local government bodies, community groups and residents in the electoral division of Richmond; if not, why not. (13) If so (a) how and (b) when, will the information be provided. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: FEDERAL ROAD ALLOCATIONS-AUSTRALIA (1) (a) Roads Grants Act (RGA) Program (b) Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program $m $m 1982-83... 734.0 116.9 1983-84... 778.0 417.2 1984-85... 827.7 417.0 Australian Land Transport Program (ALTP) 1985-86 (est.)... *805.0 440.0 * Does not include $5m for road safety and transport research. FEDERAL ROAD ALLOCATIONS- NEW SOUTH WALES (2) (a) RGA Program (b) ABRD Program $m Per cent $m Per cent 1982-83... 229.7 31.3 33.7 28.8 1983-84... 243.4 31.3 151.8 36.4 1984-85... 258.1 31.2 134.2 32.2 ALTP 1985-86 (est.)... 253.3 31.5 139.0 31.6 (3) and (4)- Whilst the Federal Department of Transport was responsible for general administration under the RGA, which expired on 30 June 1985, the Federal Department of Finance had responsibility for the administration of financial aspects. The Federal Department of Transport currently has this responsibility for the ALTP, which replaced the RGA Program on 1 July 1985, and the ABRD Program. Administrative arrangements for each Program are detailed in the appropriate `Notes on Administration' which include details on arrangements for payments to the States and the Northern Territory, procedures for submission and approval of proposed projects and reporting requirements. (5) There are no National Roads projects in the Electoral Division of Richmond. Details of specific projects for Arterial and Local Roads for the three roads programs are provided below. RGA PROGRAM, 1982-83 TO 1984-85 The New South Wales Minister for Roads would be the most appropriate source for details on the allocation of Federal funds to specific Arterial Roads projects, while the relevant local councils would be the most appropriate source for details of projects on which they expended their Federal Local Roads allocations. Details of Federal allocations for works on Local Roads to councils in the Electoral Division of Richmond are as follows: 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Total ($'000) ($'000) ($'000) ($'000) Ballina Shire ... 237.4 244.5 251.9 733.8 Byron Shire... 250.9 258.4 266.2 775.5 Lismore City... 427.3 440.1 453.4 1,320.8 Tweed Shire... 389.8 428.1 472.3 1,290.2 4,120.3 ABRD Program, 1982-83 to 1985-86 Arterial Roads One Arterial Roads Project has been approved to date in the electoral division of Richmond under the ABRD Program. This project was approved in 1983-84 and involved the construction of a new bridge over Terranora Creek at Tweed Heads. The total project cost is $4.0 million with the Federal contribution being $2.2 million. Local Roads Each council has an entitlement covering the life of the Program which will depend on the amount of revenue received by the ABRD Trust Fund. To date, eight Local Roads projects have been approved under the Program in the Electoral Division of Richmond as follows: APPROVED ABRD LOCAL ROADS PROJECTS-ELECTORAL DIVISION OF RICHMOND Local Government Authority Present Entitlement (Based on $2,200 million commitment level) Approved projects Approved ABRD Commitment 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Total ABRD commitment level to date $ $ $ $ $ $ BALLINA Shire 385,968 Reconstruction and bitumen surfacing of 4.0 km of Ross' Lane (total est. cost $450,000) . . 350,900 . . . . 350,900 BYRON Shire 418,528 Reconstruction of 1.0 km of Broken Head Road on improved alignment (total est. cost $150,000) . . 150,000 . . . . Reconstruction of 1.5 km of Myocum Road on improved alignment (total est. cost $230,000) . . 230,000 . . . . 380,000 LISMORE City 652,696 Construction of high level concrete bridge to replace Hoskins Hill Bridge on Tregeagle to Wyallah Road (total est. cost $177,600) . . 177,600 . . . . Construction of high level concrete bridge to replace Goolmangar Bridge on the Goolmangar to Jiggi Road (total est. cost $274,000) . . 250,900 . . . . Construction of high level concrete bridge to replace Yeagers Bridge on Leycester Station Road (total est. cost $163,900) . . . . 163,900 . . 630,445 Construction of high level concrete bridge to replace Boomerang Creek Bridge on Rosebank Road (total est. cost $152,000) . . . . 38,045 . . TWEED Shire 599,808 Reconstruction of bitumen surfacing of 7.73 km of Clothiers Creek Road (total ext. cost $1,022,652) . . 579,360 . . . . 579,360 Totals... . . 1,738,760 201,945 . . 1,940,705 ALTP, 1985-86 One Rural Arterial Road project has been approved to date in the Electoral Division of Richmond under the ALTP. The project involves the reconstruction of two lane sections of the Bruxner Highway between Ballina and Lismore. The Federal Government will contribute $350,000 towards the total project cost of $3.0 million. The relevant local councils would be the most appropriate source for details of projects on which they have expended or plan to expend their 1985-86 Federal Local roads allocations. These councils have been allocated the following grants for works on Local Roads in 1985-86: ($'000) Ballina Shire... 258.4 Byron Shire... 273.1 Lismore City... 465.1 Tweed Shire... 520.3 (6)- (a) Road and bridge construction as detailed in the answer to question (5). (b) The State Government and local government authorities within the Electoral Division of Richmond. (c) See the answer to question (5) above. (d) The New South Wales Department of Main Roads, as the Federal Government's construction agent, is required to submit reports notifying progress and completion of approved ABRD and ALTP projects. Project completion reports include details of the extent to which project objectives have been achieved. In addition to these reports, the Commissioner for Main Roads is required to submit statements, on a six monthly basis, certifying that the requirements of each Act have been complied with. (7) and (8)- No specific projects proposed by the New South Wales Government were rejected by the Federal Government for funding under Federal road programs during any of the years in question. However, as the determination of priorities in relation to individual pro-jects on Arterial and Local Roads to be submitted for Federal funding under these programs are primarily a State matter, this question might also be addressed to the New South Wales Minister for Roads. (9) As has been the practice adopted by the previous Governments I am not prepared to authorise the use of the considerable resources of time and money that would be involved in providing this information. (10) RGA Program, 1982-83 to 1984-85 Prior to the commencement of each financial year the Federal Minister for Transport wrote to the NSW Minister for Roads inviting him to submit a program of National Roads projects for his consideration and approval. In regard to Arterial Roads, the Federal Minister required for his information retrospective schedules of expenditure listing Arterial Roads projects on which Federal funds had been spent. The State Government was required to submit these schedules at the conclusion of the financial year. Each financial year the NSW Minister for Roads distributed the Federal allocations for Local Roads to each council in accordance with the set of principles approved by the Federal Minister for Transport. ABRD, 1982-83 to 1985-86 At the commencement of the ABRD Program in 1982-83 the Federal Minister for Transport invited the NSW Minister for Roads to submit a list of projects in the form of an indicative forward program for the duration of the program for each road category. Towards the end of each financial year the Federal Minister wrote to the NSW Minister for Roads inviting him to submit additional projects for each road category which would form part of the ABRD Program. ALTP, 1985-86 At the commencement of the ALTP the Federal Minister for Transport invited the NSW Minister for Roads to submit programs for the National and Arterial Roads categories. In regard to Local Roads, Federal funds to local councils were distributed according to the principles approved by the Federal Minister for Transport. (11) to (13)- No. As these grants are provided to the State Government, advertising their existence is considered unnecessary. However, the Federal Minister for Transport has publicised details of Federal road funding by sending letters to appropriate Federal Parliamentarians and local councils. Media releases are also issued on a regular basis. (Question No. 3118) Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 January 1986 claiming that Industrial Equity Ltd was able to make a $70m tax free profit from the Lend Lease-MLC Ltd takeover. (2) Can such a tax free profit be made by converting capital gain to dividends by a capital reconstruction. (3) Is Industrial Equity Ltd's dividend income non-taxable. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the report. (2) and (3) I am unable to supply information about the taxation liability of Industrial Equity Limited in relation to this matter. Express provisions in the income tax law prevent the disclosure of information about a taxpayer's taxation affairs. (Question No. 3134) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether any research and development work is completed, proceeding or contemplated in Australian research institutes and facilities in the fields of (a) metal cooled fast nuclear breeders, (b) gas cooled fast nuclear breeders and (c) other nuclear breeders. (2) If so, are the research projects funded in any way by (a) State governments or (b) the Federal Government. (3) Is he able to say whether they have been or will be funded by private or corporate sector funding. (4) Who will be the beneficiaries of any resultant development. (5) Do the contents pages of the Compendium of Australian Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Projects No. 6 June 1985 indicate a section entitled `IV Advanced Nuclear-10.0 Nuclear breeder-Metal cooled fast breeder, gas cooled fast breeder, other breeders'; if so, why has section 10.0 been omitted from the publication. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (4) Apart from some early work by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC), I am not aware of any research or development work on nuclear breeder reactors that has been completed, is proceeding or is contemplated in Australia. Over 20 years ago, the AAEC was involved in the assessment of a test loop for pumping liquid sodium, which could have been relevant to development of a metal cooled fast nuclear reactor. This work was of course funded by the Federal Government at that time. There was no resultant development from this project. (5) The pages referred to are part of the International Energy Agency's subject classification scheme which is reproduced in its entirety in the introduction to the Compendium. The classification scheme is not intended to indicate the contents of the Compendium, and contents are given on a preceding page. No entries occur under section 10 of the classification scheme because no projects relevant to that heading have been reported to the compilers of the Compendium. (Question No. 3161) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Will he bring up to date the information given in answer to question No. 1926 (Hansard, 19 November 1985, page 3192) concerning Soviet naval activity in the Indian Ocean and provide similar information for the Pacific Ocean. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Monthly class/day figures of Soviet naval and naval associated ships during the period 1 September 1985 to 31 January 1986 are shown in the following table: SOVIET NAVAL ACTIVITY INDIAN OCEAN (SHIP DAYS) SEPTEMBER 1985-JANUARY 1986 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Cruisers Kirov... 4 31 3 Kara... 6 Destroyers Udaloy... 4 31 30 31 7 Sovremenny... 4 31 3 Kasin... 30 31 3 Frigates Krivak... 7 Petya... 3 Submarines Victor... 3 Echo II... 30 31 30 13 Kilo... 5 31 11 Foxtrot... 34 31 30 31 31 Minesweepers Natya... 11 31 30 31 31 Yurka... 23 Landing Ships Ropucha... 30 32 60 42 31 Auxiliaries Oilers... 30 31 30 53 37 Repair Ships... 30 46 60 44 31 Sub tenders... 32 31 30 31 31 Merchant Tankers... 30 31 26 31 Store Ships... 11 31 30 31 31 Tugs... 15 18 31 57 Miscellaneous... 108 124 112 86 93 Others Oceanographic... 30 31 30 69 31 Hydrographic... 30 31 30 42 31 Comprehensive and detailed data on Soviet naval movements in the Pacific Ocean is derived from a variety of sources, including sensitive intelligence sources and information made available by allies on a confidential basis. It would not be appropriate for the Australian Government to make such data publicly available. There has been no significant Soviet naval activity in the South Pacific since the information given in response to Question No. 1681 part 2 (Hansard, 9 October, 1984, pages 1980-81). There have been no developments which would warrant change to the information contained in other parts of the answer given previously to Question No. 1926 (Hansard, 19 November 1985, page 3184). (Question No. 3209) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 February 1986: Further to my question No. 3087 (Hansard 11 February 1986, page 116) concerning staff vacancies in his Department will he provide similar information for 28 November of (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information sought by the honourable member is not available for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland or, for 28 November 1983, from Western Australia. The information available is as follows: Number of vacancies 28.11.83 28.11.84 SA... 2 2 WA... n.a. 6 Tas.... 0 1 NT... 5 1 ACT... 0 0 The level of vacancy was not abnormal and did not adversely affect the Department's capacity to investigate abuses. The vacancies occurred through resignations, promotions, transfers, leave and higher duties arrangements. (Question No. 3280) Mr Lee asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Does the Government intend to increase the amount of private income which a pensioner can earn before his or her pension is affected by the income test; if so, by what amount. (2) Will he provide a table showing the expected pension levels for pensioners with private incomes from $30 per week upwards in $10 per week increments for (a) single and married pensioners and (b) before and after 1 November 1986. (3) Does the Government intend to increase the limit on non-pension income for fringe benefit entitlement. (4) How many additional pensioners would be entitled to fringe benefits if the allowable private income levels were raised by $10 per week for single pensioners and $20 per week for married pensioners. (5) What would be the cost to (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the State Governments and (c) local Governments of this increase. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. In November 1986, the amount of private weekly income which a pensioner can earn before his or her pension is affected will increase from $30 to $40 for a single pensioner and from $50 to $70 for a married couple. In addition, for pensioners with dependent children, the income disregard for each child will increase from $6 to $12 a week. For pensioners renting privately, the separate income test for rent assistance will also be abolished. (2) The following tables illustrate (a) and (b) the increases in pension level that the November income test changes will provide for single and married pensioners without dependants and with private incomes from $30 upwards. The tables show separately the effect for pensioners not eligible for rent assistance and for those eligible for maximum assistance under the rent test (i.e. those paying private rent of $40 a week or more). Since actual pension rates to apply from November 1986 are not known at this time, tables relate to pre-November base rates. PENSION LEVELS FOR SINGLE PENSIONERS WITHOUT DEPENDANTS $ a week Private income Not eligible for Rent Assistance Pre 1 Nov 86 Post 1 Nov 86 (a) Increase (a) (b) Eligible for Maximum Rent Assistance Pre 1 Nov 86 Post 1 Nov 86 (a) Increase (a) (b) 30... 102.10 102.10 0 102.10 117.10 15 40... 97.10 102.10 5 97.10 117.10 20 50... 92.10 97.10 5 92.10 112.10 20 60... 87.10 92.10 5 87.10 107.10 20 70... 82.10 87.10 5 82.10 102.10 20 80... 77.10 82.10 5 77.10 97.10 20 90... 72.10 77.10 5 72.10 92.10 20 100... 67.10 72.10 5 67.10 87.10 20 110... 62.10 67.10 5 62.10 82.10 20 120... 57.10 62.10 5 57.10 77.10 20 130... 52.10 57.10 5 52.10 72.10 20 140... 47.10 52.10 5 47.10 67.10 20 150... 42.10 47.10 5 42.10 62.10 20 160... 37.10 42.10 5 37.10 57.10 20 170... 32.10 37.10 5 32.10 52.10 20 180... 27.10 32.10 5 27.10 47.10 20 190... 22.10 27.10 5 22.10 42.10 20 200... 17.10 22.10 5 17.10 37.10 20 210... 12.10 17.10 5 12.10 32.10 20 220... 7.10 12.10 5 7.10 27.10 20 230... 2.10 7.10 5 2.10 22.10 20 240... 0 2.10 2.10 0 17.10 17.10 250... 0 12.10 12.10 260... 7.10 7.10 270... 2.10 2.10 280... 0 (a) From November 1986, pensioners at all income levels will also benefit from the full amount of the indexation increases in respect of the CPI movements in the March and June quarters 1986. (b) From November 1986, pensioners with children at all income levels shown will, in addition, receive an increase in their pension of $3 per child. * The above table relates to pensioners under age 70. COMBINED PENSION LEVELS FOR MARRIED PENSIONER COUPLES WITHOUT DEPENDANTS $ a week Private Income (combined) Not eligible for Rent Assistance Pre 1 Nov. 86 Post 1 Nov. 86(a) Increase (a) (b) Eligible for Maximum Rent Assistance Pre 1 Nov. 86 Post 1 Nov. 86(a) Increase (a) (b) 30... 170.30 170.30 0 170.30 185.30 15 40... 170.30 170.30 0 170.30 185.30 15 50... 170.30 170.30 0 170.30 185.30 15 60... 165.30 170.30 10 165.30 185.30 20 70... 160.30 170.30 10 160.30 185.30 25 80... 155.30 165.30 10 155.30 180.30 25 90... 150.30 160.30 10 150.30 175.30 25 100... 145.30 155.30 10 145.30 170.30 25 110... 140.30 150.30 10 140.30 165.30 25 120... 135.30 145.30 10 135.30 160.30 25 130... 130.30 140.30 10 130.30 155.30 25 140... 125.30 135.30 10 125.30 150.30 25 150... 120.30 130.30 10 120.30 145.30 25 160... 115.30 125.30 10 115.30 140.30 25 170... 110.30 120.30 10 110.30 135.30 25 180... 105.30 115.30 10 105.30 130.30 25 190... 100.30 110.30 10 100.30 125.30 25 200... 95.30 105.30 10 95.30 120.30 25 210... 90.30 100.30 10 90.30 115.30 25 220... 85.30 95.30 10 85.30 110.30 25 230... 80.30 90.30 10 80.30 105.30 25 240... 75.30 85.30 10 75.30 100.30 25 250... 70.30 80.30 10 70.30 95.30 25 260... 65.30 75.30 10 65.30 90.30 25 270... 60.30 70.30 10 60.30 85.30 25 280... 55.30 65.30 10 55.30 80.30 25 290... 50.30 60.30 10 50.30 75.30 25 300... 45.30 55.30 10 45.30 70.30 25 310... 40.30 50.30 10 40.30 65.30 25 320... 35.30 45.30 10 35.30 60.30 25 330... 30.30 40.30 10 30.30 55.30 25 340... 25.30 35.30 10 25.30 50.30 25 350... 20.30 30.30 10 20.30 45.30 25 360... 15.30 25.30 10 15.30 40.30 25 370... 10.30 20.30 10 10.30 35.30 25 380... 5.30 15.30 10 5.30 30.30 25 390... 0 10.30 10.30 0 25.30 25.30 400... 5.30 5.30 20.30 20.30 410... 0 15.30 15.30 420... 10.30 10.30 430... 5.30 5.30 440... 0 (a) From November 1986, pensioners at all income levels will also benefit from the full amount of the indexation increase in respect of the CPI movement in the March and June quarters 1986. (b) From November 1986, pensioners with children at all income levels shown will, in addition, receive an increase in their pension of $3 per child. * The above table relates to pensioners under age 70 (3) The limits on non-pensioners income for fringe benefit entitlement are increased automatically under indexation arrangements each May and November. (4) Approximately 21,000 additional Social Security pensioners would become entitled to fringe benefits, based on December 1985 figures and income conditions. This figure does not include veterans, service wives and widows. (5)- (a) The cost to the Commonwealth is estimated to be $3m in a full year. This does not include costs to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (b) and (c) The information sought is a matter for the appropriate States and local government authorities. (Question No. 3315) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Advance Bank of Australia Limited has advised investors that interest accruing on its `rainy day' investment account does not form part of income for the purposes of a pension or benefit paid by his Department. (2) Has his Department ruled that this income is deemed to be income for pension purposes. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Advance Bank of Australia Limited as agent for the Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Company Rainy Day Investment Bond Policy maintains a policy account to which premiums and investment income are credited and from which administration charges and benefits are debited. I am informed that the investment income accruing on this policy represents a return which the company `guarantees' to pay to the investor and that investors are being advised that these amounts are treated as income for the purpose of calculating pension and benefit entitlements. (2) Yes. (Question No. 3411) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: What use was made of SARSAT, the international search and rescue satellite, during the 1985 Sydney to Hobart yacht race. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Experiments were conducted by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation during the 1985 Sydney to Hobart yacht race to gather data on the performance of SARSAT in the Australian area. The satellite system was not used for search and rescue purposes during the race. (Question No. 3412) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) What votes were taken at the January meeting in London of the International Maritime Organisation regarding (a) SARSAT search and rescue satellite and (b) INMARSAT international marine satellite. (2) What was the result of the votes and how did the Australian delegation vote. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No formal votes were taken at the meeting of the International Maritime Organisation's Maritime Safety Committee meeting held in January. A decision relating to SARSAT was taken after an indicative vote, based on a show of hands. (2) As a result of an indicative vote of 34 in favour and 8 against, the Committee decided that the carriage of float free satellite Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons operating in the COSPAS-SARSAT system should be mandatory in the Future Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. The Australian delegation abstained in this indicative vote. (Question No. 156) Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a letter and advertisement from the Australian Conservation Foundation asking for tax deductible donations for `The Peace Bus'. (2) Are such donations tax deductible. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I am advised that donations made to an organisation such as People for Nuclear Disarmament do not qualify for deduction in terms of the specific provisions of the income tax law relating to gifts. However, gifts to the value of $2 and upwards made to the Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated are allowable as deductions under the gift provisions. Accordingly, provided the Foundation is free to apply a gift of money in whatever manner it sees fit, subject, of course, to the limitations provided by its constitution, then the amount of the gift will qualify as a deduction. I am further informed that, notwithstanding that a donor of money to the Foundation might express a preference for the gift to be directed to a particular activity, it is the general practice that no guarantee or undertaking is given by the Foundation that the donation will be applied in that way. The Foundation would be free to use such a gift for any purposes it chooses pursuant to its objects and, in these circumstances, the gift would qualify for deduction under the relevant provisions of the law. (Question No. 263) Mr Connolly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) A distinction should be made between the Department's administration and policy function and its responsibilities, through the Office of Further Education, for technical and further education in the Australian Capital Territory. In the former role, the Department has engaged Film Australia to produce film and video for external use. It has not produced film or video for internal use. In regard to the latter role, the Educational Media units at Bruce, Canberra and Woden Colleges of Technical and Further Education produce and dub video material for instructional and other educational purposes for internal use within the individual TAFE colleges. (2) Yes (see above). (3) (a) and (b) (i) Feasibility treatment for film and video on the Participation and Equity Program, entitled: $113,948. `Participation and Equity Program' video, $86,240 production costs, $11,234 duplication costs. (ii) Woden TAFE College Cost* $ Constructing a Farm Fence... 50 Typing an Open Table... 50 Bread Flowers... 50 Woden TAFE College Promotion... 50 Knitting Machine... 50 Sheep Autopsy... 50 Colour Quadrant... 50 Microfiche Reader... 50 Fashion Show 84... 50 Table Setting... 50 Scone Dough... 50 Preparing a Whole Fish... 50 Simple Garnishes... 50 Sponges... 50 Egg Foams... 50 Quiche Lorraine... 50 Jointing a Chicken... 50 Preparing Fruit and Vegetables... 50 Garnishes... 50 Panel Beating Promotion... 50 Automotive Painting Promotion... 50 Trade Awareness Promotion... 50 Shopping for Fruit... 50 $1,150 (iii) Canberra TAFE College Knife Sharpening and Selection... 120 Use of Garnishes... 70 Flower Arranging... 70 Home Science Certificate Course-Introduction... 130 Fashion Manufacturers in Sydney... 120 Introduction to Welding... 80 Vehicle Globe Identification... 120 Group Communication for Manager... 90 Secretarial Studies- - Exercises for Keyboard Operators... 80 - Introduction to Typing Laboratory... 120 - Office Assistants Transition Course... 130 Identification of Gases-Chemistry... 70 Coastal Landforms-Geography... 80 Carving of Meats... 70 Geoscience Transition Course... 120 Ecology of Black Mountain... 130 Fashion Parade-1984... 70 College Promotion-Career Awareness... 130 $1,800 (iv) Bruce TAFE College Video Packages Civil Engineering-Career... 100 Bruce TAFE College... 1,950 Autodraft-an introduction... 1,440 Council Room Sideboard-planning... 900 Council Room Sideboard-construction... 900 Making a Map... 2,360 Decanting Oxygen Bottles... 540 The Canberra Chemist... 2,660 Single Concept Instructional Video Tapes (SCIT) Identifying Bones in a Mammalian Skeleton-introduction... 60 Making a Wet Slide... 25 Irrigating the Slide... 25 Onion Epidermis... 25 Elodea Leaf... 25 Elodea Leaf Plasmalysis... 25 Euglena... 25 Paramecium... 25 Amoeba... 25 Preparing 11 KV Cable... 50 Soldering Cores... 50 Welding Cores... 50 Core Insulation... 50 Replacing Sleeve... 50 Compound Filling... 50 D83 CR0... 120 Rock Platform Analysis... 65 Organisms of the Rock Platform... 65 Vertical Rock Face... 65 Rock Pool and Translet... 65 Sand Dune Analysis... 65 Mangroves... 65 Latex Stomata Print of Mangrove Leaf... 65 Gundagai-Tumblong Highway Rocks... 400 Edging Particle Board-plastic... 45 Edging Particle Board-timber... 45 Sag Testing in Various Board Types... 50 Using a Burette... 90 Circulation-basic physiology... 60 Circulation-basic anatomy... 60 Circulation-pathophysiology... 60 Anatomy and Mechanical Principles of Breathing... 120 Saw Sharpening... 120 Handling Drosophila... 240 Alternator Control Panel... 120 Simulated Starter and Slip Ring Motor... 120 Colour Proofing-Watercote... 210 Preparation of Stripping Film... 120 Operation of the Mousawa Phototypesetter... 300 Screens... 150 Masking-etch and peel... 240 Masking-cut and peel... 180 How Accidents Happen-Glen... 90 How Accidents Happen-Gordon... 90 How Accidents Happen-Paul... 90 $14,985 (4) (i) Department of Education Central Office and State Offices: Nil. (ii) Woden TAFE College Video Production Equipment: 1 Sony portable VO4800PS VCR with power adaptor, 1 Sony DXC 180PK video camera, 1 Sony Field Colour Monitor 4'' PVM400P, 1 Universal video tripod with dolly, 1 Lowel Tota lighting kit, 1 Sony editing suite, 1 Audio mixer Sony MX20, 1 Portable reel to reel audio recorder, Sony TC510-2, 1 Portable cassette audio recorder, Superscope CD330, 1 Microphone kit, Sennheiser MKE 1001, 2 National portable NV3000 VCRs with power adaptor, 2 National WV3200 video camera, 1 Slik video tripod. Used for production and editing of instructional materials. (iii) Canberra TAFE College Video Production Equipment. Equipment in Media Department for production of videotape: 1 X Video Camera Sony DXC 1800, 1 X Portable video recorder Sony VO 4800, 1 X Video editing suite Sony VO 5850s and controller, various lights, microphones, audio gear. Used for production and editing of instructional materials. (iv) Bruce TAFE College Video Production Equipment: 2 X VO5850P Sony video recorders, 1 X RM440 Sony control unit, 2 X JVC 5 inch monitors, 1 X National captioner (for superimposing captions), 1 X FOR.A video pointer (for superimposing movable arrow), 2 X JVC S100P video cameras with portable recorders, 1 X JVC KP1500 special effects generator (for switching or fading from one camera to another), 3 X JVC 5 inch monitors, 1 X National floor monitor, 1 X VO 2630 Sony recorder. Used for production and editing of instructional materials. (5) (i) Department of Education Central Office and State Offices: Nil. (ii) Woden TAFE College 1 Teacher Band 2...$32,698 p.a. 1 Teacher Band 1...$28,961 p.a. 1 Teacher Band 1...$26,463 p.a. Video production forms only part of the duties of these positions. (iii) Canberra TAFE College 1 Teacher Band 1...$29,000 p.a. 1 Teacher Band 1...$26,000 p.a. 1 Teacher Band 2...$32,500 p.a. Video production forms only part of the duties of these positions. (iv) Bruce TAFE College 1 Teacher Band 2...$32,698 p.a. 2 Teacher Band 1...$29,217 p.a. 1 Technical Assistant Grade 2...$19,449 p.a. 1 Teacher Band 1 (Master Teacher)...$32,698 p.a. Video production forms only part of the duties of these positions. (Question No. 349) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What action has taken place in the 1983 election proposal to exempt from sales tax the additional freight costs of goods purchased by country people. (2) Will this proposal be carried out if a broadly based retail tax is introduced; if not, what other proposals does the Government have to offset this additional cost burden for country people. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Sales tax is not payable on freight as such but on the value for which goods are sold by wholesale. If the wholesale selling price of goods reflects a freight component, then tax is payable on that component. This treatment, however, is no different from that accorded any other costs incurred by wholesalers and taken into account in setting their selling prices. Costs such as rent, insurance, power and other overheads would be reflected in the wholesale selling price on which tax is calculated. In the ordinary course of events, sales tax falls on the cost of transporting goods from city to country areas only when the wholesale sales occur in those country areas. In the great majority of cases, country retailers purchase their goods from city manufacturers or wholesalers on free-on-board (f.o.b) or free-on-rail (f.o.r) terms under which wholesale sales occur in the cities. Sales tax is not then payable on freight costs incurred in transporting the goods to the country retailers' premises. This treatment of freight costs for the purposes of the wholesale sales tax is not peculiar to sales to country traders but applies to sales by all wholesalers who incur freight and other costs in purchasing and handling goods for sale. Wholesalers located in the cities would also have to take into consideration inward freight costs in determining their selling prices whether they purchase such goods from wholesalers or manufacturers in other cities or from manufacturers located in their own city. The possibility of attempting to remove the freight cost element from the sale value of all goods is a matter which has been raised by various interested persons and organisations over the years. That matter has been examined exhaustively, not only by various Governments but also by the Taxation Review Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Asprey. The Committee's view was that equity could not be achieved in the matter of freight charges without sacrificing simplicity and certainty and without unduly increasing compliance costs and the costs of collection of the tax. The Committee recommended that no change be made to the law in this respect. The tax system, by virtue of the income tax zone rebates, already contains an instrument to provide compensation to persons in remote areas for their higher cost of living. The Government considers the income zone rebates to be basically an equitable, practical and effective instrument for this purpose and in the 1984-85 Budget chose to increase the basic amounts of income tax zone rebates by 25 per cent, with effect from 1 November 1984. As a result of this increase, the full-year basic zone rebates are $270 in respect of Zone A, $45 in respect of Zone B and $938 in respect of the Special Zone Areas. These basic rebates are supplemented by special dependant rebates. (2) The 1985 review of the tax system will consider a broad range of measures aimed at creating a tax system that is simpler, fairer and more conducive to economic growth. So far as any detriments associated with the transition to a reformed tax system are concerned, the Government will be seeking to address these through both the design of individual measures, especially the nature of implementation arrangements, and by means of a `package' approach whereby the distributional effects of individual measures for particular groups may be offset by other elements of the package. It would be premature to address issues relating to the possible detriment for one particular group from one possible reform measure at this stage of the Government's consideration of tax reform. (Question No. 465) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: Do any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries include food, excluding eating out, amongst the commodities subject to indirect taxes; if so, which countries and what are the forms of the tax and the tax rates. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The indirect taxation treatment of food varies considerably across OECD countries. The following table provides information for those OECD countries for which it is readily available: Country Type of Tax (a) Treatment of Food Australia WST Most foods exempt; confectionery, snack foods, biscuits and ice-cream at 10% Austria VAT 10% (reduced rate) Belgium VAT 6% (reduced rate) Canada (provinces) RST Exempt in most, from 5% to 11% in the others Canada (Federal) Manufacturers Tax Exempt Denmark VAT 22% (general rate) France VAT Most foods at 5.5%, with a few at 18.6% or 33.3% Ireland VAT Most foods at zero rate; confectionery, snack foods etc at 23% (general rate) Italy VAT Foods at 2%, 8%, 10% or 15% depending on type Luxem- bourg VAT Most foods at 6% some at 3% Nether- lands VAT 5% (reduced rate) New Zealand VAT (b) 5% (reduced rate) Norway VAT All foods at 20% (general rate) except for fish at 11% (special reduced rate) Sweden VAT 23.5% (general rate) Switzerland RST Exempt UK VAT Most foods at zero rate, the rest at 15% (general rate) USA (States) RST Exempt in about half the States, taxed at from 2% to 8% in the rest (a) WST denotes Wholesale Sales Tax. RST denotes Retail Sales Tax. VAT denotes Value Added Tax. (b) Proposed to be introduced from 1 October 1986. (Question No. 652) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) What action has the Government taken with respect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union for wider access to taxation records to assist the fight against crime. (2) What negotiations and consultations have been undertaken to advance the Government's consideration of those recommendations. (3) When is it anticipated that the Government will make an announcement on this matter. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has the sensitive question of wider access to taxation-sourced information for law enforcement purposes under active consideration. (2) Relevant agencies of the Government with a role in law enforcement have been consulted and their views are being taken into account. (3) The Government will announce its decision on completion of its consideration of this matter. I am not able to indicate when that is likely to be. (Question No. 938) Mr Braithwaite asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) Where valuations of businesses and farms are carried out by tax valuers on behalf of the Department of Social Security, what use is made of the information by the Australian Taxation Office. (2) Will information gained from valuations for pensioner assets test purposes be applied in company and partnership tax returns to ensure that balance sheets adequately reflect the market value of the business; if so, what protection do pensioners have to argue against the tax valuations within the taxation system. (3) If not, what protection do pensioners have that valuations will not be used for these purposes. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The valuations carried out by Australian Taxation Office professional valuers are being determined for the Department of Social Security and the information gained in the course of their inquiries is not used or made available for any other purpose. (2) No. (3) The valuers are providing a service to the Department of Social Security and the valuations determined are for the sole use of that Department. (Question No. 1204) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 May 1985: What was the volume of sales of Australian wine (a) in glass containers of 1 litre and under and (b) in other containers, in each month since 1 January 1984. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: SALES OF AUSTRALIAN WINE (a) BY WINEMAKERS (b) Glass containers of 1 litre and under All other containers (c) ('000 litres) ('000 litres) 1984- January... 3300 10 009 February... 3383 13 946 March... 3925 15 525 April... 3840 13 155 May... 4534 15 965 June... 3737 14 014 July... 4776 16 538 August... 6440 20 575 September... 4422 13 434 October... 4482 14 701 November... 5458 16 076 December... 5812 20 451 1985- January... 3355 10 770 February... 3767 13 662 March... 4316 16 986 April... 4330 13 041 May... * * June... 4465 15 582 July... 4677 15 779 August... 6171 19 930 September... 4639 14 163 October... 5096 16 186 November... 5824 18 933 December... 6160 20 730 (a) Table wines only. (b) Wineries with wine sales of 250,000 litres or more in the previous financial year. These wineries account for approximately 97% of total wine sales. The figures include all sales by winemakers (within the scope of the collection) with the exception of exports, sales for ships' stores, sales of imported wine and inter-winery sales, the latter exclusion being necessary to avoid duplication in the published figures. (c) Includes glass containers over 1 litre, soft pack and bulk containers. (Question No. 1497) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) for each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following answer does not include information on the ACT Schools Authority which is now the responsibility of the Minister for Territories. (1) Brands of computer or ADP hardware used within the Education portfolio are: Amdahl Sigma Data Wordplex Hewlett-Packard Amtext Wang Digital Equipment Corporation National Advanced Systems AWA FACOM Columbia Ericsson President IBM Prime Apple Microbee Beehive Multitech Logitec Sanyo Krupp Atlas Eletronik Sirius Mitsubishi Kapro Norcontrol NCR (2) Major systems used within the Education portfolio are: Amdahl Mainframe (a) The principal system to be run on the Amdahl are: (i) Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme-TEAS (ii) Aboriginal Secondary Assistance Scheme-ABSEC (iii) Secondary Allowances Scheme-SAS (iv) Aboriginal Study Scheme-ABSTUDY (v) Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme-ASEAS (vi) Assistance for Isolated Children-AIC (vii) Departmental Support Systems. (b) Amdahl hardware installation took place in the week 16-20 August 1985. System software loading and applications software loading was completed by December 1985. (c) Amdahl mainframe cost was $.477m. (d) Expected life is 5 years. (e) There are currently no specific plans for the replacement of the Amdahl system. Hewlett-Packard HP3000 mini computer (a) The principal systems operating on the HP 3000 are support systems for Canberra based further education institutions. (b) Hardware installation began March 1985 and the systems became operational on 22 July 1985. (c) The cost of the system was $352,000. (d) Cost benefits of this system were calculated on a five year basis, although the system could be expected to perform satisfactorily for up to ten years with suitable, periodic enhancements. (e) There are no current plans for system replacement. Wang VS 85 mini computer Wang OIS-50 word processing systems (a) To provide administrative support for the payment of grants to schools under the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1983 and for the analysis of school statistics in the Department's/Commonwealth Schools Commission's offices. (b) The VS 85 was installed on 22 April 1985 and the Wang OIS-50 word processing systems were installed in the State Offices on 26 September 1984. (c) $724,342. (d) 10 years. (e) There are no current plans for system replacement. Hewlett-Packard model 3000/42 (a) Processing of tertiary education statistical data; office automation (b) April, 1985 (c) $170,000 (d) 5 years (e) None Hewlett-Packard model 250 (a) Processing of tertiary education statistical data (b) June, 1981 (c) $52,000 (including some bundled software) (d) To be phased out during 1987 (e) Systems on the HP3000 (either currently under development or to be developed during 1986) will eventually replace production systems on the HP250 Digital PDP 11-45 (a) Teaching (b) 19 September 1977-24 June 1985 (c) $266,903 (d) 1 year (e) None at this stage IBM (a) Teaching (b) 9 March 1984-12 June 1985 (c) $59,109 (d) 3 years (e) None at this stage Systems Wang (SMB) (a) Teaching (b) 12 February 1981 (c) $66,226 (d) 1 year (e) None at this stage DEC PDPs (a) Teaching aid for teaching computer related subjects (b) One installed 1977 One installed 1979 (c) $50,000 $80,000 (d) Expired (e) Being replaced by PRIME minicomputer system PRIME minicomputer system (a) For teaching purposes (b) January 1985 (c) $200,000 (d) 5 years (e) If timely enhancements to existing systems are made, service life should extend to 10 years. Without those enhancements service life is 5 years from 1985 i.e. 1990. (3) The Wang System used to provide administrative support for the payment of grants to schools and for the analysis of school statistics is networked to a NAS 7000 computer operated by the Department of the Special Minister of State. The Canberra College of TAFE has a terminal which is connected to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs System. (Question No. 1879) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 September 1985: (1) Further to the answer to Senate question No. 900 (Senate Hansard, 4 September 1984, page 431), what is the result of the departmental investigation into allegations of sales tax evasion on motor vehicles sold using exemptions available to charities. (2) Is the departmental investigation into the matter still dependent on the outcome of proceedings currently before the courts in NSW; if not, on what date were these proceedings (including appeals) concluded. (3) Have departmental investigations revealed the commission of an offence under the Commonwealth law. (4) Has the question of prosecution been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. (5) Has the Director of Public Prosecutions given an opinion on the matter; if so, will he make a copy of the opinion available for perusal by members. (6) Have any prosecutions been launched; if so, (a) against whom, (b) for what offence or offences and (c) what progress has been made; if not, when are prosecutions anticipated. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (6) As Senator Walsh explained in answer to Senate question No. 990, the Commissioner of Taxation has conducted inquiries into the matters raised. However, the secrecy provisions of the sales tax law preclude him from supplying specific information relating to the outcome of those inquiries. The Commissioner is able to give the general assurance that procedures are in place to safeguard the revenue where exemption from sales tax on goods is sought. In situations where the revenue may be at risk, appropriate action is taken including the seeking of advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions on possible prosecution action. (Question No. 2227) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: Further to the answer to Senate question No. 900 (Senate Hansard, 4 September 1984, page 431), did the estimated loss of $10,000 revenue as a result of evasion of sales tax through using exemptions available to charities purchasing motor vehicles, include a Mercedes Benz motor car valued at $50,000, less tax of $6,325.24, said to have been acquired for Art Union Boys Club No. 14 in aid of the Parramatta Police Citizens Boys Club. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Senator Walsh explained in answer to Senate question No. 900, the Commissioner of Taxation has conducted inquiries into the matters raised. However, the secrecy provisions of the sales tax law preclude him from supplying specific information relating to the outcome of those inquiries. The Commissioner is able to give the general assurance that procedures are in place to safeguard the revenue where exemption from sales tax on goods is sought. In situations where the revenue may be at risk, appropriate action is taken including the seeking of advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions on possible prosecution action. (Question No. 2283) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an item on page 11 of the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 April 1984, entitled `Boys' club papers gone, clerk says'. (2) Has the Commissioner of Taxation undertaken an investigation into allegations (a) that documents usually kept at the Head Office of the NSW Federation of Police Citizen Boys' Clubs recording motor vehicles registered in the name of the Federation were missing, (b) of a false pretence, that certain motor vehicles were represented to be purchased for a Police Citizens Boys' Club at the State Government contract price between 1976 and 1979, that is, at a price free of sales tax and (c) that the Federation's representative had searched the files of the Federation of Police Citizens Boys' Clubs and could find no record of purchases of certain vehicles, additional to 2 authorised vehicles. (3) If so, did it disclose the commission of an offence under Commonwealth law and, in particular, the Crimes Act and what were the detailed results of the investigation. (4) What was the result of the Court proceedings reported in the article. (5) If a conviction was recorded, was there an appeal and has the appeal now been dismissed. (6) Has the question of prosecution been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions; if so, what was the result of his inquiries. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As Senator Walsh explained in answer to Senate Question No. 990, the Commissioner of Taxation has conducted inquiries into the matters raised. However, the secrecy provisions of the sales tax law preclude him from supplying specific information relating to the outcome of those inquiries. The Commissioner is able to give the general assurance that procedures are in place to safeguard the revenue where exemption from sales tax on goods is sought. In situations where the revenue may be at risk, appropriate action is taken including the seeking of advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions on possible prosecution action. (Question No. 2575) Mr Halverson asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Is it a fact that when the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation sued Basilthon Finances Pty Ltd, the trustee for the Basilthon Finance Settlement, a major beneficiary of the settlement was Aquaglen Ltd, incorporated in the United Kingdom as a holding company and trustee for several trusts set up in Switzerland. (2) Over what period was the Basilthon Finance Settlement subject to Australian taxation. (3) Under which provisions of the Commonwealth taxation legislation was Basilthon Finances Pty Ltd sued as trustee for the Basilthon Finance Settlement. (4) Did the trustee for the Basilthon Finance Settlement ever claim charitable trust status for the purpose of taxation; if so, was that status claimed in relation to the benefit of intellectually handicapped persons. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) The secrecy provisions in the income tax law prohibit the Commissioner of Taxation from divulging information about the taxation affairs of particular taxpayers. I am therefore unable to answer the honourable member's question. (Question No. 2788) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or the Tertiary Education Commission monitor the expenditure of universities; if so, does this include expenditure of an extraordinary nature reflecting upon (a) the efficiency of university administration and (b) decision making procedures. (2) What information does the Minister's Department and the Tertiary Education Commission collect on (a) costs of university administration and (b) extraordinary expenditure on such matters as defending or initiating legal procedures. (3) Are comparisons made between universities on their levels of expenditure. (4) Has information been sought from the University of Sydney in relation to the amount of expenditure incurred in initiating and defending proceedings involving Dr J. Trau; if so, what was the cost. (5) If the information was not sought, can it be obtained. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Institutions are required to provide an annual statistical return to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) which includes details on expenditure patterns across the range of activities undertaken by them. A copy of the Finance section of the Annual Statistical Return has been sent to the honourable member. (a) No. (b) No. (2)- (a) The information sought from institutions is of a summary nature. It includes details of administrative expenses incurred by institutions. (b) It does not include individual items of expenditure such as legal expenses incurred in individual cases. (3) In preparing its advice to the Government on levels of funding for individual institutions the CTEC does compare broad expenditure patterns at different institutions. (4) No. (5) See (2) above; staffing matters are the responsibility of individual institutions. Mr Keating —On 27 November 1985 (Hansard, page 3766), Mr Ruddock asked me the following question without notice: I refer the Treasurer to his answers to questions on notice concerning investigations into allegations of sales tax evasion on motor vehicles sold using exemptions to charities, in particular the Parramatta Police Citizens Boys Club. As proceedings are now complete in the courts of New South Wales and the principal involved in those proceedings was released from gaol on 23 November, are there any other circumstances which would prevent the Treasurer answering questions on notice No. 1879 of 18 September and Nos 2,227 and 2,283? What action will be taken to ensure the availability within Australia of all parties against whom charges may be brought arising from these matters? The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As Senator Walsh explained in answer to Senate question No. 990, the Commissioner of Taxation has conducted inquiries into the matters raised. However, the secrecy provisions of the sales tax law preclude him from supplying specific information relating to the outcome of those inquiries. The Commissioner is able to give the general assurance that procedures are in place to safeguard the revenue where exemption from sales tax on goods is sought. In situations where the revenue may be at risk, appropriate action is taken including the seeking of advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions on possible prosecution action.