Tuesday, 3 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 1.45 p.m. , and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) left Australia on 30 April to renegotiate the International Sugar Agreement at the United Nations Conference in Geneva and to attend ministerial discussions in Brussels. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, is Acting Minister for Primary Industry until Mr Kerin returns. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services, Mr John Brown, will represent Senator Walsh as Acting Minister in the other chamber. The PRESIDENT —I inform honourable senators that on 28 January 1983 a former Prime Minister of Australia, the Right Honourable F. M. Forde, passed away. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death on 28 January 1983 of the Right Honourable Francis Michael Forde, a member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Capricornia from 1922 to 1946, a former Prime Minister and Minister of the Crown, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. It is with regret that I inform the Senate of the death of the Right Honourable Frank Forde on 28 January this year. Mr Forde was a Prime Minister of this country for a very brief period indeed, but his great contribution to this country was made in a variety of spheres of public life, particularly in politics. He had a long and distinguished career of service to both his nation and to the Australian Labor Party. I am sure a number of honourable senators on both sides of the House will remember seeing him in King's Hall only a year or two ago, aged about 90 and still of apparently sound health and certainly of good mind. His achievements in the political arena are often overshadowed by his short period as Prime Minister , which I have referred to, after the death of John Curtin. His career in public life began in 1917 and ended in 1957. He was born at Mitchell in Queensland and educated at the Christian Brothers College in Toowoomba. Prior to being elected to the Queensland Legislative Assembly in 1917 he worked in the Postmaster-General's Department. He was in the Queensland Parliament until 1922 and then subsequently came to Canberra as the member for the electoral division of Capricornia. During his time in Canberra he served as a Minister in the Scullin Government, first as Assistant Minister for Trade and Customs and then as Minister, and also Acting Minister for Markets and Transport. When he died he was the last surviving member of the Scullin Ministry . He served also in the Curtin Government, as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Army, and in the Chifley Government, as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Army. He was Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party from 1932 until his defeat in 1946. Frank Forde, like all of us, suffered some of the ups and downs in politics. I was reminded this morning by a historian of these matters that in 1946 Frank Forde had, as his campaign slogan, a picture of himself with General MacArthur. The caption read: 'Frank Forde and General MacArthur-two men of destiny'. Frank Forde lost his seat in that election. It is significant to recall that he was, as a Minister at that time, very much associated with the defence of Australia. He served, of course, in other capacities, such as a delegate to various international bodies, and after his defeat as a member of the Federal Parliament he re-entered the Queensland Parliament until his defeat in 1957. Mr Forde is survived by three daughters and a daughter-in-law. I attended his funeral as a representative of the then Opposition. It was an occasion at which there was a degree of contentment and satisfaction at his great contribution to public life. There was a great sense of community at the funeral because he was very much a man of his community. It was an occasion, perhaps, for rejoicing, rather than great sadness, at the life which Frank Forde led. I have had pleasure in moving the motion which I moved. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I have pleasure in seconding and supporting, the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Button has already outlined to the Senate Frank Forde's parliamentary career at both the national and State levels. The peak of that career was, of course, his becoming Prime Minister, although for a relatively brief period, in July 1945. In some respects it is perhaps unfortunate that Mr Forde appears to be best known today because of the relatively brief time that he served as Prime Minister. This tends to downgrade the very important role he played in Australian politics, particularly in the political history of the Australian Labor Party over a long period. The fact is that he contributed to public life in Australia for a total of 32 years in both the Queensland and the national parliaments. His service as a Minister in the Commonwealth Government could not have occurred at a more demanding time in our nation's history. As a member of the War Cabinet between October 1941 and January 1946-for almost 2 1/2 years of that time, serving as Army Minister and Deputy Prime Minister-he was part of a small group of people whose responsibility it was to guide Australia through its gravest external crisis. Obviously, he had to shoulder a very heavy burden of leadership. Of course, he carried a particularly demanding portfolio during wartime. In remembering Frank Forde, we pay due regard to the contribution he made to his country outside those days when he assumed the highest elected office. It is obvious from reading about Mr Forde that he was a man of great courtesy, decency and generosity. The real test of any person-particularly a politician because of the public nature of our existence-is how he or she handles the disappointments and setbacks which afflict us all from time to time. As the man who was in the forefront of Labor politics for such a long period, he must naturally have wanted to attain, and retain, the prime ministership. Yet he had to suffer a tantalisingly close loss to John Curtin in a ballot for party leader in 1932 and then, 13 years later, he saw his colleagues opt for Ben Chifley as Labor Prime Minister. It is worth noting what Chifley's biographer, Professor Crisp, had to say about Frank Forde's reaction to the caucus vote which elected the new leader in July 1945. Forde made, according to Crisp, a 'simple, graceful and-in the bitterly disappointing circumstances-courageous speech of congratulations'. As far as Curtin was concerned he never had any doubts about Frank Forde's standing in the nation's history, describing him as the best Prime Minister Australia has had. Mr President, the Liberal Party in this place joins with the Government in paying tribute to Frank Forde as a parliamentarian, Labor Party Leader, high commissioner and Prime Minister, and extends its sympathy to the surviving members of his family. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I advise honourable senators that since the adjournment of the Senate on 16 December 1982 the following members of Parliament have passed away: Former Senator E. B. Maher, Mr W. P. Conelan, Mr D. Minogue, and Mr A. M. Blain. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I wish to say in respect of each of those former members, most of them former members of the House of Representatives, only that they had varying periods of distinguished service to this Parliament. On behalf of my party I express our condolences to their relatives. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I also express the sympathy of the Opposition to the families and friends of the deceased ex-members and ex-senators who have been named here today. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate) —I endorse the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in expressing sympathy to the families of the people mentioned. I express the sympathy of my party particularly to the family of the late former Senator Ted Maher, who had very long experience in parliaments, both in Queensland and in this chamber. Indeed, he had a very long lifetime. He was 92 years old. He had a varied background. He was born in Forbes in New South Wales and educated in Forbes and Grenfell. As I live between those two towns, I am sure that he spent his early years in two very fine communities. He served for many years in the Postmaster-General's Department in Sydney and in a number of country towns. He was a member of a stock and station agency. He served with the International Harvester Co., as I recall, in Sydney, Perth and Brisbane. He did all these things before he started a 20-year service in the Parliament of Queensland, followed by no less than 16 years in the Australian Senate. He served on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and on the Public Works Committee. The late former Senator Maher was a sincere and popular figure who served his country and his community well. I express the sympathy of especially my party and myself to those whom he has left behind. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I wish to pay tribute to Adair Macalister Blain, who was first elected as member for the Northern Territory in 1934. Adair Macalister Blain was a most unusual person and gave much to his country in peace and war. It is of interest to note that he succeeded Mr H. G. Nelson, who was the father of Mr Jock Nelson. Mr H. G. Nelson was the first member for the Northern Territory. Then came Adair Macalister Blain, who was defeated in 1949 by Mr Jock Nelson. Adair Macalister Blain served for 15 years as an independent member of the House of Representatives before he was defeated in 1949. He was a surveyor by profession and served in the Army too. While he was a surveyor he carried out an expedition into western Arnhem Land. He also carried out official surveys into the Barkly Tableland and The Granites field. Of course, in the early 1930s this put him into the category of explorer, in which he carried out considerable work. It is also of interest to note that he joined the Australian Imperial Force in 1916 and served with the 32nd Battalion. He was wounded in action in 1918 and his appointment in the Army was terminated on 31 December 1919. As I said, later as the official surveyor in northern Australia he carried out various expeditions. He enlisted again, which means that he served in both world wars. He served in 1940 in the Second Australian Imperial Force. He was a prisoner of war from February 1942 to August 1945. He was in Changi, Sandakan, Kuching and Outram Road prisons. It is interesting to note that in 1943, while he was a prisoner of war, he was re-elected to the House of Representatives. He returned to Australia in 1945. After a distinguished service to Parliament and to the nation he returned to surveying in 1955. I, as a child and a youth, knew Adair Blain. He was a most notable person. He gave much to the outback and to the north. The PRESIDENT —I invite honourable senators to stand in their places as a mark of respect to the deceased. Honourable senators having stood in their places- The PRESIDENT —Order! The sitting of the Senate is suspended until 3.30 p.m. this day as a mark of respect to the deceased. Sitting suspended from 2.1 to 3.30 p.m. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Vietnam Veterans To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. that US, Australian and allied forces used huge amounts of toxic chemicals for military purposes, such as Agents Orange, Blue and White, in Vietnam during the war there; 2. many of these chemicals were, and are, known to be highly dangerous to human health; 3. Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families are suffering many severe problems which may be due to their exposure to these chemicals; and 4. the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia has been seeking a Royal Commission for well over two years to ensure an independent investigation of these matters. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will (a) express its support for the Royal Commission; and (b) urge the Federal Government to establish the Royal Commission immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Grimes (from 38 citizens). To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the requirement that pensioners and health care cardholders fill in a complex declaration when presenting prescriptions is causing distress to beneficiaries and inefficiencies in the distribution of medicines by pharmacists . Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will immediately abolish the requirement that a declaration be completed by the pensioner and health care cardholder. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Tate (from 8,782 citizens) and Robertson (from 1,122 citizens). To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners do not want a Uranium Enrichment Plant constructed in South-East Queensland because: (a) there is no known way of safely storing uranium waste products; (b) there has not been an environment impact study conducted into the effects of such a Uranium Enrichment Plant; (c) Australia has adequate coal supplies to provide energy for industry; (d) the risks to local inhabitants from the operation of such a plant have not been established; (e) the products of such a plant will contribute to the prospect of nuclear war ; (f) the local area would become a target in the event of such a nuclear war; (g) the investment in such a Uranium Enrichment Plant would be better spent in research into clean, renewable energy sources such as solar energy. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: (a) legislate to give power to the Commonwealth Parliament to make decisions on the export of pro- ducts from Uranium Enrichment Plants; (b) reject all applications for the export of products from Uranium Enrichment Plants; (c) legislate to give power to the Commonwealth Parliament to make decisions on foreign investment in Uranium Enrichment Plants; (d) reject all applications for foreign investment in Uranium Enrichment Plants ; (e) do all in the Senate's power to prevent the construction of a Uranium Enrichment Plant in South-East Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 763 citizens). To the President of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That it is clearly apparent that Australian society is becoming more polarised- that the rich at home and abroad are becoming richer, profiting from Australia's mineral wealth, whilst, pensioners and the disadvantaged, some three million people, are becoming a race apart. That, of necessity, the Federal Government take action that all Australians share the wealth of their country by the transfer of resources to income security, health care and housing therefore, your petitioners urge that: (1) All pensions and benefits be raised to at least 30 per cent of the national average male earnings seasonally adjusted. (2) Removal of the means/income test on the Pensioner Health Benefit imposed by Federal legislation 1973. Reintroduction of Medibank in so doing restore all Australians to equality of citizenship. (3) To alleviate Australia's shortage of housing stock within the capacity of people to pay (rental and ownership) the Federal Government immediately inject $ 200 million into State housing authorities, which will, in addition, alleviate unemployment. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 14 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the protection of the sea from pollution by oil and other harmful substances discharged from ships. Notice of Motion Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Navigation Act 1912 and the Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Act 1981. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give two contingent notices of motion as follows: (1) Contingent on any Bill being reported from a Committee of the Whole, I shall move- That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. (2) Contingent on any Bill originating in the Senate having been read a first time, I shall move- That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate affirms the importance of ensuring that changes to the taxation of resource industries do not further reduce economic activity or, without the consent of the States, transfer existing State revenue from the States to the Commonwealth. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate notes: (1) the widespread disquiet in the community amongst those who are nearing the age of retirement and present age-pension recipients; (2) that Ministers in the Hawke Government have a confusion of views on vital questions affecting pre-retirees and age-pensioners such as: (i) whether to replace income testing by means testing of age pensions; (ii) the harsher application of income testing to age pensions; and (iii) the taxation of superannuation payments and it calls on the Government to immediately state its policy on these matters. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In light of the critical role of wage levels in determining employment levels, can the Minister inform the Senate precisely what view will be adopted by the Government before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with respect to such vital questions as wage catch-up and future wage adjustment generally over the next year? Senator BUTTON —The present Government had a commitment prior to the election, and has now, to ensure that there is a centralised wage fixation system in Australia contrary to the chaotic system that existed between 1981 and December 1982 under the previous Government. Questions of wage levels will be determined by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as they always have been, but the Commonwealth will be putting a view to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is not my intention at this stage-the matter not having been finalised-to foreshadow the details of the Commonwealth's submission. I should say in answering the question that the Government, since it assumed office, has urged upon all sections of the community the necessity for restraint in the current chaotic economic circumstances which we have inherited. Part of that restraint will relate to the wage-earning section of the community. Discussions on that subject have consistently taken place with the Australian Council of Trade Unions since we assumed government and the ACTU now acknowledges the need for restraint in a manner which it was not prepared to adopt in previous years. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does the Government regard a 3 per cent to 4 per cent increase this year as an appropriate degree of restraint? Senator BUTTON —The Government has indicated that it favours restraint. I think the simplicity of Senator Chaney's question can be answered only in terms of whether one is talking about restraint by the lowest paid workers in this community and whether it would be appropriate for them to receive a wage increase of some kind this year, or whether, on the other hand, one is talking about highly paid people in this community such as politicians. Those questions will be addressed by the Government before making its submission to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Government provides funds for the operations of the Tasmanian public hospital system, including the Royal Hobart Hospital, under certain cost-sharing arrangements with the State? Is the Minister aware of the resignation yesterday of the Chairman of the Royal Hobart Hospital Board in relation to which the Chairman is reported to have spoken of the charade of the 1982-83 budget preparation forced upon the hospital's Board by the State Minister for Health? He said that the exercise 'was a farce; it was ill-conceived, incapable of being implemented and accompanied by threats and intimidating statements'. What steps will the Commonwealth Government take to prevent these financial and other harassments from continuing to the untold damage of the Tasmanian public hospital system? Senator GRIMES —I was disturbed, as I am sure everybody else in Tasmania was, to find out this morning that Mr Kearney, the Chairman of the Board of the Royal Hobart Hospital, had resigned. I was even more disturbed to find out the circumstances under which he had resigned. I have an interest in this matter not only as a Tasmanian but also as an ex-employee of the Royal Hobart Hospital. I find it very disturbing to discover that this very fine hospital-it still is a very fine hospital which has served this community very well-is in the state it is in. Not only the fact that the Chairman of the Board has felt he should resign worries us-- Senator Walters —You don't know the full circumstances. Senator GRIMES —I find that the circumstances under which he resigned, as outlined in his letter, should disturb all of us. Senator Walters —Not the full circumstances. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Walters is so interested I think we should look at some of the remarks made by Mr Kearney, particularly-- Senator Button —A very distinguished Tasmanian, I believe. Senator GRIMES —A very distinguished Tasmanian, a Tasmanian who has been asked by governments of both persuasions to conduct inquiries into such things as technical education in Tasmania and tertiary education. He is a former registrar of the university and a man who, in the past, has not hesitated to criticise governments of all persuasions in bringing down his reports. In his letter of resignation to the Honourable T. J. Cleary, the Minister for Health, he had some disturbing things to say. For instance, he said that the Board and the hospital had been subject to financial and other harassment ill-befitting a board with such responsibilities. He pointed out that the Department of Health in Tasmania, without any prior consultation or warning to any hospital in the State, had produced an entirely new procedure for determining budget allocations, making it impossible for these hospitals to plan properly. He summarised the State Government's budgeting methods by saying: . . . the initial provisional budget exercised by the Government was a farce; it was ill-conceived, incapable of being implemented and accompanied by threats and intimidating statements. His five-page letter is an indictment of the operations of the Government in Tasmania of which Senator Walters is so proud. Tasmanian hospitals are funded under a Commonwealth-State hospitals agreement which still applies in Tasmania to the extent of 50 per cent funding by the State and 50 per cent by the Commonwealth. Of course, the Commonwealth is concerned about these matters. The Commonwealth cannot directly interfere in these matters. All it can do is seek some guidance from the State Government as to just what it is about and hope that the State Government in fact wakes up to itself in its treatment of State hospitals but, in particular, the Royal Hobart Hospital, so that we do not have the situation where distinguished citizens have to resign their positions and have to use the sort of language that Mr Kearney has had to use to describe the shambles in which Mr Cleary, Mr Gray and his colleagues have left our hospital system. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I ask: Is there consensus between the Government and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Dolan, on his statement today that wage restraint did not mean that the wages pause should continue into the distant future? Mr Dolan further stated that there is an expectation that the 2.2 per cent consumer price index rise of last week will be received by wage and salary earners. He said that it is an example of increases not influenced by wage movements. I would like a clear statement from the Government on its attitude with regard to the recent consumer price index increase. Senator BUTTON —The first part of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question related to the extension of the wages pause. I have not seen Mr Dolan's statement but I understand he said that it should not be continued into the distant future. Certainly there is consensus between the Government and the ACTU on that question. The wages pause should not be continued into the distant future. With regard to any statement made by Mr Dolan in relation to the 2.2 per cent consumer price index increase for March, I am unable to make any comment about the details of Mr Dolan's statement. The Government has not determined any attitude to that question. Needless to say, a program has been set in train for the approach to the fixation of wages this year in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which is where that issue belongs. A conference has already been held between the parties and a further conference will be held at the end of May in relation to wage fixation procedures for this year. When the question of appropriate wage levels comes before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by way of a hearing, the Commonwealth will make a submission in relation to that matter. The 2.2 per cent CPI increase will, of course, be taken into account in considering the contents of that submission. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. How does the Minister respond to the continuing problems faced by the typists employed in the Victorian State office of the Commonwealth Reporting Service arising from the previous Government's arbitrary policy of shifting Victorian-generated work to other transcription centres interstate? Can the Government give the casual typists of the Melbourne Commonwealth Reporting Service an undertaking that the current allocation of work away from Victoria will be reviewed in the near future? On a broader point, can the Minister assure the Senate that the work of the Commonwealth Reporting Service, as well as that of all the other areas of employment in the Attorney-General's Department, will be arranged without political prejudice against any one particular State, as appears to have been the policy of the previous Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to my colleague for his question, genuinely without notice, on this matter. It is one close to my heart, having pursued this over the last months of last year with a number of representations to my predecessor in this office. I am afraid all I can say to him about the conduct of the typing operations of the Commonwealth Reporting Service is that I have asked for a full review from my Department on that question with a view to establishing exactly why these decisions about work allocations interstate were made and with a view, of course, to redressing the situation in the event that there proves to be, as I suspect, no rational logistical foundation for those particular decisions. Senator CHIPP —Has the Attorney-General often referred to or described the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union- the Costigan Commission-as a 'de facto crimes commission'? Has he seen, listened to, or read a transcript of the Four Corners program of last Saturday in which allegations were made concerning a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, and an association between a former Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Murray Farquhar, and a Mr George Freeman, who was named as being one of the leaders in organised crime in New South Wales by the Moffitt Royal Commission? The allegations in the program included a charge that Mr Farquhar misused his office in the committal hearings of a Mr Kevin Humphreys. Without canvassing the innocence or guilt of any of the persons named, but because two arms of the New South Wales Government, namely, the judiciary and the executive, have been accused of being possible co-conspirators to pervert the course of justice, does the Attorney-General not agree that it would be singularly inappropriate for these allegations to be tested or heard by any instrument of government or the judiciary in New South Wales? Because of this, will the Attorney-General consider referring the allegations and the whole question to the Costigan Royal Commission? At the same time, will he consider referring allegations made against a former Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin, concerning connections with organised crime in Sydney and, in particular, the specific charges made about him in the National Times of 13 to 27 September 1981 in which, inter alia, it was stated that Sir Robert Askin received $100,000 for almost eight years from a close confederate of Mr George Freeman, Mr Perc Galea? In conclusion, if the Attorney-General cannot give me a reply to these questions today, will he undertake to make a statement concerning these matters before the end of the week? The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the Attorney-General answers the question, I advise the Senate that I have been informed that legal proceedings have been taken in the matter. I am allowing the question but whether it is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General to answer is a question for him alone. Senator GARETH EVANS —It would be well known that in this place I have never taken the view that the mere issue of a defamation writ is sufficient in itself to make a matter sub judice and as such beyond the capacity of the Parliament to debate in any respect whatsoever. But at the same time, I think rather more respect ought to be paid to the judicial institutions of New South Wales than has been the case in the asking of Senator Chipp's question. I certainly would not seek to pre-empt in anything I said, here or elsewhere, what is now properly before the judicial institutions of that State. There is no question of my referring to the Costigan Commission any of the matters to which Senator Chipp referred. I say that because, as Senator Chipp ought to be well aware, the brief of the Costigan Commission is to deal only with matters that could possibly amount to breaches of either Commonwealth law or Victorian law because the Commonwealth and Victorian governments are the governments that have issued the commissions in question. Although, in a sense, it is the case that the Costigan Commission has in recent times been acting as a de facto crimes commission because of the extraordinary tentacles of the original actions of painters and dockers that it was investigating, nonetheless every matter which the Costigan Commission is now investigating has a link of a direct or indirect kind back to the activities of the painters and dockers. I do not understand from anything that Senator Chipp has said or alleged that there is any such suggestion in this case. I do not honestly think that I can add anything useful to this matter; it is one for the administration of justice in New South Wales. I simply express my complete confidence in the integrity of the New South Wales Premier and am quite sure that when this matter is finally resolved to everybody's satisfaction it will be evident that there is no foundation whatsoever for the allegations that have been made. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I thank the Attorney-General for his answer, particularly for guiding me towards the necessity for a link between certain allegations and Commonwealth responsibility . In light of that, does the Attorney agree that trafficking illegally in drugs is a matter of proper concern to the Commonwealth? Is he not aware that Mr George Freeman, who was mentioned in the allegations made in the Four Corners program, has been mentioned in at least one Federal or State royal commission inquiring into the trafficking of illegal drugs? Will the Attorney-General look again at my question and see whether he can establish that link and come to a conclusion that allegations as serious as this, when they include people such as Freeman, have in fact a link with Commonwealth responsibilities? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Chipp wishes to embark upon a fishing expedition, that is entirely his prerogative. I have no wish to join him in that expedition. Senator SIBRAA —My question also is directed to the Attorney-General and relates to the Australian Constitutional Convention held in Adelaide last week. I ask: First, is the Attorney-General aware that many of the reports that were produced by bipartisan committees of the Convention were overturned at the Convention? Secondly, was this the result of the Federal Liberals abandoning previously agreed positions and also of the stacking of delegations by Queensland and Tasmania? Thirdly, is he aware of reports that at a meeting of the Liberal Party of Australia Federal and State leaders that took place just hours before the Convention was opened it was decided that a deliberate assault should be mounted on the Labor Government's policy of consensus in the hope that opposition to most proposals put forward at the Convention would be seen by the Australian people as the breakdown of consensus? Fourthly, can he advise whether the Labor Government's policy for consensus and real constitutional reform is still alive and kicking despite the calculated attempts of the Liberal Party to destroy it? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that a number of matters that were before last week's Constitutional Convention had previously been the subject of long, detailed and very constructive analysis and report by standing committees of the Constitutional Convention over a long period and that those reports were in most respects last week treated cavalierly, with disdain and rather disgracefully by a number of the delegates in question. More particularly it is the case that a number of agenda items as to which prior notice had been given by particular delegates on behalf of particular delegations and on which delegates or delegations in question had taken clear and unequivocal public positions in advance were the subject of fairly spectacular retreat on the floor of the Convention, nowhere more so than in the case of Senator Durack and his family law proposal, which he himself had given notice of a few weeks before the Constitutional Convention. It is the case that at least two of the delegations to last week's Constitutional Convention were blatantly and unashamedly stacked. It is the case that the Commonwealth delegation of 16 was divided equally between government and non-government delegations. It is equally the case that the New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian and West Australian delegations, all led of course by Labor Party government leaders, were divided equally, six all, as between non -government and government members. It is also the case that the Bjelke-Petersen -led delegation from Queensland was in fact sent to the Convention on the basis of nine government members and only three positions being made available to the Opposition. Quite naturally, the Australian Labor Party boycotted the Convention on that basis. It is also the case that the Tasmanian delegation contained only two members of the Labor Party out of 12. Senator Peter Baume —How many Liberals? Come on. Senator GARETH EVANS —It contained four paid-up and practising members of the Liberal Party. Senator Walters —That is not the truth. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am giving the full and absolute truth of the matter, if the Senate will listen. There were 12 Tasmanian delegates. They were divided into seven from the lower House and five from the upper House. The five upper House delegates were all 'Independents' in the Tasmanian tradition and in every instance that I can recall voted with the conservative majority on the floor of the Conference. Of the seven lower House delegate positions, which it was squarely within the capacity of the Gray Government to command and to divide equally and appropriately between the parties, four were taken by the Gray Government for its own members, leaving two for the Labor Party and one for the Independent in the lower House, Doug Lowe. That is the truth of the matter. It would have been very easy indeed for Tasmania, given its peculiar position in the upper House, to do as the Western Australian Government honourably did under Sir Charles Court at previous conventions. There has been a long tradition in Western Australia until now, because of the gerrymander in the upper House, of an overwhelming preponderance of non-government members in that House. In past years, prior to the present Convention, the delegation from Western Australia has been divided into seven members from the lower House and five from the upper House and the preponderance of the delegates from the upper House, reflecting the composition of that House in Western Australia, has been non-government. But under the Court Government-I hope people on the other side of the chamber will listen to this-it was the case , even when the Liberals were in power, for the lower House delegation of seven members to be divided into four and three in favour of the Australian Labor Party, then in opposition, in order to balance that uneven state of affairs in the upper House. That was an honourable course to adopt, consistent with the high aspirations and objectives of the Constitutional Convention. That was the kind of convention that had developed about the conduct of the Constitutional Convention over the 10 years of its operation. Those were the conventions that, once again, were torn up by the people on the other side of this chamber and their colleagues in other States, particularly Queensland and Tasmania, who, always demonstrate their utter inability to match their sentiments with their performance whenever they get the opportunity. I was asked about reports that this state of affairs on the floor of the Convention had been deliberately contrived. It is the case that Mr Bill Goff of the Australian Associated Press, in an AAP news feature put on the public record on 1 May, said : According to one well-placed, non-Labor convention source the whole sad episode had its genesis in a deliberate decision taken by the meeting of Liberal Party, Federal and State leaders in Adelaide just hours before the Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, opened the conference on Tuesday night. There is then some evidence, put on the record by a reputable journalist, from a source which he does not name although he clearly identifies where he comes from , that the whole exercise and the way in which the convention conducted itself were a deliberate attempt to break down the atmosphere of consensus and reconciliation which we have all been trying so hard to achieve. It was a deliberate attack on the traditions of the Convention and a deliberate attempt to undermine any constructive achievement by it. Finally, I was asked whether the constitutional review process could possibly be described as alive and well in the light of those events. Clearly, that cannot be said to be the case any longer. I and the Labor Government remain firmly committed to the process of constitutional review. All honourable senators on this side of the chamber and this Government remain firmly committed to rational debate on constitutional reform matters. But as long as the sorts of things take place as occurred last week in the lead-up to the Convention, in the composition of delegations and on the floor of the Convention, it will be simply impossible for the Commonwealth Government to continue its support for the Convention process in its present form. Mr President, Ben Chifley once said in a very famous quotation, which I hope you will forgive me for putting on the public record: 'The trouble with gentlemen's agreements is that there are not enough bloody gentlemen'. That was amply demonstrated to be the case on the floor of that Convention last week. Unless the other side of politics in this country lifts its collective game I am afraid we are in for a very unhappy time indeed. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Attorney- General a question with respect to the representation of States at constitutional conventions. Is it not a fact that at the last two conventions the Liberal Party and National Party had nine of the 12 delegates and the Australian Labor Party had three delegates and at the preceding two conventions Labor had only two delegates from Queensland? Is it not also a fact that there were five Labor members in each of the Tasmanian State delegations until the last Convention and that the imbalance on the last occasion was in part caused by the fact that two delegates resigned from the Labor Party and became Independents just before the Convention? Senator GARETH EVANS —Out of Senator Chaney's own mouth comes the clear admission that the delegations were unequally balanced as between government and non- government members in Tasmania and Queensland at this Convention and indeed at two earlier conventions. I readily concede that that has been the case over the last three conventions. It is a puzzling logic, however, that Senator Chaney should somehow rely on a breach of practice over a significant period as in any way justifying what was done on this occasion. On each occasion it was done under protest from the Australian Labor Party members of the delegations in question who nonetheless took-- Senator Walters —It was not. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is certainly the case in relation to Queensland. I would believe anything so far as Tasmania was concerned. Senator Button —A continuity of corruption was favoured. Senator GARETH EVANS —As the Leader of the Government in the Senate says, a continuity of corruption seems to be favoured now by the Leader of the Opposition. The fact that the delegations have been composed in this way in the past in no way undermines the force of the contention that we advance on this occasion and which we have been advancing for a long time now; that is, the only way forward-if we are to talk seriously about constitutional review in this country-is if we put aside some of these partisan differences that divide us and try to find a constructive, common ground. These matters are not going to be achieved by numerical resolution on the floor of conventions. It will not be by simple majority votes and narrow majority victories that constitutional reform achievements are made but by a process of consensus building across party lines, which is simply not going to be advanced by the kind of behaviour to which Senator Chaney seems now totally wedded. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the earlier delegations were established under Labor governments in Tasmania and reflected the balance of the political forces in Tasmania at that time and that the practice was continued by the present Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is not my understanding of the situation. The situation in the upper House then was that the Independents were balanced, as I understand it, rather differently in terms of their practical orientation than the way they were balanced on this particular occasion. I appreciate that it is a matter of some subtlety to identify the different shades of ideological opinion within the Tasmanian upper House; it is a matter of very considerable subtlety indeed. Nonetheless, if one approaches that task of analysis with the appropriate instruments, one can in fact discern that what happened on this occasion was a far more blatantly contrived and stacked final result than has been the situation in the past. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Has any investigation been done, or is any proposed, about the possible effects on interest rates of the tax on bank debits, especially in the light of people choosing already to close their cheque accounts and transfer their funds to interest bearing or savings accounts? Further, has any investigation been done, or is any proposed, about the possible effects on such people as pensioners, particularly disabled pensioners, whose incomes and expenses are currently managed by cheques precisely because of the convenience of cheque accounts? Senator WALSH —When the Minister for Finance announced that this policy of the previous Government would be continued by the present Government, he also announced that it would be reviewed in six months to see what changes, if any, would be made. As to the second part of Senator Crowley's question, the degree, if any, to which current account deposits are run down because of the introduction of this tax should be apparent within a few months with the publication of the statistics of the Reserve Bank of Australia. I might add in closing that the idle balances held in current accounts declined very substantially over the previous couple of years due to the record high interest rates inflicted on the country by the previous Government. The record high interest rates, rising on the short term market to above 20 per cent from time to time, which the Fraser Government inflicted on Australia had already induced a substantial number of people either to close current accounts or reduce substantially the idle balance being held therein. Whether this transactions tax induces a further run-down in the balances held in current accounts will, as I said earlier, be known within a few months with the publication of the Reserve Bank statistics. Senator SCOTT —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I understand that the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs instituted a full inquiry into the manufacture and supply of artificial limbs. Is the current Minister's decision to stop the entry of new manufacturers into the field a result of the report of that inquiry and his consideration of it? If so, would the Minister table the report itself for the benefit of the whole range of interested persons inside and outside the Parliament? Senator GIETZELT —The honourable sena- tor asked me a question in respect of the government organised system that allows for the provision of artificial limbs for not only ex-service men and women but also members of the community. As a result of the Review of Commonwealth Functions, a considerable proportion of the activity was transferred to the private sector. Last week I answered a question about this matter addressed to me by Senator Childs. A report was provided to me that suggested that the costs involved in the transfer of a considerable proportion of this activity to the private sector would be 30 per cent higher than the current costs. As I believe that that report was a factual one prepared by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, I have no hesitation, of course, in making that information available to the honourable senator. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Are candidates for the House of Representatives required to certify in any way that, if elected, they will carry out their duties as elected representatives? Have any calculations been made to determine the cost to the taxpayers of the by-elections in Wannon and Bruce brought about by the resignations of the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, only 26 days after the recent election, and Sir Billy Snedden, merely 47 days after being elected as the member for Bruce? Senator GARETH EVANS —If the calculations have not been done, no doubt they now will be, in the light of the encouragement given to me and the Minister by Senator Colston. I will refer the question to the Minister. Senator MESSNER —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that a handicapped person is refused tax deductibility for the expense of having a person go to his home daily to assist him to get dressed, go out and about and, when necessary, keep appointments and take his place in the work force? Is the Minister aware that tax deductibility could be granted if the person who is employed in that situation is a registered nurse? As the nature of the assistance is totally physical and not medical, would the Minister agree that this is an anomalous situation? If so, will the Minister ask his colleague the Treasurer to review the matter and ensure that future guidelines are more flexible and equitable? Senator GRIMES —My understanding of the situation is that that is correct. It was drawn to my attention some time ago. I am pleased that Senator Messner, now that he is the shadow Minister for Social Security, is taking an interest in matters in which the previous Government took no interest for the seven years that it was in power. I will certainly confirm that this anomaly exists, as I believe it does. I will seek assistance from the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance to overcome the anomaly. I also remind honourable senators that we have inherited from the previous Government a pilot project concerned with the investigation of establishing an attendant care scheme in this country, which may assist people in this situation. Senator HEARN —I refer the Attorney-General to the proposal put to the Australian Constitutional Convention last week to amend the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth Government to give the Family Court of Australia complete jurisdiction over the custody, guardianship and maintenance of children , and over matrimonial property. Was this proposal designed to ensure that all children, whatever the circumstances of their birth, and all matrimonial property issues, whether in connection with divorce or not, be within the jurisdiction of the court best qualified to deal with them? Was this proposal the very proposal which was placed on the Convention agenda by the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack, and which he would have moved with the support of his delegation had he still been Attorney-General at the time of the Convention? What explanation can the Minister offer for Senator Durack's somersault on this proposal, which resulted directly in the proposal not being passed and quite unnecessarily being referred to a standing committee? Senator GARETH EVANS —The proposal that came forward to the Convention was designed to rationalise the law relating to custody, maintenance and property disputes and to ensure that some of the quite heart-wrenching disputes that have occurred in recent times and have involved the juggling of matters of this kind backwards and forwards between multiple courts in both Federal and State jurisdictions did not in fact recur. Yes, this proposal was the exact same proposal which was placed on the Convention paper by the former Attorney-General , Senator Durack, and which he would undoubtedly have moved with the support of his delegation had he still been Attorney-General. The motivation for his putting it on the paper was, I presume, the motivation that I fully understood- his frustration at the failure of his Government to succeed in obtaining references from the States, or at least all the States, under section 51 (xxxvii ) of the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to legislate in this area and thus to solve the problems both of the substantive law and of jurisdiction. As to possible explanations, I suppose one would have to ask him why that occurred. Two explanations suggest themselves. One is that on further reflection-- Senator Peter Rae —Is this in your ministerial portfolio? Senator GARETH EVANS —One explanation of which I am aware is that it could be argued that the proposal was deserving of further consideration on its merits. In particular, an argument was put on the floor of the Convention that, insofar as the matter referred to rights and liabilities in relation to property, it could result in the Commonwealth intruding unnecessarily into the State domain further than the demands of the subject matter properly justified. As to that, I said on the Convention floor that I gave a very firm undertaking that we would look very carefully at the drafting of that part of the proposal and indeed consult with the States and make any draft available to the States before any such proposal was put to referendum, to ensure that there was no foundation for that concern. The only other explanation that suggests itself to me is the one put directly to me by Senator Durack when I asked him on the floor of the Convention: 'Why on earth are you opposing this particular matter which was, after all, your resolution?' The reply was-and it is a very revealing one-'Well, we are not in government now, are we'. Senator PETER RAE —I ask a question of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. By way of brief introduction I refer to the Government's undertaking to ' strengthen our anti-dumping procedures and provide for speedy reviews by the Temporary Assistance Authority'. Can the Minister advise the Senate what measures have been taken to achieve these goals and what steps the Government now proposes to take? How effective have the steps been in reducing the time taken to deal with dumping allegations and inquiries? In particular, can the Minister advise when a decision can be expected from the Government on the Korean passenger vehicle tyre imports question, the formal investigations for which have been completed now for more than a month? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator has asked about the review of dumping procedures which is taking place within the Department. First of all, it is the intention of the Government that as far as possible procedures for dealing with dumping complaints should be speeded up. The review is largely directed towards that question as well as to other questions dealing with such matters as the onus of proof in dumping complaints and so on. The Department has now virtually completed that review and, as is the Government's announced intention, will be consulting with various interested parties in industry in the latter half of this month. It is the Government's intention that that consultative process should take place, and I have already had discussions with representatives of a number of companies interested in dumping matters. Accordingly, it is not appropriate at this stage to answer that part of the question which seeks to establish how effective the steps taken have been. There has been a continual concern about this matter for up to two years now. The previous Government, I think, took some steps to see that the procedures were speeded up and this Government has taken further steps. It is impossible to answer the question as to how effective the steps have been, except to say that it is the belief of my Department that the time taken in dealing with dumping complaints will be substantially reduced by the middle of this year. Senator Peter Rae —Korean ones? Senator BUTTON —That matter is currently before the Department. I am not in a position to give a definitive answer at this stage. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. It refers to the statement made at the recent Housing Summit Conference by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Australia, Mr Malcolm Gray, that the Federal Government scheme to assist home buyers should be means tested to ensure that benefits are directed only to those needing them. Can the Minister say whether the Government is presently assessing this particular housing situation as part of the overall priority of assisting the truly needy during the current restraints? Senator GRIMES —I was not present when Mr Gray made that statement. I thank Senator Elstob for drawing my attention to it. Over recent years, as honourable senators would know, access to home ownership in this country has declined. Significantly higher interest rates and higher house prices have excluded many low income earners from home ownership. This was directly as a result of the previous Government's policies. It is the aim of this Government to encourage home ownership for as many people in the community as possible. In doing this, priority is being given to the development of more effective forms of assistance so that low and moderate income earners can purchase their own homes. The first new initiative is the home ownership assistance scheme, which will allow prospective first home buyers to borrow up to $14,000 more from lending institutions to bridge the deposit gap. This will have the effect of increasing the demand for new dwellings and increasing activity in the building industry, and therefore increasing employment which has a further effect of assisting low income earners. The Government is aware of the need to increase the supply of funds for housing and is giving high priority to increasing the availability of housing finance at affordable rates and also to increasing the stock of public housing, both of which will assist at this level of the market. To obtain exact and final details for both Senator Elstob and the Senate I will refer the question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that he acquiesced in the briefing of senior counsel in an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to resist an application under the Freedom of Information Act by one Jack Waterford regarding access to prior documents under the existing Act? Did the Queen's Counsel submit a case in the appeal which is diametrically opposed to the policy of the Government in respect of access to prior documents? If so, does this mean that Government policy on this matter has changed or does it simply mean that the Government lost control over the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to the presentation of the defence in this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that senior counsel was briefed in the particular Administrative Appeals Tribunal matter to which the honourable senator refers. That brief predated the present Government. In fact, it occurred during Senator Durack's own tenure. Since the brief had been given and the matter had been set down for hearing and determination on a particular date shortly after the Australian Labor Party assumed office, I did not think it was fair to either side to try to countermand that. It is a matter for the Department to decide whom it briefs in these matters. The general policy of the administration of the Freedom of Information Act is, of course, as the Senate would well know, one for the Attorney-General. I have been endeavouring to ensure that there is some consistency and uniformity of approach as between departments in the way in which they administer the Act and, in particular, the nature of the arguments they advance to the Tribunal. There was some discussion involving me prior to that matter coming on for hearing. I made very clear my view that a particular approach to the construction of the provision in question ought to be argued. In the event, I understand, a two-tier argument was put, more or less in the alternative-a narrow view and a rather broader view. I do not regard that as being entirely satisfactory and it certainly did not accord with my view as to how the matter should have been pursued. I simply regard these matters as teething problems, early days in the administration of the legislation, and not indicative of any of the horrors to which the former Attorney-General draws our attention. I cannot forbear from making the point that, were he so concerned with the effective and vigorous application and administration of the freedom of information legislation, one would have wished for rather more far-ranging content in that legislation and some signs of a more vigorous application of it in practice during his tenure of office. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I am concerned to know what is the Government's policy at the moment in relation to this matter and to what extent the Attorney-General, as the first law officer, controls the arguments that are put to tribunals in respect of the legal implementation of government policy. That is why I asked the Attorney-General: Has the policy changed as a result of the submission that was put? Does he not agree that, as Attorney-General, he should be directing counsel to submit arguments which are in accordance with Government policy? Senator GARETH EVANS —If the former Attorney-General wants me to spell it out in any more detail, I will do so. The Government proposes a broader interpretation of section 12 (2) (b) of the Act than was current during his tenure. We are perfectly pleased and proud to adopt that point of view as it is, in our belief, far more consistent with the proper tenor of interpretation of the Act. I made that clear in the instructions that were sent down through and across the system . It is my belief that that argument was in fact put. It seems that, in the event, it was not put quite as vigorously as I might have hoped in the circumstance. I am taking further steps to ensure that when these matters are raised, dealt with and argued in the future, arguments about basic questions of policy and interpretation of the Act are put in a way that is single-mindedly consistent with the Government's interpretation of that Act. Senator McINTOSH —As the Leader of the Government in the Senate will be aware, the Governor-General's Speech at the opening of Parliament on 21 April stated: Parliament will be asked to consider a proposal for a 'Buy Australian' Act. Therefore, I ask: First, when is it intended that such legislation will be introduced; secondly, will any quality control mechanisms be set up; and, thirdly, is there any intention on the part of the Government to try to have State governments enact similar legislation? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator is correct. The Government gave an undertaking prior to the election that it would introduce 'buy Australian' legislation. It is the hope of the Government that that legislation will be introduced in the Budget session this year. Insofar as the question relates to quality control mechanisms set up for purchases, I am sure that that would be part of any intelligent 'buy Australian' Act. If it were not the intention of the Government to ensure that that is so, Senator McIntosh's question would stimulate us to consider that matter in considerable detail. I am asked also whether the Government has any intention of trying to have State governments enact similar legislation. At the moment I believe the answer to be no, but the Government has already had discussions with State governments regarding their purchasing policies and preferences. It is to be hoped that as a result of those discussions the parochialism which has characterised purchasing policies of State governments for some years will disappear. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Does the Government intend to authorise an ex-gratia payment to cover the expenses incurred by the parents of Kenneth Dax due to the unusual and special circumstances of his death following a leakage of gas aboard HMAS Tobruk? Does the Government also intend to make available to Mr and Mrs Dax all documents concerning the death of their son, provided defence secrets are not included? If so, will the Minister explain when the Government plans to take these actions? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the case to which the honourable senator referred. I understand that the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, took a personal interest in this case for some time while he was shadow Minister. He undertook to pursue the matter in government and, I understand, has now requested a full report on the case. I further understand that this report is virtually completed. I will communicate the honourable senator's concern to the Minister for Defence and ask him to ensure that the case is dealt with as soon as practicable and, when it is dealt with, that all matters that can reasonably be made public are made public so that the fears and concerns of the honourable senator can be put to rest. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. The Minister will be aware that the Darwin office of the Australian Information Service was closed by the former Government in its so-called efficiency drive. The closing of the office was keenly felt by both the Service and the people of the Northern Territory. Will the Minister undertake to consider the reopening of the office, possibly by the reallocation of resources from one of the other capital city offices of the Service, and so provide the Northern Territory with a most needed facility? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Robertson has asked me a question dealing with the Australian Information Service which comes under the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Administrative Services. The Minister has advised me on a number of matters. He is retracing steps in respect of a whole range of decisions made by the previous Government to which the Australian Labor Party objected. I have not been kept aware of the Minister's attitude on this matter. I certainly will draw it to his attention and see that the honourable senator is given an early answer. Senator WALTERS —Is the Attorney-General aware of a second flight by a Royal Australian Air Force F111 aircraft over South West Tasmania on 24 March 1983? Did this aircraft seek to gather evidence for the Commonwealth in relation to the pending High Court of Australia litigation over the Gordon below Franklin Dam? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I am not aware of any such flight. Senator GILES —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether he has any estimate of the need for emergency relief in the community. What information is available about the kinds of people who need crisis help? Finally, what does the Government see as its priorities in this area? Senator GRIMES —The assessment of need for emergency relief has worried not only me but also the previous Minister for Social Security. Some two years ago, I believe, a combined report on emergency relief was prepared by the Australian Council of Social Service and the Department of Social Security which estimated that the need may be as high as $14m per year. Until the end of last year the Federal appropriation for emergency relief was $0.5m. At the end of last year the Government, realising the very difficult situation which had arisen because of the rapidly deteriorating economic situation, provided another $2m. This amount goes nowhere near meeting the need for emergency relief. A working party of welfare administrators recently did a survey of these needs in Australia and it was discovered, for instance, that in New South Wales alone the Government provides some $260,000 per week in cash grants. If we add to that the $250,000 per week allocated for rent relief it can be seen that the need is considerable. It is disturbing to find from the surveys that have been done on this subject that those who are most in need of emergency relief are, in fact, usually social security recipients. In the surveys done in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia the figure for social security recipients varied between 70 per cent and 80 per cent. The four main groups were lone parents in receipt of Department of Social Security pensions or benefits, usually being the supporting parent's benefit, who do not own their own homes-in other words, they are in private rental accommodation; couples with children and lone adults in receipt of unemployment, sickness and special benefits who, again, do not own their own homes; invalid pensioners; and those awaiting the first payment of a social security pension or benefit. It is quite clear that high inflation, high unemployment, rapidly increasing costs in the community and the deteriorating state of the economy in recent years have greatly increased the need for emergency relief. This has resulted in normally conservative organisations such as the Salvation Army in Victoria going public and making very stringent political comments about the inadequacy of the economic system and the inadequacy of the social security system in coping with those in need. We, as a government, see emergency relief as a necessary evil at the moment because it is a band-aid sort of solution to people's very difficult situations. It is even more disturbing to find, as all surveys have shown, that whereas emergency relief was once a one-off thing people are more and more having to go back again and again for emergency relief. We would prefer that the need for emergency relief be nil or very little. That will not occur, I suppose, until the unemployment rate in particular goes down and the economy improves. In the meantime, on 17 June I will be meeting the State Ministers for social security, community welfare, or whatever they are called in the various States, to consider the distribution of emergency relief and the amount of emergency relief which will be needed. In the meantime my Department and other departments are conducting surveys to find out the actual quantum of that need. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: In view of the Hawke Government's strong advocacy of fixed term parliaments and its vehement criticism of any government running less than its full term, will his Government give an unqualified assurance that it will run its full term until March 1986 and not seek an earlier polling date, whether to bring the Senate and House of Representatives elections in parallel or for any other purpose? Senator BUTTON —It is the Government's intention to introduce a referendum in relation to fixed term parliaments-a course of action which was vociferously opposed for three years by Senator Sir John Carrick in the Senate. I am delighted by his new-found principles which have emerged in Opposition. The Government will not give Senator Sir John Carrick an unqualified assurance about anything until it has made up its mind about the things for which assurances are being sought. When the Government has made up its mind about those matters assurances will be given and they will be stuck to. Insofar as the question of fixed term parliaments is concerned, this Government will put its money where its mouth is and has been for a number of years, which is something that no Liberal government was prepared to do. Senator REYNOLDS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs . Is the Minister aware of representations made by the National Women's Advisory Council regarding the eligibility of World War II ex-servicewomen in regard to defence service home loans? Senator GIETZELT —As the arrangements now stand, of course, only those ex- servicewomen who served overseas during World War II are eligible for defence service home loans. However, the Government has indicated very clearly that it is moving in every direction to remove any form of discrimination so far as women are concerned. Consequently, we are looking very seriously at this question of the number of women who served during World War II and their eligibility for defence service home loans. I might add that the previous Government did receive a request, which I understand was unanimous, from the National Women's Advisory Council. It pointed out that women who are not eligible unless they have served overseas include members of the Citizen Military Forces, the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service and the Voluntary Aid Detachment. The exclusion of these groups was a matter of long-standing practice based on ministerial directive. It was not until 1978 that the relevant Act was amended to incorporate these exclusions by law. The Council says that those exclusions are discriminatory and the Government agrees with that. That is my view and I propose ultimately to have my Department examine this matter with a view to making a recommendation to the Government so that we will have a proposal which, I hope, will be considered in the context of the 1983 Budget with the aim of removing the discrimination that exists. Of course, relating to that is the cost factor. As this Government has inherited a horrible economic mess from the previous Government we can consider a proposal on perhaps only a partial basis but, as far as I am concerned, we will certainly be moving within the next three years to remove all forms of discrimination concerning ex-servicewomen. Senator BUTTON —Earlier in Question Time Senator Peter Rae asked me a question in several parts, the second part of which was about the dumping of passenger motor vehicle tyres from Korea, New Zealand and the Netherlands. I do not know whether the honourable senator actually mentioned all three countries. Currently a dumping complaint in relation to the tyre industry is being considered and interim protective measures in the form of dumping cash securities have been introduced against imports from Korea and the Netherlands. The Australian industry has requested an extension of the complaint to cover exports from Japan and this matter is currently being examined. It is expected that the complaint concerning the Netherlands and New Zealand will be resolved shortly by a price undertaking. I give that additional answer to the honourable senator only because it may be helpful if inquiries are being directed to him. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-I have noticed several Press reports relating to the Constitutional Convention in which criticism has been levelled at me. Indeed, the Attorney-General adopted it in an answer he gave at Question Time today about an alleged change of attitude on my part towards one of the proposals at the Constitutional Convention, that there should be a transfer of powers from the States to the Commonwealth in respect of custody and maintenance of children and of property rights of spouses arising out of the marital relationship. It is a fact that just before the election, when the agenda of the Constitutional Convention was being determined, the former Government did submit a proposal along the lines which appeared on the agenda paper. That motion was put down by the Government-certainly by me-with a view to testing the water to see whether we could get a reasonable consensus in support of that proposal, having spent some five years being frustrated by States which said that they were going to give a reference of power but which could never agree among themselves to do so. Of course included were New South Wales and the Labor Government of that State which has continued to profess its support but which has not given a reference of that power. It became clear to me, in discussions with a number of delegates at the Convention, that we were not able to get any reasonable consensus. I agree with what Senator Evans said, that the purpose of this Convention was not just to win particular votes by narrow margins but to see whether we could get a consensus. In the light of the fact that it was clear that a consensus could not be reached -indeed one of the difficulties was the very wide terms of the limb of the motion which referred to the resolution of conflicts about property between husband and wife-I decided that the best course of action to take would be to support an amendment which was moved to refer this proposal to the standing committee for further work to be done on it. I was well aware from the problems that had occurred in seeking a reference of power that it was extremely difficult to get a suitable form of words to limit the power and not simply to transfer power over property rights generally from the States to the Commonwealth. When I spoke to the motion at the Convention I specifically said that I agreed with the motion in principle, and I explained why I supported the amendment in the same terms as the explanation I have just given to the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-There has been a number of Press reports in relation to the representation of the Australian Democrats at the Australian Constitutional Convention. On a number of programs the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, stated that the representation of the Australian Democrats in the Commonwealth delegation was by leave of the Liberal Party of Australia. It was not by leave of the Liberal Party; it was by resolution of the Senate, on a motion proposed and moved by the Government. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that in 1978, when Senator Haines sought to get representation of the Australian Democrats at the Constitutional Convention, her request was rejected by the Liberal Party. Reports The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901 I present the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts, dated May 1983 , and the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit on the administration of public hospitals by the Capital Territory Health Commission. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. Obviously no honourable senator on our side has seen the reports yet and we will want to study them. Senator Robertson —This is a practice that you instituted, of course. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I am just making an observation. Honourable senators will want to examine what the Auditor-General had to say about a number of departments and comments which require debate. The efficiency audit carried out on the Capital Territory Health Commission's administration of public hospitals is a matter of some importance which we will want to discuss in the Senate. It seems appropriate that we read with great care what has been put out as a result of the efficiency audit. For that reason, I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Department of Industry and Commerce-Annual Report 1981-82 2. Certain High Alloy Steel Products-Temporary Assistance Authority Report- pursuant to section 30B (2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 3. Certain Iron and Steel Products-Interim Report by the Industries Assistance Commission 4. River Murray Commission-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 21 of the River Murray waters Act 1915 5. Pipeline Authority-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973. 6. Australian National University-Annual Report 1981-pursuant to section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946 7. Canberra College of Advanced Education-Report of Council 1981-pursuant to section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967 8. Commonwealth Teaching Service-Annual Report 1982-pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service 1972. 9. Commonwealth Schools Commission-Program Guidelines for 1983-Report 10. Commonwealth Schools Commission Recommendations for 1984-Report Annual Report 1981-82 Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Reports on Certain High Alloy Products and Certain Iron and Steel Products Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-The reports of the Temporary Assistance Authority and the Industries Assistance Commission have been a matter of some controversy for quite some time. I speak as a Queensland senator in relation to these two reports and in particular I wish to speak about the implications of employment or otherwise on the steel industry in Australia. My own State of Queensland does not produce any steel products. However, it is a major user of steel products. It is the down-line employment about which I am concerned. These reports have drawn to our attention-as did a previous report by the Temporary Assistance Authority inquiring into steel products-the fact that the possible net result of increased protection or an increased share of the market for Australian produced steel would be an actual increase in unemployment overall in Australia. The simple reason for this is that most users of steel in my State, for example, in areas such as pipe and chain manufacturing and the construction of various items such as white goods, all make use of an assortment of steel sources. In the vicinity of 80 per cent to 85 per cent of steel used by most users comes from the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. However, the rest comes from overseas. Many of the uses to which that steel is put are not interchangeable. We do not produce a number of the items that are currently under reference in both the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority and the report of the Industries Assistance Commission yet it has been proposed in these reports and at the hearings that these items ought to be a part of the quotas. The point I wish to make is that my State of Queensland would lose heavily if there were any dramatic changes towards greater protection in the steel industry . It is not the case at the moment that BHP is providing the type of quality of steel that these users desire. I have spoken to a large number of people in this area who wish to buy Australian made steel. But the point that they have raised, which has been raised at the hearings, is a very simple one-in some cases Australia is using 1940s technology, yet the Japanese and the Koreans are scrapping plants that they built in the early 1970s. We have not invested appropriately in updating our technology in steelmaking. Therefore, the quality of our product will not meet the demands of new machinery. In conclusion, I give as an example a particular firm that is making steel pipe . It cannot run its machines at anywhere near capacity. It could run its machines at about 50 per cent capacity if it confined itself to Australian made steel. It could run at 100 per cent capacity if it imported steel simply because of the quality of the steel that is available. When the Government pays attention to these reports and the final reports I hope that it will look at the net employment result and will not seek to respond to the urgent demands for employment in areas such as Wollongong and Newcastle to the detriment of other people who are employed in using steel, particularly in my State. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-I think all Australians are greatly disturbed at the calamitous situation prevailing in the primary steel making industry. This interim report from the Industries Assistance Commission is certainly timely in focusing our minds on those problems. It is well known that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd sought a 10-year breathing period and 85 per cent of the domestic market to be guaranteed to it, together with certain very generous tax concessions, such as the ability to write off expenditure in the year of expenditure. The majority report decided to offer BHP a five-year breathing space with 80 per cent of the domestic market guaranteed and without that very generous tax subsidy. The question arises whether that is a sufficient environment within which investment decisions of the magnitude of some $3 billion can be made by BHP into the 1990s. Whatever decisions are taken over the next several months-of course, we are awaiting the final report of the IAC-there ought to be no mistake that the end result will be a much reduced steel making capacity within Australia. One could expect to see an industry in the mid-1990s with perhaps 7 million tonnes of output of steel per year, which is a very modest amount of steel. There will be a considerable reduction in the work force. One can see some 3,000 jobs having to disappear as against the current work force. So a much reduced primary steel making industry will emerge. One has to keep in mind the point raised by Senator Macklin-that the preservation of jobs within the primary steel making industry may have the effect of reducing jobs further down the line in the steel using and distributing industry. Indeed, companies and firms in the steel using sector of the economy, which are quite small and which are struggling in the market place are, nevertheless, employers of labour. One has to keep their interests and the interests of their employees in mind when coming to the hard decisions which government, in conjunction with BHP and the unions involved, will have to make. If one can think of the metaphysics of it, there may well be industries and firms not yet established that could be established if they can get steel products at prices which are not unduly inflated by the existence of high protection of the type and duration which is sought by BHP. In other words, there is a limit-I think all honourable senators acknowledge this-to the level of communal aid which can be placed at the disposal of the shareholders and the employees of BHP. If any protection or tax concessions are to be offered, whether in a direct sense by which the tax gatherer forgoes certain revenue by granting the sort of write off provisions which BHP requires or by the general community suffering higher prices, there has to be an understanding by BHP management on behalf of its shareholders and by the unions involved on behalf of their work force-their members-that they, too, will have to give assurances and come to the party in relation to their expectations of their part in the future of primary steel making in Australia. Having said all that, there is a very firm and continuing commitment by the present Federal Government to ensuring the viability of that primary steel making industry. Of course, viability is not itself a strong term; it just means the existence of such an industry within our economy. As I say, to ensure that that objective is achieved there will need to be a very co-operative attitude between the Government, BHP management and the unions involved. It has to be said I think, and very fairly, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) has worked on this aspect of his responsibilities very assiduously. He has put in many arduous hours of work in trying to gather the parties together in order to understand the facts and to get agreement as to the various measures which will need to be taken to enable a constructive and viable future for Australian primary steel making. The IAC interim report is with us. It provides some food for reflection but, in the end, it will be the Government, in conjunction with the unions and management, which will have to make the hard decisions. I am confident that with Senator Button at the helm of the Government team those decisions will be the correct ones. Annual Report Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.54) —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The report of the River Murray Commission is quite important. It deserves the very close scrutiny of the Parliament. I note that the closure of the River Murray mouth is mentioned in the report. The Senate will recall that a year or so ago the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment visited the area and demonstrated some concern about the use of the River Murray. If I recall, I was the Chairman of that Committee. It was a very good committee. We took an active interest in the water resource which is so important to South Australia in particular, and the effects of irrigation upstream on the pollution of that important system. I believe that this report should be studied very carefully. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.55) —I take the opportunity, while we are debating the River Murray Commission annual report for the year ended 30 June 1982, to make a number of important remarks in relation to the effects in South Australia of increased salinity in the River Murray. The report makes the point that a well above average, record catchment was noted for 1981-82 in the upper Murray. I make the point at this stage that since then, of course, we have had a massive drought which has seriously affected any benefits that might have accrued from the additional rainfall. It was, therefore, with considerable pleasure that most South Australians noted that the previous government allocated a substantial amount of funds for a filtration program. I raise with the present government a concern expressed recently in the Advertiser, that is, that $47m of the allocation will be withdrawn. I understand that during the election campaign a then Minister of the Liberal Government made the accusation that in the event of the Australian Labor Party winning government, it would remove much of that allocation of funds for the filtration program. I understand that that was denied by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, who said that the $47m referred to would not be withdrawn. I understand that that statement, too, has been changed and that South Australia will be $47m worse off with regard to its filtration system. I do not want to raise yet again in this chamber the World Health Organisation recommendations for salinity levels. That matter has been dragged over so often both here and in another place in regard to the River Murray. For the first time since Federation the governments which are concerned with the River Murray Commission-that is, the Federal Government and the governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia-are all of the same political persuasion. That, in itself, removes any element of political squabbling from arguments about why South Australia is getting such a raw deal with regard to water quality. This is particularly so since, in recent years, the River Murray Commission was given oversight of the quality of water as well as quantity. If possible, I would like answers from either the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who is on duty and to whose portfolio this pertains, with regard to the $47m and about what exactly will be done through the River Murray Commission with the co-operation, hopefully, of the four Labor governments concerned, for the benefit of South Australia. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.59) —Senator Haines was unduly apologetic in raising the question, which is of direct concern to all South Australians, about whether the Government has taken away $47m of the allocation for filtration schemes in our State. Senator Haines —I am scandalised. Senator TEAGUE —Senator Haines says that she is scandalised, but the people of South Australia are scandalised even more. The former Government promised South Australians, particularly those living in the city of Adelaide, where 70 per cent of South Australians live, that the water filtration scheme would be completed. The Liberal Government promised that. I fear that the people of South Australia regard that promise as already in the bag and only looked to the novelty of the Labor Party's promises thinking that this water filtration scheme would still be undertaken. Indeed, even in the election campaign noises were made by at least one Labor spokesman that the filtration scheme in Adelaide would continue. But to our great dismay the muddy water which is unfit for drinking and for washing clothes will continue in so many suburbs of Adelaide because the Labor Government is reneging on that program and denying it to the people of South Australia. This is all tied up with the dependence of South Australians on River Murray water. Without any apology Liberal senators in this chamber will be reminding the people of South Australia of the missed opportunity and the missed benefit that they have with the coming to office of the Labor Government. When we come to office again we will ensure not only that clean water will be gained by South Australians but also that they get the employment that goes with such programs. It is shameful that these benefits will not be going to South Australians and, without any apology at all, this has to be nailed to the Labor Government now in office. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.2) —I must reply to that. That little piece of grandstanding from Senator Teague reminds me of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party telling us what the Budget deficit was going to be in the week before the election. He said, if I took him down correctly, that the present Government has taken away $57m from South Australia. South Australia did not get a cent for anyone to take away. On 25 January South Australia got from the previous Prime Minister an indicative list of projects which were to be funded under a proposed program supplementary to the National Water Resources Program. A good deal of that indicative list, which is the phrase the previous Government used, was associated with the sum that Senator Teague has just referred to. Not a cent was received by South Australia. That 25 January announcement had three components: First, an ongoing National Water Resources Program; second, a recycled commitment to the Burdekin scheme; and, third, the supplementary assistance program, which comprised $350m of the $640m total. The whole package was deliberately misrepresented by the previous Government as a $640m magnificent, imaginative and expansionary water resources program. In fact there were three components: An ongoing program, a special project for the Burdekin recycled from 1980 and the so-called supplementary program. The Senate should bear in mind the circumstances under which that was produced. The Prime Minister of the time was desperately indulging in any sort of political chicanery he could with the intention of finding an excuse to hold a premature election which he foolishly believed he could win. As a well-known political commentator said when a week later the then Prime Minister did call the election, he was the first turkey to call an early Christmas; and he will not call any more. That was presented as an election stunt by a dishonest Prime Minister in a dishonest government which was facing a deficit of $10 billion and was still lying about the size of the impending deficit right up to the election eve. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, it is plain that the language used is not parliamentary. I ask you to bring the speaker to order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, I do not think it is appropriate to refer to the action of the Government as lying. Continue your speech without that sort of remark. Senator WALSH —The Government was not lying; the previous Government was. If Senator Chaney finds it offensive, I will withdraw it and rephrase it in this way: Right up to the eve of the election-- Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, that sort of contemptuous wiping-off of a ruling is not an appropriate way to deal with matters in the Senate chamber. I believe there should be an unconditional withdrawal without the sort of smart- Alick side-swipe which accompanies it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, simply withdraw your remarks and continue your speech. Senator WALSH —I withdraw. On the eve of the election the previous Government had been given formal advice by the Treasury that it was facing a deficit of $9 billion to $10 billion if existing programs were continued-not first bids of departments. Based on an extrapolation of the existing and announced policies of the previous Government, it was facing a $9.6 billion deficit. It received official confirmation of that figure twice in the week prior to the election. The Prime Minister of the day and the Treasurer of the day, who is now the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, were saying: 'If you elect Labor, you will face an impending deficit of $10 billion, and that would be catastrophic'. They said: 'If the Liberals remain in power the deficit will be easily reduced to $6 billion'. In a sense the Liberals were correct. The people elected Labor and we are facing a deficit of $10 billion inherited entirely from the previous Administration. Having left this Government with a $10 billion impending deficit were it to continue with the policies of the previous Government, members of that Administration have the effrontery to complain sanctimoniously about this Government saying that it will subject to examination the irresponsible expenditure programs announced by the previous Prime Minister on 25 January and all the other irresponsible expenditure and tax expenditure programs of the previous Government. They have the effrontery to complain sanctimoniously about the conduct of this Government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Annual Report 1981 Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Program Guidelines for 1983 and Recommendations for 1984 Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1982-83 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1982-83 Loan Bill 1983 Social Security Amendment Bill 1983. Ministerial Statements Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Mr Deputy President , I seek leave to make ministerial statements relating to the wages freeze legislation and the recently completed National Economic Summit Conference and to move that the Senate take note of the statements. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —The first statement reads: WAGES FREEZE LEGISLATION In accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 16 December 1982, I wish to provide to the Senate the first report on the operation of the wages freeze legislation. Further reports will be provided to the Senate at the start of each three-week period of sittings consistent with the terms of the resolution. The Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982, which provides the machinery for implementing the wages freeze in the Commonwealth employment area, became effective on 23 December 1982 and remains in full force. The Special Employment- related Programs Act 1982 appropriates funds for programs which will contribute to the generation or maintenance of employment in Australia. As announced by the previous Government, the $300m appropriated under this Act will be provided to the States and the Territories in two components: 1. $200m for expenditure on general employment purposes-this has two equal elements, the first relating to the young unemployed and the second to the older unemployed and disadvantaged; and 2. $100m for additional expenditure on welfare housing. Guidelines covering the projects to be funded under the program have been accepted by the States and the Northern Territory and payments have commenced. In keeping with the usual practice applying to Commonwealth programs of financial assistance, payments to the States and the Northern Territory will be tailored to their actual rates of expenditure. As at 2 May 1983 Commonwealth advances to the States and the Northern Territory totalled $86.8m, comprising $65.7m under the general employment component of the program and $21.1m for welfare housing. Expenditure in the Australian Capital Territory to the same date amounted to $50,000, all of which was in respect of welfare housing. NATIONAL ECONOMIC SUMMIT CONFERENCE Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement on the National Economic Summit Conference. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I wish to make a full report to the House on the National Economic Summit Conference, as foreshadowed by the Treasurer on 21 April when he tabled documents which had been submitted to the Conference. The National Economic Summit Conference which assembled in this place on 11 April, 1983 was, by any standards, a significant and historic event. No such conference of this scale or scope had been attempted before in Australia. It represented a new beginning, a first step towards our great national goals of national reconciliation, national reconstuction and national recovery. It is now possible to reflect thoughtfully on the outcome of the Conference, to identify its key elements and to translate them into an action plan for all of us to follow in working towards recovery. Indeed in the two and a half weeks since its conclusion, important steps have already been taken by the Government and principal participants to ensure that the work of the Conference becomes the basis for continuing and effective processes in the task of national recovery. The Government has already tabled in this House the Government documents submitted to the Conference and Volume 2-a transcript of Conference proceedings- out of a planned three-volume record of Conference documents and proceedings. Volume 1 of this record-a consolidated set of the Government papers already tabled in the House-and Volume 3-containing submissions to the Conference by other participants and observers-are not yet available but will be tabled shortly. I regret the delay in the availability of the third volume particularly , but would observe that perhaps only the most diligent parliamentarians would be now have fully absorbed the documents tabled already. I would like to thank, at the outset, both your predecessor as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir Billy Snedden, and the former President of the Senate, Sir Harold Young, for their ready agreement to make Parliament House and its services available for the Summit Conference. I would also like to thank Members of Parliament for their co-operation in assisting delegates to the Conference with office and other facilities, and for their forbearance in suffering any inconvenience caused. I turn now to the main business of this Statement. We called the Summit Conference because Australia is facing its gravest economic and social crisis in 50 years. In the words of the Summit Communique: 'The Australian economy is in deep recession. Economic activity and employment are continuing to fall and unemployment is still rising. Profits are depressed, and wage earners have had to accept deferral of improvements and maintenance of living standards. Inflation and interest rates remain high. There are signs of improvement in the world economy and of an end to the drought in the eastern States. There is wide agreement, however, that sustained economic recovery and significant inroads into the unacceptably high level of unemployment will require a steady improvement in business and consumer confidence and more effective processes of income determination. There is also wide recognition that Australia's economic problems are deep-seated and not amenable to rapid solution .' The call for a National Economic Summit Conference came from many sections of the community and most importantly, had the clear endorsement of the Australian people at the 1983 Federal election. The Conference has been a long time in its genesis. Well before the recent election campaign, I had advocated such a meeting. I would remind the House that , even before the election was called, I had this to say on 30 January 1983: 'We will convene a National Summit Conference with representatives from the employers, the ACTU and the State Governments . . . to expose all of us together , to the realities of what is happening in the domestic and international economic scene and the problems, dangers, opportunities and challenges of what is involved in those developments.' At that stage, the envisaged purpose was to '. . . attempt to analyse the reciprocal implications of movements in wages, profits, patterns of work and individual reconstruction. This Conference [as I said then] would clearly occupy several days and provision would be made for an early follow-up if the parties considered it desirable. . . .' The concept and procedures I outlined at that time, and in more detail in the course of the recent election campaign, were faithfully followed in arrangements for the Conference. The Government made every effort to ensure that those invited were as fully representative as possible of Australian industry, the Australian workforce and the Australian people through their elected governments . The letters of invitation were sent immediately the Government was formally sworn in, on 11 March 1983. The 100 participants who accepted my invitation included representatives of all State Governments and of the local government sector. The union movement was represented by the full ACTU Executive. Business was represented through two avenues: through the representative business organisations the whole structure of business, large and small, was covered; and in addition, many individual businessmen from some of the largest individual enterprises were invited. The Australian Council of Social Services was invited as the major umbrella organisation in the social welfare sector. In addition the Government recognised that community organisations had a valid role to play in the process and 18 such organisations were invited to send observers. Understandably perhaps, some fears were raised that the Conference could not succeed and that it might simply become a forum for partisan position-taking and disputation. There were some perhaps, who thought that the spirit of conflict and confrontation has become irrevocably entrenched in this country. But the Conference was never envisaged in any way as a point-scoring exercise, let alone a partisan political affair, nor did it turn out to be. That it did not is a high tribute indeed to the responsibility shown by all participants. In seeking consensus on Australia's economic and social problems from the Conference, the participants were not intent on simply settling for the lowest common denominator, the bare minimum of agreement on an approach to a solution to the current crises. Throughout, the proceedings were marked by a combination of responsibility and realism, practical commonsense, and a sense of our common interests. All participants agreed that every section of the community, excepting only the impoverished, should share the burden of restraint. Further evidence of the constructive spirit in which the Conference was approached by all can be found in the proceedings and in the many worthwhile results that emerged, particularly through the Summit Comminique. I must stress that never at any stage did we of the Government regard the Conference and its outcome as some means of shirking, or shedding the responsibilities of governments, and particularly the national government, to take decisions. We recognise and re-affirm that we, as the elected representatives of the people of Australia, have the primary and fundamental responsibility for the economic and social policies of this nation. But as I said in my closing address to the Conference, effective policy cannot be made in a vacuum. The Conference made a very substantial contribution to filling that vacuum, to bringing out clearly the economic and social realities which must form the context for Government decisions. We are now all better equipped, and all have a clearer perception of the prospects, possibilities and plain hard work that lies ahead. In the deepest sense, the Conference was a key step in bringing Australia together. I deeply believe-and I am now doubly reassured that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people believe this also-that Australia can no longer afford to go down the path of confrontation which characterised much of the past decade. What we sought was genuine consensus on the path forward towards national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction, and the co-operation of all in setting the nation upon that forward path. Specifically, we set the following objectives for the Conference. They were: to secure broad agreement on the role of an incomes and prices policy, in our efforts to promote employment and to achieve recovery and growth; and to ensure that the benefits of recovery are not lost in another round of the wages-prices spiral; to devise machinery for achieving the necessary restraint, including methods of wage fixation, influencing non-wage incomes, and price surveillance; to secure a better and wider understanding of the broad economic framework, within which we have to operate; to seek broad agreement on the relationship between a successful prices and incomes policy and the implementation of policies on industrial relations, job creation and training, taxation, social security, health, education and the other major community services; to examine the competitiveness and efficiency of the Australian economy; and finally, to reach agreement on arrangements and machinery to monitor and continue the work of this Conference, especially in regard to continuing the process of consultation and co-operation between government, business and unions , initiated by this Conference itself. The objectives and the problems addressed by the Conference are encapsulated in the question of unemployment and the restoration of sustained economic growth which avoids a new bout of destructive inflation. As Honourable Members all know, the Conference ran from Monday 11 April to Thursday 14 April. It was well reported in the media, giving many in the community the opportunity to read, view or listen in, and to discuss amongst themselves the important issues raised here. The sharing and acquiring of knowledge and information which was an essential feature of the Conference itself was extended, in a very real sense, to the community at large. This process of information-sharing is one to which my Government is committed in the future. Overall, perhaps the most satisfying feature of the Conference from the Government's point of view was the outstanding spirit of co-operation, frankness and willingness to respect the integrity of differing points of view that prevailed throughout. In particular, there was a willingness on the part of all participants to acknowledge that we all bear some responsibility for our current economic malaise and that all have a part to play in overcoming our current difficulties. I believe this augurs well for the implementation of a successful and effective prices and incomes policy, which is a cornerstone for our strategy for economic recovery. I turn now to the more specific achievements of the Conference. At the broad level, I think there were three of about equal importance: Firstly the degree of common understanding reached on the nature and source of Australia's economic problems-an achievement due in no small measure to the frank and detailed information and analysis put before the Conference by the Government and by many of the participants and observers themselves; Secondly, the degree of consensus reached-as expressed in the Communique-on the basic framework and approach required to begin to arrest the decline in our economy, to arrest the expansion in unemployment levels, and, in an ongoing sense, to put our economy on a path of sustained non-inflationary growth; and Thirdly, the recognition on all sides that the consensus reached at the Conference is only the first step and commitments have been given, again on all sides, to translate that consensus into effective action. The main specific conclusions of the Summit are set out in the Communique which was tabled earlier in the House along with other documents submitted to or emerging from the Summit Conference. The Communique was virtually unanimously adopted; only the Government of Queensland, from the multitude of participants, formally reserved its position, though even the Queensland Premier by no means rejected entirely its main thrust and conclusions. Naturally not every conclusion and every piece of information shared in the Conference could find expression in such a document. What it had to cover was the principal message of the Summit, the main points of the framework within which we must all now follow up in setting about tackling the serious economic problems facing this country. I would like now to point out to Honourable Members some of the more significant points made in the Communique. I will necessarily be selective, but would commend the document as a whole for close study by every Member of the parliament and indeed by every Australian who is interested in this nation's welfare. The key elements of the Communique, as I see them, are: First, in paragraphs 2 to 5, recognition of the nature and sources of the serious economic problems facing the Australian economy, the need for a co- operative and innovative response to those problems, and, particularly, the recognition that to achieve recovery will require restraint in expectations and claims from all sections of the community except the impoverished; Second, in paragraph 12, recognition of the importance of tackling the problems of unemployment and inflation simultaneously, and that an effective incomes and prices policy is essential if an expansionary fiscal policy is to be pursued without adverse consequences for inflation; Third, in paragraph 18, recognition by the trade union movement that the maintenance of real wages will be an objective over time, during a period of economic crisis; Fourth, in paragraph 20, consensus on a return to a centralised approach to wage fixation and recognition that a suppression of sectional claims is essential except in special or extraordinary circumstances; Fifth, in paragraph 26, recognition that the Government has a mandate to establish a price surveillance mechanism and agreement on an examination into the most appropriate form of functioning of this mechanism; Sixth, in paragraphs 24 to 28, agreement that if restraint is to be exercised then such restraint should be exercised universally, including in respect of dividends and non-wage incomes; Seventh, in paragraph 31, acknowledgement that increased aggregate public expenditure may require increases in taxation or less than full tax indexation; Eighth, in paragraph 33, recognition that priority in the social security area should be on real improvement in entitlements to those in genuine need; Ninth, in paragraph 34 acknowledgement that, in the next session of Parliament, the Government would introduce a bill abolishing the Industrial Relations Bureau and facilitating the amalgamation of unions; Tenth, in parapraphs 43 and 44, agreement that the basic rights of women should be recognised and protected and on the need for imaginative policies to assist young people severely affected by the recession; Eleventh, in paragraph 48, recognition of the importance of stable health policies and reaffirmation by unions that they will accept an offset in wage increases on account of the introduction of the Government's proposed health insurance scheme; Twelth, in paragraphs 50 and 52 stress on the importance of continuing the sharing of information to aid understanding of Australia's economic problems; Thirteenth, in paragraph 53, general agreement that a small independent representative Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) should be established to continue the process of consultation begun at the Conference; and Finally, in paragraph 54, expression of hope that the Summit marks the beginning of consensus, not the end, recognition of the enormous amount of work that still remains to be done and commitment to that task. All in the community have a part to play. For its part the Government has already taken a number of concrete steps to follow up the success of the Summit Conference by setting off firmly on the path to recovery to which the Summit pointed. The representative working party foreshadowed in the Summit Communique has already met under the chairmanship of my colleague the Treasurer, and has made substantial progress in mapping out the most appropriate form and functioning of the proposed Economic Planning Advisory Council and Prices Surveillance Authority. The Government intends to introduce legislation to establish the Economic Planning Advisory Council in this Parliamentary session. Work towards that has taken precedence over work to establish the Prices Surveillance Authority, but the Government intends to introduce legislation to establish the latter in the Budget session. The Government is also moving to establish a Tripartite Advisory Committee on the prices and incomes policy. Central to the conclusions of the Summit was the recognition that the degree of restraint exercised in expectations and claims is absolutely vital to Australia' s prospects of recovery. As far as wages are concerned, the Government will be participating in the Conference on wage fixation scheduled to be held in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We will base our approach to that Conference on the conclusions of the Summit and on the Prices and Incomes Accord. In that context, I would point out again that all at the Summit agreed that if a centralised system of wage fixing is to work, there must be an abstention from sectional claims except in special and extraordinary circumstances. Let me say that my Government's interpretation of what constitutes such circumstances is the commonsense interpretation and leaves no room for selfish claims from maverick sections of the trade union movement. Participants at the Summit Conference recognised that if restraint in incomes is to be exercised then it should be exercised universally. In that spirit of equitable sharing of the burdens of recovery the Summit also stressed the need for restraint in non-wage incomes such as dividends, professional fees and the like. I have written to the Chief Executives of larger public companies and through the media have addressed the Boards of all public companies in Australia seeking their co-operation in exercising restraint in dividends and non-wage incomes, such as directors' fees, over which they have an influence. It is important that such incomes do not increase faster than movements in wages. My colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has also written to major national organisations representing non-wage income earners drawing their attention to the Summit outcome and seeking their support in achieving income restraint in their areas. The Minister will also be writing to the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission drawing attention to the Summit Communique in regard to non-wage incomes, and seeking his support in having fees voluntarily reviewed by Commission members. There was widespread opinion at the Summit that strong expansion of housing construction from recent depressed levels must be an important part of any general economic recovery. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction last Thursday in Sydney chaired a post-Summit meeting of building unions and firms involved in housing finance, construction, trade and materials supply. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance also participated in the meeting. The Summit and the post-Summit meeting both contributed substantially to the ideas that are being developed within government to ensure that housing construction returns to its proper role in the Australian economy. The details of a new housing policy package will be announced soon. In this context Members will be aware that there will be a special Statement of Economic Measures later this month, announcing a package of relevant economic fiscal measures. These measures will follow up the Summit and build on the new spirit of confidence already evident in the economy since the Summit. Some major elements of the Government's recovery program will be announed, aiming to get the economy moving and to create jobs. The Summit was a first step. By itself it has already helped to restore confidence, and in that way helped in getting a recovery underway. But its real contribution over the period ahead will fall far short of what is required unless it is effectively and consistently followed up. There is a responsibility on every Member of the Parliament, and every member of the community to see that the opportunity opened up by the success of the Summit is not frittered away. The spirit of shared sacrifice and restraint and the determination to take the steps needed to achieve recovery must be carried into effect in all areas: In wages and industrial relations; in the policies of business throughout the economy; and through the policies of Government. I commend this vital national enterprise to each Honourable Member and the nation we represent. I believe that the Conference did more than establish the basis for confidence in the recovery of the economy. I believe it helped-as a first step-to restore confidence in ourselves as a people and a nation, confidence that we can talk together and work together, that we can co-operate to seek solutions for our common problems, in the knowledge that what unites us is infinitely more important and enduring than the things that divide us. The revival of that sort of confidence in ourselves is essential if we are to overcome our present grave economic problems. But even beyond these problems, this new spirit of confidence and co-operation, if it can grow and strengthen, can be made an enduring basis for an even better and stronger future for all Australians. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statements. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.10) —I wish to make some comments on the statement on the National Economic Summit Conference which has been put down in this place on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). The statement which we have just received does not take us much further than the point we were at before its receipt. The statement is a fairly self-congratulatory description of the processes which have occurred. It does nothing to explain in more detail to us precisely how the Government intends to achieve the objectives which were summarised for us at the Conference by, I think, the Premier of New South Wales as 'jobs, jobs and more jobs'. The statement is basically descriptive, rather than getting down to the difficult task of determining just what action can be taken to achieve that objective which all of us in this chamber support. I should make it clear that of course the Opposition is as anxious as the Government to see an improvement in the employment situation in Australia and wishes to see the Government succeed in its efforts to create a high level of employment and a lower level of unemployment. That is for the economic, the social and the myriad human reasons which have been the subject of so much public discussion over recent months. I think it is important to pick up one point which is evident in some of the presentations of the Government on Economic issues; that is, that a spirit of conflict and confrontation is to be avoided. At page 4 of the typed copy of the statement we have received there is reference to that in the sentence which states: There were some perhaps, who thought the spirit of conflict and confrontation has become irrevocably entrenched in this country. It is certainly clear that there is a great spirit of confrontation and conflict in the communique which was the ultimate result of the Summit. But I think it is important to make the point in this chamber, which is the place where the community is entitled to be fully represented by its elected representatives and where it expects the varying views which there are in Australia as to what are appropriate solutions to Australia's problems, that those views should be fully aired in this place and not held back because of some broad desire to have agreement for the sake of agreement. There is no advance for Australia in having an agreement on something which is incorrect or which will be counter-productive . To underline the point that I make, it seems to me that one has to go somewhat beyond the conclusion which the communique came to on wage fixation, which appears as paragraph 19 in these terms: All parties believe that the principles of wage fixation should be such as to provide wage justice to employees whilst seeking to ensure that wage increases do not give added impetus to inflation or unemployment. That is a statement of general principle with which it might be easy to agree. But I say with great respect to those who framed the communique that it is a rather anodyne statement which does not really advance us very far down the path when we are trying to determine just what precisely we should do to meet that objective. If one looks at the actual contributions which were made by people who attended the Summit one finds that they put rather blunter propositions which were obviously too difficult to be encompassed in the communique, yet which have to be faced up to by the Government if it is going to tackle successfully the very serious problem of unemployment. I wish very briefly to refer the Senate to the sort of contribution which was made by Mr Leard on the first day, reported at page 49 of the official record of the Conference issued by the Government. That contains a very strong statement of what has to be done if we are to meet the challenge which is ahead of all of us and not just this Government. Mr Leard stated: I believe the choice before us is quite simple. We either have restraint and equality of sacrifice or we do not. If more jobs are to be created 75 per cent of these will be created in the private sector of the mixed economy of Australia . We therefore have to create the economic conditions and environment in which the business section can create those jobs. He went on to say, a little later: Prime Minister, I believe the case for income restraint is overwhelming. I believe that the present wage pause should be extended until the end of 1983. During 1984 incomes at the lower levels should be adjusted to allow for cost of living increases to the extend that the economy can afford at that time. The whole of that passage bears careful reading, but I will not delay the Senate by further quotation from it. I think it is noteworthy that it is clear that by the third or fourth day of the conference-Mr Leard was further reported at page 184 of the record-notwithstanding the general discussions which had taken place, Mr Leard remained of the same very strong view that if we are to tackle that problem there has to be an extension of the wage pause through to the end of 1983 and a very significant degree of wage restraint thereafter. In the same way , contributors such as Mr Morgan, reported at page 108 of the record, made a very powerful point which again cannot be escaped. He stated: The mining industry is prepared to support a return to central wage fixation providing it involves understandings of an extension of the pause, absence of Catch-up and continuing restraint to aid recovery. The mining industry does not believe that in the long term it is practicable to institutionalise a central wage fixing mechanism for the purpose of fixing total employment conditions. The system requires comprehensive review by all parties. Again, that is a rather stronger statement than anything which appears in the communique. It represents a view from which there is no evidence that someone like Mr Morgan has resiled. Sir Arvi Parbo, another contributor invited by the Government, is reported at pages 177 and 178 of the record of the Conference as making the point that we have the twin goals of reducing unemployment and inflation at the same time. He said: It is generally accepted that this is a tough task which is only possible through a high level of sustained, non inflationery economic growth. The question then becomes one of how we are to achieve this growth. The economic scenarios presented by the Treasurer on Monday all lead to one conclusion; The longer we can hold down further cost increases, the earlier the recovery and the more jobs that will be available. Conversely, if costs go up, there will be delayed recovery and more unemployment. I have heard no disagreement with these conclusions. It is quite clear that in the proceedings of the National Economic Summit Conference a great number of contributions made the point that there is a need for a very significant degree of wage restraint; indeed, a degree of wage restraint which goes beyond what is currently predicted by the Government as being likely. I understand that in the House of Representatives today the Prime Minister indicated that he would expect a 3 per cent to 4 per cent increase in a general wage round in the latter part of this year. That sort of view, on the scenarios presented by the Government itself through the Treasurer (Mr Keating), will clearly not lead to a substantial improvement in the unemployment situation in Australia over the term of this Government. I do not intend to go into this matter in detail in this debate because of course there will soon be other opportunities to do so in this chamber. I just wish to make the point that the participants in the Conference, including the Government itself, through the mouth of its Treasurer and the information put before the Conference, faced up to the fact that it requires a significant degree of wage restraint if we are to do anything about unemployment in this country-a degree of wage restraint which appears to exceed what is considered likely or possible by the Government and which is clearly beyond what is considered concedable by the trade union movement. There is no running away from that. The fact is, as several of the people in the Summit Conference acknowledged, that the result of this Summit will in the end be judged on the basis of whether the employment market and the economy improve. It appears to the Opposition that there is a very real danger that under this sort of anodyne collection of good intentions, important and beneficial as they may be to the framework of debate within which these decisions will be made, there has been to date no taking of the hard decisions which would enable the Government to say that it was really approaching the objectives set out by Premier Wran of creating jobs, jobs and more jobs. Senator Button —What does that word 'anodyne' mean? Senator CHANEY —Bland would do. A number of other points can be made with respect to this statement. On its face it discloses that the Government did not really meet the objectives which it set for itself when it established this Summit. If we look at the first page of the statement which has been put down we find that the Prime Minister, through the mouth of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is saying: It is now possible to reflect thoughtfully on the outcome of the Conference, to identify its key elements and to translate them into an action plan for all of us to follow in working towards recovery. In other words, all that the Prime Minister is saying is that we have now identified some key elements and we are now in a position to translate them into an action plan. In other words, no action plan has yet been devised by the Government, let alone by the Summit itself. Yet on 11 April, when the Treasurer was addressing the Summit on behalf of the Government, he said: If this Summit is to succeed it will need to do more than put forward proposals that sound like programs for action but are really only statements of goals-not methods for attaining them. It is quite clear that on day one of the Conference the Treasurer put forward the view that what was to be produced by the Conference was a program for action . It is quite clear that all we have is an identification of key elements which need to be tackled if a program of action is to be devised. That of course, may be something of value, but I think it is important not to overstate what has been achieved. If we look at paragraph 55 of the communique in particular, we find that the Prime Minister expressed one of the objectives of the Conference as follows: To devise machinery for achieving the necessary restraint, including methods of wage fixation, influencing non-wage incomes, and price surveillance. With respect to that key question of finding methods of wage fixation, the fact is that all that the communique does, and all that the Summit has done, is to send that vital area back to the existing method of wage fixation, namely, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As was evident to in Question Time this morning, when Senator Button made it quite clear that he was not in a position to tell us what the submissions before the Arbitration Commission would be-I think he said they were still being worked on-we have a situation in which the Government has not even identified what line it will take if it is to go before the Commission and urge a course of action which will reduce unemployment. We find that we are left with precisely the same machinery as the previous Government had identified as its means of moving out of the wage freeze, when that moving out occurred namely, that it would proceed through the Arbitration Commission. We have a total failure to live up to the desirable objective of devising the machinery for achieving necessary restraint. All that we have at the moment is a recourse to the traditional tools which are available and a government which is searching around for the submission that it will make to that Commission when the time comes. The Prime Minister fairly confidently predicts wage rises which, on the face of the record of the National Economic Summit, will ensure that there is no substantial growth in employment and certainly no reduction in unemployment over the coming period. The final point that I wish to deal with at this stage is the fact that the Prime Minister in this statement has pointedly omitted reference to some of the important paragraphs of the National Economic Summit Conference communique, which expressed as the views of business some of the key matters which were stressed by delegates to the Conference. I refer the Senate to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the communique. Paragraph 15 states: Business participants have emphasised their concern with overall unit costs of production and their importance in preserving the competitiveness of business and therefore its ability to survive, expand and create jobs. Paragraph 16 continues: They- That means the business participants-- maintain that to achieve the growth in GDP and employment on which the nation's prosperity will depend, increased profitability is now essential if new investment is to be generated at an effective level. I do not think there are two more critically important paragraphs in the communique. It is an unfortunate fact that on the face of the communique they are expressed as the views of the business participants only although, from the views which I have quoted in part today, it is quite clear that they are certainly the strongly held views of the business participants at the Summit. In looking at the submission which the Treasurer made to the Summit, I think the Government should have been ready to agree with those paragraphs as being the views of government also and to urge before the Commission that that was a common view which should be taken into account very carefully before any further rises in wages were granted. In other words, I would have wished to see on the face of the communique an embracing by both the trade union movement and the Government of the sorts of principles which Mr Leard tried to put down and which he expressed in his two contributions. They reflected some of the views which Senator Button put in a rather tentative way in response to my question this morning when he made the point that one could possibly draw a distinction between high and low income earners and make various other adjustments to take into account the very complicated factors which apply in this area. The statement which has been put before us again takes us little further along the track except to assure us that there is a better public understanding of the issues. I would accept that that is the case. I think one of the great successes of the Summit has been to ensure that there is a much broader public appreciation of the issues which face the Government and the community if we are to solve the very serious problem of unemployment. I would acknowledge as a very positive step the release of information which has not previously been made available to assist the public debate in this area. Having said that, it seems to me that at the moment the Government is proving strong on rhetoric and short on prescription. The real test of the Government will be when it gets down to the problem of prescribing the actual policies which will be followed by it if it is to achieve the laudable objectives it set for itself and for Australia. There was, of course, great public expectation that the Summit would produce a great deal. I believe there is growing public perception that the Summit has produced understanding of problems rather than solutions. I point out that last year the previous Government achieved a major element of consensus between the governments of Australia which made common approaches to the industrial tribunals around the country seeking a wage pause. It is quite clear that the government and most, if not all, of the participants at the Conference now accept the wisdom of the wage pause which was instituted basically after great and sometimes acrimonious discussion on a consensual basis between governments. We have now seen that consensus reduced rather than increased by the events of the last few months and, of course, we have had the very worrying spectre of some of the trade union statements on wage possibilities and demands for increased wages over recent weeks. I believe that very significant questions are yet to be determined. I will await with very great interest what submissions the Government finally makes to the arbitration authorities with respect to the pause. What stance will the Government take on matters such as a catch-up, the extension of the pause and the principles which are to be applied in determining whether further wage rises will further reduce employment and thereby increase hardship in our community? These are all matters on which the hard decisions are yet to be taken. They are central to the problems in this area and I believe that we are a long way short yet of finding the Government putting forward solutions which do have the support of all sections of the community and which will work for the community and, in particular, for the unemployed. I understand that there will be further opportunities to debate this and related matters later in the week. I therefore, at this stage, seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-May I, at the outset, in these few brief remarks-like the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, I hope to have an opportunity to participate in the fuller debate-compliment Senator Chaney on what I believe was a most responsible and critically constructive speech. It was so different from what we used to hear in this place that I believe Senator Chaney is to be commended for the new spirit he is bringing into the debates in this place by giving credit where it is due and, when he is being critical, being constructive in that criticism. I compliment him for that. I also join with those people who want to congratulate the Hawke Government for the concept of the National Economic Summit Conference. I believe it was a tremendous success not only in political terms but also in social and economic terms. The Summit Conference was an arrangement that is totally in keeping with Australian Democrat philosophy. In fact, it is a proposition I outlined in some detail in a book I wrote in 1977. It is a concept that is enshrined in Australian Democrat policy and philosophy. Without making too fine a point of it , I ask the Australian Labor Party, if it is going to use slogans again, whether it at least might drop me an 'in confidence' note saying it is stealing our slogan because in 1977 the Australian Democrats, by national vote, coined as the national slogan for our party: 'Get Australia together'. But I am told that imitation is the finest form of flattery and I thank the Labor Party for its compliment. Senator Button —It still cost us a packet. We might get some of our money back. Senator CHIPP —It did not do you any harm; that is obvious. The only sour note I want to strike-I do not make a fine point of this-is that it seemed to be a contradiction in terms to have Mr Hawke say 'Let us have consultation and not confrontation; let us have an exchange of information philosophy' and then, quite commendably, for him to invite 100 or so leading people in various fields, endeavours and disciplines in Australia to the conference but not to invite representatives of all other political parties. That seemed to me to be a rather quaint way of trying to reach a consensus. The nation probably is facing the worst economic problems it has ever had and we have proposals from a conference which clearly-as Senator Chaney said, we will need more than rhetoric to get us out of this problem-will need legislation to be passed through this Parliament at some time. I would have thought not only that is was proper but also that it was politically wise to invite representatives of other political parties to the Summit, even as observers. As observers they would not have been permitted to get into the Conference and grandstand. In some way the other political parties in Australia should have been locked into the spirit of the Summit, the spirit of consultation. I just say that I believe it was a mistake and it was unfortunate that they were not invited, but we should not let that criticism outweigh the praise and the congratulations I have for the Government on its concept. I do hope that this Summit idea will continue. I hope that this will not be a once-off affair. I also hope that the concept changes to some extent to that which I outlined in my book in 1977 and that which I understand was outlined by Mr Hawke in the Boyer lectures he delivered in 1977-78 on which we had long personal discussions at that time. As I understood the concept, it did not involve a conference in a grand Parliament House, the proceedings of which were televised, with people making prepared speeches. The concept was to involve several meetings of smaller groups in camera so that a spirit of compromise-give and take-could be tried. I thought that the conference should be ongoing and not just a big event once a year or once every two years. But the first Conference has been held and it has been successful. I wish the Government well in its initiative and hope that it will change the concept along the lines I have mentioned. The Australian Democrats and I see the first achievement of the Summit as being a recognition and an acceptance by the employers of the need for a centralised wage fixation system, and the second as being an acceptance by the unions of the need for wage moderation and for future wage rises to be linked in some way to productivity. We talk for hours in this place but what a magnificent achievement that was. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Yes, but they are not doing it, are they? Senator CHIPP —Some of them are not doing it. I would have thought that it was an incredible achievement to have trade unionists agreeing, even before the Summit began, that in the last two years increases in real wages had outstripped increases in productivity and then saying that that is a recipe for disaster. I do not know whether that is happening but I think it is a most valuable advance at least to have got that on the record and to have a recognition by responsible trade union leaders such as Cliff Dolan that that is a fact. The third achievement was the widespread disclosure of what was formerly confidential information. We now have price surveillance of a kind. Who knows whether it will work better than the Liberal Party's Prices Justification Tribunal. I do not know, but at least it is an honest attempt along that line. Agreement seems to have been reached to extend the wages pause to non-wage and salary incomes. That is valuable. There is limited, if any, catch-up at the end of the wages pause. While the Summit did break the climate of confrontation and establish some points of agreement, a dispassionate analysis will show that it did not-it was not intended to-address the fundamental economic choices that this country must make. As my colleague Senator Haines stated today, the Summit which was really a statement of goals was very valuable but it was not a recitation of methods of achieving those goals. To have done that at such a conference would have been a miracle and nobody expected it to be done. Let us not get carried away and say that the Summit, although it was a success, provides the panacea per se of our economic problems. The danger in the Summit being such a public relations success-I warn the Government, with respect, about this-is that some people may come to see it as providing the Government with an alternative mandate. The Australian Democrats do not see that as being the case. The mandate of the Summit is not superior to the mandate of the voters and the mandate of the Parliament. The Summit concluded that unemployment and inflation must be attacked simultaneously. We do not believe that. We believe that employment must be given the greatest priority-the highest priority. Figures now show that 823,000 people are registered as unemployed. The number could get higher. Solving unemployment does not only mean giving those people a job. In the next two or three years two million more people will be coming into the work force. That means we need to find or create nearly three million jobs in the next two or three years. That is the magnitude of the problem. The Government has the sympathy of the Australian Democrats and will get every co-operation from us in tackling that mammoth task of creating or finding jobs for something like three million people over the next two or three years. Unless we change our economic base radically we could have a permanent pool in Australia of one million unemployed Australians. I will not bore the Senate to any degree again with my plea to the Government to look to the long-term structures in our employment system that are causing problems. I refer to automation, the technological revolution, the robot and the silicon chip. These things are having permanent effects on human beings in Australia. The last Government did not address itself to these problems and, I am sorry to say, this Government is also not prepared to address itself to them. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), is the only Minister in the Cabinet and the only politician in this country apart from myself, who is being tedious enough to say in every speech that he delivers that the technolgical revolution is the biggest problem facing Australia. Lord Hirshfield predicts that by 1990 there will be something like 50 per cent unemployment in Australia caused by the technological revolution. Lord Hirshfield said that all the goods and services being produced-he said this in 1981-would, by 1990, be produced by only 10 per cent of the existing work force. If we maintain our present hours of work, our present penalty rates and our present attitudes towards job sharing, part time work and definitions of work, what the hell does that mean if it does not mean that 90 per cent of jobs existing today simply will not be there in 10 years' time? I have mentioned that neither the previous Government nor this Government has addressed itself to this question. Again, that is a statement. It is not necessarily a harsh criticism of the Fraser Government or of this Government because our whole system is geared for governments to survive over a three-year period. This Government is now looking at holding another election by November 1984. It is staring it in the face. In about six months we will probably be in an election year again. That is not the present Government's fault. It is the fault of not having fixed term parliaments in this country. How can we address ourselves to questions that will hit this country 10 years from now if after six months of activity this Government which has just been elected finds itself in an election year again? The whole thing is just insane. Yet, at the same time secretly, under the surface, a gnawing and an erosion of a social fabric, namely , the availability of jobs for our children is taking place. In conclusion, I again compliment the Government on its Summit. I compliment and congratulate those who took part. I wish the Government well in implementing the policies which arose from the rhetoric that came out of the Summit. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-My contribution will be in the nature of a preliminary comment, of course, because there will be an opportunity for the Senate to debate this paper at more length later. I simply want to take up a couple of matters the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, has raised. I am not one of those whose nose was out of joint for not being invited to the National Economic Summit Conference. I believe that the Government acted properly in not inviting any member of the Opposition, the Australian Democrats or myself to that gathering. To do so would have been in a way to have suborned the functions of parliamentarians and Parliament itself. Frankly, we do have an expressive as well as an audit control function. We should not exercise those functions in the arena of a national economic summit and should not attend such a conference on the same basis as union and business leaders. We should exercise those functions in the Parliament itself. That is the proper place for us to exercise our audit control and expressive and representative functions. The functions and responsibilities of the Parliament should not become too submerged in the operations of any group of people, including the Economic Summit. By the same token, however, I believe that care should be taken to ensure that the National Economic Summit Conference and its ongoing council-the Economic Planning Advisory Council-do not become the foundation of some sort of corporate state. The combined rule of big government, big business and big unions would spell an end to parliamentary democracy in Australia. This, I believe, was far from the mind of the Government and far from the minds of those persons who were invited to the Summit. In my view they had no intention of usurping the role of the elected Parliament. If they had, then they would have another think coming. The Government also has another think coming if it chooses to use the communique of the Summit inevitably to back down on the carrying out of certain undertakings it has given. By inevitably I mean in the long term. Obviously circumstances do arise from time to time producing considerations as to whether a particular undertaking that has been given should be observed at a particular time. I believe that the main concern of those who attend the National Economic Summit Conference was to focus national attention on the economic and social problems confronting us and to propose solutions to the Government. I commend to all those who have not read the speeches which were prepared in detail and submitted to the Summit by business and union leaders that they do so because the speeches contain a wealth of information and valuable ideas which could be built upon. For its part the Government, as evidenced by the speech of the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke), was and is intent on revealing the problem in the stark reality of statistics. However, I agree that the question of automation was not adequately addressed in the paragraphs of the communique. I think Senator Chipp was probably too effusive, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, in suggesting that they were the only parliamentarians who are addressing this aspect of technological change. I know a number of colleagues in the Parliament are doing this. I ran seminars on this very problem as far back as 1964. Of course it is a matter of grave concern to us. It is a matter of grave concern, quite justifiably, to the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones and I am very pleased that such a person is addressing his mind to it. In addition to that, no paragraph of the communique mentions a very important aspect, without an understanding of which we cannot come to grips with the problem of unemployment, and that is the participation rate. Unemployment, simply stated, is when there are more people seeking paid work than there are jobs available. At the same time new jobs are being slashed through the haphazard introduction of automation and technological change. Commendable as most of the communique was, it did not address that problem. Today I wish to flag that matter very briefly and to suggest that without an analysis of the current participation rate of persons 15 to 65 years of age we will not be able to attack or address ourselves properly to the unemployment situation. The position simply is this: Had we today the participation rate that we had in the golden years of full employment-that is, in the 1965 era-we would not have an unemployment problem; we would have an employment problem. On the basis of a 56 per cent participation rate, as was the case in 1965, 100,000 jobs would be not filled. As I said, I simply want to flag that matter now recognising that at a later stage we will be able to have a longer and more adequate debate on the Economic Summit. Overall, I commend the initiative and effort that was put into the Summit by those who participated but I am concerned that two fundamental aspects in the equation did not feature prominently in the communique. Tributes to Former Senators Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.54) —I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. I think it was a matter of agreement between the various parties-I hope Senator Harradine was consulted about this; there was certainly agreement between the Opposition and the Government-that at the time of the rising of the Senate tonight we would mention some of our former colleagues in the Senate who departed as a result of a precipitate and opportunistic decision that was made in January of this year. When the Senate rose in December last year we did not anticipate that an election would be called in the unusual circumstances in which it was and we did not realise that we would not have the opportunity, in the normal course of events and in their presence, to pay tribute to a number of honourable senators who have now retired from the Senate, whether voluntarily or otherwise. On behalf of the Government I will mention them briefly. I propose to do so in alphabetical order in order that I might appear to display my favours with equity. First of all I would like to mention Senator Bonner who, from 1971 to 1983, was a member of this chamber. He was the first Aboriginal elected to Federal Parliament and I think he was respected by everybody in the Senate not only for his friendliness and personal qualities but also, if I might say so, for his great personal dignity. In the time I have been a member of the Senate I suppose there have been two honourable senators-I single them out by name-who have managed to keep this chamber silent and very respectful while they were speaking , because of the dignity of their speeches. Senator Bonner was one and my colleague Senator Georges was the other. Senator Georges made such a speech, as I recall, after he had spent a period in gaol in Brisbane. I think that that was one of the memorable speeches of my time here as were several of Senator Bonner. I have no doubt that Senator Bonner will continue to play a leading role in Australian public life. I have seen a statement from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that this Government would like to see that happen and I am sure that would be welcomed by all sides. Senator Keeffe was a senator from 1954 to 1983. He played a great role in the Australian Labor Party, particularly in north Queensland, being a resident senator at Townsville. He had a wide range of interests and made a consistent contribution to debate in this chamber. Senator Keeffe, whatever party differences people might have had with him from time to time, served this country in the war and afterwards in public life. I think the best summation of Senator Keeffe is that everybody recognised that he was a big, good human being. Senator McLaren, who was a member of the Senate from 1970 to 1983, was a very prolific contributor of questions and notices of motion and participant in adjournment debates. I have a strange feeling that honourable senators will probably get to bed earlier now than they did in the years in which Senator McLaren was a member of this chamber. His departure has, in a sense, some strange irony about it. When I heard that Senator McLaren was leaving us I wondered who would ask questions about Doug Anthony's interest rate on his house but, in terms of the relevance of those questions, Mr Anthony has left us too. Senator Chaney —I think the mortgage was discharged as well. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney tells me that the mortgage was discharged as well -too late perhaps. That is a good thing and it is a great tribute to Senator McLaren that it was discharged. Senator McLaren was a very diligent senator who had a most prolific filing system, which included his mind. He had a marvellous collection of facts and material in his head which he used to contribute to debates. Senator Martyr was here from 1981 to 1983. He served in both Houses and on some committees. I suppose it is a tribute to him that he drove me mad on the two committees that I was on with him; that was again a manifestation of hard work by a senator on a committee. Senator Mulvihill was a major contributor to debates in this place and a persistent if sometimes angry questioner of Ministers. In areas of his interests he was a most persistent representative of the concerns which he had-concerns about immigration and conservation matters and so on-to the extent that he amused all of us with his degree of knowledge of blue crested wrens, kangaroos and things of that kind. Senator Colston —The booby bird. Senator BUTTON —That is in Boobialla, is it not! He knew about all those things and many of us did not. Tony Mulvihill is a person of great integrity. I believe that is recognised on all sides of the Senate. Senator Chipp —And a great lover of scab unionists. Senator BUTTON —That will be recorded in Hansard, no doubt. I should like to pay a personal tribute to another senator who spent a relatively short time here; that was John Siddons. He was here between 1980 and 1983. He was the first Australian Democrat elected as a second senator for his party in the State of Victoria, or indeed in any State, and he was the first Democrat to suffer electoral defeat. I regarded Senator Siddons as a man of great personal integrity. He pursued a number of issues such as industrial democracy, legislation and so on in this place. It was a breath of fresh air in many ways that he was here. The Democrats have, of course, suffered from his defeat. Senator Thomas and Senator Sir Harold Young were both Liberal Party senators. One was from Western Australia. The first served as Deputy Government Whip and the second had the distinction of becoming President of the Senate. I should like to say first of all about Senator Thomas that he was well regarded by everyone here, I believe. It is a source of regret that such a relatively young senator should not have returned as a result of that unfortunate decision to which I referred earlier. Senator Sir Harold Young was, I think, regarded by all senators as a very fair and decent President of the Senate. I am sure I speak for everybody when I say that we all regarded him as such and wish him well. Altogether those senators served 81 years in this place, if we accumulate their service. Their contributions to debates in this chamber and their committee activity will be missed. However, the Senate has some degree of continuity about it and new senators replace them and, I believe, add lustre to the chamber. On behalf of the Government, speaking of them collectively, we wish them all well in their retirement. We hope that it will not be the last occasion on which they have the opportunity to serve this country in public life of one kind or another . We will miss them here and hope that they have a secure and happy future. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.4) —I too, on behalf of senators who sit behind me and on my own behalf, should like to express good wishes to all of those senators who retired due to the recent double dissolution. If I may vary slightly the procedure initiated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) I will refer first to those who served with me in the Senate as members of the Liberal Party of Australia. Otherwise, I will follow his precedent by dealing with them in alphabetical order. I adopt everything that has been said by Senator Button about Senator Bonner. Senator Bonner was unique. It may be some time before another Aboriginal Australian is in this Parliament. If it is I, and I am sure many others, will regret that fact. Neville Bonner really distinguished himself and was a very fine representative of the people about whom he felt very deeply. I think it is instructive for all of us to read Neville Bonner's biography. It tells of a childhood the like of which none of us would have experienced. The fact that he came to this place with the dignity, talent and ability that he had was a great tribute to him. I think it was also a great tribute to the spirit of all of the Aboriginal people of Australia. While I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs no one could have been more helpful or more understanding-at times he was a terrible spur and scourge-than Senator Bonner. I wish to place on public record my gratitude to him for his friendship and tolerance during that time. The field of Aboriginal affairs was often difficult for Neville. He had ambitions for his people which sometimes we did not-indeed no government could ever-live up to. I really appreciated his contribution in that area. In a sense that contribution was symbolised by his bringing into this place the legislation for the establishment of the Aboriginal Development Commission, which put a very large number of programs of great value into Aboriginal hands. I think that symbolised the way in which he affected the thinking of us all, certainly on our side of politics. He leaves with my very great regret. Indeed, I think we all regret that he left the Parliament and fought his last campaign as an Independent. He certainly has left a lot of friends, and indeed all of us on this side of the chamber feel that he is our very close friend. Senator Martyr was much more briefly in the Senate. I must say that when I think of his leaving I am reminded of the words which I think Senator Wheeldon used in respect of Senator Greenwood when he died. Senator Wheeldon reminded us that Senator Greenwood had been an important spokesman for a section of the community who sometimes had been under-represented and whose views had not been heard. He pointed out that many people would miss the advocacy which Senator Greenwood brought. In the same way I think John Martyr had a particular constituency which will feel his departure very strongly. The particular concerns he had related to issues such as the family, abortion, family law-a range of things. I do not need to remind the Senate of the matters on which he was passionate. I think he represented a point of view which is perhaps under- represented at times in this place. I know there will be many who will miss his voice here. He was not always a comfortable companion because of the strength of his views but I think that some of the views he would have put forward on the family law legislation, including questions of marriage contracts and so on, might have led to a lengthier, but perhaps improved, debate. Senator Thomas was on a team with me on a number of occasions and was a very good friend and colleague. He will be particularly missed because of the extraordinary service he provided to rural and outback Western Australia. I of course agree with the very complimentary words used by Senator Button, and I adopt them on behalf of the Opposition, but I draw attention to the great length of time which Senator Thomas spent travelling in the remoter parts of Western Australia during each parliamentary recess. It was a unique contribution. Wherever I went in remote Western Australia during the last election campaign I received expressions of appreciation for Andrew Thomas's representation of those people. All Western Australian senators will know how difficult it is to serve a State of one million square miles, and I think Andrew, more than any other person, took up that challenge with great zest. I do not think his political ambitions are over, and I certainly hope he will be back with us. Mr President, Senator Sir Harold Young adopted the most honoured position in the Senate, the position you now hold. He had the respect of us all and he goes with our very great regret. He regretted the early election because it ended his career a year or so earlier than I think he would have wished. For his sake I regret that too. If I may add a personal note again, I was Deputy Whip to Harold Young when I first became a senator and I was able to watch him at close quarters working as Whip. At that time, of course, he worked under Reg Withers as Leader. I learned of his very great qualities, his terrific ability to make friends and his great generosity of spirit. He was generous to me and I think to all his colleagues. Harold will be missed in a personal sense by many, if not all, of us. He certainly has my gratitude for what he did in this place both for the Senate and for me personally. I turn now to the members of the Opposition. Senator Keeffe was- Senator Robertson —The former Opposition. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry; I regret that. I turn now to those senators who were in the Opposition. When I look down the list I certainly know that they were in the Opposition. They opposed with very great vigour and strength the measures that the Government was putting forward or failing to put forward. Senator Keeffe was capable of getting into many scraps in this place. His public record is in the Senate Hansard and is well known to all. Again I do not differ from the views which were expressed by Senator Button. I merely add to what Senator Button has said that when Senator Keeffe wrote to me and in the discussions which I had with him in the corridors and in my office, I found him to be a man of immense courtesy. It was always very pleasant to receive representations from Senator Keeffe as long as they were not in this chamber when it was a very uncomfortable business. I record his deep and abiding interest in Aboriginal affairs for which I was responsible for some time and the constructive way in which he approached the subject particularly when we were out of this place and out of the public disputation which necessarily occurs between government and opposition. Senator McLaren was a man rather similar in quality to Senator Keeffe. I acknowledge and endorse all the comments made by Senator Button. I found in Senator McLaren an assiduous attention to his constituents' concerns not merely in this chamber but also out of the chamber. In my capacity as a former Minister he was one of those people whom I saw very frequently. He was very strong in the views which he put. He also responded very well to the efforts that were made on behalf of his constituents and himself. Whilst I will not miss him at the Estimates committee debates or, I suspect, in any of the debates in this place, I certainly will miss him around Parliament House. I knew Senator Mulvihill less well but it seems to me that his contribution was peculiar to him. His interests were very evident to us. He was a man of great passion. When he took up a cause with passion it was very wise sometimes to step aside while he went past. His representations were of the sort which made it impossible to do other than give very careful attention to them. I join with Senator Button in paying tribute to what he did in this place. I think he represented the interests about which he was particularly concerned very well and with great passion. In a sense we should all regret losing Senator Siddons because he represented one of the scarcest commodities in this place; that is, a person with independent business experience. I think those sorts of people represent the scarcest occupation group in the Parliament. Senator Siddons was not at all representative of business generally. He had some views which he expressed passionately-industrial democracy has been mentioned. I express the view that, in losing Senator Siddons, we should perhaps not merely regret losing him as an individual but we should regret the loss of a representative of the business community, the concerns and problems of which I think are often inadequately understood all round this chamber and in the other place as well. Senator Siddons had run a substantial Australian corporation and he had a working knowledge of the virtues and vices of protection and the problems on the shop floor from the employer's side. Of course there are many on the Government side who have experience from the trade union side rather than the employer side. I hope that all parties, be they the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the Australian Democrats, might send to this Parliament more people with the working background of Senator Siddons. It is amazing how we all improve in character and become much more likeable the moment we leave this place. The Government Whip is quite clearly prepared to see me go very soon. He might even offer the hand of friendship if I do. On behalf of Opposition senators I wish all those retired senators well and express our thanks to them for the contributions they have made in this place. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.15) —I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in paying tribute to the departing senators. I thank both Senator Button and Senator Chaney for their generous remarks about my erstwhile colleague, Senator Siddons. I too would like to make a short personal mention of each of them in alphabetical order starting with my friend of many years, Neville Bonner. To assess this man's worth there is no need to go to his performance although his performance while he was an elected representative was impressive indeed. After due consideration, I say that had I had his beginning, been poor, been black and been raised in ignorance with his lack of opportunity, I would not have come within any distance of his achievements. He achieved despite fearsome handicaps not of his making that were placed in his way. The fact that he was able to overcome those massive handicaps is a tribute to the great stature of this man who is no longer with us. The Senate will be a poorer place for not having Neville Bonner in it. I had an affection for Jim Keeffe. He sat next to me and enlivened dreary debates with jolly interjections. Senator Peter Baume —Jolly? Senator CHIPP —When it comes to talking about Jim Keeffe 'jolly' is a good word. He had an indefatigable sense of humour with which I did not always agree but at least he tried to be funny and introduce some levity into this sometimes dreary place. The last thing that one could accuse Geoff McLaren of would be having a sense of humour. I am told that he did in committees and elsewhere but it was very difficult to discover in this chamber, particularly if one was at the receiving end of it as I often was. Notwithstanding that, there would be unanimity in this place that his tenacity made a valuable contribution to the Parliament. John Martyr is another man of whom I can claim to have been a close personal friend. In the 23 years that I have been in politics I do not know anyone who would have had less in common with my political beliefs, ideology or almost any subject at all except perhaps sport. John Martyr was an extreme, avid, fanatic right-winger and he was very proud of that. The extraordinary thing was that, notwithstanding this massive difference in our philosophies, we were very close personal friends. John Martyr had a great capacity to love and to be loved. Those who had the privilege of getting to know him would have found out the true meaning of affection and love. I have abiding, deep and compassionate memories of John Martyr, particularly when I used to captain the parliamentary cricket team against the Press. Inevitably, the only one brave or foolish enough to accept my request to be wicket keeper was John Martyr. Inevitably, within 10 minutes of the start of every cricket match, he was covered in blood as a result of a gashed eye, forehead or whatever. Notwithstanding that, he took it all with good humour. Tony Mulvihill and I were friends for a long time. We shared pleasant jibes with each other about the relative values of rugby league-if that is a game one can still mention-and Australian rules football. He was always pleasant, good humoured and friendly. I did not know Andrew Thomas very well but I knew him to be a man of principle. I remember very well a conflict of principle between his philosophy and his holding of office within the Liberal Party in this Parliament -he chose the principle by resigning as Deputy Government Whip. Any person who does that has my admiration. I pay that tribute to him. I pay a tribute to Sir Harold Young who was a close personal friend of mine dating back to my Liberal Party days. I journeyed with him overseas on some occasions. He was a pleasant companion. I believe he lifted the already high stature of the presidency of this Senate, or at least maintained its status. He was a great fighter for the Parliament and the Senate against the greedy clutches of the Executive. I think all honourable senators should thank him for that. I remember with affection and admiration his tenure of office. I have left my colleague John Siddons till last so that I can pay a special tribute and say how very sorry I am that he was not returned at the last election. Senator Chaney was generous in referring to him as being one of the few public industrialists to have been elected to this place in recent years. I say to all honourable senators, particularly honourable senators who have now become Ministers with newfound power: 'Do not demean the office of a member of parliament by any shape or form because there is nobody-the Press or the public- who will lift the office of a member of parliament'. If we demean it ourselves, by the actions of the Executive or the actions of the Parliament, we will lessen the chances of again attracting people of the calibre of John Siddons. I will explain further what I mean. John Siddons was the executive chairman and chairman of directors of a company employing 1,500 to 2,000 people. He was on a high salary and on a very lucrative superannuation scheme but he wanted to serve the Parliament. I will not embarass John Siddons by disclosing what he lost permanently by choosing to serve as a member of parliament, but he did so choose . He was elected for six years and, in fact, served less than two years. As from 5 March the John Siddonses of this world are out there and nobody gives a damn. If that is the way we are going to treat people who undertake personal sacrifice to serve, we are not going to be attracting to this Parliament the leaders of industry or leaders of commerce whom I believe it desperately needs. I get tired sometimes when some of us demean ourselves by using the cheap grandstanding trick of going to the people and saying: 'We will halve our salaries or cut our salaries by 10 per cent or 20 per cent'. This is a meaningless thing. What are we doing? All we are doing is dragging ourselves and this institution down and making it less likely that big people, big men and big women, will offer themselves for the service of the nation. I will very briefly compliment John Siddons on the industrial democracy Bill which he championed. Only God and the Australian Democrats know how many times he championed it because we were in the party room with him. He attempted to save the Community Youth Support Scheme. He worked hard and was one of the initiators in saving the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. He was active in respect of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill and was a great champion for the maintenance of the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He was a champion also of Australian manufacturing industry. He recognised small business and put a great amount of work into presenting to this Senate alternative budgets in 1981-82 which hindsight has proven to be brilliant in their concept and correct in economic terms. He championed the abolishment of an undistributed profits tax which the Government finally accepted and he brought into the Senate an electoral Bill which is now going to be taken up by the new Government. I conclude by saying that although John Siddons was a giant of industry and an employer he was the most passionate in our party meetings for the Democrats to join with the Australian Labor Party to stop, above all, the then Government taking the unemployment benefit from the spouses of striking workers. He said that was an act of unmitigated cruelty which would make people suffer when they could not help the situation. I remember remarking on this fact to myself at the time-that a chairman of directors of a company employing 2,000 workers could take off his coat as chairman of directors, put himself in the kitchen of a household where a worker was on strike, address his mind to the problems of the wife and say: 'We cannot allow this woman to have her unemployment benefit taken away'. Such was the humility of this man. On behalf of my Australian Democrat colleagues, I pay him that tribute. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate)(6.26) —My party, the National Party, is in the happy position of not having lost a senator but having gained one at the last election. I certainly want to be associated with the tributes and the good wishes that have been extended and will be extended to those senators-a distinguished and varied group-who left us very recently. During their stay in the Senate chamber they made their presence felt and impressed us with their own peculiarities and characteristics. I will be very brief in what I have to say about our former colleagues. I knew Senator McLaren very well over a great number of years. When I think of Senator McLaren I am convinced of one thing-that he had the volume and the noise to make his words quite distinctive. His was a voice that none of us will forget, whether in this chamber or in an Estimates committee. Senator McLaren was probably the greatest promoter of Murray Bridge, and indeed the River Murray, of anyone I can think of at the moment. Senator Keeffe had a somewhat sharp way of speaking from time to time. One would even think that he was inclined to be unfriendly, but that really was not so. I recall that when I came into this chamber in 1970 he was having great difficulty in manoeuvering his way around on crutches. When he left he looked far better, and I am sure he looks better still today. I knew Senator Mulvihill for a great number of years. He was certainly a robust character, both physically and mentally. Of all the things I recall of Senator Mulvihill perhaps the greatest was his capacity to apply sporting phraseology to any sort of Bill before this chamber. We all knew Senator Siddons for a relatively short time. I am sure he impressed us all. He was a man great in physique and great in sincerity. His contribution in the industrial relations field in particular will not be forgotten very quickly. My friend Harold Young distinguished himself not only in the occupation of the Chair, sir, which you now occupy, but also over a very long period in this Parliament. He played a very significant part in a great number of its committees. Senator Thomas from Western Australia was very young to leave the chamber. Perhaps one day soon he will return. Senator Thomas was a happy character, a hard worker and a young man whose knowledge of the husbandry of the soil and stock was probably second to none. I will not dwell on the subject of Senator Bonner. I believe that I have been a great friend of his over many years. He was here for the full period of my time in the Senate. It is sufficient to say that he became a legend in his own time. Not many people achieve that sort of distinction. Senator Martyr played his part both in this chamber and the House of Representatives. He was a keen and sincere man, sometimes one would almost think argumentative to a robust degree. But I knew there was something fascinating about him. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, gave me the clue when he was talking about him a few minutes ago. He admitted that on occasions, at least, Senator Martyr drove him mad. I often wondered who was responsible. Mr President, I add my sincere and best wishes to all of our colleagues who served with us over a great number of years. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(6.31) —I wish to pay tribute to our well respected and admired colleague, James Anthony Mulvihill, who was known to all of us as Tony. Tony was first elected to the Senate from New South Wales in 1964 . He was then re-elected in 1970, 1974, 1975, 1977 and 1980. His record, when one looks at the Parliamentary Handbook, is impressive. I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- MULVIHILL, James Anthony Senator for New South Wales Australian Labor Party Parliamentary Service Elected to the Senate for New South Wales 1964 (term began 1.7.65), 1970, 1974, 1975 and 1977. Parliamentary Appointment Chairman, Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council from February 1973 to June 1974. Parliamentary Position Temporary Chairman of Committees from 10.7.74 Committee Service Senate Standing: Library from 23.2.67; Disputed Returns and Qualifications from 6.3.73 to 11.11.75 Senate Legislative and General Purpose: Health and Welfare from 4.11.70 to 7.9. 71; Social Environment from 7.4.71 to 11.11.75; Science and the Environment from 24.3.76. Senate Select: Water Pollution 1968-70; Civil Rights of Migrant Australians from 29.5.73 to 11.4.74; Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders from 18.3.76 to 26.8. 76. Senate Estimates: B from 16.9.70 to 2.11.72; C from 9.5.73 (Chairman from 24.5. 73) to 11.4.74; A from 24.10.74 to 15.43.75; F from 3.10.74 (Chairman from 17.10 .74) to 15.4.75; E from 15.4.75 (Chairman from 17.4.75) to 3.9.75; F again from 3.9.75 to 11.11.75; B again from 29.4.76 to 26.8.76; C again from 26.8.76 to 16. 3.78; B again from 16.3.78 to 20.9.78; C again from 20.9.78 to 2.4.81; D from 2. 4.81; F again from 2.4.81 to 26.8.81. Joint: Foreign Affairs from 19.5.67 to 2.11.72; Parliamentary Committee System from 25.9.74 to 26.5.76. Conferences and Delegations Member, Australian Delegation to the Development Assistance Committee, Council of Europe, visiting Austria, Turkey and Yugoslavia, January 1971. Delegate to 3rd International Parliamentary Conference on the Environment, Nairobi, April 1974, and 4th Conference, Kingston, April 1976. Parliamentary Party Position Member, Opposition Shadow Ministry from 27.1.76 to 29.12.77. Spokesman on Environment. Personal Born 27.4.19 at North Ryde, New South Wales. Married. Occupation and Interest before entering Federal Parliament Served in N.S.W. Railways Department. Elected Assistant Secretary, N.S.W. Branch of the ALP 1957-64. Senator SIBRAA —The Parliamentary Handbook also points out that Tony Mulvihill was elected Assistant Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party in 1957 and served in that position until 1964. This emphasises the fact that he gave a lifetime of service to the Australian Labor Party and to the Labor movement. One other point which I should make about Tony Mulvihill and which is mentioned in the Parliamentary Handbook is that he was the shadow Minister for the environment during 1976 and 1977. It is fair to say that he was perhaps the first person to make conservation an issue in the Labor Party in my State of New South Wales. I can remember that years ago he would rise at conferences and state councils and start talking about the Cape Barren goose, the red kangaroo or dingoes. We would all laugh at him. But by the time he left the Parliament, he was still speaking about those things at our conferences and nobody was laughing at him. I remember when he first spoke about the Kakadu National Park. I had never heard of it. But he spoke with such strength and feeling on the issue that a number of us then began to be more and more involved in these issues. I am sure that by the time Tony Mulvihill left the Senate, the work that he had done in conservation had had a great effect on all of us. Tony was a trade unionist of the old school. He was a member of the Australian Railways Union. Whenever his biography was put in any publication he always mentioned that he was the captain of the tug-of-war team from the railway workshops. Apparently, that was one of the highlights of Tony's career. He was a sportsman. He played rugby league for Eastern Suburbs in Sydney. It is a tough sport and, in some ways, Tony was a tough person. He kept his contacts with the trade union movement. It would be fair to say that no senator worked harder in our State for the trade union movement than Tony Mulvihill. He was not one who sought the limelight. He is the minute secretary at our annual conference. I cannot think of a more onerous and back-breaking job, but Tony does it year after year. He is also the minute secretary for our State council. It did not matter whether a rural conference or a meeting of the party was held anywhere, Tony Mulvihill would be there, doing those sorts of jobs which did not put him in the limelight. Senator Lewis —And he loved his dog. Senator SIBRAA —I am getting to that. All honourable senators on both sides of the chamber would be interested to know that since Tony Mulvihill left the Senate-he has retired in one sense-one of the first things he did was to open an office in the Trades Hall in Sydney. He continues to do constituent work for the trade unions and the migrant community in New South Wales. All of us who knew him realised that he had a great interest in, and a great love for, Yugoslavia. He visited the country many times. The Yugoslav Government decorated him for his services to the Yugoslav community in Australia and he was very proud of it. I remember making an official visit to Yugoslavia. I was staggered by the number of people not only in the National Parliament but also in the different State parliaments around the country who knew of, and spoke about, Tony Mulvihill and the work that he had done for the Yugoslav community in Australia. Of course, he did a lot of work for the Greek and Italian communities too, and particularly for the Spanish speaking communities in Sydney. The South American communities had tended to be ignored. If they had a champion in this Senate, it was Senator Tony Mulvihill. He was one of the real characters of the Senate and he will be missed. Honourable senators who heard his farewell speech, when he got square on somebody who had kicked his dog years ago, will never forget the speech. Anyone who was not here at the time should obtain a copy of Hansard to read one of the greatest speeches ever made in this place. Tony held strong views on many things. I could spend all night telling a number of stories about him, but I will tell only a couple. I well remember hearing the story about how he got very upset in a debate and called former Senator McManus from the Australian Democratic Labor Party-he did not like the DLP-a bludger. Somebody took a point of order and asked him to withdraw. When he spoke to the then President he said that he would not withdraw and that Senator McManus was worse than a bludger, he was a Melbourne bludger. I will always remember another story about Tony when he was campaigning in Tasmania for the ALP. We were having a drink at the end of the day. One of the voters in the bar said that he had always wanted to meet Senator Tony Mulvihill, so we took him around to meet him. He said: 'Senator, you're the person who saved the Cape Barren goose, aren't you ?' Tony Mulvihill swelled with pride and said: 'That's right'. The man said, 'I' ve been waiting to meet you for years. There are thousands of the damn things now and they eat everything that I try to grow on my farm', which deflated Tony a little at the time. I got only 10 minutes' or a quarter of an hour's notice that I had to make this speech tonight. I have probably omitted many things. I have incorporated the page from the Parliamentary Handbook in the Hansard because I know that if I have forgotten something, Tony Mulvihill will get square. I do not want him to get square with me the way he got square with the person mentioned in his farewell speech. Mr President, I know that I speak on your behalf, and on behalf of the Minister for Veteran's Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, Senator Childs and Senator Richardson, who has just taken Tony Mulvihill's place in the Senate. As I said, he put in a lifetime of service to the Australian Labor Party and all of us wish him well in his retirement. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.38) —I wish to speak briefly about one of the colleagues we are referring to today. I am sure all of us would like to say a few words about all of them, but the leaders have done that. I rise to put on record a few comments about a former colleague from Queensland, Senator Neville Bonner. Senator Bonner will be sorely missed by this Parliament. As an Aborigine -it should be noted that he has his place in history as the first Aborgine ever elected to any parliament in Australia and the only Aborigine ever elected to the national Parliament-he brought much valuable expertise and feeling to a vexatious area of policy in the years that he was here. However, he did much more than that. His contribution to party forums and to various Ministers over the years on that subject was very particular. I believe his very presence in the Parliament had a value in itself. I am not suggesting for one minute that he was in any way an example of tokenism, that lower standards were set for him than were set for anyone else, because they were not. He went through the most rigorous preselection procedures in 1970, 1971, 1972 and so on, and came out on top because he was the best candidate and an outstanding senator. Nevertheless, I believe he was a great inspiration to Aboriginal people because he was so visible and so well known. They certainly all knew that he had aspired to, and achieved the status of, membership of the national Parliament. The fact that he was here meant a great deal to Aborigines, giving them hope. I hope that the fact that he is no longer here means that Aborigines will not lose faith and will not come to the conclusion that there is not a place for them in the system . I am sure many honourable senators have read his biography and know the story of his birth, his childhood and his adulthood prior to entering political activity. I found it a most enlightening book to read in terms of just how gross was the discrimination against Aborigines in Australia in previous decades. The fact that Neville Bonner lived the life that he did-it is described so simply and so clearly in that biography-and came through it as a great human being, a man of great warmth and without bitterness for what he had suffered is a tribute to him as a human being. I remember in particular one section which describes when he was living with his grandmother in what is referred to as a blacks camp under lantana shrubs. He spent a good part of his formative years living under those sorts of conditions. Just what sort of person makes the transition from that sort of moulding in childhood to this place? The answer is: A very great person indeed. He is an outstanding human being. As all of us know, he is a thorough gentleman and, very proudly, a Christian gentleman. He brought great insight and understanding to all the subjects that he tackled here. People naturally identified him with the Aboriginal cause and he was in fact criticised for being preoccupied with the subject. There were those who said that he was a senator for Aborigines and not a senator for Queensland. Neville Bonner never defended himself against that criticism, and he could have so easily. The fact was that he made a major contribution in a number of areas of national policy. He was very closely involved with all types of disadvantaged groups, as he saw them. His work for pensioners is certainly something that pensioners know about, even if other Australians do not when they focus only on what he had to say about Aborigines. He made a very valuable contribution to this country in his travels overseas in a variety of capacities, not the least of which was through the agency of World Vision. He is a patron of World Vision and has done much work in that area. I think a large number of us will remember some quite outstanding work he did on television during the International Year of the Child when he talked about 'For the Love of Kids' and made an appeal to all Australians to make sure that we are worthy of the children of this nation. Neville Bonner will continue to be a very important Australian. I said a few minutes ago that he has his place in the history books, and nobody will ever take that away from him. In the years to come I think people will look back with some amazement, as we become more distant from the sorts of conditions he suffered as an Aborigine, at his achievements and recognise what incredible personal qualities he has. I hope that we can look forward to seeing him continue to contribute to Australia. There are too few Aborigines like Neville Bonner who have his ability to cope with both aboriginality and living in a very much westernised society. He is an important bridge for Aborigines and for white Australians in understanding what they must do to make sure that we achieve the sort of Australia we would like for people of all colours. I look forward, as I am sure do all his colleagues here, to the continuing contribution that he will make. It is highly valuable, and I know that the history books will treat Neville Bonner very generously. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(6.44) —I would like to say a few words about Geoff McLaren on behalf of South Australian senators. We all know that he is a great terrier for and fossicker of information. But many people do not know about the very hard work which Geoff McLaren did in the country areas of South Australia. Like former Senator Thomas, Geoff travelled very widely and represented everyone he came across. Many of those people never voted for the Australian Labor Party, but Geoff always represented all the people. That is to his credit. He will be remembered in many areas. In South Australia quite a number of functions have been held in honour of Geoff McLaren for the work he did in country electorates. Some honourable senators opposite may be pleased to see him go so that the Estimates committees can get through their work, but we on this side appreciated Geoff's great contribution and his very hard work in South Australia. The wine industry and all the rural industries will most certainly miss him. I agree with the remarks made about Geoff McLaren and the other senators who have retired, but the list is too long to go through. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.46) —I join very warmly with all the remarks that have been made about all our former colleagues, but I would like to mention particularly Neville Bonner and Sir Harold Young. Neville Bonner has left a lesser known institution in this Parliament with something of a constitutional crisis. That organisation is a committee called the brandy committee which has forthrightly represented in appropriate places the brandy industry, which is chiefly sited in South Australia. He was the last chairman of that committee and , having left this place, leaves us with no alternative machinery with which to elect a new chairman. So it looks as though we will have to re-form the committee. The members of that committee will realise the contribution that he made to the industry and his performance on behalf of all senators in ensuring that that industry's future remains prosperous in one way or another. In the time that I have known my very great friend Sir Harold Young, which is something like 16 years, he has always been one of the most pleasant personalities-certainly a person with whom all of us had some identification of personal feeling. To my mind he was one of the most popular politicians in South Australia. Whenever we travelled together throughout the State, however remote the locality, he would either have a relative in the immediate vicinity or be well known to people in the area. I think he was one of the outstanding contributors in this place to the welfare of South Australians generally. Apart from Sir Harold's electoral activities, he represented a very great constituency in the State-the farming industries. He was very active for many years in the farmers and graziers associations in the State. He was recognised by being appointed to and representing several committees and organisations at the highest level. He will be remembered for that. He will also be remembered right across the State as having served his State with great capacity, enormous skill and great distinction. I have been asked by all my South Australian colleagues to say those words also on their behalf. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(6.49) —I take the opportunity to pay a brief tribute to three of my former colleagues whom I am sure will not mind me calling them friends-Geoff McLaren, Tony Mulvihill and Jim Keeffe. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and others have spoken of all of those who left last year, and I endorse all that has been said about them. I confine myself to the three I have mentioned simply because of the particular contributions they made to the Northern Territory. Others have spoken, and yet others may speak, of their personal qualities. I endorse what has been said and what may be said but do not want to repeat it, because we do not want to spend too long on the adjournment tonight. Before I mention the contributions that they made to the Northern Territory, can I just say that, for the short time I was Whip while they were members of the Senate, the three of them fell into the category of real Whips' mates. They were always ready to step in at a moment's notice and hold the fort if a speaker was required. They were good aggressive speakers in the best sense of that word and from their early days in this place, I understand, adopted that sort of stance. Let me speak firstly of Geoff McLaren because he took a keen interest in the Northern Territory right from the time that he came into the Senate. In fact, I understand that before I came here in 1975 he was jokingly referred to by his colleagues as 'the senator for the Northern Territory'. This was attested to by the fact that he took up many issues for people living in the Northern Territory . The reason he was able to do this was, of course, that he visited us many times in the Nothern Territory. It was a great joy to both my wife and me that on many occasions both he and Mrs McLaren were able to stay with us in our home. He also visited many times to help with campaigns. All of the people he met as we knocked on doors and campaigned throughout the Northern Territory were impressed by his enthusiasm and basically, I suppose, by his energy, but also by his knowledge of the Labor movement, from both the trade union arm and the political arm. He served, as we all know, on the joint Committee for the Northern Territory from 1973. He helped draft both the initial report and the report which was put out after Cyclone Tracy in case any amendments to the initial report were needed . I think the contribution he made was invaluable because of his background in the Northern Territory. He probably knew more spots and spoke to more people in the Northern Territory than any other member of the Committee. I certainly do not wish to denigrate their efforts, but Geoff made a great contribution because he knew what was needed in the Northern Territory. I must mention also his contribution to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. He was a most effective Committee member because he was able to draw on a very wide background and because, as has been indicated by some of the former speakers, he was quite merciless, if you like, in his pursuit of information, whether the information was from a witness, a Minister or a member of a department. He did this with a certain grace and charm. People always ended up friendly with Geoff McLaren after he had been quite strong in his questioning of them. I know that he would want me to mention the work of our former Chairman , Senator Andrew Thomas, who was a thorough gentleman and who gave us a great deal of leadership on that Committee. I join with him in saying that we are sorry that Andrew has not returned to join us here. Geoff's name is recorded on a plaque at the Post Office at Tennant Creek, which he opened for the Government in 1974, I believe it was. But I think that his more effective record is in the hearts of the Northern Territory people who remember him. Tony Mulvihill also visited the Northern Territory and helped campaign on a couple of occasions. I remember one of those stories that seem to proliferate about Tony. It concerns the advice he gave me as we moved off to address the first union meeting that I addressed as a candidate in the Northern Territory. He took me aside and said: 'One piece of advice I will give you: Don't stop talking; don't give them a chance to butt in'. Of course, anyone who heard Tony with the union movement would know that he followed his own counsel very well. I had never known anyone who was able to speak without drawing breath. He is also remembered for his contribution to the debates on environmental issues. He was, as our colleague Senator Sibraa has mentioned, a great lover of Kakadu National Park and spoke very strongly on the need for Kakadu National Park to be set aside. He was always very anxious to protect the flora and fauna of Australia. We shared an interest in dingoes and their place in the community. Tony was a warm, caring person who always was ready to assist junior colleagues. I certainly valued the assistance which he gave me when I first came to this place . Jim Keeffe was another frequent visitor to the Northern Territory. He came to the Northern Territory because of his interest in the Aboriginal people. It is fair to say that Jim has Aboriginal friends all over the Northern Territory. I was fortunate to serve with him on our party's national platform committee on a number of occasions. I was impressed then by his understanding of Aboriginal people, the knowledge he had of Aboriginal folklore and the warm, friendly relationships which he built up with Aboriginal people all over Australia as we went around. I think it is a tribute to him that the present Aboriginal affairs policy owes a great deal to the contribution which he made over the years. I thank these three for the contributions they have made to the Northern Territory and assure them-I am sure they would like to be assured of this-that they are remembered with affection in the Northern Territory, and the role they played is very much appreciated by us up there. I look forward to enjoying fellowship with all of those who left last year and endorse the wishes that have been extended for an enjoyable retirement for all of them. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(6.55) —I also wish to speak in this part of the proceedings. I was sorely tempted, however, to wait until the adjournment debate because my comments will be specifically limited to ex-Senator Geoff McLaren. It would seem appropriate that, considering Geoff's use of the adjournment debate while he was a member of this place-- Senator Teague —Don't worry; it is the adjournment debate. Senator BOLKUS —Is it? In that case I am doing the right thing. His absence will surely be noted by the Senate. I am sure that when it comes to processes of the Senate, such as petitions, notices of motions or whatever, many of us who were here with Geoff McLaren will remember the skills and the cunning that he adopted in applying himself to the use of Senate Standing Orders and procedures. Geoff McLaren was elected to this place in 1970. As he says, if it were not for his success at that time John Bannon would not now be Premier of South Australia . Geoff got in on preselection before John Bannon in 1969. Once elected he approached his task here most assiduously and devoted himself to pursuing not only the interests of his electors but also the interests, principles and policies of the Australian Labor Party through and through. If there is one thing that can be said about Geoff McLaren it is that he had solidarity with the working people of Australia, the labour movement and, more than that, all South Australians, wherever they lived, wherever they came from. As Senator Elstob said earlier, Senator McLaren based himself in a country electorate and was in many ways a country senator for South Australia. He was in fact, for much of the time that he was representing South Australia, the only Federal member of parliament who had an office in the country. He made sure that members of the National Country Party in this place took note of that point. He will be missed, not only in the Riverland and areas such as Mount Gambier where his presence was often felt; but especially in Murray Bridge, where he had his office. As my colleague Senator Maguire said, it will be interesting now to keep a tab on the Murray Bridge Post Office and the reduction of work which now might take place because of Geoff McLaren's absence from the Senate. As I said earlier, his approach to the Standing Orders and procedures was one that I learnt a lot from, having had the pleasure to sit with him for approximately two years. He knew what could and could not be done within the Standing Orders; I suggest he was able to get away with doing both. I do not wish to say any more, but tie myself in with the comments made by Senator Elstob in respect of Senator McLaren. In doing so I ask that it be noted that both Senator Elstob and I are making these comments on behalf of all Labor senators from South Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.58 p.m. The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute: Amendments to Schedules under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act. Determinations under the- Census and Statistics Act; Defence Act; and Remuneration Tribunals Act. A direction under the Customs Tariff Act. Orders under the Customs Tariff Act. Regulations under the Census and Statistics Act. A statement under the Lands Acquisition Act; and Statutes under the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act.