Wednesday, 4 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 11.30 a.m ., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) left Australia today to attend ministerial discussions in Paris, Brussels and Vienna. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) is acting Minister for Foreign Affairs until Mr Hayden returns. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) left Australia today to attend the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in Manila, representing the Treasurer. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is Acting Minister for Housing and Construction until Mr Hurford returns. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Discrimination To the Honourable The President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And WHEREAS the terms of the United Nations Convention on the elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological, disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 11 citizens), Boswell (from 201 citizens) and Walters ( from 30 citizens). To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the implementation of the recommendations of the Davidson Committee report into telecommunications services in Australia will have the effect of: Increasing telephone rentals and call charges, particularly for rural and domestic subscribers and therefore putting telephone services beyond the economic reach of the isolated, frail and disabled who depend on the telephone for social contact; Reducing service standards; Increasing taxation by using Telecom services as a taxing medium; Increasing unemployment in both Telecom and the Electronics Manufacturing Industry; Destroying the security and sovereignty of telecommunications services in Australia; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government rejects the recommendations of the Davidson report and preserves and develops Telecom as the sole provider of an integrated national telecommunications system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Colston (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens undersigned respectfully showeth: (1) That Australia, as a sparsely populated continent, requires the maintenance of a high quality postal service as a vital means of communications. (2) That the Australian postal service truly meets the needs of all Australians . (3) That any proposal that Australia Post's monopoly power to carry letters for reward be diminished will destroy the concept of the national postal service. Your petitioners therefore pray that the powers of the postal commission to carry letters for reward should be strengthened to ensure that the national postal service is retained in the interests of all Australians And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Colston (from 454 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the 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 Senator Gietzelt (from 58 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 products 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 60 citizens). Petitions received. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, gravely concerned at the misallocation of resources, particularly reflected in arms expenditure, which distorts development and imperils the survival of humanity- (a) supports the creation of an Australian Peace and Development Research Institute as an independent statutory authority of international standing to undertake research and stimulate public awareness of peace and development issues; and (b) requests that peace and development issues be addressed at cabinet level through a mechanism such as a Ministry of Peace as advocated by the United Nations Association of Australia. Notice of Motion Senator TATE(Tasmania) —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 National Service Act 1951 in respect of persons whose conscientious beliefs do not allow them to engage in military duties. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Presidential Gallery of the Honourable James Cope, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives. We welcome Mr Cope to this chamber and enjoy his company. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the new sessional order whereby the Senate will now proceed to the presentation of ministerial papers. Questions without notice will be asked at the conclusion of the consideration of ministerial papers or at 12 noon, whichever is the earlier. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-Annual Report 1981-82. 2. National Training Council-Annual Report 1981-82. 3. Australian Trade Union Training Authority-Annual Report 1981-82 pursuant to Section 58 of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. 4. Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-Report of the President for the year ended 13 August 1982-Pursuant to Section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. 5. Department of Defence Support-Annual Report 1981-81. 6. Australian Heritage Commission-Annual Report 1981-82-Pursuant to Section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. 7. Repatriation Review Tribunal-Annual Report 1981-82-Pursuant to Section 107 VZZA of the Repatriation Act 1920. 8. Non-government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1977-Annual Report 1982 pursuant to Section 12 of the Non-government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1977. The PRESIDENT —Order! My attention is also drawn to the presence in the Gallery of former Senator Ron Maunsell of Queensland. On behalf of all honourable senators I welcome Mr Maunsell's return to Canberra. The PRESIDENT —Papers will be considered pursuant to sessional order. I feel it appropriate following yesterday's consideration of Government papers that some guidance be given by the Chair as to the procedures to be followed concerning this sessional order. Honourable senators will note that the sessional order now provides for papers to be considered for a maximum of half an hour per sitting day and that senators may speak for five minutes on each motion to consider a paper. Leave is not required for a senator to move to take note of a paper. Unless debate on any such motion is completed and the motion to take note disposed of, debate can be adjourned in either of two normal ways, that is, by a motion for adjournment or by a senator successfully seeking leave to continue his or her remarks. Under the provisions of the new sessional order a motion for the resumption of the debate will take either the normal form, for 'resumption of the debate on the next day of sitting', or a new form, for 'resumption of the debate on Thursday', that is, of the week during which the reports are tabled. If the first motion is moved and carried, the order for further debate will be listed at the end of Orders of the Day, General Business on the Notice Paper, and will not necessarily be called on during General Business on the Thursday of that week. If the second motion is moved and carried the order for the resumption of debate will be listed for the Thursday afternoon, during the time allocated, by another sessional order, for the consideration of General Business-2.15 p.m.-4. 45 p.m. The sessional order also provides the opportunity for a senator to move to take note of a report tabled during the current sitting week, in relation to which no motion to take note has been moved. This opportunity will now exist during General Business time on the appropriate Thursday, after the resumed consideration of motions moved earlier in the week. Honourable senators should note that speaking times on the resumption of debate or when considering fresh motions to take note of Government papers in General Business time pursuant to this sessional order are limited to five minutes The sessional order also provides that the debate on any such motion or motions relating to Government reports shall not continue beyond one hour, but where any such debates are adjourned and are called on in the normal course of General Business, senators who have already spoken in the earlier debates may speak again for the normal speaking time allowed. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.38) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I will speak very briefly to the Australian Heritage Commission annual report for 1981-82. Like many honourable senators, I think that to some extent I take this report on the run. I would like to make just a couple of brief remarks. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Commission on an excellent report. As distinct from many reports that we receive in this place, this is a thoughtful report which outlines ideas as well as action taken. I note that some important actions have been taken and reported on by the Commission in the previous year. The Commission underlines the fact that the World Heritage Committee met in Australia and has included three Australian places on the World Heritage List. It takes this as pointing to a growing interest in conservation of our heritage in Australia. An area of the report which I think needs to be brought out is the emphasis the report gives to Aboriginal sites. It specifically refers to the placing on the World Heritage List by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation of Kakadu National Park and the Willandra Lakes Region and says a number of things about those areas, on which I will not speak much further. I think honourable senators can read what it says in the report. I do, however, want to bring to the Senate's attention a concern expressed by the Commission at the very few nominations of Aboriginal sites which have been received for inclusion in the Register and the moves the Commission is taking to stimulate those bodies that are in a position to make some judgment on Aboriginal sites and their inclusion in the List. The report contains a picture of Moreton Island and makes a comment, there alone as far as I can discover, as to the heritage significance of Moreton Island, which it describes as a large sand mass with important Aboriginal middens in what is thought to be the highest sand dune in the world. It makes a statement that the island is under threat from sandmining operations. As I understand it, very recently a decision has been handed down in Queensland which would seem to indicate that sandmining is unlikely to take place on Moreton Island. I bring this to the attention of the Senate because I think the potential for Moreton Island as a place of great cultural significance to Australia is only just starting to be realised. In very recent years-within the last three to four years-the University of Queensland has had an archeological project running on Moreton Island. It has made some fascinating and extremely significant discoveries in relation to Aboriginal life on the island in previous years. So far as I am aware Moreton Island is the only discrete area in Australia which has the potential to show to us the total pattern of life of an Aboriginal tribe. As far as we know, the Moreton Island tribe resided only there, except for making some visits to neighbouring islands. Further archeological work on Moreton Island will give us the opportunity to define in a unique way the total system of living and culture of this particular Aboriginal tribe. Therefore, because it is relatively undisturbed it has the potential for not only giving to us very important information about Aboriginal culture but also, because it is so close to Brisbane, a major city, making available to Australians generally-if this is treated properly-access to a very important part of our heritage. I congratulate the Australian Heritage Commission for its interest in stimulating the view that Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal heritage are very much part of the Australian national heritage, that we have much to learn and that we have something worth preserving. The Commission in its report devotes some time to the built environment and to the fact that buildings of some historical significance now are still being demolished at a considerable rate. It lists a number of items-not only buildings but also trees such as the fig in Wickham Terrace-that have been destroyed since it last reported. This should sadden all of us. However, I think it is equally significant that we of European descent in Australia realise that in fact Australians' agriculture and heritage go back some 30,000 years. It is important that we recognise that that is as significant a part of our heritage as is the built environment or natural features such as areas of scenic beauty. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.43) —I want to mention in particular those comments in the annual report of the Australian Heritage Commission which relate to the Gordon below Franklin Dam and, indeed, the issue of South West Tasmania generally. Page 3 of the report states: There is no doubt in the mind of the Commission that this river and its surrounds constitutes a place which has ' . . . aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community'. The Commission is of the view that there are ' feasible and prudent' alternatives to the project and that these should be investigated . . . The discovery of yet more significant archaeological sites in the area only enhances the significance of South West Tasmania and the Franklin River valley in particular. I want to raise this matter at this time for two reasons. The first is my sense of despair that in spite of statements like this and in spite of the clearest possible indications of an international community view and an Australian view-a responsible view-work is still proceeding in this great Australian natural heritage in Tasmania. I say that it is an Australian heritage; it is not simply a Tasmanian heritage. I have been concerned about statements in the Senate, questions that have been asked and issues that have arisen since this session of the Parliament began which would seem to indicate that in some way Tasmania is not part of Australia and that there is some particular magic about a State which gives it authority and force to do anything it likes within its own territory. Certainly that may well have been the case before 1901, but one would have thought that we had learnt something since then. The whole concept of the federation of this nation was to provide for a common view of what is of national importance, what is Australian, as against what is a State issue and perhaps what is the third area of government, that is, local government. Time and again areas of local government have to give way to State considerations. It happens every day. Nobody jumps up and down about it and says that the sovereignty of Parramatta or the sovereignty of Blacktown or somewhere else has been usurped because that would emerge as complete rubbish. A week or two ago in the Senate I heard an honourable senator utter the words ' the sovereign State of Tasmania'. I suggest to that ex-Minister that that was either an inadvertent slip of the tongue or showed on his part a degree of ignorance which I do not believe he possesses. There is no issue of sovereignty; we are one nation. The second point I want to make is to give an update-I think it is very important in this context in view of what the Australian Heritage Commission has said on this subject-of the state of affairs in South West Tasmania. Information I have is that the Hydro-Electric Commission has now established at Warners Landing what is called a temporary camp which is housing 40 men and that is the working base for the road construction crew that is building the road from Warners Landing to the dam site. Beyond that, two new adits are being cut into the banks of the Gordon River. These are tunnels which the HEC can use to investigate the layering of the rock. So construction has gone beyond the stage of mere access roads to getting stuck into the area by digging larger and more major holes and actually tunnelling into the banks of the Gordon River. I understand that the road from Warners Landing to the dam site is almost complete, with only half a kilometre or so to go. In places the road is constructed in two or three tiers of 25 metres due to a steep traverse. This leaves the bedrock exposed. When winter comes we expect large-scale erosion in that area. Drilling continues above the dam site and a new drill site was started last week. There still seems to be a large amount of activity to find a solid base for the dam. This is another story altogether. Apparently there is no real indication that this is the right place to build the dam. I think a matter which has been largely overlooked in the political consideration is whether it is a sensible or economic proposition to go ahead with this. A new survey transect is being cut through the forest, 10 kilometres long, down the side of the Franklin River to the dam site. The machinery has been equipped with heated cabins. Apparently the Commission expects to work right through the winter. I think this is a disgraceful state of affairs. I know this is a matter of great controversy but I think reasonable and sufficient action has been taken by the Government-I commend it for this-for us now to make another appeal to Mr Gray not to go ahead with something which he knows is very likely indeed to be an absolute waste of money and to deface an important part of the national heritage to no good purpose whatsoever. It will impose an enormous cost on the State, the revenue of which he has a responsibility and an obligation to protect. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.49) —Senator Mason has just spoken for five minutes on the Australian Heritage Commission report. He has chosen to attack the State Government and the fact that it is continuing with the work before it, which falls within its legislative responsibilities. The Federal Government of the day has made regulations to try to stop that work progressing. The State Government has already taken this matter before the High Court of Australia. I ask Senator Mason whether he believes the High Court is the place to make a decision on whether the Federal Government has the power to override the State's decisions. Senator Gareth Evans —It is normal to obey the law pending a decision. Senator WALTERS —I was asking Senator Mason whether he felt that the High Court should be the place to make these decisions, and indeed-- Senator Mason —You are asking me a question so I will answer you. The work should cease until the High Court has given a decision. Senator Childs —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Walters said that she is speaking to a Senate committee report when in fact the matter before the Senate is the report of the Australian Heritage Commission. She is now dealing with Senator Mason's speech and referring to the State Government of Tasmania, which is completely away from the subject before the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Mason did broaden the subject of the debate. I think Senator Walters is entitled to rebut him, but I ask Senator Walters, as far as possible, to confine her remarks to the subject before the Senate. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Really, Senator Childs is allowing Senator Mason, with whom he agrees, to have the floor. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, would you please address the subject before the Senate. Senator WALTERS —But he has objected to my using the same tactics. It seems to me to be quite incredible. The point Senator Mason was making was that he believes the High Court is obviously not the place that should make this judgment. Senator Mason —That is not true, Senator, and you know it. Senator WALTERS —I ask Senator Mason once again whether he believes it is the place. Will the Australian Democrats abide by the decision of the High Court? Senator Mason —The work should cease, Senator, until the High Court's decision emerges. Senator WALTERS —Of course, that is the only interjection we have had. Senator Mason is not willing to answer that question. I am very interested to know whether the Democrats will abide by the decision of the High Court or whether they will be prepared to go even further. We have not had that decision yet from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) either. My State Premier has said unequivocally that he will abide by the decision of the High Court. He is the only one from a political party who has come out and said that this is a fact. The fact that the regulations are before the High Court is no reason for the State Government to stop work in the south west, and indeed the work will go on until the High Court makes its decision. Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of a delegation of the Association of South East Asian Nations Inter-Parliamentary Organisation. The delegation is led by the Speaker of the Batasang Pambansa, the honourable Querube Makalintal. Mr Speaker is also Chairman of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation. On behalf of honourable senators I extend to the delegation our warmest welcome to this country. The organisation is one which we in this country greatly respect and appreciate. On behalf of honourable senators I wish the delegation every success and a happy visit to this country. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I advise that my information is that the report is not available as it has not been tabled. I assume that I should seek leave to continue my remarks later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It has been tabled, Senator. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982 Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. The Australian Broadcasting Commission's Four Corners program last Saturday produced information which, if verified by legal process, would indicate serious breaches of the law by a number of prominent citizens of New South Wales-the magistracy, Mr Kevin Humphreys, as well as the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. Because the allegations cannot and must not remain untested I ask the Minister whether he will give an undertaking to the Senate that the Government will ensure that the ABC has sufficient resources to defend itself against any action and that there will be no interference of any kind with the ABC in its defence against any action arising out of this matter. Senator BUTTON —The subject matter of the Four Corners program is the subject of litigation and it is sub judice. I do not wish to-- Senator Missen —That was not the view of the Attorney-General. Senator BUTTON —With respect to Senator Missen, that was not what the Attorney- General said yesterday. He did not say that at all. I ask the honourable senator to check the Hansard. I do not wish to comment on that issue. As I understand the honourable senator's question, firstly, the Government has been asked to ensure that the ABC has sufficient resources and, secondly, to ensure that there will be no interference with the ABC in relation to this matter. Senator Peter Baume —In defending this matter. Senator BUTTON —I regard that suggestion as extraordinary coming from the former representative of the former Minister for Communications in this place. This Government does not intend to interfere in the process of litigation-whether it be with the ABC or anybody else-which did not concern the Commonwealth Government itself. The ABC is an independent instrumentality. Under this Government it will become more independent than it has been in the past. There certainly will be no interference with the ABC's capacity to defend itself in respect of defamation actions. The Chairman of the ABC made a statement about this matter two or three days ago in which statement I think she used the expression that 'the ABC acted in these matters without fear or favour'. That is an appropriate position for the chairman of a body such as the ABC to adopt. My only regret is that the present Chairman of the ABC did not, in my view, always adopt that attitude in the past. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Button will answer the question. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I am getting some help. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —I thought she was independent of your views. Senator BUTTON —If any Opposition senators would like to discuss the matter with me privately after Question Time I will explain to them what I mean. It is not necessary for me to do so now. I welcome the statement of independence by the Chairman of the ABC and the Government-- Senator Teague —Do you mean the former Chairman of the ABC? Senator BUTTON —I do not know what the honourable senator calls it but I just ask him to listen to the answer. I and the Government welcome the statement of independence by the Chairman of the ABC. There will be no interference with the ABC's capacity to defend itself in respect of any action. I do not quite know what the honourable senator means when he asked me whether we would provide resources to the ABC. If the honourable senator is implying that the ABC may have to pay an enormous sum of damages or something like that, of course it would be the responsibility of the Government at the particular time to address that question. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Senator Button saw fit to make some comments about the Chairman of the ABC during his answer to my question. He said, in relation to the independent stance , that it was a pity that it had not always been so. I ask the Minister to advise us on what occasions it had not been so and in relation to what matters. Senator BUTTON —In answering the question I said that I would advise any honourable senators who were concerned about that matter. Senator Peter Baume —You made a statement about Dame Leonie Kramer. Senator BUTTON —I made a statement about the Chairman of the ABC. I said that it has not always been so. If honourable senators want me to use Question Time to reiterate a long history of what I would regard as a lack of independence by chairmen of the ABC in the light of the statement made by Professor Kramer the other day, then I will do so on another occasion. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I ask: Is it correct that the Australian Labor Party's policy on uranium is destroying the potential for thousands of jobs in a major growth industry? Senator WALSH —The short answer is no. It was alleged by the Leader of the National-nee Country-Party yesterday that the Australian Labor Party's uranium policy was stultifying the development of the Northern Territory and South Australia, killing off thousands of jobs, stopping secondary processing and poisoning our foreign relations. That assessment is about as accurate as a pre- election deficit statement by any member of the previous Government. The plain fact is that the state of the world market precludes any new mines from being opened under the policy of this Government or the policy of the previous Government because nobody can sign a contract at a price that is acceptable. Nobody knows that better than Mr Anthony because he declined to approve a contract between Pan Continental Mining Ltd and Central Electricity Generating Board because the pricing arrangements were not satisfactory. Mr Anthony declined to approve a contract submitted to him by Pan Continental with CEGB. He did that because the pricing arrangements were not satisfactory. So it makes absolutely no difference, while the market remains as it does, whether the previous Government was in power or the Labor Government was in power. No new mines will be opened because nobody can sign a contract at a satisfactory price. Mr Anthony knows that very well because he declined to approve one. While it is a matter of judgment as to how long that world market condition will remain, it is highly unlikely to change in the first term of the Labor Government and probably unlikely to change in the second term. The plain fact is that this is a subterfuge by Mr Anthony which is designed to divert scrutiny from his own record. The fact is that he was the Deputy Prime Minister of the most thoroughly discredited Government in Australian history for the seven dark years during which unemployment trebled, during which the economy was plunged into the deepest recession that it has been in since the 1930s, which left this Government with a $10 billion impending deficit because of the cynical manipulations of electoral and accounting procedures. I give a piece of gratuitous advice to the former Deputy Prime Minister of this thoroughly discredited former Government. I suggest that he should follow his leader, Mr Fraser, into odious and overdue retirement. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind the Leader that the Australian Labor Party, when in opposition, consistently called for those against whom serious allegations had been made to stand down from all positions while those allegations were disposed of. Applying the same principle, will the Government seek to have stand down from his position on the Loan Council, the Australian Minerals and Energy Council and from any other inter-government bodies, the President of the Australian Labor Party and Premier of New South Wales, against whom the most serious allegations have been made? Senator BUTTON —When the Australian Labor Party was in opposition it called for some people to stand down from Commonwealth positions because they had been charged, effectively, with breaches of Commonwealth laws. For example, it was said in relation to Mr Denis Horgan, a friend of the Leader of the Opposition-- Senator Chaney —He was not charged and he has been cleared. Senator BUTTON —Senator Messner's question related to allegations against people . Let me use the word 'allegations' if honourable senators prefer it. Allegations were made against Mr Horgan, for example, in respect of breaches of Commonwealth law. The allegations were regarded by the former Government as being so serious that subsequently they were made the subject of an inquiry. Because of those suggestions it was proposed that Mr Horgan should stand down from the seven Commonwealth positions which he held at the time. That was an appropriate position. I find the question passing strange from representatives of a government that had a series of Ministers subject to these sorts of allegations, none of whom stood down when they were asked to do so. Senator Chipp —With great respect, that is not the question. Senator BUTTON —Just a minute, Senator Chipp. The question which Senator Messner addressed himself to, of course, is the position of the Premier of New South Wales. Senator Peter Baume —The President of the Labor Party. Senator BUTTON —The President of the Labor Party, and anything else that the honourable senator likes to mention about him. Senator Chaney —Who holds any Commonwealth positions at all? Senator BUTTON —No, he does not hold Commonwealth positions at all. He holds positions by virtue of his status as Premier of New South Wales. The matter to which Senator Messner adverted is a matter of litigation in New South Wales courts. When that is determined I assume whoever makes these decisions, including Mr Wran himself, will determine what course he shall follow. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Are we to assume from the Leader's answer that he has changed the Australian Labor Party policy in this matter and that the Party no longer stands for the position that persons under severe and serious allegations of misconduct should stand down? Senator BUTTON —There is no ALP policy on this matter, as Senator Messner likes to put it. Mr Wran is Premier of New South Wales and it is in the New South Wales context that these allegations have been made; it is in the New South Wales context that they will be dealt with. It is not my business, as a Federal politician, to tell the Premier of New South Wales what he will do and the way in which he will deal with these matters. That is up to him. Senator CROWLEY —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health explain what sort of provisions will be made under the proposed Medicare health scheme to cover those people in need of continuing dietetic or nutritional care? I have in mind particularly people with medical conditions such as anorexia nervosa or diabetes. Senator GRIMES —It is my understanding that after the establishment of Medicare the actual conditions, initially at least, will not vary from the conditions which exist now. That means, of course, that patients suffering from diseases such as metabolic diseases and some genetic diseases, such as malabsorption syndrome, will receive some assistance under Medicare, as they do under the present medical system and pharmaceutical benefits system. I know of no intention to incorporate conditions such as anorexia nervosa into the scheme. However, I will seek further information from the Minister for Health and ask him to consider such changes after, if not before, Medicare is introduced and we have monitored how the system is working. Senator MASON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that 500 people of 1,300 cases have died so so far due to a previously unknown, so far inexplicable and so far incurable disease known as AIDS, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, a disease of the body's immune system, and that reportedly no one who has been infected has yet recovered from it? Is the Minister aware that cases have recently been reported also in Denmark, France and Germany, and that while most cases are said to occur among homosexual men and intravenous drug users of both sexes, it is now spreading to the partners and children of these people, and also has been transmitted to recipients of blood transfusions? Does the Minister know it is now suspected that, due to a latent and potentially infectious phase of this disease-possibly as long as two years-it is regarded as having a major potential for spreading? Has the Minister noted that, according to today's issue of the Bulletin magazine, the first case of AIDS has been reported in Sydney? Has the Minister taken steps to see that this disease is identified, notified and monitored if it occurs in Australia? If no action has been taken on the matter, will it be taken as soon as possible? Senator GRIMES —Acquired immunity deficiency syndrome is the name given fairly recently to a reported complex of health problems associated in all these patients with a severe loss of their natural immunity to disease. This leaves them open to other infections, if indeed it is an infection, called opportunistic infections. Most reports of the disease have been received from the United States of America although some have been received from the countries which Senator Mason mentioned. Indeed, one case has been reported in Australia. Certain groups are particularly vulnerable, including male homosexuals and abusers of intravenous drugs. A group of male Haitian immigrants to the United States who are in fact almost universally heterosexual also seem to be prone, as are patients with haemophilia. The cause has not been identified but, as Senator Mason, I think, suggested, it seems that it may well be a transmissible agent, a virus with a prolonged latent period. As was mentioned in, I believe, the Bulletin, one case has been reported in Australia. If indeed it is a transmissible disease, one can expect more cases because of modern travel and because of the way in which drugs are used and abused. I am informed that the situation is being monitored by the communicable diseases committee and the public health advisory committee. I would have thought that recently considerable publicity had been given to this condition in both the medical Press and the lay Press. I am unaware of any specific action by the Department of Health to publicise the condition. I will seek information in that regard from the Minister for Health. It is obviously a serious problem. Whether it is a new disease or a newly-recognised disease or whether the syndrome covers a multitude of medical conditions or sins I do not think has been determined yet. Certainly it is being carefully monitored by the Department of Health. Senator CHILDS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. What has happened to the former Government 's proposals, based on the razor gang report, to lease Australian Government Publishing Service sales outlets to the private sector? Will the Minister consider returning the Sydney sales office to a street level shopfront location so that it is more accessible to the public? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Childs asked me about a decision made by the previous Government in respect of the Australian Government Publishing Service. Of course , that decision was to lease it to the private sector, which in its very operation would have restricted public access to the important role that the AGPS plays. I have been advised that the Minister for Administrative Services, my colleague the Honourable John Brown, has already directed that the AGPS is not to proceed with any proposals to lease the operation to the private sector. He has asked the organisation to review the bookshop operation with the objective of improving public access to Government activities. I think that is a very important part of this Government's approach to making available to the public all the activities of the Federal Government. In particular, steps have been taken to review the accommodation and location aspects. As I understand it, the Australian Government Publishing Service has in recent days entered into a three-year lease with an option for a further three years for ground floor accommodation at the corner of King and Clarence Streets in Sydney. Of course, that applies only to New South Wales. As the honourable senator comes from that State, I am sure that is his particular interest. The accommodation is the best suitable premises that could be located in the city area. It is currently being refurbished with a view to providing the public with ready and pleasant access to Government information. As far as other States are concerned, the organisation has been directed by the Minister to review the suitability of other bookshop locations with a view to reaching a similar arrangement in respect of providing the facilities for the general public. As you well know, Mr President, the public utilises these bookshops very consistently and on an increasing scale. We would therefore want to provide such facilities for ready access for the citizens of Australia to acquire whatever information or books are available as a result of the activities of the Australian Government Publishing Service. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. I remind him that the appointments of commissioners to the Australian Broadcasting Commission will need to be considered in the near future when the Commission is reconstituted. I ask the Minister to assure the Senate unequivocally that there will not be a mass sacking of the present commissioners as retaliation against the most serious allegations about the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Wran, made on the ABC Four Corners program and, furthermore, that a policy of non-interference with the board of the ABC in its handling of public affairs issues will be maintained, even where these programs are critical of friends and supporters of the Australian Labor Party. Senator BUTTON —That is a fairly despicable sort of question. I will not be told by representatives of a former government which, when it came to power, sacked the whole Australian Broadcasting Control Board, in order to get rid of what it perceived to be political appointees, what we should do about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and its future board. Let me just say that the Government had determined the names of a number of possible appointees to the board of the future Australian Broadcasting Corporation before any matter arose on the Four Corners program last week. I want to make that quite clear. I also remind honourable senators who interject with a degree of ignorance that legislation which was introduced into the Parliament by their Government last year will be reintroduced in very similar form by the Labor Government. In fact, it has already been introduced, I believe, into the House of Representatives. That legislation provides for a substantial change in the management body of the Australian Broadcasting Commission or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as it will subsequently become. For example, the numbers of the board are reduced. I believe it to be a bipartisan policy that the numbers should be reduced and that the function of the new board of the Corporation should be not a representative one, as it was said to be in the past, but that it should be strictly a board of management. People will be chosen for the board of the Corporation on the basis of their expertise in management, their knowledge of broadcasting and matters of that kind. So it will not be a representative body as it has been in the past. Of course there will be changes. That is inevitable. They will be announced at the appropriate time but not on the basis of the sort of suggestion contained in Senator MacGibbon's question. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it then that the political allegiances of the future commissioners are the determining factor in their appointment. Senator BUTTON —Senator MacGibbon will have an opportunity to determine that when he sees who is appointed. Senator MAGUIRE —I ask the Minister for Social Security: Will the Government change the system of payment of family allowances, which currently are paid to around two million families, so that the allowances are backdated to the date of birth of children, rather than being paid from the date of application as at present. This arrangement appears to disadvantage those families who have the least knowledge of their entitlements and who are probably the neediest of families. Senator GRIMES —I will take Senator Maguire's suggestion on board although at the moment I have not made any investigations into this matter. I point out that at present family allowances in general are paid from the date of application although in some limited circumstances they may be paid retrospectively. Family allowances are one of the best known of the social security benefits. From memory, they are the social security payments which have the highest take-up. I will make some investigations to see whether a large number of people are affected through ignorance and report to the honourable senator and, indeed, the Senate, on this matter. Senator CHANEY —Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree that a national centralised wage fixation system is one which determines a wage for all workers covered by Federal determinations and which is then, in the words of Mr Charles Fitzgibbon of the Australian Council of Trade Unions at the National Economic Summit Conference, 'applied to all-no more, no less'? If he agrees with that how does the Government justify seeing that principle subverted by an apparent willingness to agree to special allowances for workers in the building industry? Senator BUTTON —I am not able to answer that question in detail. Senator Durack —You are not able to answer it at all. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator would be one to talk. I will certainly get an answer to the Leader of the Opposition on that matter. He read with great haste a statement by Mr Fitzgibbon and then asked me whether I agreed with it. I would like time to consider whether I agree with it and to consider the views of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on that matter. I will obtain an answer for the Leader of the Opposition in due course. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the Federal Government's policy concerning the Gordon below Franklin Dam and its desire to use its constitutional powers to preserve this area. Is it a fact that in the past there has been a bipartisan policy concerning Federal intervention to protect the environment or to preserve the national estate? Was this policy ever set out in print prior to any election by any spokesperson for the Opposition? Senator GARETH EVANS —Some documentation is available as to the attitude of the present Opposition to these matters which, I believe, makes a fascinating case study in hypocrisy. In the 1975 election campaign, the then Opposition, as it is now, stated in its environment and conservation printed policy that it took the following view: The Federal Government has direct responsibility: . . . . in relation to our international obligations. This is in the context of the policy on environment and conservation. The policy statement went on to elaborate on the nature of those international obligations saying, amongst other things: In relation to our international obligations, we are pledged to: . . . . Sign and ratify appropriate international agreements, and fulfil our obligations under those agreements, having regard to the role of the States. Moreover, a quite specific commitment to the Tasmanian situation was expressed in the following terms: We will: . . . . Assist the Tasmanian Government in establishing a National Park of world significance in South-West Tasmania, to include a substantial wilderness area. When pressed as to what all that meant and in particular how much regard would be paid to the role of the States and, if the Liberals came to power after 1975, how much action the Federal Government would be prepared to take in reliance on its own constitutional power in this area if faced with an unco-operative or recalcitrant State, Mr Hunt, the then spokesman on environment matters for the Liberal-National Country Party coalition, was reported in the Age of 11 December 1975 as having said: We will not hesitate to invoke, where appropriate, the powers vested in the Commonwealth under Section 51 of the Constitution in order to protect the environment or to preserve the national estate. That, of course, is exactly what the present Commonwealth Government is doing. Senator Chaney, Senator Durack and numerous other members of the then Opposition are still active and prominent figures in the Liberal Party. It is clear that we have a situation that can most charitably be described, I suppose, as situation ethics-the kind of ethics and the consistency that were demonstrated by Senator Durack in his contribution to the Australian Constitutional Convention. It is this attitude of mind which says: 'We can say anything we like in a situation when we are in opposition, or at some stage in the past. There is no question of consistency or coherence in our position over time'. I believe that these matters, which are all on the public record, amply demonstrate that the forces now arrayed against us on this matter have in the past taken exactly the same view of both the Commonwealth's powers and responsibilities in these matters as the present Labor Government is now taking. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the answer given yesterday by the Minister to Senator Chaney's question relating to wage levels and his comment that it depends on whether one is talking about restraint by the lowest paid workers in the community, whether it would be appropriate for them to receive a wage increase of some kind this year, or whether one is talking about highly paid people in the community such as politicians. I now ask: Did the Minister's comment yesterday indicate that plateau indexation is in contemplation by the Government? If so, will he advise the Senate of the differential wage levels under consideration? Senator BUTTON —A number of matters are under consideration by the Government in terms of what will be put to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when it meets to determine whether there should be any national wage increase this year. When the Government has decided what matters will be put to the Commission, they will be announced. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Government give consideration to the provision of electronic monitoring devices for elderly and handicapped people who live alone, thereby enabling them to maintain their independence and also reducing the demand for costly residential care? Senator GRIMES —I have no detail on how far investigation of these devices has proceeded within the Department of Health. They are expensive. I believe they have not been fully tested in all circumstances, but it is my understanding that the matter is being investigated by the Minister for Health. I dare say that if they were proved to be effective, if there were sufficient demand and if, indeed , as Senator Zakharov implies, they would result in a considerable saving, the Government would certainly consider providing them. I will seek further details from the Minister for Health. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does Mr Hawke's offer of a small wages increase this year, to be followed by full wage indexation next year, indicate that the Prime Minister wishes to commit Government and unions to projection A as canvassed at the National Economic Summit Conference? If so, does that mean that he has accepted three years of unemployment at higher than current levels, as outlined in that projection? Senator BUTTON —I find it extraordinary that the question is posed in terms of Mr Hawke's offer. Mr Hawke has made no offer and he is not in a position to make offers. He answered a question in the House of Representatives yesterday when he was asked about the likely effects of wage increases on the general level of economic activity and consequently upon the level of unemployment. He gave an answer relating to those matters and the answer is in Hansard. I have nothing to add to it. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs when the Government will begin providing assistance to enable the introduction of urban and rural alternative lifestyle projects. Does the Minister agree that such projects would be a constructive and imaginative means of offering an alternative to chronic unemployment? Will the Government seek the assistance of State governments in providing education in basic trade skills and skills of survival and self-sufficiency to equip young people for the demands of alternative living? Finally, will the Minister investigate the possibility of employing the experience of skilled pensioners and retired trades people in educating the unemployed youth in the various crafts and trades necessary for any degree of self-sufficiency? Senator RYAN —The Government is very well aware that the unemployment crisis, particularly the crisis of unemployed youth, which we have inherited from the previous Government means that we have to look beyond the conventional work force when we are planning employment opportunities for young people over the next decade. Because we recognise this we are looking constructively at what alternative forms of employment are possible. In the honourable senator's question to me he in fact indicated some of the kinds of developments which would be constructive in this context. I have already asked officers of my Department to look at the possibilities of developing co-operative opportunities for young people in order to provide work. This matter was referred to by me at the National Economic Summit Conference. I am pleased to say there was a very positive response from some sections of industry which also are very well aware that the youth unemployment crisis created by the previous Government cannot be overcome simply by waiting for conventional employment opportunities to develop. There are a number of possibilities. The success of some rural communes is something that it is time for us to recognise. It is time we looked at that as a possible area of future development. But perhaps what is of more interest, particularly to industry, is the possibility of developing small co-operative enterprises and providing training in some of the unused workshop facilities which industry currently has available as a result of the economic crisis. The suggestion in Senator Jones's question that there are people in the community, particularly in the aged group, who have craft and trade skills that they would willingly impart to young people I think is a very constructive suggestion. It is the kind of creative thinking that the community as a whole will need to engage in to solve this immense problem. I am pleased to report, as I said, that I have had positive responses from industry. I will also be speaking, of course, to the trade union movement about this matter. Senator Jones can be assured that we are pursuing with great seriousness this particular new development which could provide viable economic and socal arrangements for a considerable section of unemployed youth. Senator JACK EVANS —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Has the Government given any consideration to the establishment of a planning council to act as a focal point for a process of consultative planning about Australia's medium term development and to assist in promoting discussion on economic, environmental, social and cultural issues? Has the Government considered the establishment of a commission for the future to study long term economic and social developments with special attention to prospective developments in science and technology? Is the Minister aware that similar organisations exist in New Zealand and have proved highly effective in drawing the issues of the 1980s and beyond to the attention of New Zealanders? Finally, what mechanisms exist or are proposed by the Government to keep the Government informed of the likely impact of technological developments on the social, economic, cultural and political life of the nation? Senator BUTTON —Senator Evans asked me a number of questions. In the brief time at its disposal since it was elected the Government has not given attention to establishing a planning council dealing with social, cultural and other issues to which the honourable senator referred. I am not saying, because we presently are not giving attention to it, that it is a matter which the Government would not consider. I regard the honourable senator's question partly as a suggestion and partly as a question. It is a matter which the Government would certainly be keen to examine. Because of the mess this Government inherited from the Fraser period of government its first priority is to establish the Economic Planning Advisory Council and a price surveillance mechanism, because one cannot make any social or cultural progress in the community with one million people unemployed and in the economic situation in which this Government found the country after the recent election. With regard to the question of a commission for the future, I am aware of such a body in New Zealand. In Sweden, for example, there is a council for the future . There are similar bodies of that kind. At the moment I am not in a position to say anything about the matter except that the Government recognises the importance of such bodies. One of the important responsibilities of my portfolio and the portfolio of science and technology will be to determine or address policies relating to the impact of technological change on industry particularly . Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. What natural gas resources have been found in Bass Strait? Is Tasmania entitled to share in this energy resource? Could Bass Strait gas supplement Tasmania's energy needs? Senator WALSH —If I may take up the last part of the question first, Bass Strait reserves, in total, could supply Tasmania's energy needs. That is obvious. However, that is not economically feasible. If Senator Hearn is referring to discoveries in Bass Strait to supply Tasmania's needs, supplies that are within the range of economic feasibility, it appears that the answer is 'not likely'. One well which struck gas was drilled 70 kilometres north of Burnie. I think it might be called the Pelican Well. The reserves estimated in that field were one trillion cubic feet which, to put it in perspective, is about 2 per cent of the North West Shelf reserves and 4 per cent of the proven reserves in Bass Strait. The most significant test of whether that was economic is, I think, the fact that Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd subsequently surrendered the lease. Clearly, in the judgment of the company, not only was it not an economic proposition at this stage but also it was not likely to be an economic proposition in the future. Senator JESSOP —I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and refer to a May Day rally held recently in Adelaide. Is it a fact that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Honourable Stewart West, when addressing the rally, suggested to the workers that they should press for considerable wage rises? If that is a fact, is that a Government policy? If it is not, can the Minister say whether the Government is operating on the basis that individual-- Senator Georges —The fact is that he did not say it. That is the point. Senator JESSOP —I am asking the question: Is it a fact? If it is not, is the Government operating on the basis that individual Ministers may put separate views on important policy issues? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether Mr West, when addressing a May Day rally, said anything of the exact kind suggested by Senator Jessop in his question. I do know that if he did it is not Government policy. I read a report on the front page of the Melbourne Age which said that Mr West had been reprimanded by the Prime Minister-if he had, in fact, said anything of that kind-for making a statement which was not consistent with Government policy. Senator COLEMAN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation aware of the concern expressed, particularly by local government spokespeople, over the use of the Perth Airport by KC135s during a recent military exercise? Is he aware that this concern is related not only to noise pollution but also to the fact that the Western Australian emergency services would not have the capacity to handle an accident involving one of these tankers? In the light of that concern, will the Minister advise whether any more visits by such aircraft are currently forecast and whether he will consider some means of advising nearby residents prior to such an exercise? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Coleman asked me a question which obviously requires a detailed answer. I am afraid I have no information on the matter, although I share her concern and, in fact, the residents' concern about such use, if it has taken place. I will undertake to refer the matter to the Minister I represent in this place and get her a very early reply. Senator BOSWELL —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment deny that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983, using the Tasmanian dam issue as the reason for its implementation, can be used, under the guise of protecting the environment, against any project in any State with which a centralist Federal government does not agree? Senator RYAN —The purpose of the legislation referred to in the honourable senator's question is to protect certain areas that have been declared as places that should be protected for their natural significance. These places include areas such as Fraser Island and the Great Barrier Reef. It is not intended to be legislation that can affect just any part of Australia at any whim of the Government but it is designed to protect specific areas and I think it will have bipartisan support. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and it concerns the now defunct Professional Employment Office. Is the Minister aware of the very efficient service provided by the PEO to unemployed professional people prior to its abolition in May 1981? Is the Minister also aware that the needs of both unemployed professional people and employers seeking professional staff are not being met by the Commonwealth Employment Service job centres? Can the Minister confirm that the previous Government abolished the PEO as a result of pressure exerted on Sir Phillip Lynch and the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations by private employment agencies? Will the Government re-establish the Professional Employment Office and in doing so provide a free employment service to unemployed professional people? Senator BUTTON —The Professional Employment Office attached to the CES was abolished by the Fraser Government. I understand that it was of assistance to many people. I am unable to say whether it was abolished as a result of pressure put on Sir Phillip Lynch. My only observation would be that if pressure was put on Sir Phillip Lynch he would be just the person who would yield to it. The question also asked whether the Government would re-establish the Professional Employment Office. That is a matter about which I will obtain advice from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I should say that in the absence of a professional employment office run by the Commonwealth there have been widespread abuses by private employment agencies which are the subject of State government investigation in several States. I think that in considering whether the Professional Employment Office should be re-established the extent of those abuses should be taken into account. Senator LAJOVIC —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence inform the Senate what action has been taken or will be taken by the present Government in disposing of the two Boeing 707 aircraft, the acquisition and use of which was constantly criticised by the previous Opposition? Further, does the Minister not agree that the sale of the two planes would be another great idea at this time of restraint in government finances? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to the honourable senator on those matters. I do not think there is a very substantial market, except in the context of refuellers and tankers, for used Boeing 707s in the aviation world at the moment should we want to dispose of the VIP Boeing 707s. I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister and seek an answer at the earliest possible opportunity. Senator COLEMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, refers to comments in the West Australian newspaper of 26 April by a spokesperson for the Fremantle City Council that a women's refuge, built only 12 years ago, is now totally inadequate because of the increasing numbers of women and children needing refuge and the increasing time of such required refuge. I understand that this is not a unique situation and that it relates not only to Warrawee but to most of the women's refuges around Australia . Can the Minister please give me some information which will give some hope to those people who are running the refuges and those people who require the services of refuges? Can the Minister state what specific initiatives the Labor Government will take to ease the situation in the immediate future? Senator GRIMES —Senator Coleman is well aware that the great difficulties which have faced women's refuges, those who work in them and those who have needed them in recent years are partly because of a failure to maintain an adequate level of funding and, more recently, because of the policy of the previous Government to opt out of this situation and provide the States with grants for these purposes through the community health program. Other factors have affected the operations of women's refuges. One of these factors has been the increasing tendency in some States to limit the length of stay of people, for instance in mental hospitals or psychiatric hospitals. Although that has laudable aims, sometimes it has had the effect of increasing the burden on women's refuges and other shelters of this type. My colleague the Minister for Health will be discussing the future of this program with the States in the light of our policy. We believe it is a national program and that it should be nationally funded. Our policy was, and is, to institute a national women's emergency program which would cover women's refuges and women's health centres of this type. When the program was initially handed over to the States in the manner in which it was handed over a couple of years ago it was our view that we would take it back to the way in which it had been funded before by the Federal government. Since that time, of course, more State Labor governments have been elected. I note that those running women's refuges in some States are happy to deal with the State governments in those circumstances. In those cases we may be in the situation of being able to negotiate with the State governments to provide them with increased funds and more efficient services. However, in order to obtain exact details of the program I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health has discussed this matter already but he will be discussing it further with State health Ministers. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the damaging results of the proposal by the Federal Minister for Health and the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland to decriminalise the growing of marihuana for private use? Does the Minister realise that recent studies into health effects of marihuana use prove that this drug produces acute effects on the brain, causes periods of anxiety, confusion and psychosis and can interfere with ovulation in the female body? Can the Minister confirm that it is Labor Party policy to decriminalise the growing of marihuana, as suggested by the Minister for Health, which will have very many detrimental results? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Health has a view on marihuana which he has held for many years. He presented this view honestly before he became a Minister and he did not resile from it after he became a Minister. But he was in no way advocating that policy as Minister for Health; nor is it Labor Party policy. In fact, such matters would largely come under the Attorney-General and others in this Government. I point out to Senator Bjelke-Petersen that the present Minister for Health is not the only one who holds such views. In fact the former Minister for Education, Senator Peter Baume, held views similar to that-I concede that they were not exactly the same-and he came under considerable criticism for those views from another female senator on his side of the House. I am aware that reports continuously come out about alleged effects of marihuana. I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, of which Senator Baume was the Chairman, which looked at such reports which had been produced since, I think, the year 1898. Most, if not all, of the reports to that time about the sorts of effects Senator Bjelke-Petersen was talking about, were not substantiated. It is a difficult problem. It is a problem which is not only a medical problem but also a social problem, and it is a problem with which we all have to deal. I do not think the debate on this situation is assisted by remarks of the type made by Senator Bjelke-Petersen or attempts by Senator Walters, as she has done in recent weeks, to portray the Australian Labor Party's policy as being for decriminalisation when the Labor Party has no such policy. Senator Bjelke- Petersen has tried to portray Senator Tate, myself and Dr Blewett as being the only people in this Parliament who have ever expressed a view in favour of decriminalisation and, at the same time has carefully ignored people on her own side who have expressed those same views. The Senate Standing Committee at the time said that one of the problems facing us in the whole drug scene- particularly with marihuana-was the lack of rational debate, a lack of debate about the facts and too much of the emotive sort of language that Senator Bjelke -Petersen has introduced, as she did in her question, I believe in search of the popular vote rather than in search of a sensible solution to the problem. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs any evidence that Aborigines were found in the Maralinga test area immediately after a test, as was reported by a British television program recently? If so, what action has been taken on behalf of these people, firstly, to provide all necessary health measures and, secondly, to compensate them or their relatives for damages caused by the tests? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has not provided me with specific information in response to the issues raised by the honourable senator' s question. However, I think it is widely acknowledged that during the period of the previous Fraser Government the whole issue of environmental health damage to Aborigines living in that area was raised. Like so many other issues affecting Aboriginal people, that matter was not resolved or properly investigated by the previous Government. I understand that there is now a claim by Aboriginals living in that area for land rights in respect of the area. Of course, this raises not only the question of their capacity to claim land under the South Australian legislation-which I think they have-but also further environmental and health problems that could exist if parts of the land still have high levels of residual radiation. The South Australian Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has written to the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on this issue. When I have the reply from the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I will let Senator Robertson have any information that may be pertinent to the question that he raised. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Prime Minister's report to this Parliament on the National Economic Summit Conference. This report was read in the Senate chamber by Senator Button yesterday. Is it a fact that this report-in particular the lists of achievements set out on three pages of the report-does not contain one single reference to wage restraint but instead mentions a commitment explicitly 'to the maintenance of real wages'? Is this not all the more evidence to confirm that the Labor Government is in fact giving in to the unions and to the most serious danger-a wages explosion-that will wreck the Australian economy and lead to even higher levels of unemployment? Senator BUTTON —I will begin the answer to this question by saying that it is very sad that the Opposition in this Parliament having, as a Government last year, fixed on wage increases as the cause of all this country's problems, is still obsessed with that idea in 1983. It is sad that a political party, which in government adopted the view of the then member for Macarthur that it had to be seen to be doing something about unemployment-and then adopted the wages freeze as the answer to that problem, is still fixed with the idea that that is the solution to this country's problems. I make that comment in relation to a number of questions which have been asked, and particularly Senator Teague's question. He referred me to the communique issued after the Summit. That communique is not a legal document. It is not a document which expresses anything more than the attitudes of various parties which attended the Summit. The important thing about that document is that it represents changed attitudes on the part of most of the participants at the Summit, including the trade union movement. Of course, the trade union movement in Australia has to be concerned about maintenance of real wages. The alternative is not something on which I want to elaborate in Question Time. I suggest that Senator Teague should think about what he means in terms of the standards of living of Australians if he does not believe in the maintenance of real wages over time, as expressed in the communique. Of course all Australians ought to be concerned about the maintenance of real wages and the decline in the standard of living which has taken place in this country in recent years. Of course the Government is concerned about wage restraint. We have said so and we will continue to say so. But wage restraint, as the Government has said repeatedly, must be seen in the context of restraint by all sections of the community. That is the message which derives from the communique and that is the answer to the honourable senator's question. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. I was not referring directly to the communique but rather to the terms in which the Prime Minister reported to this Parliament about the communique and about the action that the Government has on its agenda from now on. I acknowledge that there is to be restraint in every area, but-- The PRESIDENT —Will the honourable senator ask his supplementary question. Senator TEAGUE —Why is there a grand omission in the Prime Minister's report to the Senate? Why is there no reference at all to wage restraint? Senator BUTTON —I have not read the statement which I read to the Senate yesterday with the same finesse as Senator Teague read it this morning prior to asking his question. But if that is a matter of great concern to him, I will ask the Prime Minister about that error, as Senator Teague puts it, in the speech. The Prime Minister is on the public record on a number of occasions in relation to wage restraint. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, arises out of part of an answer he gave in which he suggested that the previous Government had fixed on a single issue of wages as the cause of our economic problems. Did not the Treasurer, in his address to the National Economic Summit Conference, admit that there was a stimulation in the last Budget, the effects of which were currently flowing through to the economy? Was that not evidence of one of the elements of the previous Government's approach to meeting Australia's problems of reduced economic activity? Senator BUTTON —The previous Budget was not in any sense a response to Australia' s problems; it was a response to the perceived desire of the then Prime Minister to have an early election, and nothing else. Senator GRIMES —During Question Time Senator Maguire asked me a question about the backdating of family allowances. In my answer I omitted to give him and other honourable senators the information that at present, if family allowances are claimed within six months of the birth of the child, payment is backdated to the first pay day after the birth. It can be backdated after six months, but only in special circumstances. That does not alter the gist of my answer-that we will look at this matter overall. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday in Question Time Senator Walters asked me a question concerning a Royal Australian Air Force flight over South West Tasmania on 24 March 1983. The Minister for Defence was asked a similar question. In the House of Representatives last night he advised as follows: There were three F111 flights on 24 March; two were over Queensland for training purposes. One operated out of East Sale. It was a recategorisation flight for a RAAF instructor, Squadron Leader L. D. Boyd of No. 6 Squadron . . . It flew an established training route which was registered and is contained in the Department of Transport manuals dated 6 October 1977. It flew that route exactly. The purpose of the flight was for the recategorisation of the instructor concerned. No photographs were taken. The flight took place at low level because that was the purpose of the training exercise. The Defence Minister then tabled a map of the route flown, and I am happy to do likewise in this place. I add simply that the occurrence of this flight amounts to an ample demonstration of the truth of at least one matter in issue in the RAAF flights matter; that is, that F111 flights routinely take place all over Australia, including Tasmania. To that extent the later dam flights were not wholly innovative. Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Mr President has received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The critical importance of a firm and effective wages policy if unemployment is to be reduced. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.15) —The Opposition is putting forward this matter of public importance today because there is a widespread understanding that wage policy is one of the critical areas if we are to reduce unemployment in Australia and that is the common wish of us all. However, we are not putting it forward on the basis that was imputed to us by Senator Button at the close of Question Time this morning when he tried to suggest that the ex-Government, the present Opposition, was clinging to wages policy as being the sole area of economic policy which mattered. Clearly, that is not the view of the Opposition and it is not a view which should be ascribed to us. I think the importance in bringing it forward now is that it is quite clear from the vagueness of the answers which Senator Button has given in this place that the Government has not yet determined precisely what attitude it will take when it goes before the wage tribunals, in particular the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and in the critical discussions which will determine what happens after the wages freeze. Either the Government has not made up its mind or it is not yet prepared to tell the public what its attitude is. In that circumstance all of us, particularly, perhaps, Government senators, are in a position to seek to influence the Government in a way which will produce the most beneficial result for the unemployed in Australia, the result which will bring about the greatest increase in employment. It is very easy for the Government to say, 'Look at what we have inherited. The position is difficult.' Nobody, of course, denies that the position is difficult, but the decisions henceforth which will change that position are in the hands of the Government. It is important that decisions should be made which will reduce the level of unemployment rather than increase it. Wrong decisions now will damage the prospects of the Government having success later. The Opposition brings this matter forward in the hope that the Government will adopt the most sensible policies possible with a view to reducing unemployment. Again, I put to rest the point which was raised at the end of Question Time-that the Opposition sees wages policy as the sole area of economic policy. I simply remind the Senate that a series of policy changes by the previous Government over the last year were directed to attacking the problem of reduced economic activity and higher unemployment. I refer the Senate again to the record of the National Economic Summit Conference and the words of one of the representatives of the Government, the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, who talked about the change in the levels of expenditure on things such as housing, capital works and training for people who are not in employment. Those changes reflected the various areas of policy that the previous Government tackled in order to meet the problems which were emerging towards the closing months of the Government's life and, indeed, during the last year. Whilst wages policy is clearly not the sole area of policy which is important it is an area of critical importance to the future of employment in Australia. The Government now concedes that there are other factors, such as the international economic situation and the drought, which happily over most of Australia is now broken, which affect us, but it remains true that wages policy and what happens to earnings in Australia will be a critical factor in determining what level of employment we have in the future. The Opposition is directing this debate to the question of what policies will produce 'jobs, jobs and more jobs', which we were told was the objective of the Government. The greatest value of the Summit is that this Government and many of the participants in the Summit established clearly the linkage between jobs and wages. In fact, it should not have taken that Summit to achieve that because it is nearly 10 years now since Frank Crean said, 'One man's pay rise is another man's job.' I think it is important that that proposition is broadly understood and, more importantly, acted upon. If that is to occur it is important that it is seen not as Fraser or Liberal rhetoric but as part of the reality with which we have to deal. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the present Government set out three scenarios to assist the Conference which was convened by the Government. Whilst there are limitations on such scenarios, they show the links which the various policy options have and the effect that wage changes will have on employment levels. Presumably, the objective of putting those scenarios before the Conference was that there would be a broadening of that understanding. They show that wage policy is a key factor in determining levels of employment. The three options put forward were remarkable because they really all produced a fairly gloomy prognostication for the unemployed. Option A was relatively modest on the wages front. It allowed for no wage catch -up for any consumer price index increases prior to the current pause. It involved a wage increase of about 3 per cent in the latter half of 1983-that proposition now seems to be embraced by the present Government-and a return to full quarterly indexation and annual productivity cases subsequently. If we followed that scenario, according to the information which the Government has put before us, we would have an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent in 1985-86. That is a total unemployment level in three years time of 710,000. On the evidence which is available to us that appears to be closest to the option that the Government might embrace, an option which would produce unemployment in three years in excess of 700,000. The second option was the sort of option which some elements of the trade union movement seem to be pursuing. That was for full catch-up, full quarterly indexation and productivity increases. The result of that would be to increase unemployment from 10.6 per cent in 1983-84 to 11.7 per cent in 1984-85 and 12.2 per cent by 1985-86. That is a horrifying scenario for everybody in the Senate, Government and Opposition senators alike. None of us wants to see unemployment at that level. That is what the scenario suggested would occur if we had a full catch-up and full indexation after that catch-up. The third scenario that the Government put before the Conference was one in which the pause would be extended to April 1984. In other words, it involves a higher level of wage restraint, an extension of the pause to April 1984 and only partial indexation thereafter. That would allow for a small fall in unemployment to 8.7 per cent three years down the line. That of course is significantly better than an unemployment rate of over 12 per cent three years down the line. Those scenarios emphasise that there are significant choices to be made in the immediate future and in the years ahead which will significantly affect how many Australians are unemployed. I do not believe that anybody who voted to elect and support the present Government would have believed that it would follow policies which permit an increase in unemployment. I am sure the expectation was that it would pursue policies which would reduce unemployment. I do not think very many people in this place would accept that the options which were put forward for the purpose of illustration only predict a level of unemployment that any of us would regard as satisfactory. Most people here I think would agree with the late Sir Keith Campbell, who pointed out that those options were not satisfactory and that the Government should indeed be considering what he described as option D, a fourth option which would involve very considerable wage restraint and the possibility of a greater increase in employment and, hence, a greater decrease in unemployment. I wish to quote one paragraph of what he said to the Summit: For the jobless and I suggest for the whole economy, scenario C offers the most hope. But it still predicts, its deficiencies accepted, an unemployment rate on average in 1985-86, little different to that in 1982-83. Surely that is not good enough. If we genuinely care about the jobless and genuinely wish to incur discipline and sacrifice, we need to put together a scenario D. Unless the broad messages from the scenarios are meaningless we must clearly extend the wage pause to the end of 1983, we should clearly agree that there should be no catch- up at that date and we should agree further to review, on behalf of the employed and the unemployed, this vital community matter during the first quarter of 1984 having regard to our then progress and circumstances. On behalf of the Opposition, and I believe on behalf of most people in the Australian community, I would urge the Government to consider introducing some scenario D which will hold out a greater hope for the unemployed than do the sort of possibilities which are currently being canvassed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He admits to the possibility of an end to the wage freeze this year and to indexation thereafter, and of a situation which, on the Government's own forecasting, is unlikely to produce an improvement in the employment situation and may indeed produce a worsening of it. It is clear, both on the face of the Summit documents and on the basis of what has been told to the Parliament in this place and in the other chamber, that there is an objection to the extension of the wage pause and to the idea that those of us who are fortunate enough to be in employment should be called upon to sacrifice ourselves further. The reality of that objection has to be understood and grappled with if we are to tackle it positively and if we are to produce a better result for the people of Australia. It appears to me that the objections to a really positive attitude to wage restraint are twofold. One is that there is concern about what would be termed 'industrial relations reality'. Senator Button has, I think, touched on that in some of his answers to questions over recent days. The attitude seems to be that it is just not the real world to expect those who are currently in employment to accept that their wages should remain frozen for a longer period; after all, their standard of living has declined. The second area of argument appears to relate to the question of hardship. I should like to touch on that matter also. It is a fact that people who are on low salaries are in a much worse position to have their wages remain frozen than those who are fortunate enough to be on high salaries. I would suggest that to the extent that industrial relations reality prevents the Government from following and urging wages policies upon the industrial authorities of this country which would reduce unemployment, that exposes the sham of the consensus and the accord which allegedly have been reached. If trade unions, as the representatives of the 90 per cent of Australians who are in employment, insist on maintaining their real wages at the expense of the unemployed, what has been achieved? I suggest that nothing has been achieved if those of us who are in employment-I include all of us who are in employment-are still in a position to insist on maintaining our living standards at the expense of the unemployed. If trade unions do not want to put the creation of employment first, then I put it to the Senate that the Government must do so. The test of this Government's bona fides will be when it goes before the industrial arbitration authorities and puts its views on what appropriate wage policies are. Will it favour the unemployed in this country who desire to be employed or will it favour those who are currently in employment? Government senators should note their responsibility on this issue. On this issue the buck does not rest with the previous Government; the buck will rest with those who have been elected to government and who maintain the Government in its place. It is important to acknowledge the second point I mentioned, the question of hardship. I have a lot of sympathy for people who say that it is all very well for those on high earnings to urge restraint, but it is not very good for the chap who is on a minimum wage and trying to support a family. I think that is an argument which needs to be considered and understood. I note that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), in response to a question by me, raised the possibility of plateau indexation as one possible approach to that problem. That approach was also dealt with by some of the participants in the Summit. They suggested that all of us who enjoy a salary above a certain level might lead the sacrifice rather than those who are at the bottom of the heap in economic terms. I simply say to the Government that that is one of the options which are open to it to consider if it wishes to grapple realistically with this question of getting the Australian economy back into balance and growing again. I hope that we will see something more than a craven acceptance by the Government of a trade union view that there simply must be increases because there have not been increases for some time, and rather an attempt to work out some realistic balance. It is also possible in other fields to assist those who are on low incomes without affecting the salary rates. There was bipartisan support for a measure which we introduced in the last Budget, although the then Opposition, the present Government, said that the measure should have been more generous. I refer to the family income supplement for low income working families. So a range of options is available to the Government. It can face the very real issues and challenges of the imbalance between wages and profits in this country without ignoring the difficulties which have been raised. There are solutions to them. I hope that the Government will search out these solutions and go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with a positive approach which involves continued wage restraint on the part of those who are fortunate enough to be in employment-one which pays heed to the warnings given at the Summit by people such as Mr Leard that we, as a country, are living beyond our means-so that there is genuine hope for the unemployed in the operations of this Government over the coming months. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(2.31) —I say to Senator Chaney that I hope so, too. I want to address myself to some of the issues which have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in this matter of public importance which draws our attention to the following: The critical importance of a firm and effective wages policy if unemployment is to be reduced. I find that to be an exciting idea coming from the former Government because no government in the history of Australia has had a less firm and effective wages policy than did the Fraser Government between 1981 and its ultimate demise in March 1983. There has been no effective wages policy over a very long period. When Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd sought to increase its prices in respect of steel the reason it gave initially was labour costs. That was true in a sense. It was due to labour costs, but they were labour costs which flowed into the economy in the last quarter of 1981 and early 1982. All those things happened because of a complete absence of a wages policy on the part of the Fraser Government. Not only did this Government inherit an economic mess generally as a result of the policies of the Fraser Government; it also inherited a mess in respect of a wages policy. The National Economic Summit Conference was most important in obtaining at least some attitudinal consensus on the changes needed in the approach to wage fixation issues. I wish to come to that matter in more detail in a minute. I agree on the importance of a firm and effective wages policy if unemployment is to be reduced. Of course, these things can be established only in a community climate where there are attitudes of consensus in relation to them. That was what the Government sought to do at the time of the Economic Summit and is still seeking to do. I wish to take Senator Chaney up on one point. He talked about the Australian Council of Trade Unions dictating policy in relation to wages matters, representing a greedy work force and so on. I remind members of the Opposition that it was only in November of last year that the ACTU made a formal offer to the Government to forgo tax cuts which the Government had offered by way of an electoral bribe in anticipation of an early election. The ACTU offered to the Fraser Government that it would forgo half of those tax cuts if the Government would establish a national employment fund out of the proceeds which would be made available as a result. That was refused peremptorily by the Fraser Government and it is not a matter about which I believe the Opposition can now talk with any sense of satisfaction. Of course, a number of issues concern the competitive position of Australian industry and affect levels of unemployment. I hoped that after the election the level of debate about some of those issues might have been raised in this chamber. In now saying that the wage freeze ought to be extended to the end of this year-perhaps, if one takes an alternative option, it ought to be extended until April 1984-the question the members of the Opposition have never satisfactorily answered is, first, what happens at the end of the wage freeze? What is their view about that topic? Secondly, when talking about the competitiveness of Australian industry one has never heard from the Opposition, since it has been in opposition or while its members were in government, what the factors are which go to the alleged lack of competitiveness of Australian industry or whether there are factors at all. Is there only one factor? That is all one ever hears about from Liberal Party spokesmen. They say that there is only one factor which goes to the question of competitiveness of Australian industry. Senator Teague —Technology, as well. Senator BUTTON —No, I am talking about the way the argument was put by Senator Chaney and by all the Opposition front bench spokesmen. The only issue is wages. The now Opposition ran that line for seven years in government and it is running it still. Senator Chaney —What about the tax changes of last year on depreciation? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney raises the question of tax changes. It is extraordinary that a government of a trading nation such as Australia, after other countries had introduced depreciation regimes, took 10 years to introduce tax changes of the kind that the Fraser Government introduced last year. It is extraordinary that we took 10 years to do that in spite of a lot of criticism from industry and so on about assistance to industry provided in other countries . We were about the last member country of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development to do that. I congratulate the Fraser Government on finally having done it. But we cannot compete if we take that length of time to wake up to what is going on in the rest of the world. Senator Chaney —But you cannot say that that is the only area of policy-wage policy-which we tackled. I mentioned tax and various other things. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator mentioned tax, but I thought with not much success because that area was an extraordinary failure for his Government, as I have just pointed out. If the honourable senator wants to mention anything else we can deal with it as we go along, but the prime point I am seeking to make is that I am not just attacking honourable senators opposite, although they deserve it. The debate in this country about the competitiveness of Australian industry has been reduced to abysmal levels of sloganeering. Those on the conservative side of politics say that it is all due to wage increases and nothing else. We have tended to say that it is not all due to wage increases. I have never heard conservative political parties in Australia asking: 'To what level should wages in Australia be reduced to make us competitive as a nation'? If honourable senators opposite have only one leg to their argument, as they basically do-that it is all a matter of wage levels-to what level ought wages be reduced to make us competitive? They ought to address that argument and then they ought to advocate their argument in public. What they will find is that the levels of Australian wages should be reduced very substantially and that this country would abandon, as an instrument of wages policy, very rapidly instead of very slowly, the standard of living which it has enjoyed for generations. That argument is never addressed by honourable senators opposite. They really have to come up with some answers about that matter if they are going to address the question of unemployment and competitiveness of Australian industry solely on the basis of its being a matter of wages. The next point I would like to make, which arises very much from the Summit, is that in our view a number of other issues relate to competitiveness of Australian industry. Those matters were addressed at the Summit. For the first time in the history of this country a serious debate which could never have taken place under a Liberal government is going on in industry about many of those other issues. It is taking place in the maritime industry, which has been very severe about the capacity of Australian industry to compete. It is taking place in the metal trades industry and in the transport industry. All sorts of issues are now being addressed, which have never been addressed before, such as questions related to overmanning of restrictive labour practices and even penalty rates. Those questions are being addressed and they all go to competitiveness. For the first time on the other side of the political fence or the industrial fence questions relating to product design and a variety of other matters- questions about whether industries are manufacturing for the right market or just manufacturing because they have done it that way for 30, 40 or 50 years-are being addressed. They are questions which came up in the context of the Summit and they are still being considered in many seminars and discussions taking place around the country. They are important issues about the competitiveness of Australian industry which ultimately go to the question of the levels of employment we are able to establish in this country. So I say that, not in any hostile spirit I hope, although I might have smiled and said something which might have seemed less than charitable to somebody on the other side. I say that, because I believe that the nature of the debate on these issues in Australia should be raised. It is sad to see Senator Chaney, the newly elected youthful Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, going back to that tired old stuff as though wages policy was the only issue involved. It is not. There are many other issues about which we have to be concerned. The second thing I want to say about employment is that another issue we have not addressed in public debate in this country is whether one does everything right with the Australian economy in terms of wages policy, fiscal policy and monetary policy. We have not discussed whether, if one does everything right in terms of macroeconomic decisions, this country can get back to the halcyon days of the levels of employment we enjoyed in 1965. I believe there are many misguided, highly qualified economists who take the view that we will. I personally believe it is sheer rubbish to say that we can possibly attain to the levels of employment-- Senator Durack —Did you say that during the election campaign? Senator BUTTON —I have said it for years in this chamber, in the election campaign and everywhere else. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Not your leader, though. Senator BUTTON —No, we said that if Fraser Government policies were continued there would be a million unemployed people in Australia by the end of 1983. We have since said, having discovered the most horrendous character of the mess honourable senators opposite left when they were put out of government, that levels of unemployment, as Senator Chaney pointed out in the scenario, will remain high. It is a matter of great regret. The point I was simply trying to make before I was interrupted-Senator Durack interrupted on the basis of not have heard the point; that was a brilliant interjection, I must say, as he interjected before I had finished-was we have to look at questions such as the size of the Australian labour force. I believe the size of the Australian labour force is too great, given the potential of this country in terms of manufacturing and other employment. Senator Withers —Malthusian. Senator BUTTON —No, it is not Malthusian. Many people in the electorate recognise that better than the honourable senator does. I am surprised he has not picked that up. People go around saying that married women should not work, that migrants should have second preference for jobs and things like that. What they are saying is simply that. They recognise that the size of the work force is too great. One of the reasons it is too great is that we have no policy in place in terms of the working life of citizens in this country. We have no real agreement about early retirement programs. We have many ad hoc early retirement programs operating now and many forced early retirement programs in particular industries. We have no agreement about when people should start their working life. That is a tragedy because in the United States, Japan and countries with which we compete hardly anybody is employed under the age of 20, largely because such people are all in educational or training institutions of one kind or another. That is probably why those countries have a more sophisticated work force than we have now. I am making these points not because they are the fault of the Fraser Government of the last year or so but because they are the fault of 30 years of conservative governments which have neglected these issues. We came into government to find chronic disemployment going on in a vast variety of Australian industries. Unemployment is not just due to the recession; it is due to lack of planning in respect of those industries over many years and lack of capacity of industries to adjust structurally. I reject the contention that it is superficial and that the whole question can be solved in this sort of gimmicky way in which Liberal Parties have sought to solve it. As I mentioned this morning at Question Time, the previous Government saw the unemployment figures rising, it thought of a number and the former honourable member for Macarthur said: 'We have got to be seen to be doing something'. So the wages pause was invented as a solution to unemployment in Australia. It is not the solution to unemployment in Australia. It was a very glib and very slick approach. As a result of that approach the previous Government won the Flinders by-election but lost the seat at the election five months later. It is a very slick, glib approach. It does not address the variety of issues which have to be addressed in terms of the competitiveness of Australian industry and unemployment. The point I am really trying to make is that if we can get away from the ad hoc, fitful, gimmicky sort of approach of the past we have a better chance of dealing with some of these issues than we had before. In relation to a couple of other comments by Senator Chaney, I want to say only that it is no good trying to set us up now so that in six months time if there is still continuing high unemployment, which of course there will be, the Opposition will be able to come back to say: 'Look, we told you so. If the wages pause had only stayed in place until April 1984 all this unemployment would not have been here'. Senator Chaney —We have not said that. Senator BUTTON —Somebody else accused the Opposition of saying that. I am not accusing Senator Chaney of that. It is no good trying to set up that political excuse in desperation now. It shows an element of foresight about it but not much insight, if I might say so. This matter of public importance proposal amounts to a reiteration of the Opposition's view that a firm and effective wages policy is necessary if unemployment is to be reduced. I am not going to dissent with that view at all. I think a firm and effective wages policy is necessary as part of the process of reducing unemployment. Many other factors have to be taken into account. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I find it extraordinary that the Government is being assailed on this matter, as it were, by a former government whose commitment to a firm and effective wages policy was absolutely negligible. It was so negligible that we lost any wages policy we had in 1981 because the then Prime Minister had to get overseas to a royal wedding. That was how firm and effective the wages policy of the former Government was! The wages freeze is not a wages policy. It has never been a wages policy. I concede that it is a policy which relates to employment in some respects. To that extent the Government has sought to continue it to this time. The other point which I should advert to, of course, is what will happen if this country starts to come out of recession. What wages policy did the previous Government have to meet that situation? This Government has a wages policy to meet that situation. Everything that happens now and in the next few months is relevant to our capacity to meet that situation. Everybody here knows what Australians are like. The moment the economy picks up a bit people start to stop thinking. We lapse back into the pursuit of sectional and sectoral interests. The capacity then to maintain restraint in all sectors of the economy is very reduced and it is very difficult. Therefore, it is important to have policies in place to cover that situation as well. This Government has such policies. We do not reject the essential element of the matter of public importance which has been raised today but we point out that it is a very narrowly based and narrowly conceived argument to put to the Senate in May of 1983. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(2.51) —I think it is timely that the Opposition has brought forward this matter of public importance today. The speech of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has opened up a number of issues which I hope will be debated from time to time. He has not only touched upon wages policy but also looked at the structure of the work force of this country, the participation rates in the work force and the working life of all Australians. He raised the question of why we are not competitive in our trading within our country or with other countries. He has raised many questions. We would like to hear some of the views of the Government with regard to the matters raised by Senator Button. Senator Button —We would like to know if you have any views at all on those questions. You certainly didn't show much sign of it last year. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —The Australian Labor Party is in Government at present. It held the National Economic Summit Conference. It has a prices and incomes accord with the unions. The Government has a responsibility to the public in the forthcoming wages hearings. It is timely that we discuss some of the issues raised by Senator Button. I do not think the lack of competitiveness was disputed at the Summit. The Leader of the Government talked about attitudinal changes today. If those attitudinal changes are within the community in general-employers, union members and the Government-it seems that the events of the past week or two have brought some confusion into those attitudinal changes. There is confusion as to whether there is some consensus within the different groups in the community. I was fascinated to hear Senator Button raise such matters as overmanning in industry. I was interested to hear him talk about penalty rates. These are the very issues that will need to be addressed by all of us as we look to regaining some sort of competitiveness for our products and for our labour. I think discussion of these matters is of very great importance. I do not think productivity was mentioned as one of the problems in this country. If we are to look at productivity we need to examine hourly rates of pay. The conditions, as well as the wages, in this country are part of our problem with regard to a lack of competitiveness. Unless these issues are addressed seriously by the Government, unions and employers we are not going to see the improvement that we wish to have. One of the matters which I think was raised concerned lower income earners and the difficulties they face. We agree that there can be great pressures on those who are trying to pay their way when inflation is far too high. Those people are faced with problems. Their problems need to be contrasted with those of the people who are unemployed and who face greater difficulties. If there is to be some sharing of the burden it is of no consequence simply to look at those who are employed and at the maintenance of their real wages, whether over time or in the immediate future, and not at the same time to look at the problems of those who are unemployed and those who have yet to be employed in the Australian community. For those reasons the Opposition asks: What will be the Government's policies on these matters? We have agreed that having the Summit Conference bringing forward information and public debate on issues is a very healthy process. It has brought forward and given access to information and a discussion forum which can only assist in an understanding of the problem. But once one diagnoses the problem one looks for the cure, and the cure is what I think all of us need to address. As far as wage restraint and the need for restraint in the demand of those who are selling their labour is concerned, we should look at the Summit Conference communique and the recognition throughout the Summit that at the time of seeking wage restraint there is a need to improve profits and to recognise the importance of profits if there is to be an improvement and recovery in the labour market. The sorts of things that developed at the Conference indicated the previous Government's approach of recognising the importance of wage restraint and profits in assisting those seeking employment or those seeking to retain their employment. Recognition of these things was achieved in discussion, but we need now to ask the questions that arise from the discussions at the Summit and the matters contained in the prices and incomes accord between the Labor Party and the trade union movement. Last week, if we were asking questions, we could have posed them along the lines: Will the Government advocate an extension of the wages pause? I think that what has been said in the past few days leads us not to ask that question any longer because it seems obvious that the Government will not advocate an extension of the wages pause. If we were to address the question of what case the Government will argue before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the public interest, we would need only to look at the statements of a number of Ministers in recent days. They raised many questions in our minds about what will be the Government's approach in the public interest. The Government's submission to the Arbitration Commission should raise some of the questions that were raised by Senator Button in his speech today. Undoubtedly they are questions that need to be addressed by the trade union movement. We welcome the changed attitude that has been expressed as being the attitude of the trade union movement. However, that leads us to ask the questions that arise from some of the statements of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and his approach to the role of his trade union body on behalf of trade unionists. It has to be said that the ACTU obtained agreement on central wage fixation without having to concede anything on the enforcibility of awards that may come from the Arbitration Commission. I would think that that was a fairly important thing that was down the line and facing all of us. If there is to be-we accept that there is to be-a central wage fixing authority, what is the attitude of the ACTU with regard to the enforcibility of the awards that will flow from that wage process? What changed attitudes will we hear expressed by the ACTU with regard to the sectional interests that were to be suppressed by the trade union movement? If the Government members, trade union leaders and businessmen who were at the Summit really wanted to help those seeking jobs or wishing to retain the jobs that they had, I would have thought they would have accepted one of the harder options-the best outcome of the Department of the Treasury-at the Summit or, as was said by Senator Chaney, they might have looked for a further option, another scenario, that would have helped those who were unemployed. There are obstacles to restraint that must be of concern to us. What is of concern to me is that employers and unions now appear to be adopting sharply contrasting interpretations of the Summit communique and the commitment to wage restraint. I suspect that what is happening with the ACTU and individual unions regarding the commitment to the Summit communique is that they would prefer the options raised in the prices and incomes accord that they settled with the Labor Party before it became the Government of this country. If the prices and incomes accord approach is to be the preferred course of the ACTU and individual unions, I wonder what sort of consensus we will find and what assistance that will give in the pursuit of wage restraint. It could become a real obstacle to wage restraint. I would think that if employers were to express their views-as they did-they would claim that there should be no wage rises outside the Arbitration Commission national wage adjustments. One could then ask: Why is it that at present we have individual unions pressing their claims? One must link that with the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) yesterday and what seems to be some sort of an agreement that in a short time there should be a 3 or 4 per cent wage increase. At a meeting to be held quite soon with building industry unions their individual claims will be pursued. These are the matters that I do not think anyone has accepted were within the Summit communique or people's understanding of it because they were not discussed properly and amplified in a full debate by those who are in the habit of pursuing debates of this kind. That is why the Parliament must do a great deal of debating on these matters. If the Government persists with the approach that it will support the maintenance of real wages over time we will want to know what 'over time' means and what effect the pursuit of that policy will have on employment. I heard Senator Button say this morning that he had nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said yesterday in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) with regard to the effect on employment of a 3 or 4 per cent wage increase. I do not criticise Senator Button for not wishing to add to the answer that was given by the Prime Minister. It was not an answer. It would not have enabled him to clarify the outcome of a wage rise of that kind or enabled him to express an opinion about what would have occurred. It would have put him in conflict with a very confused non-answer from the Prime Minister when a very specific question was asked of him yesterday. The Government seems to prefer that the magnitude of wage adjustments be determined by movements in the consumer price index rather than by relating them to economic capacity to pay or to productivity increases. That is another issue of concern. If we look at the maintenance of real wages through movements in the consumer price index without relating them to economic capacity to pay or to productivity increases we will not be heading down the track of doing something to improve employment prospects. The reason the Opposition raised this matter today is that we are now finding in our daily Press not one or two approaches to what has been said by different Ministers, but today I think we had at least three interpretations of what the Prime Minister said yesterday about wage increases and the demands of the building industry unions. The various outlets of the media put their interpretation on what the Prime Minister said and that adds to the confusion that can occur when people are seeking guidance on the Government's approach. I wonder whether the approach to CPI increases and full indexation does not show that the Government has an inflation mentality. If one is approaching any sort of payment, be it a pension payment, a wage payment or whatever, and is always seeking full indexation, seeking to cushion the effect of inflation, I wonder whether the fight against inflation that undoubtedly ought to be undertaken is being undertaken. Various Ministers-the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West, and others-have said that it is proper for unions to pursue claims for their improvement. Senator Button —You said Mr West and others. Which others? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I could refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister with regard to the building industry unions and his support. If we were to look at some of the statements that have been made in answers to questions we would see that there is not the wage restraint that was the concept that people embraced as a result of the Summit that was held with the unions and others in this place. The economic journals stress the difficulties in the pathways to recovery. The March journal of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd states: With unemployment still growing . . . and the need for a reduction in real wages to help restore profitability and reduce inflationary pressures, there appears very little scope for an increase in real household disposable income in 1983. Yet we are talking about increases. The ANZ Bank has drawn attention to the problems that have been outlined. We want to see a responsible statement from the Government of its approach to the public interest in these matters. I think we all wait with great interest and some anxiety to see the submission that will be made to the national wage case to pick up many of the points which were raised as questions by Senator Button and which, I hope, will be addressed by the Government in the interests of all Australians, both employed and unemployed . Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(3.6) —This has been one of the most amazing debates put forward in this place in the time I have been a senator. Not only has the Opposition, in the presentation of its argument, bored the Senate almost to death but also it has come to us today with an amazing degree of effrontery and gall. Opposition senators forget that for the last seven years they have been in government and they have had the responsibility of producing wages and employment policies. They are now in a totally new situation. Suddenly they claim no responsibility for the past. They are looking to the present and blaming this Government for those problems. One thing has shown up this afternoon; that is, the sooner the Opposition gets Senator Withers on its front bench the sooner there will be some activity on its side of the chamber. Opposition senators talk about unemployment with some concern. It was their Government that in 1975 promised jobs for those who wished to work. Senator Walsh —Jobs for those who didn't work. Senator BOLKUS —In the time of their Government, unemployment doubled. As Senator Walsh said, the previous Government gave jobs to those who did not work. Unemployment now stands at 10.4 per cent. In the last Budget that the Liberal Party brought down in this place it allowed for an increase in unemployment in the vicinity of 190,000 Australians. In the last 12 months to March this year 271,000 Australians joined the unemployed ranks. The Opposition's policy was in fact to increase unemployment and to reduce wages, and it failed. Let us look at who is talking. Let us look at their economic record-their economic credibility. They promised to reduce inflation. Our inflation rate now stands at a level much higher than those of our competing overseas partners. We are far in excess of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development projections for this financial year. The monetarist policy of the previous Government has failed in this area. As economic managers Opposition senators claimed to be able to bring down the Budget deficit. In the last financial year the previous Government budgeted for a deficit of $1,700m. That has ballooned to approximately $6 billion, with next year's deficit, as we all know, estimated to be in the vicinity of $9 billion. Unemployment, as I said, has doubled. The previous Government totally lost control of interest rates. It applied tight monetarist policies in order to control interest rates and interest rates in fact went up. Its economic policy had one direct effect; that was the effect of redistributing money and wealth from those in this community who could least afford it and those who would have been in the best position to spend money and wealth in order to generate economic activity. The previous Government did not generate economic activity; it failed dismally. Opposition senators now put themselves forward as economic managers with credibility. They lost that credibility over the last seven years. I am sure that people listening to this broadcast throughout Australia will find the whole exercise this afternoon somewhat incredible. Let us look at the wages policy, the topic to which the Opposition wishes us to address ourselves this afternoon. In 1975, as a prelude to the election in that year, Mr Fraser, the Prime Minister for the last seven years, said: We will support wage indexation. He, together with his colleagues, some of whom are still on the Opposition front benches, spent the next six years undermining and torpedoing wage indexation. Let us look at what economic commentators had to say about this. Pat Mills, a reader in commercial and industrial law at the University of Sydney, said: For five years now- This was in mid-1981- in the national wage hearings the Fraser Government has consistently opposed wage indexation, both the idea itself and its application in practice. The previous Government came to office with a dishonest policy, and in its implementation of it was even more dishonest. In 1981 the whole concept of wage indexation was abandoned by the previous Government, substantially because of the effects of the Government's torpedoing of wage indexation, hearing after hearing. We found in 1981 a government totally at sea without any clear indication of where it was going. As I said, It supported indexation. It showed no record of support. In a Press statement from the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, dated 11 February 1981, he stated: A centralised system in which national wage cases play a dominant role should continue in the present circumstances . . . That was Mr Peacock-not in vacuum, however, because at that time the Liberal Government was totally undecided as to what direction it was taking. On 19 February, a very short time thereafter, Mr Peacock made a totally contradictory statement which highlighted the problem that his Government had in diagnosing the problem facing Australia, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle may wish to put it. An article in the Melbourne Age stated: The Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Peacock, hinted at the move last night when he said the Government's present wage proposals sought to keep indexation alive 'in the short term' . . . Mr Peacock said that when the Arbitration Commission inquiry was completed- That was the inquiry appointed on that day- there would be a need to take a 'long and serious look' at alternative wage fixing systems. The article went on to highlight the problem which the Liberal Party had at the time. It continued: Several Ministers believe a decentralised system, where wages are determined by collective bargaining, could be more effective. So there was this conflict in the Liberal Party, a Party which now comes to us claiming to have some sort of economic credibility. The problem was highlighted again in the Budget Statements of 1982-83 which were brought down in this place by the previous speaker, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. In this respect I refer to page 52 of Budget Paper No. 1, which states: With the benefit of hindsight such a bargaining process- Here I talk about a decentralised process that had been in operation for some months-- can be seen to be still far too 'centralised' . . . to be able to take appropriate account of the interests of all the units involved. Opposition senators were lost then, and they are lost now. I do not have to make this claim myself. All I need to do is to refer honourable senators to a statement of the present Leader of the Opposition which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 10 April 1982. This was at a time when he felt at odds with the rest of the Liberal Party, and especially the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser . Mr Peacock is quoted as saying: In industrial relations, the most critical element is wages policy. Regrettably , there has not been a wages policy. He was talking about his own Government. He said: . . . there has not been a wages policy. When indexation was knocked out by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, no long-term plan was put down, and no interim policy was put down while you were working to a long-term plan. So Opposition senators come here before us claiming to have some sort of economic credibility when the record and their own statements show that they failed dismally in pursuing policies on the same matter they have raised today. It is little wonder that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) could not even fill his time in the debate. He spoke for 15 minutes, and fell short of his allotted time by five minutes. One thing did happen under the previous Liberal Government and that was the instant-mix response of a wages freeze. It won the Liberal Government a by-election and, as Senator Button said earlier, it lost it the election. The wages freeze was applied towards the end of last year in the context that Australia's economic ills were all to be blamed on the Australian worker. Let me highlight for a minute the particular problem that Australian workers have had to face in recent years; that is, resources have been diverted from them to other sectors of the community, from people with no capacity to pay to sectors of the community with no need to receive the benefits of economic progress. Let us look for a moment at wage and salary earners, those skilled workers under the metal trades award who consistently incur the wrath of conservative governments in this country. In 1947 under the Mooney award a fitter's wage was set at 113.8 per cent of average weekly earnings. In 1983 terms that would mean $386.92 a week. However, in 1983 the fitters wage is only $234.10 a week. There has been an inadequate increase in those wages. When one looks at the fitter and compares his wage with that of the more highly paid wage earners in the economy one sees where the increases have gone. In this respect I refer to the increase between January 1973 and January 1983 of the salaries of adult males in six State capital cities-on the minimum wage. In that period the increase was 183.6 per cent. The consumer price index increase over that period was 200.2 per cent. One finds that the increase in wages has not kept up with the CPI increases. But when one looks at average weekly earnings- those earnings which last year Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Mr Anthony were keen to point out as evidence of a wages explosion-one finds that wages have increased by 258 per cent. So those on the bottom of the employment scale are the ones who have been missing out in terms of wage increases. Of course that is extremely relevant when one comes to assess the claim put up by the Opposition that wages have by-passed inflation increases. Once again that claim ought to be hit very much on the head. I will do so quoting to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle her own statements. The Senate Hansard of 17 November 1982 shows that Senator Tate asked her whether it was not a fact that, whilst inflation had been running at an annual rate of 12.3 per cent, based on the previous quarter, average award rates had increased by somewhere in the vicinity of 11.7 per cent over that same period and not the 17 per cent or 18 per cent as had been claimed both by Senator Guilfoyle in Parliament that week and also by Doug Anthony in the conduct of the Flinders by-election campaign. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle is on record in the Senate as saying: . . . I accept that there has been a change in the composition of the work force and that at the lower end of the working wage scale there has been a reduction in numbers which would be reflected in a reduction overall at some later time. Let us look at this wage debate in the context of wage equity and justice. Let us look at it in the context of some of the things about which Senator Button spoke earlier in this debate. We need to have a wages policy. We have not had one for the last seven years, but if a wages policy is to work it has to be based on wage justice and fairness. The reason it has not worked over the last seven years is that we have had a government that has taken the approach, at wage indexation applications and hearings, that there should not be an increase at all. I wish to comment now on the current situation. As I said, this Opposition is coming to us without any sense of credibility. In doing so it is nitpicking the Labor Government's current proposals to handle the area of wage fixation. When we were in opposition we recognised that for our policies to work there would have to be a degree of co-operation between government and unions, employees and business. It was to this end that we formulated the social compact. It was to this end that the present Labor Government worked towards having the National Economic Summit Conference. It was aimed at organising a consensus between all sectors in this community and a fair and just distribution of wealth in this community. In that context we talk about wage fixation. The choice for this community is not as clear as has been presented in the last seven years. It is not a question of saying to one section of the communty, 'You cannot have increases', whilst on the other hand saying to companies and others: 'You can have any price increases that you like'. The choice is essentially one between a smooth and predictable wage fixation system and an erratic and unpredictable one such as that which operated in the last couple of years of the Fraser Government. We are committed towards the former-that is, a smooth, predictable system based on a centralised wage fixation system, a policy which the Liberal Party in government rejected totally and which now, in opposition, it is presenting as some sort of an answer to the problem that we have. As I said at the start of this debate, it is quite incredible that we have members of the Liberal Party coming here parading as economic managers. It would seem as if they are coming to us as arsonists complaining about the bushfire. On that line I end my contribution. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.20) —We are debating the critical importance of a firm and effective wages policy if unemployment is to be reduced. This debate was put forward as a matter of public importance by the official Opposition. So far we have heard a great deal about the need for Australian products to be competitive on international markets. We have heard a great deal about the need for wage restraint and the need to reduce unemployment. The argument that has been put forward by a number of speakers already today, that wage restraint will automatically increase our competitiveness on international markets and that this will then increase employment opportunities in those industries, is indisputable. Nevertheless, it overlooks several other factors involved in economic management and the approach that this Government and this country must have to economic management in the coming years. Some of those matters were raised in the Senate in December last year in the debate on the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill. They were put forward then by Senator Chipp. He raised them, in the main, in an amendment that he moved to the motion for the second reading. I would like to remind the Senate of some of the elements-not all of them-that were contained in that amendment. Senator Chipp moved at the end of the motion: . . . the Senate declares that to restrict wages only is an inadequate response to the present economic emergency, that the Government should take action to achieve reductions in prices and government charges for a similar period across a broad range of goods and services . . . He listed a number of areas, including the freezing of Commonwealth Government charges, preventing profiteering, requesting professional and trade bodies to freeze their fees and the non-implementation of world parity prices for Australian-produced petroleum products. He ended his proposed amendment with the following statement: . . . that the Government should take urgent and comprehensive measures to stimulate the economy, restrict imports, and call a national conference to begin a process of long term co-operative indicative planning. The answer that the present Government gave to that was to accept at least the last part of that amendment, since I presume that that was what the National Economic Summit Conference that has just ended was all about. The motion that is before us today, however ignores a number of other elements in the points that have been brought forward. There are factors affecting the competitiveness of Australian industry other than simple restraint on wages, the cutting back of penalty rates and so on. We have to look at the effect of high interest rates on profits in industry, particularly in areas such as the housing industry. We have to look at the problem of turnover since this has a secondary effect on unemployment. Again I cite the housing industry as an example since any downturn in this area affects turnover in the white goods industry which inevitably affects employment in that area, as has been seen by the number of redundancies in companies, such as Kelvinator in South Australia. We have to look at forms of income restraint other than simply restraint on wages and salary. Senator Chipp made the point in his speech in December last year that it was iniquitous to expect wage and salary earners to accept restraint in their incomes and the decreased standard of living that ensues if they can then see their solicitor, presuming they have one, their private doctor, whom they inevitably would have, and their accountant, if they have one, putting up their fees. I accept the fact that a lot of these professionals argue that anything between 40 and 70 per cent of the charges that they impose are due to the wages of their staff. There should be no reason, if staff salaries and wages are held down, for these people to increase fees with the glee and frequency that they do . However, their argument then was that government and other charges were not being kept down. This has occurred again in South Australia recently with regard to electricity charges which have a substantial effect on industry and professional earners' costs. Electricity charges in South Australia have gone up by over 30 per cent in the last 12 months. If the problem that is facing them with regard to increased costs of Cooper Basin natural gas keep on, those increases will continue. To argue that unemployment will be significantly reduced if wage restraint is introduced, whilst ignoring restraints in areas of professional fees, in government charges, prices and so on, is really to put our heads in the sand. We have got to look at pegging these things as well. By putting a restraint on income is by no means the sole way in which unemployment can be reduced. Senator Chipp also made the point in his speech of December last year that job creation schemes were an integral part of this. He referred specifically to the introduction of high technology accompanied by retraining, compensation, taxation reform, income support schemes and transition measures which turn the potential catastrophe of technological change into a positive growth factor. I share the concern and the interest held by the present Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) in these areas and his belief that the biggest growth area in Australia's future will lie in the area of high technology development, providing we pick it up quickly and develop it appropriately to our needs. But it does require attention to research and development, to adequate training and retraining and to something of a changed attitude to what Australia is capable of doing. We have been locked in for too long to traditional attitudes to job creation in this country. It is time we looked with some imagination and initiative to the future. One other point which has been overlooked entirely today has been the need to change another traditional attitude, that is, our attitude to unemployment itself. For far too long Australians have equated status and individual worth with employment and the level of one's income. It seems to me that when we are discussing problems that are facing the economy we must look at reappraising this traditional attitude to people's value in society. Certainly, while income is necessary if we are to survive, the whole emphasis which has been put on people's worth and status through their income has to be looked at. That, of course, is linked in with the attitude that it is only wage restraint which needs to be incorporated in improving employment prospects in this country. For too long those people who are independently employed have seen themselves as being beyond the touch of government regulation and imposts. Their status as independents, as professionals, is impugned, they believe, if they accept any regulations from the Government with regard to wage restraint. That, of course, has got to be challenged. The Australian Democrats believe that a wages and income policy is a basic tenet of any economic policy. We believe though that a one-sided approach is doomed to failure, that incomes, prices, fees and charges of all kinds should be subject to restraint. For that reason we applaud the establishment of a price surveillance system as mooted by the National Economic Summit Conference communique. We ask that we do not lock ourselves into the argument that wage restraint is the only cure for unemployment but should look beyond that to a reasonable future and, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said as she finished her speech, this should be not only for the employed of this country but also for the unemployed. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.30) —I was not a representative at the recent National Economic Summit Conference. The Opposition parties were not invited and the unemployed were not represented. Small business, which is a major employment sector, also was not represented. The Opposition in its concern for the unemployed, for the employment generation potential of the small business sector , feels most keenly that wage restraint is the most available single action that can lead towards solutions. Although this was a major aspect of debate in the recent National Economic Summit, it is not reflected in the summary of the communique of the conference given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) yesterday. Therefore, it is a matter of urgency that I, as a Liberal senator from South Australia, and we, as the Opposition, bring the importance of wage restraint to the attention of the Government as being the outstanding omission in the Prime Minister's report and the single most important factor that can help the small business sector and the unemployed of Australia. Senator Bolkus spoke about the past. He talked about the difficulties of the earlier government and of past years. But we are not to be denied the chance now to represent our views in this debate. We believe that a part of the solution is at hand and that it has been underestimated by the Government. We urge the Government to take this matter up. Accordingly, I remind the Government in the debate today of the critical importance of a firm and effective wages policy if unemployment is to be reduced. This indeed is the subject of this matter of public importance. It was also the most central feature of debate in the House of Representatives yesterday and in Question Time in the Senate today. But beyond that, I put it to the Senate that this was the key feature for the last election. On 3 February, when the former Prime Minister announced that there would be an election, he said that the issue before the people of Australia was wage restraint; that the wages pause was in jeopardy; that the unions had set out with the concerted objective to undermine the wages pause; that the then Opposition, the Australian Labor Party, was right behind them; that this was intolerable to the Liberal Government; and that we must get a reinforcement of that issue. The Government could now say that that issue was put by us during the campaign and that we were defeated. I do not believe we were defeated on that issue. We were defeated partly because of our record, because there was high unemployment, because of the ills of a depression and drought and because we had lifted the expectations of the Australian people to expect more from government. I believe that many governments, of whatever persuasion, have been thrown out in this time of recession in the world. I do not believe that the urgency of this important factor of wage restraint, in order to help the unemployed, to allow the cake to be divided more justly amongst the people of Australia, was defeated at that election. I believe that this factor was also the sharpest distinction in our debates during the election campaign. Members of the then Opposition, the Labor Party, tried to give the Australian people what I thought was an irresponsible but very attractive offer. They said: 'Elect us and we will give you tax reductions'. Taxes will now be increased, but they promised tax reductions. They said: 'We will support, through our prices and incomes policy, the maintenance of real wages; so people of Australia, vote for the Labor Party. We will cut your taxes and allow your wages to rise. Vote for the Liberals and they will maintain this wage pause. They say it is responsible; they say it will help the unemployed. Privately, we think it will, but we want your votes. Therefore, vote for us'. That was the most distinctive contrast of the election campaign. I also see it as the issue that was the last straw in undermining the former Leader of the Opposition, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bill Hayden. At first, Mr Hayden welcomed the Liberal Party initiative that there be a wage pause commencing in November last year. Honourable senators will remember when six State and Territory governments and the Commonwealth Government had a conference. They agreed that a wage pause was in the best interests of the unemployed and all Australians. Everyone agreed to at least a six months, and possibly a 12 months, pause. The then Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labor Party, Mr Hayden, agreed that this would be wise and in the best interests of Australia. But, lo and behold, the unions got to him and his own party got to him. They said: 'We will be denying our supporters if we accept that policy'. By the time the Flinders by-election was held early in December last year he had reneged on his previous position and said that he was not any more in favour of the wage pause. In January, after having time to think during summer, he said that it was in the national interest , after all. Mr Hayden came out with a strong statement in mid-January in which he said: 'Yes, we will do our best to make the Government's policy work'. He had got the message from the results of the Flinders by-election which the Liberals had won. But, lo and behold, the unions got to Mr Hayden yet again at the end of January. They said: 'You've swapped all over the place. You are seen as an ineffective Labor leader. We must have a new leader'. The Labor spokesmen got together at their Federal conference and asked Mr Hayden to step down because he had been all over the place on the subject of a wages policy and it was the last straw. The current Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, was elected as the new leader. Throughout the election campaign he was ambiguous, equivocating and not at all clear because he wanted to give the cue to the unions that by electing a Labor government there would not be a wage pause. The importance of the wage pause has been central not only to the debate in this session of the new Parliament-we had the chance to debate the matter yesterday in the House of Representatives and in the Senate today-but also to, and the most distinctive aspect of, the last election campaign. It was central also to the defeat of Mr Hayden as leader of the party. It was seen by me, by many spokesmen at the Summit and by the Opposition parties not as the only policy that will lead to a solution to unemployment and Australia becoming more competitive internationally, but as the only policy that is at hand and that can readily be implemented. By supporting this policy more of the unemployed will be able to re-enter the work force. During this debate the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, asked for advice from the Opposition. He put three questions to us. He said: ' The Government would like to know from the Opposition why Australia is not more competitive internationally. The Opposition believes that this is because of our inadequate wage policy, but surely there are some other factors'. Of course there are other factors. They have been debated by us in this chamber over the last five years at least. They are, for example, the tax disincentives to Australia's industry and investors. We need to modernise and upgrade our technology. Even Senator Mason has urged that policy upon the Senate. We have to encourage it also. When we were in government the Minister, Ian Macphee, was our spokesman, linking science, technology and education. We need modern design. That was referred to during the Economic Summit. If we are to compete internationally we need better management. The honourable member for Mackellar, Jim Carlton, a member of the House of Representatives, has spoken around the country about the need to improve management techniques in Australia. We need better education structures so that school children will be better served towards the employment prospects that they will face. I have urged this many times in debates in the Senate. It has been the subject of Senate committee reports. It has been widely acknowledged and is starting to be implemented. I believe that we need a general reduction in tariffs. We need to develop secondary industries in Australia which exploit better the raw materials and natural resources which Australia has in plenty, rather than merely exporting the raw product. Wage restraint is one of the more than half a dozen important factors, but it is the most available single factor that will lead, if understood by the Government, to improvements in employment levels. The second question which Senator Button asked the Opposition referred to the level at which wages and salaries should be restrained. Our answer is that they should be restrained to a level that will allow half a million currently unemployed persons to gain jobs in Australia; that will allow our current unemployment to be halved from 10 per cent; and, at the same time, that will allow a return to a normal level of profitability in Australia so that real, sustained new investment and growth can be restored. Senator Button asked the Opposition a third question. He asked: 'What does the Opposition advise the Government to do at the end of the wage pause?' We have urged that the wages pause continue beyond six months, even beyond 12 months, into 1984. At the end of the wage pause the question of wage and salary levels should be referred in the normal way to the established authority-that is, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We urge the normal and expected outcome , that the Arbitration Commission hear views put by the parties and that the Commission make its normal decisions. Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister's statement on the Summit Conference. During Question Time today in the Senate I referred to pages 8 to 11 of that statement. I seek leave for those pages to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 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 his 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, acknowledgment 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 acknowledgment 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 paragraphs 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; Twelfth, 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. Senator TEAGUE —Those pages set out the achievements that the Prime Minister wanted to bring to the attention of the Parliament from the Economic Summit. I concede that there were some achievements. It is important for the level of understanding of economic facts to be lifted and that was certainly achieved by the Conference. But there has been no action yet. That is why this debate is important, so that we, as representatives of the people-I, as a Liberal senator from South Australia-can put our views before the Government decides on a course of action. I urge the Government to give a much higher priority to wage restraint than is reflected in the Prime Minister's statement. For example, in the achievements listed by the Prime Minister, no mention was made of wage restraint; there were glib references to general restraint. I implore everyone to read those three pages containing the so-called achievements of the Summit, because when he got to the specifics there was no mention of wage restraint. He has ignored even Mr Kelty, the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, who at the Summit outlined the views of, presumably, the trade union movement when he said: The ACTU believes unequivocally that the priority of this nation must be employment growth. We therefore reject the policy prescription of fighting inflation first through increased unemployment. Such a policy is a policy of despair and defeat. We accept that seeking the achievement of lower rates of inflation and higher levels of employment will involve moderation in wage demands. It was put even more clearly by Sir Keith Campbell at the Summit when he said: The broad but very clear messages were: The longer the wage pause and the lower the wage adjustments, the lower the rate of inflation, the higher the rate of growth and the lower the rate of unemployment. If it is not too late, we in the Opposition urge that, among all the actions available to the Government, there be such wage restraint. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.46) - There is a Hebrew word which is pronounced 'chutzpah', I believe, and for which there is no precise English translation. It has often been described as a condition under which somebody who has just murdered his parents claims the mercy of the court on the grounds that he is an orphan. I think that fairly well sums up the attitude displayed by members of the Liberal and National parties this afternoon. They are the people who presided over seven dark years during which unemployment trebled. They are the people who pushed the economy into the worst depression for 50 years. They are the people who pushed interest rates to record levels. They are the people who allowed tax cheats to steal billions of dollars from honest taxpayers and finally left us with a $10 billion deficit which, in the week before the election, they said was $6 billion. Those very people now have the chutzpah to lecture a government that has been in office for two months about economic management and economic responsibility. When the last Government was clearly on the skids during February last, what did it try to do? The then Prime Minister tried to start a run on the banks. The present Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia then tried to start a run on the dollar; and he succeeded. Since the election they have been trying to start a run on the superannuation funds. As a result of the present Liberal Party leader's irresponsible action in touching off a run on the dollar, Australia has lost between $250m and $300m. That is a dead loss to the country. In that action Mr Peacock rewarded the most odious of all parasites-the international currency speculators. Effectively he took $300m off us and gave it to them. He has a record of being a successful economic saboteur. The behaviour of the Liberal Party in particular in that month before the last Federal election was reminiscent of Adolf Hitler, who in the final days of the Third Reich ordered Speer to destroy Germany on the grounds that the German people were unworthy of him. The doomed Liberal Government, led in the most appalling way by Mr Peacock, tried to destroy the Australian economy. He collaborated with the currency speculators while the present Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party fiddled the books. In mid-1981, after five years of sniping at the wage indexation policy, the Fraser Government finally scuttled indexation. It asserted that wages were best left to market forces. After five years of sniping it completely buried centralised wage fixing. Whether that decision was due to long-standing antipathy to the policy or to the prime ministerial desire to jump into a Boeing 707 and duck off to London for the royal wedding has never been entirely clear. But what is indisputable is that for the next 16 months we had no wages policy at all. The present Liberal Party leader in an interview in the Sydney Morning Herald published on 10 April last year said: In industrial relations the most critical element is wages policy. To a very substantial degree people on this side of the chamber would agree with that. Mr Peacock continued-remember, this was just over a year ago-by saying: Regrettably, there has not been a wages policy. When indexation was knocked out by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-- At the urging of the then Government- No long-term plan was put down, and no interim policy was put down . . . That was said just over a year ago by the present Leader of the Opposition. Then , at the end of 1982, the former member for Macarthur said that the Government had to be seen to be doing something. The former member for Macarthur was seen by many people to be doing quite a few things he should not have been doing when he was a Patrick partner. I notice that he is now working for the former Treasurer and present Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. It will be interesting to know whether he is applying to that task the skills he learned as a Partick partner. He said that the Government had to be seen to be doing something-not actually doing anything, but seen to be doing something. That recommendation was taken up by the Liberal Party and the National Party and the then Government. It came up with a 12-month wage freeze. Having 16 months before completely torpedoed indexation and centralised wage fixing, the then Government did a U-turn and settled for the ultimate centralisation of a wage freeze imposed to the extent to which the Commonwealth had the power to impose it and, in collaboration with the States, announced its intention of imposing a total freeze throughout the economy. What would happen after 12 months had expired was and still is a matter for wide-eyed conjecture as far as members of the Liberal and National parties are concerned. Of course, the truth is that the wages freeze was a stunt for an election, a stunt which the then Government hoped would get it past an election which it had to pull before the truth of the impending Budget deficit and the gross irresponsibility of the 1982 Budget became apparent to the public. In another Road-to-Damascus conversion Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle this afternoon described scenario C from the Summit Conference as the best outcome. It is interesting to note that that was the scenario with the largest deficit. That came from a very senior representative of a former government which had long been hooked on deficit fetishism. Indeed, fetishism was a recurring theme throughout the life of the Fraser Government. We had the fetish that large deficits and large deficits alone caused inflation; the fetish that full indexation and falling inflation were mutually exclusive; and the fetish that the public sector borrowing requirement was positively and at all times tied to interest rates. All those fetishes were contradicted from time to time by the empirical evidence. But they were still advanced as fundamental analyses of the economic problem and one-shot solutions to it. The latest of the fetishes was that wage rises alone were the cause of the depression. That analysis was supported by the simplistic argument that if inflation in Australia-inflation being taken by the previous Government as being synonymous with wage rises-was higher that it was for our trading partners, ipso facto Australian industry must become uncompetitive. That analysis fairly accurately described the pre-1971 Bretton Woods world of fixed exchange rates. Whilst I am certainly not arguing that a government should be heedless of high inflation rates or reckless about the dangers of them, to a very substantial degree the international uncompetitiveness induced by higher wage increases in any country and consequential higher inflation rates is offset by adjustments to the exchange rate. The thinking of the Liberal Party in this issue was of the pre-1971 period, which I guess is perhaps fairly modern compared with its thinking on a number of other problems or the era to which many of its other ideas belong. It is a truism that a country which has an adverse movement in its terms of trade and which is afflicted by drought at a given level of employment must either maintain incomes by borrowing overseas or real incomes, on average, must fall. The terms of trade did move against Australia and the country was afflicted by drought. The employment level was not given, but in fact fell. Because of those factors there are only two options-to maintain real incomes, on average, by borrowing overseas, which has been done to some extent, or real incomes, on average, must fall. I believe, and the Government believes and has made explicit on many occasions, that a fall in real wages is very likely an essential component of a package for economic recovery. But a wages freeze and the consequential fall in real wages in isolation is not a package for recovery, and could, indeed, exacerbate an existing recession. The Australian Labor Party both in opposition and in government has made it perfectly clear that it believes that there must be restraint on wages growth. Even if that is achieved, the magnitude and the dimensions of the problem facing us ought to be recognised. If the present level of unemployment is to be brought down to the levels which were regarded as normal in the 1960s we require real growth in gross domestic product of 5 per cent a year or above for five consecutive years. To give honourable senators some idea of how difficult that has been to achieve, in only one year in the last decade has a growth rate of that magnitude been recorded. As I said, the Labor Party both in opposition and in government has made it perfectly clear that it believes that in the short term a decline in real wages is probably an essential component of a package for recovery. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated yesterday his belief that the economy could accommodate a wage increase of around 3 per cent towards the end of this year. There may be room for legitimate dispute about that but I think it ought to be recognised that we live in a dynamic society, not in an economist's computer and that there are political factors which must be considered as well as the arithmetic. The Labor Party both in opposition and in government has also stated that the real level of wages which prevailed a year ago will be restored or maintained over time. It has been stated that that goal is achievable. It is not in conflict with the acceptance of a policy of an interim decline in real wages which, to some extent, has already taken place. It is achievable because the productivity of labour continues to grow. It is not true, as is so often asserted by conservatives, that full indexation of wages ensures that a given rate of inflation becomes perpetuated. That is not correct because the growth in productivity allows inflation to be controlled and real wages over time to be increased. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 21 April 1983, on motion by Senator Coleman: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(4.2) —The Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce presented its report on the development of the Australian fishing industry on 10 January 1983. Due to the election in March this is the first opportunity we have had to debate this report in the Senate. I say at the outset that this report was presented under the chairmanship of Senator Archer. However , I hasten to add that the Committee was unanimous in reaching the conclusions and recommendations made in the report. This report is the culmination of a detailed and lengthy inquiry and provides a comprehensive and critical examination of all aspects of the industry with particular reference to the implications for Australia and for the Australian fishing industry of the declaration of the 200-mile Australian Fishing Zone in 1979. Although the industry has assumed national and international recognition only in the last 15 to 20 years, the Australian fishing industry is today an important primary industry making a significant contribution to the national economy, particularly in terms of export earnings, which in 1981-82 amounted to $306.5m. As an industry the Australian fishing industry shows considerably less co- ordination than any other primary industry of similar size and capital investment. During the inquiry it became clear that neither the State governments nor the Commonwealth Government have accorded priority to the industry or to its development. The declaration of the 200-mile Australian Fishing Zone signalled the beginning of a new period of growth and development for the industry. Scope for import replacement was also believed to be considerable. Although the earnings derived from high unit value species such as prawns, rock lobsters, scallops and abalone have continued to rise, the high expectations raised by the prospect of the declaration of an extended Australian Fishing Zone have not yet been realised in respect of the development of new fisheries for the export and domestic markets. It is indeed a matter of great concern that Australia still imports 50 per cent to 60 per cent of fish consumed domestically and 35 per cent of fish used commmercially. While the value of the Australian fishing catch has been rising, the overall position of the industry has not improved commensurately and some sections have experienced serious downturns in their fortunes. The Committee believes that the Australian fishing industry has scope for expansion. As the maximum sustainable yield is now being approached from the established high unit value fisheries which are directed towards overseas markets, it is now necessary for the industry to direct its attention towards the development of new fisheries, particularly species for import replacement purposes. The development of new off-shore fisheries will require a different approach from that adopted with the developed inshore fisheries. Exploitation of off-shore resources will require the adoption of improved fishing and handling techniques and the upgrading of Australian fishing vessels, which will in turn result in better quality produce and the promotion of Australian fish for both domestic and overseas consumption. It will also require that the Government direct greater attention towards programs of fisheries resource evaluation to provide the industry with the necessary data on which it can base commercial decisions and towards incentive schemes which recognise the high risks associated with the development of off-shore fisheries. Since the declaration of the Australian Fishing Zone the Commonwealth has been required to extend its role in resources management, particularly in off-shore fisheries which fall within its jurisdiction. It has also assumed greater responsibilities for such matters as the conduct and co-ordination of fisheries research; the regulation of imports and exports of seafoods; the provision of financial assistance to the fishing industry; the control, monitoring and surveillance of foreign fishing; the provision of vocational training for fishermen and women; and the upgrading of navigational aids. The Committee has examined the effectiveness of the Commonwealth in fulfilling its role within these areas. It has also assessed the Commonwealth's effectiveness in promoting off-shore fisheries development and exploitation by both Australian and foreign fishermen. Responsibility for the administration of Australia's fisheries has continued to be shared between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory and the Committee has therefore directed its attention towards the adequacy of the co-operative arrangements for fisheries management purposes. It has also examined the effectiveness of the various mechanisms devised to promote co-operation and co-ordination between the public and private sectors of the industry. The other major areas of concern which the Committee identified were the inadequacy of present domestic fish marketing arrangements and the need for the industry to make a concerted and co-ordinated effort in the promotion of Australian fish. At the commencement of the inquiry the Committee saw the Australian Fishing Industry Council as the means by which industry could contribute to fisheries management and participate in the decision-making process. While it is generally accepted that government-industry consultation and liaison improved following the establishment of AFIC the evidence presented to the Committee indicates that the industry's efforts to achieve greater participation in the decision-making and policy areas of fisheries management through AFIC and other government- industry liaison and consultative bodies have failed dramatically. The Committee has therefore recommended that the Commonwealth Government introduce legislation providing for the establishment of a national statutory fisheries authority which will create a formal framework for co-operation between government and industry in the formulation of fisheries policy and all aspects of fisheries management. It has also made specific recommendations concerning the membership, functions and funding of the proposed authority. It has further recommended that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) seek the views of all sectors of the fishing industry concerning any additional functions which the national statutory fisheries authority should assume. It is envisaged that this will leave the Commonwealth Fisheries Division with responsibility for issuing licences, monitoring foreign fishing activity and representing the Government at international conferences and forums dealing with fisheries matters. In relation to marketing, the Committee believes that, unless there is a considerable improvement in domestic marketing arrangements, Australian-caught fish will not compete effectively against the imported product. One of the problems affecting the local marketing of Australian-caught fish is that there is no premium for good quality products and, conversely, no penalty for poor quality. This points to a need for a proper system of product grading for the local market. The Committee also believes that the consumption of Australian fish can be significantly increased by improved domestic marketing and promotion of locally caught species. It has therefore made several recommmendations concerning the marketing and promotion of Australian fish. The Committee's attention was drawn to the practice among some fishermen, restaurateurs and retailers of misrepresenting species of fish and to the practice among retailers and restaurateurs of claiming that fish is fresh when it has in fact been frozen . The Committee's view is that these practices can only harm the overall reputation of the fishing industry in the long term. The public relies on labelling or nomenclature being correct when it purchases fish and misdescription of fish or substitution of less favoured species for popular species will only hinder the development of the Australian fishing industry. The Committee supports the view of the Australian Fisheries Council that all governments in Australia should enact legislation to ensure prosecution can be undertaken for fish substitution. I have already drawn the Senate's attention to the importance of the export market to the Australian fishing industry. However, the potential to increase this market is being frustrated at present by a number of unnecessary or inflexible government regulations. In particular, the Committee has recommended that a review of the Exports (Fish) Regulations be undertaken with the objective of amending standards to allow the export of lower grades of selected species which are acceptable to certain overseas markets. This, I believe, will help maximise our exploitation of the new off-shore fisheries and encourage the development of export markets for less preferred species and new fish products. Further, the Committee has recommended that mandatory labelling requirements for fish and fish products be simplified to include details required by the overseas buyer. It was of some concern to the Committee that evidence was received, for instance, from processors, that frequently the information required by the importing country was not that which was required by either mandatory labelling requirements under the Exports (Fish) Regulations, or non-mandatory recommendations of the Department of Primary Industry fisheries inspectors. I can give the Senate a simple example, Mr Deputy President. We were informed that a contract had been obtained overseas for rather large amounts of frozen abalone . The requirement of the importing country was that there would be a statement to the effect that the net weight when fresh or packed was a certain amount. The Department, however, insisted that the packaging be marked 'net weight when thawed'. Honourable senators, particularly those of my sex who deal with frozen food in their own kitchens, would realise that the net weight of a frozen article when thawed would be impossible to estimate. Finally, I wish to turn briefly to a number of other recommendations in the report. These concern: The development of a comprehensive national fisheries policy and guidelines for its implementation; the establishment of national objectives, priorities and criteria for allocating funds for fisheries research activities; the development of a uniform system for the collection of national fisheries statistics; the terms and conditions under which foreign fishing vessels should be granted access to the Australian Fishing Zone; and the provision of financial assistance to the fishing industry through the implementation of a national adjustment scheme and the introduction of a national development fisheries finance plan which provides incentives for the diversification of fishing effort and/or the develoment of new fisheries within the Australian Fishing Zone. In conclusion, I thank all members of the Committee , in particular the former Chairman, Senator Archer. I also thank all witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee and all others who contributed to the lengthy inquiry, in particular the Committee staff and its former secretary, Mr Chris Shrosbree. I commend the report to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) nominating senators to be members of Senate standing committees, Senate Estimates committees and joint statutory committees. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt)-by leave-agreed to: That- (a) a Standing Orders Committee, a Committee of Privileges, a Library Committee and a Publications Committee be appointed to consist of the following senators: Library President, Senators Colston, Harradine, Maguire, Reynolds, Teague and Walters Privileges Senators Bolkus, Button, Childs, Jessop, Macklin, Missen and Robert Ray Publications Senators Archer, Colston, Elstob, Jones, Scott, Townley and Zakharov Standing Orders President, Deputy-President, Senators Button, Chaney, Cook, Kilgariff, Macklin, Peter Rae, Robert Ray and Robertson (b) the following senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with the provision of Standing Order 36AB, be appointed members of the Senate Estimates committees: Estimates Committee A Senators Coleman, Cook, Hill, Lewis, Peter Rae and Robert Ray Estimates Committee B Senators Bjelke-Petersen, Crowley, Elstob, Giles, Messner and Walters Estimates Committee C Senators Boswell, Sir John Carrick, Childs, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Maguire and Primmer Estimates Committee D Senators Baume, Coates, Colston, Martin, Teague and Zakharov Estimates Committee E Senators Durack, MacGibbon, Reynolds, Scott, Sibraa and Tate Estimates Committee F Senators Collard, Georges, Hearn, Reid, Richardson and Townley (c) in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings ( Broadcasting) Act 1946, the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 and the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following senators be appointed members of the respective committees: Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Senators Coleman and Watson Public Accounts Senators Georges, Maguire and Watson Public Works Senator Foreman, Jones and Kilgariff Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: 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. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce into the Senate this Bill and the Navigation ( Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill 1983, which I will introduce shortly, concerning the protection of Australia's marine environment against pollution. The purpose of the Bills is to give effect to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships as modified by the 1978 protocol. The Convention is widely referred to as the MARPOL 1973-78 Convention. The Bills are essentially the same as those introduced by the previous Government on 21 October 1982. As the Senate is aware, the Government views very seriously the need for Australia to accede to and honour international conventions, not only in the transport field, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), but also in other affected areas such as the environment. Our national transport policy states explicitly that we will promote the conclusion, ratification and application of transport conventions under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialised agencies. The particular subject of attention by this Bill is, of course, basically environmental in its origins and effects and I believe it is important to note the way in which concern for the marine environment has been incorporated so effectively. Australia has an extensive coastline and spread of territorial waters. It is fundamentally important that we be able to demonstrate to ourselves and the international community that we take our responsibility for this national and global resource seriously and that we are committed to its protection. The MARPOL Convention is a departure from previous pollution conventions in that it addresses all the various forms of ship-sourced pollution in one treaty. The Convention contains five annexes which deal respectively with pollution by oil, noxious liquid substances carried in bulk form, noxious substances carried in packaged form, sewage and garbage. Initially, Australia will implement only the compulsory annexes I and II of MARPOL 1973-78-that is, those dealing with oil and bulk noxious liquids. In addition we will defer the operation of Annex II for the next three years permited by Article II of the 1978 Protocol to ensure that adequate reception facilities for the discharge of tank washings and sludge are provided at Australian ports. The Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory are examining, in the forum of the Marine and Ports Council of Australia, the provisions of annexes III to V in order to arrive at a recommendation concerning their acceptance by Australia. The findings of this examination may well make it necessary to amend, in due course, the legislation currently before the Senate. The construction of the Commonwealth Bills is based on the jurisdictional arrangement recommended by the Marine and Ports Council of Australia which requires that complementary Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory legislation be enacted before Australia can ratify MARPOL 1973-78. The proposal is therefore in accordance with current arrangements between the Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory. The MARPOL Convention will be applied legislatively in Australia by two Commonwealth Acts and by State and Territory legislation. Implementation by two Commonwealth Acts continues the traditional way of giving effect to pollution control legislation. The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 1983 will, upon proclamation, repeal and replace the Protection of the Sea (Discharge of Oil from Ships) Act 1981 which applies the provisions of the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil known as OILPOL. The Bill also contains provisions imposing discharge prohibitions, the obligation to carry and maintain oil cargo record books on ships and to report any discharges. Matters pertaining to the construction, survey and certificate requirements of ships will be given effect in the Navigation Act. This method of giving effect to MARPOL 1973-78 has been adopted for simplicity of administration and understanding by the industry. This Bill introduces new and improved provisions for oil pollution prevention and control including special arrangements for protection of the Great Barrier Reef. This particular issue was included in the 1981 Protection of the Sea (Discharge of Oil from Ships) Act which provides Australia with the enabling legislation to implement provisions of the 1954 OILPOL Convention which are not yet in force internationally. Following notification late in 1982 that MARPOL will enter into force on 2 October 1983, the MARPOL 1973-78 Great Barrier Reef protection measures will now enter into force earlier than the OILPOL provisions. The Bill also introduces new controls on the operation of ships carrying noxious liquid substances in bulk. Specifically, provision is made concerning prohibition of discharges of noxious liquid substances into the sea, cargo record book requirements and cleaning of cargo tanks following discharge of cargoes. The protection of the Great Barrier Reef will be maintained in relation to noxious liquid substances by imposing outright prohibition or special discharge rules when ships are within particular distances from the outer edge of the reef. Differing rules are applied depending on the categorisation of the substance and its strength in the mixture being discharged. In many cases discharge into the sea is prohibited entirely. The implementation of the MARPOL Convention in Australia will introduce stricter control of ship-sourced oil combined with compulsory ship construction and operational requirements which are designed to reduce the incidence of pollution at sea and in port. The Convention requires that ports themselves provide adequate shore reception facilities to receive ship-generated wastes. The Convention and the legislation to implement it are a marked improvement on existing arrangements and will place Australia in the international forefront in the field of marine pollution convention implementation. I therefore commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: 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. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the second of two important steps in applying the provisions of the 1973-78 International Convention for the Provention of Pollution from Ships-the MARPOL Convention. In this Bill, Division 12 inserted by the Navigation ( Protection of the Sea) Amendment Act 1981 is repealed. The existing Division 12 has not yet come into force because it was included in the legislation to enable Australia to implement the 1971 ship construction provisions of the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Those provisions have not yet attracted sufficient signatures for them to have come into force internationally. The MARPOL 1973-78 Convention supersedes the 1954 Convention and therefore new requirements will be incorporated in the Navigation Act 1912. This Bill inserts a new Division 12 relating to ships carrying or using oil and a new Division 12A making provision concerning ships carrying noxious liquid substances in bulk. These Divisions will incorporate in the Navigation Act 1912, provisions relating to ship construction, equipment, survey and certification for ships covered by the respective divisions. I mentioned in my second reading speech on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill that all matters relating to construction, safety and survey of ships are incorporated in the Navigation Act. For simplicity of administration and understanding by the industry, MARPOL Convention requirements will be included in the Act now being amended by this Bill, in accordance with usual practice. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Address-in-Reply The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Reynolds. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(4.27) —I move: That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: To His Excellency the Governor-General May it please your Excellency- We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. It is indeed an honour to move this motion today and to follow my predecessor, Jim Keeffe, into this chamber. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the long and devoted service given by Jim Keeffe. His work on behalf of so many Queenslanders, indeed so many Australians, will long be remembered and his contribution in formulating policy will continue to have effect for many years to come. I speak today in my first address to this chamber as a member of the Australian Labor Party, as a woman and as a senator for Queensland. These three loyalties shape my experience and determine my priorities as a member of this chamber. As a member of the oldest political party in Australia I come into this chamber knowing that I bring with me the loyalty and hopes of many thousands of Queenslanders. My contact with the elder members and supporters of my part has highlighted the rich historical tradition of the Australian Labor Party. I draw to the attention of honourable senators the speech of the first Labor member ever to speak in an Australian Parliament. George Black, in his maiden speech to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly in 1891, told the assembled chamber of professionals and entrepreneurs that Labor members 'have not come into this House to make or unmake Ministries. We have come into this House to make and unmake social conditions'. Such a commitment is still fundamental to the principles of the Australian Labor Party today. In government it has had a sound record of introducing legislation designed to reform social conditions. It is a party of initiative. I too will be working for social justice. I will be placing priority on the making of social conditions which will better provide for disadvantaged groups. Australia owes a better deal to its elderly citizens, its youth and those living below the poverty line. This nation ranks eighteenth out of 21 in terms of its welfare spending. Despite popular belief, it is among the lowest taxed and has low welfare spending when compared with other Western nations. I will also have absolutely no hesitation in working towards the unmaking of those social conditions which perpetuate privilege and power in the hands of the ruling class and overseas monopolies. In assessing my priorities I speak too as a woman. I am aware that the last two elections have seen an unprecedented number of women enter Federal Parliament. Similar trends exist at State and local government levels. I welcome this. This chamber, with 13 women of the 64 members, has the highest proportion of women members of any parliament in this country. Yet, women are still a political minority, holding just five per cent of seats in Federal and State parliaments. Therefore, I recognise an ongoing need for women to participate to a far greater extent at every level of decision making if they are really to represent 51 per cent of the population. I view with pride the effects of the second wave of feminism which began in Australia just a decade ago. I pay tribute to the many people, both men and women, who have worked assiduously to achieve greater equality for Australian women. In 1981 women welcomed the initiative of my colleague Senator Susan Ryan in introducing to this chamber a private member's Bill on sex and marital status discrimination. Therefore, it was commendable to hear from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) last week that ratification of the United Nations Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women will be finally proceeded with in the very near future. But there remain many areas of economic and social deprivation among women. I mention in particular the problems faced by rural and provincial women. There is still a lack of recognition of the vitally important role of women in rural areas. Women take on the burden of farm duties in addition, often, to their roles as housewife, nurse, teacher and driver. Isolation and lack of services place very real hardship on women in outlying areas. As mothers they have to cope not only with the normal pressures of family care but also with limited access to medical and educational facilities and other support services. Job opportunities for rural women are fewer than for women in urban areas. Women in rural and provincial areas therefore have less chance of gaining appropriate training for themselves and for their children. Transport and communication links are few and expensive. This highlights the need for the Mobile Outback Support Team, based in Mt Isa, which does outstanding work in bringing outback women together and lobbying for essential services. Such innovative schemes warrant extension and ongoing government support. I speak especially as a senator for Queensland and in doing so emphasise that I speak firstly as a representative of provincial Queensland and secondly as an advocate for non-metropolitan Australia. Having lived and raised a family in North Queensland for nearly 20 years, I know well of the disadvantages suffered by provincial Australians. One in three Australians live in rural and provincial areas; that is, 33 1/3 per cent of the Australian population lives outside capital cities. I believe that there is an imbalance in the provision of services between provincial and urban areas. For example, Queensland is a vast State with strong regional loyalties. My city, Townsville, is 1,200 kilometres north of Brisbane-1,000 miles away, as the old bush song records. It is the de facto capital of a distinctive region. The tourist potential of areas north to Cairns, west to Mt Isa and south to Mackay is already recognised. The increasing number of interstate and international visitors annually reflects the importance of the tourist industry to north Queensland. However, this region's tourist trade is vitally affected by its isolation, which seriously influences the cost of providing services and bringing visitors into the north. Therefore, the stated policies of this Government-that is, to reintroduce the diesel excise exemption for Barrier Reef island resorts, to remove sales tax from the freight element of goods which are delivered to north Queensland, to negotiate for a 30-day fixed air fare for tourists-are all welcomed by north Queenslanders as indicative of the support they can expect from this Government in the future. I emphasise that it is this Government that is the first to introduce a policy for North Queensland. North Queenslanders have always suffered from the tyranny of distance. That tyranny is not only a matter of endless hours of travel over roads which are an absolute disgrace to modern society. Nor is it only the inability to match the ever-increasing costs of air travel which could minimise that sense of isolation . It is also manifested in the economic, social, educational and cultural inequalities suffered by Australians living outside metropolitan areas. From its earliest days economic growth of north Queensland has been linked with its mineral resources. It was gold that gave impetus for population growth and later it was the discovery of lead, silver, tin and copper which created new towns and attracted people to the North. Today coal and bauxite dominate north Queensland's mineral scene. But many people argue-I am one of them-that the real benefits of the so-called resources boom do not go to the people of north Queensland but rather to the capital city and overseas investors who usually have little interest in the region and little concern for the quality of life there. Governments too, particularly the previous one, are guilty of this lack of concern. Queensland primary producers claim to have suffered a 75 per cent decline in their purchasing power over the past 15 years. They say that their inflation rate is many times higher than that of average wage earners because of gross discrimination against rural and provincial areas in terms of fuel and transport costs. In regard to education and cultural facilities too, provincial Australians are treated as second class citizens. The annual general meeting of the Queensland Division of the Arts Council of Australia recently passed a motion recording its disappointment that the Arts Council there had been forced to reduce its touring program in 1983 because of lack of funds, thus depriving many Queenslanders outside the metropolitan area of access to the performing and visual arts. Its President, Sir Theodor Bray, said: We are greatly concerned that country areas are not getting anything like a fair share of the Arts available to the Metropolitan area. We do not exaggerate when we claim that Queensland, outside the Metropolitan area, will be culturally deprived, unless we get more support. As a member of the Townsville City Council for four years I was constantly reminded of the centralisation of political power in Australia. Brisbane is even more ruthlessly centralised than Canberra was under the previous Government. I know that we will see a change with the new Government. Provincial Australians suffer from a lack of autonomy and have little control over decisions affecting their region. Too many bureaucrats and even, dare I say it in this chamber, some politicians show an arrogant disregard for the needs of people in regions beyond the metropolitan area. Yet it is the wealth and taxes of these regions that help provide so many facilities in capital cities. My concern about the disadvantages of life in provincial Australia is strongly linked with my commitment to equality, that central aspiration of social democratic parties throughout the world. Inequality takes many form-class, race and sex-all of which create great disparities and glaring differences in life chances of individuals. Life chances are also shaped by locality. Socialist thinkers have been aware of this problem of spatial inequality for some time. The renowned Swedish economist Gunmar Myrdal, in Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, wrote: If things were left to market forces unhampered by any policy interferences, economic activities would cluster in certain localities and regions leaving the rest of the country more or less a backwater. More recently, the English Labour economist, Stuart Holland, argued: The regional problem is nothing less than the spatial dimension of inequality. It is an area which socialists have tended to neglect in favour of concentration on inequalities of class and social structure. Yet economic and social opportunities often are determined as much by the region as by the class into which people are born. Obviously it is of absolute priority to me that this Government is committed to the formulation of policies which will overcome the inequalities experienced by provincial Australians. My belief in equality and my concern for provincial Australia both contribute to my commitment to a better deal for Aborigines and Islanders, who make up over 10 per cent of the population of north Queensland. Therefore, as a group, Aborigines and Islanders are as significant demographically in this region as Negroes are in America or Maoris are in New Zealand. The inequalities of class and race meet and are compounded in Aboriginal and Islander communities, especially those on reserves and missions and in isolated outback towns or the fringes of provincial cities. Recent discussion raised by the Medical Journal of Australia has highlighted the appalling levels of Aboriginal mortality and morbidity on Queensland reserves. I further refer honourable senators to a report of a Queensland Government health team which screened the health of school children on Palm Island, a reserve off Townsville, in May 1981, a report which has been passed on to me as additional evidence of chronic health of Queensland Aborigines. The survey concluded that 148 Aboriginal children, or nearly 50 per cent, were stunted in growth and weight by poor nutrition and ill health. Some 73 per cent were clinically anaemic by the standards laid down by the World Health Organisation. Consideration of such shocking health statistics leads to a realisation of the vital importance of greater support for community health programs run by Aboriginal people. That is an essential feature of self- management and is inextricably linked with the question of land rights. I do not wish on this occasion to embark on a detailed analysis of this issue, but I stress that the importance of land to Aboriginal communities cannot be over-emphasised if we genuinely seek to give Aborigines an opportunity to develop self-respect and independence. This is not the view of an outspoken minority but it is supported by a wide range of community and church authorities , including the Lutheran Church of Australia which recently visited Hopevale and Bloomfield communities, both long regarded as the most conservative in Queensland. In its report it concluded: Local Aborigines have an innate and inalienable relationship to their land. Even where they have been legally dispossessed they speak of 'their land' and call areas by the names of their people. They know they have been pushed off and out, and today they are crying for compassionate consideration. The claim for Aboriginal land rights affects less than 2 per cent of Queensland, yet it could provide the basis for self-determination for 10 per cent of its population. Current grim statistics of Aboriginal health and crime demonstrate that paternalistic management of Aboriginal communities is not providing solutions to massive social problems. A new direction must be found, and that involves granting Aborigines the recognition and respect to manage their own affairs. In conclusion, Mr President, I will also place absolute priority on finding new directions to start to overcome some of the inequalities I have described today. In joining this side of the chamber I have absolute confidence in this Government and welcome the proposals presented in the Governor-General's speech. I believe these initiatives will start to move this nation towards providing solutions which will see a more equitable distribution of the nation's resources and a fairer deal for all Australians. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.48) —I congratulate Senator Reynolds on what I believe was an outstanding contribution as a maiden speech in this chamber. I trust that her continuing contributions will be of a similar standard to the contribution which she made this afternoon. Having the opportunity to speak this afternoon which I did not have yesterday afternoon, I join with others who paid tribute to some of those who are no longer with us-Senators such as Neville Bonner and Jim Keeffe, to whom Senator Reynolds made reference this afternoon. I endorse a number of things that were said, particularly what Senator Kathy Martin said about Senator Neville Bonner. But that is not the purpose for which I rise this afternoon; it is to address the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply. In doing so I foreshadow that I shall move an amendment to that motion which reads: At end of motion add: ', but the Senate is of the opinion- (a) that the program outlined in the Governor-General's Speech will result in higher unemployment and represents a callous disregard of the needs of the Australian people; and (b) that the Governor-General's Speech fails to identify a legislative program for the implementation of the policies promised by the Government during the recent election campaign; for instance- (i) it fails to develop a viable blueprint for economic recovery and development, (ii) it fails to honour the commitment to reduce taxation, (iii) it fails to develop any programs for better industrial relations, (iv) it fails to develop any policies for the steel industry or manufacturing industry generally, (v) it fails to honour the commitment to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, and (vi) it fails to provide any specific measures to assist primary producers who are recovering from the drought'. Having foreshadowed that amendment, I start my comments by saying that during the discussion of the matter of public importance this afternoon when Senator Walsh talked about the legacy which the new Government has inherited from the outgoing Government and about a $10 billion deficit I felt that he had become a little more expansive than the expansive promises made during the election campaign to which my amendment is related. Some of those promises have already caused the new Government to attract the stigma of illustrating the difference between promise and performance. The Governor-General's Speech is an identification of the fact that although the new Government promised a great deal during the election campaign it does not propose to implement its promises. I think we need to identify very quickly that everybody, including the former Opposition-the new Government-said there would be a huge deficit. The promises were made in the light of the identification of a huge deficit. There were those of us who talked about $6 billion plus; there were those, including some members of the new Government, who talked about $10 billion. Whether it be one or the other figure, the promises were made in the light of a recognition that circumstances-I do not want to pause to identify them in detail, but they may be summarised as the international trade recession and the drought-had caused a very large blow-out in the deficit and that the Department of the Treasury had not only revised its estimates of the size of the welfare component of the Budget, and increased it substantially, but also reduced its estimates of the revenue component of the Budget. That is where the difference between the $6 billion and the $9.6 billion comes in; it is basically a reduction in the estimate of revenue from $48.5 billion to $45 billion. It may be that the rains, the international recovery and a number of other matters will show those estimates to be inaccurate. I hope for everybody's sake, but principally for Australia's sake, that those estimates are shown to be inaccurate and that in fact the deficit will be smaller than that which was projected by Treasury in late February of this year. In talking about the promises that were made during the election campaign I simply make the point that they were made in the light of a recognition that there would be a huge blow-out in the deficit and that Australia had massive problems. I believe it is important that the Senate draw to the attention of the people of Australia the fact that promises were made-perhaps cynically, perhaps irresponsibly-which will now not be implemented. That is the reason I have attempted to draw attention to some of these promises in the amendment which I shall move. Let me look at some of the points in the Governor-General's Speech. I suppose one should make the point, in case anyone is not aware of the fact that the Governor-General reads a speech which is not his own; it is the speech of the government of the day. The government prepares it for him and he reads it, but it is not his speech. Therefore, in talking about the Governor-General's Speech, I do not want to be taken as criticising the Governor-General in any personal capacity whatsoever. The Governor-General's Speech stated: My advisors have assured the participants at the Summit . . . of the Government 's support and assistance in building upon the foundations laid so successfully at the Conference. I ask: What were the foundations which were laid so successfully at the Conference? Was it really a successful Conference? I wish to refer to a couple of comments made by the media. David Potts, a well known contributor to the Australian, said: And consensus was reached because no decisions of substance were made. He went on to say: The communique was not a contract, and the unions have signed nothing. He stated further: Instead employers have to give a lot away, while the unions gave away nothing. It was also interesting to see the issues that were tackled by the Conference. Let me state what Craig McGregor had to say in the Age of 19 April: . . . one must start listing the economic problems the summit did not tackle: Tariffs? Structural change in industry? Transnationals? Job-replacing new technology? Even wage indexation (shunted off to the Arbitration Commission as ' too hard')? These are the sorts of comments that have been made by the media. I believe these are reasonable and rational comments relating to what was achieved by the Summit. The Governor-General's Speech is based quite substantially upon a premise that the Summit was in some way successful. I ask all honourable senators to get together to try to identify in what way the Summit was successful. Senator Gietzelt —Both industry and labour felt that it was. Senator PETER RAE —Let us try to identify in what way it was successful. I am inviting honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber to respond. I am raising some questions and I am inviting honourable senators opposite to respond, if they wish to do so, as to the way in which they claim the Summit was successful. The media did not think it was. It becomes increasingly apparent to us that the unions did not think it was. We have the type of remark Mr Hodgson has been quoted as making: 'I do not know of any agreement made in relation to increases which was made at the Summit'. The Summit did not reach any agreement. Increasingly a number of trade union leaders are claiming that it did not reach any agreement and increasingly people are analysing the Summit communique and are saying that it did not no more than identify that we all believe in motherhood. It did not really come to grips with what we are going to do about Australia and what we are going to do about the problem. I think an excellent way to identify this would be to quote again from the National Times in relation to the wages pause and the problem that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had after the Summit when he said at his Press conference: 'At no stage was it ever put by me that this summit could be a determiner of how long the wages pause would last or what the circumstances coming out of that pause could be . . .' 'People who've tried to say that in some sense the summit may have been a disappointment because it didn't make those decisions betray, if I may say so, an abysmal ignorance of the constitution and institutions on wage fixing in this country. But as the National Times pointed out to Mr Hawke and to any of its readers: After that put-down we can regard that agenda item (3) (a) . . . listing subjects for discussion at the summit, states under the heading of 'Incomes': duration of the exit from wages pause'. The problem which Mr Hawke had, after the failure of the Summit to come to grips with this, was to try to explain it away. That was his attempt to explain it away. I simply draw attention to it and identify it. If there is an explanation I am sure that honourable senators on the Opposition side of the chamber would like to hear what it is. The Governor-General's Speech went on to say: The Government will develop a program of industrial regeneration to revitalise existing industries and seek new opportunities for growth in areas of high technology. Yet all honourable senators will remember that Mr Barry Jones, the Minister for Science and Technology, was more than a little miffed at the fact that he was not allowed to speak to the Summit Conference and he was not allowed to present a paper. In fact, I would like to quote from what one of our colleagues in this chamber, Senator Chipp, had to say in relation to this. I quote from an article in the Australian of 9 April which states: The Minister's waning-- I think it should be 'warning' but it might have been both- follows Canberra reports that the Cabinet had given low priority to Mr Jones' input to next week's summit which aims at achieveing consensus for a national recovery. . . . . Among the missed-out groups protesting at being snubbed, the ones with greatest potential as future wealth and job creators are the 'sunrise industries'. Senator Chipp is quoted as saying: Muzzling Barry Jones from discussing the employment problems which will be caused by technology will not solve tomorrow's issues . . . 'One is left asking oneself how fair dinkum is the Government in looking at the real problems facing the country and the growing generation.' I can only support Mr Barry Jones in his concern if he was muzzled from participating in the Summit. If the Summit was intended to be a major contributor to the forward directions of Australia then surely one of the single most important things for revitalising existing industries and creating new opportunities for growth would be the application of high technology and the impact of the introduction of high technology into this country. Yet apparently, in fear that it might create some discordant note, the Government did not wish to have Mr Jones talk on that subject. Senator Townley —It is a pity we cannot get a copy of the speech he had written. Senator PETER RAE —I am endeavouring to invite the Government to respond to some of these points. One of the things that the Government might like to do in responding is to give us some of the points that were in the speech, about which Senator Chipp complained when he said: Muzzling Barry Jones . . . will not solve tomorrow's issues. What measures were taken at the Summit to revitalise exisiting industries? I cannot find any in the communique. What measures were announced in the Governor- General's Speech to revitalise existing industries? I cannot find any. I invite the Government to tell us. What high technology industries were mentioned in the Governor-General's Speech, or will be mentioned, as providing a new future? What about the steel industry and the specific problem that Australia faces? We read in the Governor-General's Speech: The Government intends to preserve a viable and efficient steel industry . . . Foolishly and rashly the then Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, said during the election campaign that decisions would be taken in relation to the steel industry within 100 days. That has now been revised. Sensibly, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, has said that this is a promise that will not be kept and that the Government will do this as soon as possible. It is one of the many promises which, increasingly, we are hearing will not be kept. But at the time of the election, in order to encourage people in Newcastle, Wollongong and other areas that were very adversely affected by the downturn in the steel industry, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party said that they would fix up the lot within 100 days. It is just not possible. What we do not know now is what will happen to the $2.8 billion 10-year investment program which the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has outlined. Will the Government encourage that program to go ahead? Will it provide a situation of certainty, or at least a likelihood of certainty of Government approach, which will encourage the biggest Australian company to invest that huge amount of money in preserving the Australian steel industry? I move on to deal with the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The Governor-General's Speech states: The Australian Industry Development Corpor- ation will be given an enhanced status and provided with adequate funds to promote industrial reconstruction . . . We have not heard anything yet from the Government since the tabling of the Auditor-General's report. The Auditor-General has drawn attention to the fact that the AIDC, which the Government apparently believes will be able to be a major instrument in the development of its policies, has spent $360,000 on purchasing an apartment in Sydney to be used by its executives and directors. The Auditor-General's report states: The minutes of the Corporation's Board for 23 July and 24 September 1981 disclosed that the Board had decided to acquire a suitable home unit in the Sydney city area for use as a base by the Chief Executive during his visits to Sydney on Corporation business and for occasional use by interstate Directors. The Board authorised the investment of approximately $360,000 in the provision of a furnished apartment for these purposes. Funds for the purchase of the apartment were subsequently advanced by the Corporation to the subsidiary company AIDC Leasing Pty Ltd which was incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory on 2 November 1981. Quite apart from considerations of the Corporation's legal capacity to purchase a furnished apartment in Sydney, it was considered that the unusual and costly nature of the transaction warranted further examination. I would have hoped that we would have had by now, from a sensitive Government, some indication that it would take some steps in relation to the AIDC and not just simply rely-as the Governor-General's Speech indicated-on the fact that the AIDC would be given an enhanced status and provided with adequate funds to promote industrial reconstruction. The AIDC will not be able to direct the funds in the way in which it was directing them; that is, the $360,000 towards the purchase of a flat which the Auditor-General thought was unusual and costly. Senator Grimes —When was it purchased? Senator PETER RAE —Some time ago. The minutes are for 23 July and 24 September 1981, that is, during the tenure of the previous Government. It is a matter which has been identified by the Auditor-General in his report, which has just been tabled, and a matter of which I would have hoped that the Government- whoever was the government of the day-would have taken some note. Let us look at Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. In the Governor-General's Speech it is stated: The national airline, TAA, will remain in full public ownership. Consideration will be given to the capital needs of both TAA and Qantas and steps will be taken to place them on an improved commercial basis. I imagine that all of us would find that a very acceptable statement. A major problem in Australia for many years has been the undercapitalisation of the commercial statutory authorities. It is ridiculous that we have a gearing ratio of 92 per cent to 8 per cent for Qantas, that is a 92 per cent loan and an 8 per cent equity. It is ridiculous that we have a situation where some of the other statutory authorities are even worse. Our shipping company figures represent a 96 per cent loan to 4 per cent equity, and so it goes. I wonder whether the new Government, having indicated that it is going to provide $60m to Qantas and $ 115m to TAA by way of capital-which I support-will turn around and say, 'That is part of the deficit which the previous Government ran up', or whether it will identify the difference between new programs and old programs. One of the things that I rather fear is that we, the outgoing Government, are going to be blamed, and used as an excuse for a very large number of the things that the new Government is going to do. It will need some excuse and some basis for blaming somebody. The Australian National Line was referred to in the Governor-General's Speech. It stated: The Government is considering steps which might be taken to place the Australian Shipping Commission . . . on an improved commercial basis. Legislation will be introduced to provide financial incentives for the expansion of Australian's shipping industry. I was interested to read an article in the Australian newspaper by Mr John Spiers. He stated: The Federal Government is close to clinching a deal with maritime unions which would result in a capital injection for the Australian National Line comparable with that announced for TAA and Qantas. The important part is the next paragraph. It states: Provision of the extra capital will be conditional on unions agreeing to reduce crew numbers on ANL ships to internationally competitive levels and to discontinue restrictive ship-board practices. I am quite certain that in relation to that matter Senator Grimes, who has made a couple of interjections, and I, will find that there is absolutely no difference. As Tasmanians who have been experiencing the disadvantage which can be suffered by Tasmania as a result of the overmanning industrial agreements which have beset our maritime industry, I have not the slightest doubt that we both believe that it will be highly desirable if the Government can provide a greater amount of finance and a greater amount of capital to the ANL. Let me just caution the Government in relation to the ANL and a number of other statutory authorities. I just use this as an example. If it is a fact that ANL has raised finance through lease arrangements for a large number of its ships and if it is a fact that the Commissioner of Taxation requires that on the termination of a lease there is not any express or implied agreement for the transfer of the property and the goods to the lessee, it may be that the amount which will have to be provided by way of capital to the ANL will be huge and far greater than the sorts of amounts that are being contemplated in any of the speculation that is taking place at the moment. I wish the Government well in providing adequate funds for the commercial authorities to enable them to operate on a proper commercial basis. I wonder whether the new Government is going to tackle the problem of superannuation, the problem of statutory authorities, of the Public Service superannuation scheme and the monster which is lurking in the near background arising out of that. I will not take time to deal with that matter in any more detail. I simply say that Commonwealth superannuation, which applies to the Commonwealth Public Service proper and also to a large number of the statutory authorities is, so far as most of them are concerned, not fully funded and involves an accruing liability to the future taxpayers of Australia. It amounts, by estimate, to somewhere between $2 billion and $3 1/2 billion per annum of accruing liability not funded and not provided for. I would have thought that was a matter of concern and a matter to be grappled with by any government, any time. Senator Robert Ray —Except for a Liberal Government. What did you ever do? Senator PETER RAE —I hope that when we are back in government after the next election we will clean up whatever the present Government has started to do in the meantime. The Governor-General's Speech on industrial relations stated: My advisers believe that better industrial relations are essential in the achievement of national economic recovery. I just wonder what is happening on that matter? We seem to have a fairly major list of the industrial disputes. Any honourable senator can get a report of industrial disputes through the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations made available by the Legislation and Review Division. I do not want to incorporate this document in Hansard because it has 16 pages and it is a little long. But the 16 pages outline almost line by line the major industrial disputes taking places in Australia at the moment. All of them are causing economic loss to Australia and economic loss to employment opportunities. I wonder whether this Government is concerned, as it indicated it was in the Governor-General's speech, that better industrial relations are essential in the achievement of national economic recovery. What is it really doing about overcoming all of the 16 pages of listings of disputes which are taking place in Australia at the moment? One can identify many of the disputes including the shearers' strike and others, which have had disastrous effects. It is in that light that I formally move: At end of motion add: ', but the Senate is of the opinion- (a) that the program outlined in the Governor-General's speech will result in higher unemployment and represents a callous disregard of the needs of the Australian people; and (b) that the Governor-General's speech fails to identify a legislative program for the implementation of the policies promised by the Government during the recent election campaign; for instance- (i) it fails to develop a viable blueprint for economic recovery and development, (ii) it fails to honour the commitment to reduce taxation, (iii) it fails to develop any programs for better industrial relations, (iv) it fails to develop any policies for the steel industry or manufacturing industry generally, (v) it fails to honour the commitment to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, and (vi) it fails to provide any specific measures to assist primary producers who are recovering from the drought'. During the last two minutes available to me I ask two more questions. One concerns penalty rates. I was concerned that when one of the new Government's Ministers raised the question of penalty rates and expressed some concern about it the public debate of that matter was so quickly hit on the head. I think it is a matter of real substance to the future of Australia. Senator Sibraa —Did you read his original speech? Senator PETER RAE —I am not trying to play games. I believe the question of penalty rates is a matter of real concern to Australia and to whether we can make the most of the opportunities for development, including those in the tourist industry. The application of penalty rates in the tourist industry is one of factors which has held back to a major and unfortunate extent the generation of employment opportunities. I hope that the matter will be debated. I am not concerned whether the Minister said what he was reported to have said or whether he said something else; I assert that the appropriateness of penalty rates to a 7-day a week, 24-hour a day industry is something to which we must give thought. We may be simply stopping the creation of jobs by having that sort of attitude. I believe that we should apply ourselves to a number of these questions. We should apply ourselves to some of the positives, not simply the verbiage. What the Governor-General's Speech says is nice, but it does not say anything. Senator Tate —That is an insult to Sir Ninian. Senator PETER RAE —I have already explained that he was simply reading what was provided to him by the government of the day. The problem is that the Speech says all sorts of desirable things, such as 'we believe in motherhood', but it does not indicate how the new Government will go about implementing them. In moving the motion I challenge the Government to tell us during this debate what it will do and how it will go about it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Before calling Senator Cook, I remind the Senate that this is his maiden speech. I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. I now have pleasure in calling Senator Cook. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.18) —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I rise to second the motion moved so ably by my colleague Senator Reynolds. In doing so, Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to pass on my congratulations to the President on his elevation to that office of President. I am sure he will carry out his duties with dignity and distinction. I am pleased to join you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and my fellow senators, as part of a Hawke-led Labor Government. On 5 March the people of Australia ringingly repudiated seven years of Fraserism. Nowhere did that occur more decisively than in the State that I am privileged to represent, Western Australia. In fact, it can be said that Western Australian was twice blessed. The two weeks between 19 February and 5 March-the weeks that herald the change of seasons from summer to autumn-heralded in Western Australia a change of political season from Liberal to Labor. Two weeks before the Federal election the Burke-led State Labor Government came to power. The figures of the vote on that occasion are interesting. Labor achieved 54 per cent of the vote cast, a swing of 7.48 per cent, and now has a seven seat majority in the Legislative Assembly in that State. Two weeks later, on 5 March, in the Federal election Labor improved on that swing, obtaining a swing of 8.2 per cent or 55 per cent of the vote in that State. I believe that a number of observations and a plea should be placed on the record in view of those figures. The first observation I make of them-I think it is appropriate that it comes from a male-is that five of the new Labor members elected in the Western Australian State election are women. All won seats for the first time. Many of them obtained the biggest swings of any of the candidates. For example, Pam Buchanan, contesting the seat of Pilbara-it was said that a woman could never win the seat in that remote mining community- achieved a swing of 18.1 per cent. Jacki Watkins in Joondalup achieved a swing of 15.8 per cent and Pam Beggs in Whitford achieved a swing of 15.1 per cent. In the Federal seat of Canning, Wendy Fatin, who so ably moved the motion for the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech in the House of Representatives last night, achieved the second biggest swing of any House of Representatives candidate in Australia-13 per cent. Some observations can be made about those figures. Firstly, the figures indicate that the affirmative action program of the Australian Labor Party in selecting women candidates is successful. Secondly, the result removes completely and, I believe, for all time any suggestion that women candidates cannot succeed in being elected to office. Thirdly, it may even open the question that women candidates are a positive advantage to the political party they represent. The other point I wish to make- in many respects this may be regarded as a trite point in view of the figures-is that the Western Australian result represents a landslide in both State and Federal elections. It gives Labor a mandate in the State and Federal areas after seven arid years to do something about the economy, to improve the prospects for employment, to turn away the divisiveness that typified the previous Government and to turn the nation towards national reconciliation. Given the election result, the party occupying the Government benches in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly should not be frustrated in carrying forward its program. But already the Opposition in Western Australia has indicated that by use of its numbers in the Legislative Council it may interpose its will against the will of the people as expressed by the election of the Labor Government. Some figures on the gerrymander in Western Australia should be reported. In the Legislative Council in the last election Labor achieved 51.3 per cent of the vote and won seven seats. The Liberal Party, with 45.7 per cent of the vote, won 9 seats. The National Party, with 3 per cent of the vote, won one seat. The metropolitan area, which holds 68 per cent of the electors of the State, has 14 Legislative Council seats. But the rural area, which has 32 per cent of the electors, has 20 seats. Almost 70 per cent of the electors live in the metropolitan area but return only 40 per cent of the members of the Legislative Council. Indeed, the North East Metropolitan Province has 85,906 electors and returns two Labor members. The Lower North Province, which returns Liberals, has 7,199 electors. That shows the graphic distortion. These figures, I believe, define the meaning of the word 'gerrymander'. That conclusion is not only mine. The West Australian newspaper, in an editorial on 2 March headed, appropriately, 'Power games', opined: The Legislative Council, as it is constituted, is an anachronism. Public respect for Parliament cannot be maintained while a key section of the parliamentary system is subject to a gerrymander held in place for base political reasons. The use, or threatened use, of numbers achieved by this electoral means is an exercise in anti-democracy. The Burke Government in Western Australia can consider that it has a mandate. It is in government, but without control of the Council is not in power. The plea I make is this: Let not words like 'fair', ' just', 'equal' or 'democratic' be used in this chamber or elsewhere to describe my State's voting system. Those words are not appropriate when such a savage rape of electoral reason continues to reign in Western Australia. I turn to the Governor-General's Speech. I am pleased to note that after the introduction to the Speech the headings are, firstly, 'The Economy' and, secondly, 'Employment and Industrial Relations'. I will direct my comments to those areas. After seven years of conservative government Labor has come to power with Australia in deep recession-some would say in depression. We have high and sustained home loan interest rates. We have, despite a fight-inflation- first policy, high and double-digit inflation. We have a negative growth rate. We have a $9.5 billion deficit. We have two million Australians, as the Governor -General pointed out, living in poverty. We have, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 10.1 per cent of our work force unemployed. But if one applies to those figures the calculations of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, there are another 5 or 6 per cent unemployed constituting hidden unemployment, putting the real figure of unemployment in Australia at around 16 per cent or well over one million. On all fronts the economy which Labor inherited is deteriorating. Indeed, over the 25 years from 1955 to 1980 Australia fell from No. 5 to No. 12 in standard of living rankings within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development group. As well as that economic chaos we have inherited a loss of national confidence, a confidence that was lost by virtue of the selfishness, divisiveness and confrontation which epitomised the Fraser years. In the two months since Labor has come to power there has been a rekindling of the national spirit. We now have direction. The National Economic Summit Conference last month was an historic event. It was perhaps the most historic event since the Depression. That Summit has achieved a new direction for Australia. It is interesting that the last speaker should ask: What did the Summit achieve? I want to list what I believe, as an observer of that Summit, were some significant achievements. Firstly, the business community has moved to an acceptance, albeit in broad terms, of the prices and incomes policy approach. It has rejected the fight-inflation-first view and adopted the view that we must fight unemployment and inflation simultaneously. There is an acceptance of the need for price surveillance. Indications of support from within the business community for a fair capital gains tax have been obtained. There is overwhelming support for a centralised wage fixing system. There has been acknowledgement of the need to maintain real wages over time and there has been acceptance of the need for restraint from all sections. Two other major developments should be noted. The mystical fascination with the deficit has been addressed in a new light. No speaker at the National Economic Summit expressed the view better than the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Kelty, when in the most admired speech of the Summit he said: However, the size of the deficit in dollar terms is only one aspect. Of greater importance is its relationship to the size of the economy as a whole; that is, the Budget deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product and the size and direction of the change in the deficit compared to the previous year's Budget outcome. In terms of deficit size in relation to the economy Australia, with a current deficit level of about 3 per cent of gross domestic product, is well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 4 1/2 per cent . He went on to quote from Dr Peter Sheehan's view of deficits, a view which I endorse, and concluded: In endorsing that view it should not be taken to follow that we simply believe that the deficit can be set at any level. Therefore we have no difficulty accepting that there will be some necessary limitation on the size of the deficit. However, in recognising that the deficit itself is an objective, we believe that the size of the deficit is not a starting point in any proper analysis. The key question is not so much the amount of the deficit, although of course that is important, but the reason for it. If the deficit blows out, as it did under Fraser because of the drag of the unemployment benefits, handouts and other throwaways, it is a deficit of despair. If it is caused by job creation funds and other stimulatory measures it is an investment in the future. If it is an example of Rooseveltian priming of the pump, it is a deficit of hope. The Summit also endorsed the Government's stand on tax avoidance. Honourable senators may recall that in 1981 Professor Russell Mathews, a consultant on taxation to the previous Government, said: The essential problem is not to make the rich pay higher rates of tax than the poor. It is to make the rich pay any income tax at all. There has recently been some discussion about the potential for tax revolt in Australia. It must be recognised that a massive tax revolt has already taken place, but it is a revolt of business taxpayers against wage and salary earners, of the rich against the poor. Honourable senators will recall that last year Eric Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association estimated that the loss of revenue to the Government through tax avoidance and evasion was marked at the level of $7 billion, and thus a high cost was imposed on all taxpayers to meet the cost that had been defaulted by the evaders and avoiders. The Summit was a start. It needs to be strengthened and developed. It is a start on tripartitism as a need for further direction of our economy. When we look at the economies around the world which traditionally are similar to ours and which are performing better than ours we look at such countries as Austria and some Scandinavian countries. They are distinguished by the presence of a prices and incomes policy. Those countries have unemployment levels of around 2 per cent and inflation levels of around 4 per cent. The objective of the Summit and of the prices and incomes accord reached between the Australian Labor Party and the ACTU is to aspire to that goal and the aim of the Government is to reach that goal. In those circumstances those who chip away at the base of the Summit, deride its achievements or try to undermine its success, chip away at the attainment of that goal for Australia. Before coming to this place I was for 17 years a trade union official. For eight of those years I was Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia and an executive member of the ACTU. Since 1981 I have been a junior vice-president of the ACTU. I want to spend the last moments of this address concentrating on some aspects of industrial relations. Firstly, it should be remembered that Australia has a high percentage of union membership; 56 per cent of our work force are members of unions. Those who attack unions should remember , therefore, that they are attacking a majority of the working community and a majority of the families in Australia. The Government aspires to protect the interests of the majority and of the majority of families. Often the attack on unions takes the view that it is the fault of unions that strikes occur. It is rarely acknowledged, if ever, that the fault often lies on the side of the employers or, as during the period of Fraser Government, on the side of that Government by virtue of its exploitation of industrial relations issues for base political purposes. Rather than attacking the effect of a strike-no one wants them, least of all the workers-the most important question that should be asked is: What causes ordinary Australian men and women to voluntarily forgo income for a certain period in order to achieve some end benefit? If we look at that question we direct our attention to the cause of industrial disputation, not to its effect. The effects have to be considered, but the effects will be resolved only if the cause is resolved. In looking at the cause of industrial disputes I draw attention to a list of priorities. Before I do so, I should say that the whole debate about strike action in Australia tends to ignore one fundamental and more important aspect, that is, that more time is lost to our economy and more damage is done to our citizens by the level of industrial accidents and occupational hazards that exist in the work place than is attributable to strikes. Last year the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Ian Macphee, in an address to the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, said: Australia is shelling out at least $4 billion a year for accidents and injuries in the work place and losing one million man weeks a year. It is interesting that Mr Macphee also admitted that it was the first time the Government had attempted to calculate officially the financial toll resulting from work accidents and occupationally induced sickness. In my view those figures are conservative. If the real calculation were made one would find that twice or maybe three times the amount of damage is done to the economy by accidents and disease in industry than is caused by strikes. If we have a priority to cause industry to establish a base for better development, it is to lower the frequency of accidents and to overcome the impact of disease in industry. That is the starting point and the first point that should be made in any debate about strikes. Let me now turn to strikes and their causes. I believe that there are three major areas. The first is living standards, which I believe is properly answered by the existence of the prices and incomes policy. That does two things of great importance. It guarantees a sense of equity to wage and salary earners who know that they will not be the ones who shoulder the burden of sacrifice on their own to achieve growth in this economy. It also guarantees to them that their reasonable expectations will be realised over time. If people have a sense of confidence and security and are not cast into the market place having to maximise as best they can whatever advantages they have, that feeling of confident expectation, I believe, overcomes the fear that strike action might be necessary lest one's living standards deteriorate. The answer to the first problem is a prices and incomes approach. That is the approach of this Government. The second area is the need for job security. Last year over 50,000 Australians were retrenched. This year the level of apprenticeship intakes is down; there is a slippage of between 25 to 30 per cent in the number of apprentices taken on board by industry this year as compared to last year. Jobs are being lost simply because there is not enough protection for workers against redundancies and there is not sufficient training and retraining to enable people to move smoothly from one area of employment to another. Our level of industrial training and skill is dropping. When the world turns to countries with high levels of skill, which will survive best in a rapidly technological future, it will be to those countries that have invested most in training. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Observer recently reported that the West German Government had set itself a target of training 80 per cent of school leavers to the level of tradesmen. In Japan the objective is closer to 90 per cent. In Australia we train about 29 per cent of school leavers to that level, and that is not true of all States. If we are to provide greater job security we need to invest in training to provide the skills for industry to grow, so that with an increasing technological future jobs will be made available, not go off shore, and Australians will find work. That is a prime consideration. The third area I raise is that increasingly the reasons for strikes cited by the Bureau of Statistics centre on the heading 'managerial policy'. Under that heading a number of things that originate from management occur, and that is the second major cause of strike activity. Again, if we look abroad we discover that those economies similar to ours which do better than us in terms of industrial disputes are distinguished by another feature which is absent from Australia. In those economies an advanced and mature form of industrial democracy is practised , whereas in Australia, by and large, it is absent. We run industry on strict hierarchial control. We do not tap the intelligence and ability of workers to the full. We do not involve them in management decisions or in key aspects of how the activities of a company should be divided, what are the goals of companies and what the needs are to distribute the wealth of companies. In those countries that implicate workers in decisions so that their voices are real and they are not transitory or exploited, industrial disputation falls as management and labour confront each other with a common goal of improving industrial performance for the sake of greater productivity and a greater advantage in the longer term. I note that in this chamber during the last session Senator Siddons introduced legislation in the field of industrial democracy. Whilst I have some reservations about the nature of that legislation, he is to be commended because he made a positive start in that area. I look to this Government, of which I am a part, to continue that action and develop an industrial democracy program that will enable Australian workers to have a say in Australian industry for the benefit of the Australian community. I conclude by saying that all those things are fundamental and important to me but that overall the most important issue is, I believe, that of world peace. We face a world that is sharply divided between the super-powers and in which the arms race grows apace. Since 1981, when President Reagan made his famous pronunciation that a nuclear war is winnable, the idea of nuclear war being winnable is taking root. I think that overriding all the considerations of our community is the need to obtain nuclear disarmament in the world so that all people can carry out their lives dissenting or agreeing between themselves on the basis of a confidence that the world and the community will survive. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.42) —I congratulate Senator Reynolds and Senator Cook on their maiden speeches. I wish them well in their sojourn in this place. This evening we are participating in the Address-in-Reply debate. The Governor- General's Speech heavily emphasised the so-called mandate that the Government was given for consensus, co-operation and reconciliation. Under that mandate the Government held what it labelled the National Economic Summit Conference. The purpose of that Conference, I believe, was to achieve consensus between industries and unions. That is certainly what the Australian people saw as the purpose of the Summit. We were told by Mr Hawke that it was bringing Australians together. As such, I wonder whether it was too much to expect that some of the more difficult questions arising in those areas of major disagreement between business and unions could have been faced and answered. That business and unions did not come to agreement was to me a great disappointment. I will just itemise a few of the areas that I believe should have been faced and on which agreement should have been found. How long was the wage freeze to last? When the Liberal Party was in government it put forward the view that the wage freeze should continue until the end of 1983. The then Opposition disagreed . Mr Hayden opposed the wage freeze altogether. Mr Hawke then said that he thought it might not be such a bad idea. At the National Summit the Government said, as it says now, that it believes that the wage freeze certainly should continue until at least June. But no decision was taken on how long the freeze should last, what should happen at the end of it, whether there should be some sort of catch-up and, if so, when. A decision was made to return to a centralised wage fixing system. With that return, what factors should be taken into consideration when the amount of the increase is to be judged? Should the consumer price index, productivity or some other factors be taken into account? Again, the parties did not come to any agreement on the matter, so no decision was taken. They decided to leave these hard questions to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The parties at the Summit having made that decision, surely they should have then agreed that when the Arbitration Commission came to a decision all parties concerned should at least agree and abide by that decision. But we could not even get that agreement. We know that employers have been bound by the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the past and will continue to be bound by them in the future. They are bound by awards. If they disagree with an award and decide not to pay according to its provisions they are fined. But, of course, the situation is not the same in the case of the other party to an Arbitration Commission hearing. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission can come up with all sorts of decisions, as it has already done in the Builders Labourers Federation case, and with all sorts of conditions, as it has done in the wide combs dispute. The employers are forced to abide by them, but the unions do not. If they do not like a decision they just do not abide by it and that is all there is to it. They go on strike. The Summit handed all the difficult decisions over to the Arbitration Commission. The one major decision that would have helped in that handing-over would have been that all parties must abide by the Commission's decisions when they are made, but the Australian Council of Trade Unions said: 'No, we could not possibly agree to that. There could be no agreement in that regard'. Another one of the main decisions that had to be made, I believe-it certainly was recognised-was that profits needed to rise. The ACTU, the employers and the Government all decided that profits needed to rise if expansion in employment was to be achieved. How was that to be done? How would profits be increased? That is a simple question. Not only did the parties fail to face that issue and come up with any decisions on how profits should rise, even in certain industries; they came to the decision that there should be a prices surveillance mechanism. To anyone, even in this chamber, a prices surveillance mechanism is completely in opposition to the recognised need for profits to rise. The Summit even came out with a mechanism which was contrary to one of its agreed recognitions. Some other matters were brought up in some of the speeches. One was penalty rates. No one was going to face that hard question because the unions would not countenance it, so the Summit could not decide upon the abolition of penalty rates. The need was expressed but the parties could not even talk about it. They could not discuss the 17 1/2 per cent holiday loading either. No decision was taken on that matter. The same applied to the size of the deficit. Good heavens, what has that to do with the Summit? The Summit could not come up with an agreement as to the size of the deficit, yet it was held in order to put the economy of this country on its feet again. The method of taxation-whether increases should take the form of direct or indirect taxation-was not discussed. These questions were all too hard for the Summit and it did not come up with any decisions in this area. Mr Keating certainly expected more. In his opening speech he said: If this Summit is to succeed it will need to do more than put forward proposals that sound like programs . . . but are really only statements of goals-not methods of attaining them. Nothing in the final communique underlines to me or to anyone firm methods of attaining those goals that Mr Keating was hoping might come from the Summit. In contrast to Mr Keating's optimism at the beginning of the Summit, the communique formulated at the end of the Summit states: The Summit stresses that the Conference was never intended as a forum to negotiate the timing or quantum of wage increases. It is accepted that this is a matter for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It was never intended but it could, and certainly should, have come up with the timing of the wage freeze. It should have decided how long the freeze should go on and the quantum of increases to be given at the end of it. Judging by Mr Keating's early comments at the Summit, I am quite sure he expected that sort of decision, at the very least. We could well ask why the Summit did not come up with the answers to these tough sorts of questions. All I can suggest is that the captains of industry were all intimidated by their presence in the chamber across Kings Hall. They were not prepared to be seen to disagree publicly in any way; they were intimidated by the whole affair. I wonder how Sir Peter Abeles, a friend of our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), is feeling now that $115m has been provided as a gift to Trans Australia Airlines in complete opposition to his policy of open and fair competition. The Governor-General, in his speech, claimed: The agreement reached at the Conference contains the basic framework and approach to enable Australia to begin to arrest the serious economic decline and place the economy on a path of sustained, non-inflationary growth. My advisers have assured the participants at the Summit and their representative organisations of the Government's support and assistance in building upon the foundations laid so successfully at the Conference. So we have this final agreement, this final communique. It all sounds like sweetness and light. Yet today Senator Button, when asked about the final communique, said: 'Look, let's get it clear. The important point about that final communique is that it was an expression of changes in attitudes. It is not really an agreement. It is not binding and it is not a legal document.' The crux of the whole Summit is the agreement arrived at. Is that agreement to be abided by or is it just an expression of attitudes by the participants? I am quite sure that the employers are expected to abide by the final communique. They are expected to abide by the decision to return to a centralised wage fixing system. Senator Cook —They agree with it. Senator WALTERS —They were not in agreement with it. The honourable senator had better return to his seat is he wants to interject. They certainly were not in agreement with it, but they did reach a consensus and agree to a return to the centralised wage fixing system. They were also expected to agree to the Government's setting up this price surveillance mechanism. The communique is not a legal document but, of course, the employers will be expected to agree to that . As I have said, Senator Button just says that it is not a legal document. There certainly has been a change of attitudes. Senator Button says the situation just reflects the change of attitudes of the people present at that Summit. There has certainly been a change of attitude since that Summit. At the Summit we had the ACTU agreeing that 'a suppression of sectional claims is essential except in special or extraordinary circumstances proved before the centralised wage fixing authority'. Now the ACTU is backing the oil industry's claim. It is also backing the building union's claim and the $40 a week increase for the crane drivers in the Australian Capital Territory. I wonder why there has been this sudden change of heart by the ACTU. At the Summit it agreed that there should be no sectional interests and now it is backing the oil industry, the building union and the $40 a week increase for the crane drivers in the Australian Capital Territory. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is also backing down and all the ideals of the Summit are crumbling about his feet. Mr Norm Gallagher of the building union can intimidate others and not just the witnesses at the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation. He can also intimidate the Prime Minister of this country and, indeed, has done so because the Prime Minister has now stated that there is room for an increase in the building employees allowance which is specific to that industry and not capable of a flow-on. So Mr Hawke has now succumbed to Norm Gallagher. Why would Mr Hawke say that unless it were the case? Let us look at what the Summit has done for industrial relations. The Summit was held from 11 to 14 April. On 11 April 122 stoppages were recorded. That was before the Summit started. In the week ending 8 April there were 124 stoppages. The Summit did a lot for industrial relations, did it not? Let us look at the statement of accord between the Australian Labor Party and the unions. Page 9 of the accord states: In formulating claims for improved wages and conditions at the national level the unions will have regard to government economic policy and will consult with the Government on the amount of such claims. That refers to conditions and claims. I do not know whether anyone else is aware but I certainly am not aware that the people responsible for those 124 stoppages consulted with the Government. I am sure that with this new Government's decision for open government we would have all been told about it, but I certainly have not been. I do not think anyone else in Australia has been consulted about the reasons for these 124 stoppages or knows whether the Government gave permission for the 124 stoppages. The ACTU has no intention whatsoever of abiding by that accord. No wonder Senator Button is backing off and saying that the communique is not really an agreement and not a legal document but just an expression of attitude, the important point being the acknowledgement of a change in attitudes. If I were Senator Button I would be saying that the Summit really is not binding, that it did not come to any agreement and that it was really just an expression of attitudes by the participants at that Summit. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Order! Before calling the next honourable senator I draw attention to the fact that he will be speaking for the first time in this chamber. I ask, therefore, that he be accorded the usual courtesies. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.0) —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I ask you to congratulate the President and the Deputy President of the Senate on my behalf on their election. I look forward to making my contribution to this Parliament under their guidance. I am very proud to be the first Australian Democrat from Western Australia to speak in the Address-in- Reply debate in this Parliament. Fate and the Senate election system play strange tricks on candidates. In 1977 I achieved what I believed was the highest quota of primary votes of any Senate candidate who did not win a seat. In 1980 we came within 500-odd votes of winning-I believe the closest vote on record-and still missed out winning a seat. Thanks to the continuing support and confidence of the Australian Democrats in Western Australia at our third attempt we were successful. This spirit is typical of Democrats around Australia. Not only are they caring, concerned people but also they have a dedication to this country which is an inspiration to all of us. It is now evident that Australians from all States recognise the value of having a third independent political force in this country. Third parties are not new to Australia. However, the Australian Democrats not only hold the balance of power in the Senate but also offer genuine alternatives to the confrontationism of our political system. My Democrat colleagues and I can and will act positively to break down the polarised nature of parliament. We will continue to act as watch-dogs and we will exercise the mandate we have been given. We will propose alternatives to government policies and we will initiate legislation and debate in areas we believe to be important. The three party system will benefit the Senate and our system of government but most of all it will benefit our constituents as their respect for a constructive, concensus seeking parliament evolves. This Government, according to the Speech by the Governor-General, wishes to make many parliamentary and electoral reforms. These are vitally important. They will continue the democratisation of government. The proposed reforms are also important because they are making Australians think about the nature of our government. In general, it could be alleged that many Australians are not concerned, or aware, of the inequalities and impracticalities of the present system of government. Reforms such as those proposed are valuable because they increase the awareness of the Australian population. The Australian Democrats have introduced to this country, and, indeed, to the world, a new style of participatory democracy. Our democratic method of deciding policies, the election of our leaders by the total membership of the party and the right of any member to initiate policy or constitutional change, has set a pattern for participatory democracy which this country would do well to follow. It is exciting to see that the other new political party making a substantial mark on politics in the English speaking world-the British Social Democratic party-has adopted these methods to develop its own policies. I commend to this Parliament the concept of citizens' initiative which enables a representative group of citizens to initiate legislative or constitutional changes through a system of referendums. I support the Bill of my colleague Senator Mason which would establish this right if a successful referendum followed. In my State of Western Australia only the government of the day can bring about constitutional or electoral reform. A conservative government-from which my State has suffered or benefited, depending on one's point of view-has had absolute control of the Parliament since the day it was first opened. The gerrymandered upper House is a parody of democracy. One can understand the frustration of Western Australian citizens who realise that there is neither a constitutional nor democratic means for them to reform the upper House of that State. The very Constitution itself can be changed at the whim of the parliament of the day without reference to the people. The establishment of the rights of ordinary people to petition for a referendum binding on the Government is a vital step in reforming our political systems across this nation. The Australian Democrats are committed to the introduction to Australia of a new era of industrial democracy. There are many exciting developments in other countries which could be used as a guide to far better industrial relations and to a concept of participatory industrial decision making. We want to enhance both the rights and the job satisfaction of people in the work force. We will pursue the legislation introduced by one of Australia's great exponents of industrial democracy, former Senator John Siddons, I hope with the support of the new Government and the Opposition. The Australian Democrats recognise the values and virtues of a mixed economy which provides for an appropriate system of support for those in need, together with an environment which encourages individual enterprise by individuals and groups. Nonetheless, this country suffers from one of the most restricted, protected anti-private enterprise economic systems in the free world. Governments have not only constrained free and open competition but also have protected large monopolistic enterprises and industries, frequently to the detriment of the smaller enterprises. The Australian Democrats believe the economic wellbeing of Australia rests with individual enterprise, especially small business. In place of constraints and barriers, small business people should be encouraged, given incentives and supported by the Government. The kiss of life to small business not only will revive the most dynamic sector of the economy but also will create jobs and stimulate demand for goods and services. Small business employs 65 per cent of the Australian work force and is growing. To alleviate unemployment it is surely logical for the only expanding area of economy to be nurtured. For far too long Australia has suffered from ad hoc government economic planning. This is partly caused by the relatively short three-year parliamentary term. That period is shorter for some governments. It is apparently endemic to our system that even if the government does engage in long term indicative planning for its own purposes the rest of the community is denied access to this information. No major enterprise would survive very long without long term plans. It is imperative that the governments of Australia provide the economic guidelines within which Australian enterprise must function . I welcome the dissemination of information by this Government and its moves to introduce indicative planning for a number of industries. The Australian Democrats would like to see these moves extended and co-ordinated by a small, open and independent agency. We have little cause to be proud of the actions of some Australians within our own country. Australia is one nation and yet a minority wishes to see Australia divided. This minority has argued, for instance, States rights in regard to the Franklin Dam issue. It is not a States rights issue; it is an Australian issue; it is an environmental issue. In the past decade we have witnessed a resurgence of national feeling and cohesiveness. It is a shame that this should be destroyed by the inappropriate use of States rights arguments. The States do have powers and responsibilities and they have fulfilled a valuable role. Notwithstanding the nature of the States, government needs to be brought closer to the people. Power needs to be dispersed from national and State levels to a level much nearer to the grass roots of Australia. Local government needs to be more effectively used for instance. Regionalisation and decentralisation will be a positive step in beginning to develop Australia's most important resource, our people. Australians are the most valuable asset Australia has. We need to develop and nurture this human capital and ensure that it is utilised to its fullest extent. In particular, we need to examine education-its role, its content and its funding. Education is an investment in the future. If Australia is to reap its rewards we need to invest heavily now. Tertiary and post-secondary educational institutions are catering for more students yet their funding is not being increased correspondingly. More funds are not the only answer, however. The nature of education itself must be examined. Students cannot benefit from tertiary and post-secondary education if they are mistrained or discarded by inappropriate secondary schooling. Likewise, primary and pre-primary education are vital building blocks in developing our human resource. But education is more than buildings and teachers. The Government has a duty to create a national environment within which learning and personal development are encouraged. Education has to grow hand in hand with high technology in this country. As society adapts to high technology Australians, both young and old, must also adapt. The use of computers and the development of a technological awareness need to become an integral part of every Australian's preparation for future years. High technology must become a tool rather than a master. This will occur only through increased knowledge, awareness and experience. The education system , therefore, has a crucial role to play. Individuals must be valued more than technology. Technology must be developed and employed but not to the detriment of individuals. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that technology does not create a society in which people are increasingly superfluous. The importance of the individual is paramount. Technology must be adapted to aid the growth and aspirations of society and those within it. Unemployment, particularly among young Australians, is a problem related to both education and high technology. Unemployment is Australia's greatest social problem. Unless both education and high technology are developed with an awareness of this problem the social cost to Australia will be immense. The status of the individual must be lifted. In modern society there is a frightening tendency for the individual to be subordinated to supposedly more important institutions and necessity. The basic human rights of every Australian must be formally recognised and entrenched by all governments. Australia must have a Bill of individual rights. History-even current events-has demonstrated that elements in our society ignore and suppress those rights. Discrimination must end, particularly in relation to race and sex. Australians must be encouraged, educated and, if necessary, even coerced into stopping discrimination. The plight of the Aboriginal peoples must be redressed and handicaps imposed by society on those people must be removed. Australians and the Australian Government must increasingly recognise the value and status of individuals. We must be aware of handicaps-physical, economic or as a result of discrimination- and be prepared to act to redress the inequalities that do exist. Every person, no matter what disadvantage he suffers, should be able to participate in and be a valuable member of our community. Individuals while having rights also have responsibilities. Each and every Australian has a responsibility to fellow Australians and to future generations of Australians. This responsibility is becoming increasingly recognised in regard to the environment. It is every Australian's responsibility to ensure that the Tasmanian South West wilderness area is preserved for future generations of Australians and the rest of the world. It is pleasing to note that a majority of Australians already acknowledge this responsibility. Similarly, we must protect other portions of our national heritage such as our rain forests, waterways and endangered coastal areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Cockburn Sound-in my State-and our rare timber forest areas such as the beautiful jarrah and karri forests in Western Australia. It is our responsibility, as Australians, to ensure that apart from research and medical purposes nuclear energy is never used in this country. This country has the resources and the expertise never to need nuclear energy or a nuclear fuel industry of any kind. Nuclear waste is a legacy which we cannot leave to future generations. I am pleased that the new Government has acknowledged the debts that we owe to other Australians and our children. The Australian Labor Party has come to government with long-overdue initiatives and reforms. The Government it replaced had become complacent and was not responding adequately to the needs of Australians. The reputation and economy of Australia and the great individualism of Australians has grown as our rural and mining areas in the back blocks of this country have thrived. But as a nation we have been inclined to take from our rural and mining areas all of the benefits without returning an adequate share to the people who live and work in those areas. This is not simply a matter of compensating people for living in difficult environments-in fact many Australians far prefer those environments to the city lifestyle-but rather a matter of recognising our national need to enhance the quality of life in those areas. The people with the courage, fortitude and initiative to work in those areas will have children with the same qualities. Those children must be given the avenues currently denied them but which are available to childen in city areas. The women in rural and mining areas are renowned for their resilience, their ability to tolerate hardships and their initiative. It is not acceptable to take advantage of these qualities and simply let these people provide the wealth of the nation without reaping, at the very least, rewards equal to those who live in the cities. Whilst Australia has an adequate health service system, so much emphasis has been placed on the economic and repairing aspects of our health system that we have tended to ignore the urgent need for all governments to encourage the concept of preventive health. I believe that by fostering sport and other health giving activities, by educating for better eating habits and improved lifestyles , the people of Australia will live happier, healthier lives. From the economic point of view the cost of health repair will gradually decline. One can understand that given the choice of spending millions to put out the fire of bad health today, a government may not be inclined to spend additional millions on preventing that fire from starting. This is one of the difficulties which any government has to face up to: Is it willing to invest in the short term for benefits which will accrue to a subsequent government, maybe decades later? I hope that this Government is not so short-sighted as its predecessors and will move the emphasis towards building good health for all of our people. I commend the new Government's proposed programs, its attitude that there is much to be done within Australia and that it is time for initiatives and reform. While there are some ALP initiatives and policies with which I do not agree, I applaud the spirit of co-operative development that the new Government has already shown. I have but one reservation. Will this new Government ossify, as did the old Government? Will we see the spirit of initiative develop into a docile air of complacency? Will the concern of this new Government degenerate into a lack of concern and an acceptance of the status quo? Only time will tell. Australia has had a breath of fresh air. It is vital that this breath does not slowly fade and become stale, that Labor in its turn does not pursue power for power's sake. Australians, with people around the world, are becoming increasingly aware of a number of global issues. Environmental issues are becoming more important, but nuclear power and nuclear weapons are the issues of greatest concern. The campaign for nuclear disarmament celebrates its twenty-fifth anniversary this year when its support is at its peak. The concern for peace is becoming so great that the average person is becoming aware of and involved in anti-nuclear movements. The Greenham Common women's peace camp is an example of the growing concern and growing fear. It is a concern that has prompted Australians also to march and demonstrate. It is imperative that the proliferation of nuclear arms be halted. A nuclear war threatens civilisation itself. The Black Death, the fate of the Roman Empire, the Thirty Years' War would be nothing compared with the effect of even a limited nuclear war. In addition the establishment of nuclear-free zones must be encouraged, particularly in the Indian Ocean. The nations around the Indian Ocean have little to gain from the presence of nuclear weapons. However, the world has much to gain from the establishment of a large nuclear weapon-free area of the globe and Australia, of course, has a vested interest in such a zone. While the Indian Ocean nuclear-free zone is only a concept, Australia has with other nations maintained another peace zone which has had reality for 22 years. I refer, of course, to the Antarctic Treaty. This was established as a zone free from military activities, and has encouraged international scientific research and co -operation. It appears that this 30-year treaty will be successful for the whole period. It is hoped the new treaty which is being negotiated will be as successful. Australia has helped to achieve one nuclear-free zone and it is crucial that we combine with other nations to create others. We Australians should be proud of our participation in the Antarctic Treaty. I am sure that honourable senators will understand the concern of a Western Australian when the topic of defence is discussed. Our State has the longest coastline of any in the Commonwealth. It is vulnerable to drug importation, illegal immigration and criminal infiltration. A fleet of relatively small, fast , quickly deployed naval vessels providing surveillance around our coastline would be preferred to, for instance, a single aircraft carrier, wherever it might be deployed. Probably no other country has the opportunity and the environment Australia has to develop a great multicultural society. With our abundant resources, our ample living space, our generally tolerant society and our many established networks- such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Special Broadcasting Service and our sporting and cultural networks-Australia is uniquely placed. The enrichment of the Australian lifestyle, through the infusion of some of the world's oldest and richest cultures, has set a pattern from which Australians and the world can benefit. The Australian Democrats will support and encourage in every way possible the development of attitudes throughout our society which enourage Australians from other cultural backgrounds to bring their cultural wealth with them. At the same time they can adapt to those parts of our lifestyle which suit their needs. Thus, our new citizens will enrich our society , give to their children the values of two cultures and obtain a fulfilment they would otherwise lose were they compelled to reject their former culture. The Australian Democrats bring to this Parliament a truly reformist attitude. Let me be clear. Our nation has existed in an international backwater for years while other progressive, reform governments have overtaken us. The Governor- General has indicated in his Speech that the new Government plans some long- overdue reforms. We need bold innovations. We need a spirit of constructive co- operation and a new inspirational level of political integrity. My Democrat colleagues and I intend to ensure that the Government fulfils its responsibilities to all Australians. I shall try not only to be a prompter and a watchdog but also to present initiatives to this Parliament. The very presence of Australian Democrats in this chamber is a sign that the Australian people want traditional confrontationist politics to be replaced by a consensus- orientated approach. Australians need to work together to face the challenges which lie before us. If Parliament can lead all Australians in working for the good of this nation and the individuals who comprise it, it will fulfil its responsibility to the whole nation. I and the Australian Democrats will do our best to achieve this end. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Sitting suspended from 6.26 to 9 p.m. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.17) —I move: That the Senate requests the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to initiate a new program for young people aged 16 to 21 years to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment in this age group by: (a) the introduction of permanent part-time work without penalty in the form of reduced unemployment benefits; (b) encouraging businesses and unions to co-operate in making at least one work place per enterprise available, worked on a roster basis, for young unemployed people; and (c) providing many more part-time and full-time educational and training opportunities for unemployed people. I think this is the first initiative in the new Senate to deal specifically with unemployment, although the previous Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes ) did mention it from time to time during his comments in the previous debate. It is no accident that it is an early initiative from the Australian Democrats. We stressed heavily throughout the last election campaign that the major problem of this society is unemployment, especially youth unemployment, not only for the obvious economic reasons but also because of the enormous social impact on so many young people who finish their education and are then told that society has no work for them and no need for them. They are told to stay at home, presumably to medidate on their predicament. If they use their time to go to the beach; bush walk or anything like that they risk being labelled as dole bludgers, although I am very pleased to find that that word is being used less and less in society. Senator Teague —It is an overstatement. Senator MASON —Indeed so. This situation is absolutely intolerable for young people. It is something like road accidents, an intolerable situation to which we have somehow accommodated ourselves. We talk about it endlessly, preferably in general terms, so that we do not actually have to do anything. It has caused unnaturally high rates of illness and mental breakdown among young people. It has also increased the suicide and crime rates. These things are well established by a large variety of authorities. They are now beyond doubt. I suggest to honourable senators, through you Mr Acting Deputy President, that we should not be surprised at that. We should understand that these evil manifestations are intrinsic to the situation. The problem is, of course, urgent because of those things. It is quite possible to ignore or overlook individual tragedies, but by ignoring them we do not remove the fact that they exist and continue to happen or mitigate to any extent the suffering that they cause. The Australian Democrats have patiently waited out the various talkfests with which the Government has occupied its time so far. The National Economic Summit Conference was of course useful. It had its values in general terms but I have perceived nothing it has done to solve specific problems in this society which urgently require solution. The other talkfest, the Constitutional Convention, appears to have been a complete disaster and an utter waste of time and public money. However, it is of interest that the Summit promised co-operation and consensus between the unions and employers on our problems. The time has now come for the Government to put those fine words into action and get something done. We appeal to it to tackle the area of youth unemployment immediately and in certain specific directions with which we believe it would not entirely disagree. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.0) —I support the motion before the Senate and the amendment that was proposed earlier today by Senator Peter Rae on behalf of the Opposition. That amendment rightly draws our attention to the very considerable difficulties which arise when one closely examines the Governor- General's Speech. I should make clear one thing at the outset; that is, that the Governor-General's Speech is prepared for him by the present Government and does not contain his own words. Consequently, any reflection that I might make upon his Speech tonight cannot be read as a personal reflection upon the Governor- General. I hope that Senator McIntosh, who is attempting to interject, will be very wary of this. I hope that he has his Standing Orders before him should I do that. A number of issues arise out of the Governor-General's Speech upon which I would like to comment although they were ably dealt with by Senator Rae in his remarks earlier this afternoon. Before I attack some of those points I would like to have a look at some of the issues which are concerning my own State of South Australia, the State I represent in this place. One would know from a coursory understanding of the economic scene at the present time that South Australia is suffering substantially from the economic recession. One of the reasons for that is that it has a very heavy manufacturing industrial base. That has been understood by successive State and Federal governments. We know that the reasons for its development have been organic but it has also been brought about by various government policies over the years, in particular, of course, the non-regard for very essential, economic facts of life by State governments, starting from about 1970 onwards, led by successive Labor Premiers. I refer in particular to the Dunstan Government in the period from 1970 to 1979. During that time some of the concerns which had developed in South Australia- they were quite clearly pursued by former State governments, particularly the Government led by that Premier of South Australia, Sir Thomas Playford, who sought to keep the costs of manufacture in South Australia lower than other States-led to an industrial boom. Subsequent State governments did not have regard to those factors. They tended to concern themselves with things such as social issues rather than the basic facts of life which were the determining factors in the quality of life of all South Australians. We saw a divergence from these essential factors to other concerns on the part of the State Government of South Australia. The net effect was a gradual decline in the state of efficiency of South Australian industry. That certainly is a very broad statement and obviously there are exceptions. Clearly, some industries and particular firms in South Australia have developed very forward looking policies in manufacturing. It might be said by some that they are far more forward looking policies than those in other States. I can instance firms such as the Simpson Pope organisation and Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd which have developed very forward looking policies, both in regard to industrial relations and production techniques. Those things have helped to maintain job stability and improve the job situation in South Australia. But clearly there remain very real difficulties while there is such a heavy investment in that industrial base in my State. In recent times we have been searching for alternative industrial bases upon which to develop job opportunities for South Australians. The former Liberal Government under Dr Tonkin spent considerable time, energy and funds in searching for minerals. This has been going on for some years and it cannot be claimed that this happened only under the Liberal Government after 1979. But obviously the incentives and encouragement given by people in the Liberal Government of that time brought about substantial investment in various areas in South Australia. One instance, of course, is the Roxby Downs project which has already been an enormous fillip for the potential development of the State. It has lead to 300-odd jobs being created at Olympic Dam. Other uranium developments are also on the drawing board. I might mention the hapless Honeymoon project and the Beverley project in South Australia which are now under very considerable threat as a result of the decision of the State Labor Government in recent times. I draw to the Senate's attention the position in regard to the Honeymoon project. Most honourable senators would know that considerable development work has been undertaken by CSR Ltd and its partners in relation to the development of the Honeymoon project. With the advent of the Federal Labor Government on 5 March a new policy in relation to uranium development has been formulated, directly as a result of Federal decision making . I refer in particular to the announcements made by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) which have led to the very clear understanding that, in the event of any new project being got under way, no uranium export licences will be granted to the miners of uranium. That has been the stated policy of the Australian Labor Party in the federal sphere. Of course, Senator Walsh, upon coming to office, has applied that policy . He has applied it to the detriment of my State of South Australia. He has deliberately caused people to be disemployed in the uranium industry. This lowers the potential for the development of other job opportunites in other parts of the State, not just those jobs which could be related to the mine itself. All honourable senators know that enormous spin-off opportunities arise from mining. Not merely those few people actually engaged in mining are the main beneficiaries of job opportunities. Those who can be engaged to provide facilities, services, engineering know-how and back-up are the main beneficiaries of this kind of development. South Australia badly needs that kind of support and development as it has the second highest percentage of unemployment of all the Australian States. For that reason honourable senators on the Opposite side of the chamber take a very dim view of the deliberate implementation of policies by the present Hawke Government which have led to fewer job opportunites in South Australia, not more as the Government promised before the election on 5 March. There is very real concern about that matter in South Australia. It is not all the fault of the Federal Labor Government. In fact there have been very considerable disincentives and the destruction of confidence in South Australia as a result of the Bannon State Labor Government having made similar decisions about the Honeymoon and Beverley projects. There is very real widespread concern in the State about the potential for resource development. The development of those resources is absolutely vital to the establishment of an alternative industrial base in South Australia. We do not require a total change from what exists at present but we need to complement it, to provide opportunities by which we can develop the State and create an inflow of people such as existed in the period preceding the advent of State Labor governments from 1970 onwards. The people of South Australia are seeking that kind of opportunity. I am sure that when they voted both in the State elections in November and in the Federal election in March they did not fully comprehend the results of their actions in supporting the election of Labor governments. I do not believe that they understood that so many jobs and potential jobs would be lost in South Australia as a result of the advent of a Federal Labor Government and of a State Labor Government. It is not to overstate the case too much to say that those opportunities which did exist before November last year do not exist now. As Liberal members on this side of the House we want to see the State go ahead. We are prepared to work for that. We will be working as hard as we can for that reason to see the election of Liberal governments both at State and Federal levels, governments which will be committed to the development of the States, which will be committed to the resource development of the State and which will be absolutely committed to job creation in South Australia to provide opportunities for the young people who are leaving school even at this time. It is those opportunities that we will be working to. Senator Kilgariff —Could this be because Roxby Downs and the other resources are not being developed? Senator MESSNER —Roxby Downs is one aspect of this whole problem. Of course, job opportunities have already been wasted at Beverley and at Honeymoon as a result of the Australian Labor Government's policies. It is a very sad thing to represent my State of South Australia in this Federal Senate and to see governments, both at State and Federal levels, so committed to the destruction of job opportunities for young people. Senator Kilariff-Yet they have the resources. Senator MESSNER —Yes, they have the resources and yet they, for so long in the election campaigns at both State and Federal levels, argued that they were the only ones who were concerned about young people. They claimed that they would create 500,000 jobs in three years and yet the first thing they did in coming to power-particularly in regard to my State-was to destroy jobs. That is the reason why this Federal Government and the Bannon State Labor Government will not be in power very long and will not have the support of South Australians. I will move to one or two other points that were raised in the Governor-General's Speech. I would like to draw attention to one particular point because of my own personal interest over many years in small business. Specific reference has been made in the Governor-General's Speech to the small business area. I will read one part of that statement which points out the Labor Party's interest in this area. It states: My Government . . . to ease the tax burden as budgetary circumstances permit and to improve managerial skills. I hope that the Government will start first by improving its own managerial skills, particularly those of the political government and the members who occupy the treasury benches both in this place and in others. In the last six or eight weeks that the Government has been in power we have seen no evidence at all of any managerial skills evolving. In fact, its only defence in trying to achieve anything at all is to blame everything upon the former Government. Senator McIntosh —That is where the blame should be. It created it. Senator MESSNER —Here we go again. In other words, the Government is not prepared to face up to its responsibilities. The first lesson that any small businessman learns is that he has to face facts straight in the face and make firm and hard decisions. This Government is not prepared to do that. That has been obvious from the events over the last eight weeks. It is clear that the Government is committed to making no decisions and is blaming us from here on for what it perceived to have been the problems which were created as a result of our period of government. It is totally false. We will demonstrate that fact in the course of this debate in the next few days. I will just make this point about small business. The Labor Party campaigned before the Federal election on the basis that it was going to immediately lift the tax burden for small business. A specific promise was made which was that small private companies would have undistributed profits tax abolished. For years many of us have stood in this place and argued for that. It is a very important incentive for small business to have that profits tax abolished. But what is the first thing that the Government does when it comes into office? It reneges immediately in the Governor-General's Speech by saying that it-it is not even specific about it-will relieve the tax burden as budgetary circumstances permit. This is a pathetic performance. The Government conned people into believing that it was really interested in small business. For the first time in history, in living memory that I can recall, did a spokesman ever mention anything specific about the problems of small business-that came from the Labor Party-or even understand what undistributed profits tax was? As soon as the members of the Labor Party reached the Government benches they reneged on that promise. Unfortunately the Governor-General's Speech is seeded with lots of these kinds of reversals. Where the people of Australia expected action they got review. The Speech is sprinkled with words like 'review' or 'will be considered' or 'is under consideration' or words to that effect. Clearly, as I mentioned to Senator McIntosh earlier, this Government is a non-decision making government. It is not prepared to face the hard decisions. It is not prepared to face up or ship out. It does not understand businessmen and in particular small businessmen who have to live with hard decisions every day and have to make them in the light of economic circumstances and get on with the job. We wait with interest to see what this Government will do as Senator Peter Rae so ably pointed out during the debate on the steel industry and the manufacturing industry generally. This was pointed out in the amendment to the motion for the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech which Senator Rae has moved in the course of this debate. I will move to one other particular area of interest in which I have had involvement in recent times; that is, in connection with veterans' affairs. As the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs I instituted a total review of the repatriation legislation towards redrawing the whole legislation, set up the machinery for that and established committees of veterans' organisations to review the situation in conjunction with departmental sources. Senator Kilgariff —Which they obviously supported us in. Senator MESSNER —They very obviously supported us in that endeavour. Clearly, this Government in its statement is going to proceed with that endeavour. I am very grateful that Senator Gietzelt has seen fit to continue that policy. I am surprised to see it in the Governor-General's Speech as something of an initiative which he has somehow proposed. The fact is that it is an ongoing event, having been established during our period of office. I am surprised that he is prepared to claim that as an initiative. It is one of the very few initiatives in the Governor-General's Speech. One other matter that I would particularly like to mention is the Darwin-Alice Springs railway. This is an act of faith in the future of Australia. The former Government committed itself to the building of a railway which would link Adelaide and of course the southern cities with the most northern capital, that is Darwin. It is an adventurous project. It is obviously an event for the future which will lead to great economic and other social and cultural benefits for the whole of Australia and not only for South Australia or for the Northern Territory. It is one which, I believe, has the full support of the Australian people. It is a costly project. As I understand it, the current estimate is for a cost of about $530m. But investment in such a project is worth while. We all understand what it means to commit that amount of money and faith to such a project from a standpoint of defence and economic development in the north and in other places. I am sure that my good colleague Senator Kilgariff, who represents the Northern Territory in this place, is as keen as I am to see that project proceed. Senator Kilgariff —For the benefit of Australia. Senator MESSNER —For the benefit of the whole country, as Senator Kilgariff points out so eloquently and well. The project has one specific advantage, of course, in relation by my State of South Australia. In recent times, as Senator Maguire, Senator Crowley and Senator Elstob know, a railway manufacturing steel plant has been developed at Whyalla, with an investment of $40m. Obviously, the plant needs this kind of work. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has committed considerable sums to that development, with the prospect of manufacturing rails for use in this railway project. Apart from that, of course, there are spin-offs in other directions, such as work opportunities in South Australia, apart from the future benefits, economic and otherwise, that will arise from the railway going ahead. I point out that the project will give South Australians job opportunities which will lead to future benefits for the whole country. This is really what federalism is all about. It is what this Senate stands for, and it is why we are here. It is a most significant project in terms of utilising at present unused resources for the benefit of South Australians. That should have the bipartisan support of all senators in this place-Liberal, Labor or Australian Democrat-who come from my State. I hope that a joint view will be put forward by both Labor and Liberal senators for the benefit of our State. I look forward to working with my Labor colleagues, particularly, on this matter in the months ahead. The project must proceed. It is an important project, as has been pointed out so well by Senator Kilgariff, for the whole country. I hope, too, that the opportunities that derive from that type of development will in future lead to other opportunities for co-operation between States at all levels. I conclude by referring briefly to the National Economic Summit Conference. It is fairly clear that the Summit was a great success from the public relations point of view. We all understand that people can best solve their problems by getting together and talking. Essentially, that is what a parliament is all about. It is essentially what any conference or convention of people or similar interests is about. The Summit, in that sense, brought together people from different backgrounds, with different points of view, who worked together to obtain a better understanding of each others' points of view. My concern is that it did not have adequate representation from groups such as the unemployed and the poorer sections of our society or a broader representation from small business groups. One can perhaps pick nits about that. I do not intend to do so. But it needs to be observed that the Summit did not totally represent all views in this country. For that reason I believe that it has given us a serious reason to gain an understanding of what the Summit meant. The communique which has emerged from the Summit points out several matters which were discussed. This means only that they were discussed. Considerable difficulties have emerged in gaining the agreement of the trade union movement to some statements in connection with wage and social welfare policies. It is clear that the document certainly did not contain any accord which somehow brings Australia together, to use a phrase that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) spreads. For those reasons we need to be very careful about that document. We need to understand its limitations and what it really means. I believe that it gives us a base for further discussions in this place and for the development of further policies, particularly in wage areas. It gives us a springboard for a broader understanding of the economic problems which this Government and this Parliament face. I return to my original point; that is, that this Government needs to make decisions, not try to obtain views which are consensual in the ways in which it apparently intends to do so. In the end, it is that decision which will make this country move ahead. The Opposition and the people of Australia are waiting for those decisions. I say, with the best will in the world, that all we are getting from the Government at the moment is confusion at just about every level of government activity. For the reasons which I have outlined in my remarks, I strongly support Senator Peter Rae's amendment to the motion for the Address-in- Reply to the Governor-General's Speech. It has the full support of all Opposition senators. The PRESIDENT —Before calling Senator Crowley, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that this is her inaugural speech in the Senate. I ask all honourable senators to extend to her the normal courtesies. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.28) —Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to make my maiden speech in this Senate chamber. I am particularly pleased to be the first Australian Labor Party woman from South Australia to join the Federal Parliament in either the Senate or the House of Representatives . In 1894 South Australia was the first State in Australia to have the vote for women. I am appreciative of the honour and privilege of my election on behalf of the voters of South Australia. I thank them for their support at the recent election. I am delighted to be one of the 13 women in our Government-seven in this place-and I look forward to working with them, as well as with the other men and women in this Parliament. I take this opportunity to thank the Labor Party in South Australia not only for my pre-selection but also for the continuing support from my Labor colleagues and so many members of the branches and unions of the Labor Party in South Australia throughout last year and the recent campaign. As a long time member of the women's policy committee in the Labor Party in South Australia I am very aware of the special support of many women, not only for me personally but also for the general gain for women in the community which my election represents. I thank them, too, for their ability to celebrate. The election night was not only a great win and a great party; it was also a very joyous one. Another group of special people whom I wish to thank are my previous work mates in the Clovelly Park Community Health Centre, in the Flinders Medical Centre, in the Department of Primary Care and Community Medicine, in the Mothers and Babies ' Health Association and on the Mental Health Review Tribunal. I thank the many people in the community which these various work situations enabled me to meet and help. My work mates practised a fine tolerance for me as a political candidate. I might add that they provided a wonderful training for this place as it gradually became clear that original roles were reversed and that I was required to practise quite some tolerance of their many views and ideas of what my party or I should do. However there was little tolerance for what the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, was doing which distressed so many of the people we all saw. Increasing unemployment, rising interest rates, rising inflation, and the rising human misery of parents, of children and of so many in our community were never matters for tolerance. A very special thanks goes to my family, to my husband and my three sons, for their continuing support, care and enthusiasm about having a senator in their house. Their timely reminders about domestic realities, and their occasional achievements in making me a listener, again provide excellent grounding and practice for this place. While I am not sure whether my colleague Senator Maguire or I have actually taken former Senator McLaren's place in this chamber, after hearing last night's speeches and knowing Geoff McLaren as I do, I know that neither Senator Maguire nor I could replace him. I wish him well in his retirement and hope not to contribute to the adjournment debates as I understand was his wont. During my campaign I used the theme of bread and roses. This is the title of a song, the words and origins of which are in the International Workers of the World song book. I would like to read the words of that song to this Senate-I resist the temptation to sing it: As we come marching, marching in the beauty of the day, A million darkened kitchens, a thousand mill lofts gray, Are touched with all the radiance that a sudden sun discloses, For the people hear us singing: ''Bread and roses! Bread and roses!'' As we come marching, marching, we battle too for men, For they are women's children, and we mother them again. Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes; Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses! As we come marching, marching, unnumbered women dead Go crying through our singing their ancient cry for bread. Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirts knew. Yes, it is bread we fight for-but we fight for roses, too! As we come marching, marching, we bring the greater days. The rising of the women means the rising of the race. No more the drudge and idler-ten that toil where one reposes, But a sharing of life's glories: Bread and roses! Bread and roses! Millworkers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in 1912 went on strike when their campaign for shorter hours, from 60 hours per week, was agreed to but matched with a corresponding wage cut. The workers, mostly women, during their strike action carried placards saying: 'Give us bread but give us roses too'. The song I have read was written later to commemorate that strike action and the sentiments on those placards. These words capture exactly what I want to offer as my contribution to politics . This is because the bread and roses must go together, not bread first and roses later. For me roses are an integral part of the bread. I can best illustrate this by an example of a political prisoner. A person may have adequate food, clothing, shelter, a bed to sleep in and even books and paper, but the loss of freedom means a starving heart. The bread does not compensate for the loss of roses. When the Schools Commission was established it visited many schools to establish which places were of what standard and which had a claim on priority money. Sometimes the Commission visited in response to requests for visits; sometimes in response to curious requests. One school in inner suburban Sydney was quite awful: Red brick, high walls, barbed wire and broken glass on top; ashphalt ground; toilets too few, too ancient and too foul; surrounded by factories; tiny, dank and depressing. What that school particularly wanted was ' something beautiful in this place for the kids who come here, like a tree in the school yard' give us the roses while we are getting the bread. Many people in our society need welfare assistance of one sort or another and have to go to various welfare offices or Commonwealth Employment Service offices or Social Security offices, or sometimes all of those. What often happens to people in this situation is quite appalling. They become numbers or card holders or are told: 'Just a minute, we will get your file'. They are confused, bewildered, often very anxious and even fearful; and the system is impersonal and dehumanising. People are encouraged to be grateful and dependent: They get the bread without the roses. The Liberal Government under Mr Fraser certainly encouraged those attitudes, in particular by setting levels of payment that were so low that people survived rather than lived. Sometimes I think these people are like the political prisoner that I mentioned earlier. They are prisoners under a social welfare system and their hearts are starved of dignity, of independence, and of their right to be able to make choices or to exercise any power over their own lives. The quality of people's lives is very much part of what bread and roses means. The rose as a symbol captures my imagination. To me the rose is a symbol of strength, of beauty and of passion. It is the symbol of the Socialist International. It represents vigour, depth, power and justice and it has its thorns as well as its flower. It says that what it represents must not be trivialised. One of the roles in our society which is constantly trivialised is mothering. To me mothering is very much about strength and passion, and about thorns as well as flowers. It is not the image often portrayed on television or the sentimentality of many Hollywood movies. It is the story of our parents and grandparents and of women down time who have born and bred the next generation. I want to stress that I am talking not about competition between men and women but about exactly the opposite; it is a coming together of the two, or many, different points of view. This Government offers the possibility of and the way for change in our society. It holds out promise, and that is why many young women now support this Government. One of our tasks is to make sure that women get a hearing and are equally represented so that our Party is a truly representative one. Our Government has always pressed for social justice and rights for all Australians. As a senator my main task is to represent that government policy to and for all South Australians. The bread and roses theme highlights the perspective and emphasis I will be giving it wherever and whenever I can. These examples are taken from my experience of working in community health over the last eight years. The understanding of what community health represents is to me completely at one with the Party policy and the objectives of this Government. It is a program to provide information and education support and reassurance to the people in our community so that they can manage their own lives and get about the business of living, not independent of each other but independent of the restrictions of poor health, insufficient finances and inadequate education. The social justice policies of this Government for legislation to enable people to exercise their basic rights of full participation in this country, of good health and education of a claim to a fair share of the great wealth of Australia and of lives free of discrimination on the grounds of sex or race are spelt out in the Governor-General's Speech. Like the community health program, this Government's program aims to enable people to participate to their fullest in our community. It it a program empowering of people, our greatest resource. It is a program that provides for people to be involved in the decisions affecting their lives. It is a program of consultation as well as of conciliation and care. It is what I intend to work for as a member of this Government and as a member of this Senate. One area of this Government's policy I would like to emphasise is that of occupational health and safety. It is part of the Government's health policy and industrial relations policy. Each policy area stresses the need for a national organisation of occupational health and safety to collect data and to establish standards and adequate education and training programs for people engaged in this area in either the health field or the industrial arena. The cost of industrial accidents is enormous and largely unknown. I was pleased to note that my colleague Senator Cook also used Mr Macphee's quote in this speech to the Senate this afternoon. In 1982, the then Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Ian Macphee, admitted that work accidents and injuries cost Australia at least $4,000m a year. This year some 300 Australian workers will be killed and more than 125,000 injured in the work place. This will result in 300,000 hospital admissions and 2.5 million bed days. Six people will be hurt at work for every one person injured on the roads. But who hears of industrial accidents as we hear of road accidents? The losses in production from injuries were estimated at nearly $470m in 1980- 81 while the value of production lost due to industrial disputes was $270m. In 1980 3.3 million work days were lost in Australia because of industrial disputes . By contrast, more than five million work days were lost because of industrial accidents. In South Australia, the State with the lowest rate of disputation, the difference is even more stark. For every day lost through industrial disputes in South Australia, more than four days are lost because of reported accidents. These figures are quite staggering. Yet they do not measure the most important cost of all, that is the cost to individual people from loss of limb, loss of hearing, loss of sight or loss of life. The social cost, while we can put no accurate figure of dollars on it, is undeniable and frighteningly large. That is why this Government unashamedly stresses the importance of the establishment of a national occupational health and safety institute and commission, firstly to collect proper, adequate and accurate statistics and secondly, to establish regulations that will enable workers, employers and government to co-operate to prevent such injuries and loss, rather than cost them after the event. Occupational health and safety must be understood to cover much more than hard hat and steel boot areas of industry. It covers office hazards, where word processors and visual display units are causing new diseases and health problems . It covers the poor design of plant, furniture, tools et cetera. It includes chemical hazards, air and water hazards, environmental pollution and the hazards of radiation from the mining and processing of uranium. Finally, it is my view that, as in many other areas of our society, those people who are not in paid employment are not adequately covered by current planning and legislation. I feel strongly that occupational health and safety must be extended to include those people in unpaid work, in particular, housewives or householders and people in voluntary work. These two groups cover a great number of our citizens and their injury and illness is just as costly to our community and personally disastrous for those concerned as for people in the paid work force. Another cost our society cannot, indeed must not, afford is the cost of war. I join with my colleagues on this side of the chamber in total opposition to the nuclear arms race and the threat to world peace-indeed, to the very existence of our world-that nuclear weapons creates. I do not believe that we can ask for optimism amongst Australians to work together for the benefit of our society when that very society is under the threat of nuclear destruction. Mr President, I thank you and I congratulate you on your election to your position. I trust my time in the Senate will allow me to continue the pursuit of the proposals I have mentioned on behalf of our Government and the people of South Australia who have put me here. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.45) —I begin by congratulating Senator Crowley on a very fine and well crafted maiden speech. We have heard several maiden speakers today, Senator Reynolds, Senator Cook, Senator Jack Evans and Senator Crowley. Each of them, I believe, has made a notable contribution and a good start to his or her time in the Senate. I wish them well. I say to Senator Crowley, however, that this is the biggest and certainly the best behaved audience she will ever have when she speaks. I advise the honourable senator that Senator McIntosh's face lit up when she came to the subject of occupational health. He is delighted to have an ally in what has been up to now almost a one man crusade. Senator Crowley can now join the group of pharmacists, dentists, doctors and nurses who make up the unofficial health team in the Senate. I invite her to take her proper place in writing her share of prescription and in doing her share of the health consultations which are the lot of any medically qualified senator in this place. I want to address two matters in this Address-in-Reply debate. The first concerns the recent National Economic Summit Conference and the second, relates to education policy. People on our side of politics, that is, the Opposition, those who are not now the Government, looked at the proposal for a national summit and the plans to put it in place with some hope and optimism. We shared the Australian Labor Party's hope that this event could be turned to the benefit of Australia. Indeed, we saw great bipartisan benefit. Mr Hawke had promised to put this in place. We looked to the potential benefit that might flow from it. First, there was a promise that it would be a forum representative of all Australans, 'at a time of Australia's gravest economic crisis in 50 years', to use Mr Hawke's words. What worries the Opposition in that Summit, when it actually occurred, was that it was not truly representative. It was, in fact, a place where those who are powerful, the 'haves' in the community, were able to accommodate their interests-corporate interests, the interests of unions, business and government-often at the expense of those who were crying out for help and for a chance. There is disappointment that what promised so much yielded so little when it came to the point. I remind honourable senators that Mr McKenzie from the Australian Council of Social Services, when he addressed the Summit, said: The interest of all Australians cannot be represented by unions, business or government. We are concerned that ACOSS is the only voice here for the unemployed and the three million people receiving a pension or a benefit. Many other disadvantaged and alienated sections of the community feel locked out and unable to contribute to these discussions about their future. Mr McKenzie was right. By the very way it was constructed, the Summit was a meeting of those who have power, position and privilege. The accommodation of their interests did not go very far at all to meeting the needs of many Australians who are distressed or disadvantaged. There were no Aboriginals at the Summit. There were no migrant representatives. With women representing more than 50 per cent of the population- Senator Ryan —The National Aboriginal Conference had an observer. Senator PETER BAUME —I am delighted Senator Ryan was there, but she was one of the few women participants. Let us look at the kind of consensus that emerged because we were hoping that from this Summit would emerge a determination to take steps that would really help people, help employment, and help bring inflation down. What did emerge? The first thing that became apparent is that while the business representatives at the Summit were presenting their views the final communique was even then being polished up. What did these representatives say? They pointed to the fact that of the three scenarios presented by the Government to the Summit only one offered any hope of an improvement in employment, a drop in unemployment or a significant drop in inflation. That was a scenario which in the end was not supported by the Government or by the union representatives. Why not? Senator Peter Rae —It didn't suit big business. It didn't suit big government. It didn't suit big unions. Senator PETER BAUME —My colleague senator Peter Rae emphasises the point I was making before. There was an accommodation of the powerful when what was called for was action to help those so desperately in need in Australia today. Scenario C-the one scenario of the three offered which did promise some drop in unemployment and the greatest fall in inflation-was not adopted. What did it involve? It involved only the continuation of the wage pause put in place a few months ago and agreed to by eight governments around Australia. That scenario would have meant a decrease in unemployment and an increase in jobs. For a party -a Labor Party-which promised so much during the election campaign for those out of work to have gone past that scenario is a betrayal of trust and a sign of failure at the Summit. It was not just the Liberal Party that wanted to have scenario C looked at; so did prominent businessmen. Sir Arvi Parbo; the managing director of Simpson Ltd, Mr John Uhrig; the managing director of Dunlop Olympic Ltd, Mr John Gough; and the late Sir Keith Campbell, who died so tragically just after the Summit, all drew attention to what scenario C promised. The late Sir Keith Campbell went further. He believed there was a need for a scenario D-one that had not been presented-which really gave some hope for an improvement in employment and which really went some way towards taking the hard decisions that would bring inflation down. What was required was that those who have should share a little. What did not come out of the Summit was the kind of sharing, common sacrifice or concern for those who are powerless and disadvantaged that we all wanted to see. I am not attacking the idea of the Summit. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it was a positive initiative. I am not really worrying about the composition of the Summit, which I have criticized. What worries the Opposition particularly was that when the Treasurer, Mr Keating, presented the Summit with options the best option was not taken. The best option was cast aside to accommodate the interests of those who have and those who are selfish against those who need help. Australian's looked to the Summit for outcomes. Indeed, the Treasurer, in speaking to the Summit, made this one of the conditions. 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. Australians have every right to be disappointed with a Summit that produced nothing. There has been no real commitment to taking hard decisions. There have been no decisions that could result in jobs. There is total confusion in Government ranks about the future of the wages pause and the alternatives which are offered. This is what is wrong with consensus as a goal in itself rather than as a tool to lead to useful outcomes, as a process to achieve goals for a society. My State of New South Wales had a Labor Government for almost all the time that the Liberals were in power in Canberra. If Government senators want to draw attention to the record of the last seven years, they may care to reflect upon the fact that throughout that time New South Wales has fared worse under a Labor Government, in terms of employment and almost every other indicator, than any other State in Australia. With one Liberal government across Australia but a Labor Government in New South Wales, that State has had worse employment and fewer jobs. It is a bankrupt State. It has no money left. Mismanagement has occurred. I think we in New South Wales have been particularly disappointed that the opportunity presented by the Summit was not taken up to offer something to the young who want jobs, to the middle aged who need retraining, having been retrenched, and to many people whose hopes rested upon this Summit-hopes, of course, which were not realised. Senator Peter Rae —Rugby league has been going well. Senator PETER BAUME —My colleague refers to rugby league. We might take that matter up at another time. The change of government provides a good opportunity for us to pause and to take stock. Just once, at the beginning of our time in Opposition-once only-I intend to look back to examine what the previous Government offered and did in the area of my former portfolio and to set the record straight on some of the things which were misrepresented so consistently during and before the election campaign. Between the end of 1975 and 1983 Australia had Liberal-National Party governments and there were three Ministers for Education. During that time across Australia we saw great improvements in education. We saw smaller classes in our schools. We saw a broader curriculum offered. We saw a marked improvement in the salaries and conditions of teachers across Australia. We saw more teachers present in schools and more support staff . There were better facilities for students. There was a significant increase in resources applied to education. Indeed, Commonwealth funded programs for education, for schools, went up from $985m in 1976 to almost $1,200m in 1983. There were increases in student assistance. I will mention student assistance a little later. There was a school to work transition program. Over $50m was allocated for 1983 . New programs were introduced to assist school leavers. I refer to the school to work transition program and the educational program for unemployed youth. There were programs to help the handicapped such as the integration of handicapped children into regular schools program and the residential institutions program. All those programs were introduced during those seven years. For migrants we introduced the Commonwealth multicultural education program, the ethnic schools program, the English language program, the new arrivals program and large amounts of support for English as a second language. For students in country areas we introduced the disadvantaged country area program and the loan video program. In the area of Aboriginal education the National Aboriginal Education Commission was established and teacher education programs were introduced. Senator Teague —Especially for Aboriginals. Senator PETER BAUME —Especially for Aboriginals, as my colleague Senator Teague said. I will come back in a moment to point out the offer we made in the election campaign to improve significantly the opportunities for Aboriginals. We made a number of commitments in the 1980 election. We promised a new places program and that was implemented. We promised a change in the number of levels for non-government schools from six to three an that was implemented. We promised an increase in the per capita grant for the most needy non-government schools and that was implemented. We promised $2m a year in special programs for the severely handicapped and that was implemented. We promised a $4m loan video program and we implemented it. We promised that the boarding allowance for isolated children would be increased and that was done. We promised a per capita grant to certain non-profit ethnic part time schools and that was implemented. We promised to establish research centres of excellence and that was implemented . We promised to fund the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in order to continue language courses at universities and colleges of advanced education and that was done as well. We reaffirmed our commitment and carried on with the school to work transition program. We maintained the link between the cost of educating children in government schools and the grants we gave to support non- government schools. We were pursuing-and I hope the new Government pursues them-liberal goals in education. We were pursuing freedom of choice for those wanting the best education for their children. We were pursuing the goal of improved access to education. I point out that any move to make any non-government school more expensive to parents will have the effect of limiting access to that school, whereas we have been at work to try to improve and broaden access. We believe that our goals in education have to include special programs to overcome disadvantage. I have enumerated some of those already. We sought a greater retention in education. I will deal with retention for a moment. At the end of last year we were able to mount a program to try to bring to the attention of Australian families a benefit that was available to help children of needy families to complete years 11 and 12. That program, which cost very little and was non-political-it was just a matter of benefit identification-led to a doubling of the applications for the particular benefit and a doubling of the uptake. That publicity, combined with economic factors, has helped lead to a marked increase this year in retention in the senior levels of high schools in several States and, I think, across Australia. In the election campaign we promised to do certain things. I hope that the Labor Government will pick up those things and join us in seeing them put in place. We promised to foster greater attention in secondary schools and I am glad that the new Government has the same goal. But we identified an amount of money that would be provided to try to make that goal a reality. I hope that the Government will provide money so that there can be identification and counselling of those at risk at lower levels of education to make sure that they know the options available, to make sure that teachers who need extra skills to make themselves better can get them and that curriculum reform can occur in schools. We promised to assist young people cope with modern technology. The program we outlined in the election campaign is very similar to the program contained in a report of the Schools Commission tabled yesterday in this place by the new Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). That is a comprehensive program. We promised to provide computer hardware. We promised to provide and see developed computer software. We sought to provide in-service training for teachers. We sought to provide extra pre-vocational teacher training. That program was a very ambitious and expensive one. We promised to put in a large amount of money-$20m from the Commonwealth each year for five years. The Labor Party has promised to buy computers. But unless it will go the next step and help to develop the software programs, to produce and distribute the software, to train the teachers and to make teachers feel comfortable in using computers, its program of putting computers in schools could result in computers gathering dust in some corners of the classrooms. I hope and trust that when the Minister has a chance to read the recommendations of the Schools Commission contained in its report which was tabled in this chamber yesterday she will want to extend Labor's program to make it as comprehensive and as potentially valuable as the program we promised to introduce. If she does that there will be bipartisan support and encouragement as indeed there should be in any matter affecting the education of our young. The other thing we promised was to introduce 100 special new awards for five years to help mature aged Aboriginal people train as teachers. We all know that the report of the national inquiry into teacher education-the Auchmuty report- recommended that there should be special programs to provide more Aboriginal teachers in Australia. This proposal we put forward was one way to help make that a reality. Many people from within the Aboriginal community who would become Aboriginal teachers have family responsibilities. They require special scholarships, more generous than those generally available under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme or under other forms of student support. If the honourable senator who is now the Minister thought it reasonable to examine that election promise of ours and if in the spirit of bipartisanship she wanted to pick up that suggestion and put it in place, again we would support and encourage her. The only result would be to have more Aboriginal teachers trained and to be one step closer to our goal of having a thousand Aboriginal teachers by the end of the decade. That is a perfectly reasonable kind of proposition which could attract support from everyone and could lead-I think at fairly low cost-to some extra benefits. It is appropriate to ask what the Labor Party has done so far to help people through education and in the area of student assistance because it has been in government now for a little while. The Governor-General's Speech has been delivered and we have had the Government's program outlined. I must say that so far people have been long on rhetoric but short on performance. Mr Hawke, in his policy speech, said: I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. But that is just what he has done. In the education area the policy promise was quite explicit. The promise was an immediate-I emphasise the word immediate- subvention of $15m for the upgrading and expansion of the technical and further education sector. Where is that immediate subvention? Perhaps it was only immediate during the election campaign. That is an immediate subvention of $15m which has not occurred. I hope it does occur. I hope Senator Ryan can fight in Cabinet and can win because if she does not deliver it it will mean that she has failed to keep a promise of an immediate subvention needed by the TAFE sector. That subvention again would be welcomed and supported. To this date it has not been made. We can only wonder what interpretation is placed by the Government on the word immediate when it appears in its policy. I hope it is not the same interpretation or fate that was placed upon the promise of immediate tax reductions. The immediate tax reductions promised before the election have not been delivered after the election. The Government has promised to increase student assistance. We increased student assistance in the last Budget. In my only Budget as Minister for Education I was able to deliver a 20 per cent increase in the rates of TEAS, a relaxation of the means test and a 48 per cent increase in post-graduate awards- extra awards for the benefit of Australian post-graduate students. I was also able to establish a student loans scheme which attracted considerable criticism. But as a result of the increased benefits student enrolments have gone up. Against that we have a promise in the Governor-General's Speech simply to improve the assistance schemes progressively when budgetary circumstances permit . Every student in Australia should understand that that could mean never. We may have a situation in which Senator Ryan may be unable to convince her colleagues that the time is ever right to keep that election promise. I remind her that we hope she can do as she promised in her policy speech and increase the level of benefits to the unemployment rate. It is interesting that the Government was able to increase the unemployment benefit for some people but that it did not extend the benefit, as it promised it would move to do, to students. The honourable senator also promised in her election policy speech to repeal the student loans scheme and to replace it with an emergency loan scheme to be administered by tertiary institutions. All that has happened so far is that a student loans scheme has been disbanded. So all that has happened so far is that the one option available to Australian students has been taken away. All that has happened so far under the Labor Government is that the support available in February is less in May. Senator Teague —And those students are worse off. Senator PETER BAUME —And those students are worse off, as my colleague says. Students have suffered because Senator Ryan has abolished a benefit and has not established the extra money in the emergency loans scheme. She has not increased student assistance. I say to the honourable senator that there would have been some sense in maintaining the benefits that existed until she was ready to put something else in place. All she has done is to make less support available for Australian students. All she has done is fail to deliver on what she promised. We will be watching. If she starts delivering we will applaud that move and if she does not we will not be surprised. I would encourage people to read the education section in the Governor-General' s Speech. An important area like education attracts two-thirds of a page. It is written in generality. There are no specific proposals at all in the Governor- General's Speech. The Labor Party so far has sacked the man who was the permanent head of the Department for 10 years in the most humiliating way possible. Let us consider what it could have done. The Labor Party decided to move an officer who served me very well, who served many Ministers well, and who was appointed by the Labor party. Senator Kilgariff —He served the country. Senator PETER BAUME —He served the country as a permanent head very well for 10 years. What the Government could have done was to announce his new appointment as permanent head of the Department of Administrative Services. Then it could have proceeded to announce the appointment of a new permanent head for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. It did not do that; it announced prematurely, before the Governor-General had approved the appointment, that another person would take over the chair as head of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. It left a decent officer dangling, humiliated, for more than a week before it found a post for him. It was unnecessary; it was ungenerous. Is that the kind of administration we are going to see? I hope not. I wish the new Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) well in putting into place the program which she has promised. As an Opposition our job will be to examine closely the extent to which those promises are kept, to examine closely what is done and what is not done. We will be seeking good outcomes in education-good for people, good for society, good for students and good for schools. As an Opposition we will apply to the programs and actions of the Government a most critical view, as is our duty and as is expected of us. We are, however, focusing now on the task ahead of us. We are reassessing our policies to ensure that they are forward looking and that they are appropriate to the next 10 years, the 10 years after that and the new century which will emerge. We are undertaking policy review and new policy development. We are looking at contemporary social realities. We are looking at the needs and aspirations of all Australians in the policies which we are developing. We are doing this in the light of liberal principles, our belief in individuals-in their rights, in their capacity and in what they want and need. The Governor-General's Speech was a disappointment for many of us. It was, however, the first declaration of the Australian Labor Party in government. It is our hope that when it makes its next major declaration at the time of the Budget we will see more substance and more promises kept and fewer promises of immediate action set aside. If the new Government can deliver less inflation, more jobs and greater stability we will applaud it. However, because of the way it has started we do not have great confidence that this will be the course it will follow or that those will be the outcomes. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(9.13) —Mr Deputy President, in speaking to the Address-in-Reply I first wish to congratulate you, on your appointment by the Senate as Deputy President of this chamber. I trust that you will convey my congratulations also to the President. This is the first time since I was elected to this chamber that I will serve under a Labor President. In fact I will now have served under three Presidents. I have sometimes told the story that when I made my maiden speech in this place I was called to order by the then President. It was the only time that I have been called to order since I have been in this place. I look forward to serving under Senator Douglas McClelland as the President of the Senate and under you as Deputy President. Mr Deputy President, I wish you and the President well during your terms in office. I would also like to take the opportunity of congratulating those honourable senators who have delivered their first speeches to the chamber this evening. The first was my colleague from Queensland, Senator Reynolds. She was followed by Senator Cook, Senator Jack Evans and Senator Crowley. I am sure that they are all relieved that their first speech to this chamber has been delivered. Each one of them should not only be relieved but also pleased because they all delivered excellent speeches. If the speeches that were delivered tonight are a harbinger of what is to come we certainly are going to enjoy their speeches in the future. This is my first speech to the Senate since the election of 5 March. I have, of course, asked a few questions prior to this debate but this is the first opportunity I have had to make a speech of any length. After 5 March, of course, I took my place on the Government benches. This is a new experience for me because I entered the Parliament in 1975. At that time very few Australian Labor Party members entered the Parliament. In fact there were only six new members- four in this chamber and two in the House of Representatives. The two members of the House of Representatives are no longer there but the four senators who entered this chamber at that time are still here. In 1975, which was a time of great drama in Australian politics, I entered the Parliament on the Opposition benches. I was due to stay on them for seven years. In fact my role, until 5 March, had always been that of an Opposition senator. But now I am looking forward to serving in government, serving the party I represent and serving the Queensland residents I represent as well. In addition to that, I am looking forward to seeing the Australian Labor Party's policies implemented. I must make some mention of the recent election. The election of 5 March was held early. It should not have been held until later this year. In fact the election of 5 March in my estimation should not have been held at all. That election was called because of blatant political expediency. The then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, thought he could win an election at that time and thought it would be much more difficult to win one later. Thus, he called an early election. The election itself was contrived. The double dissolution also, to some extent, was contrived. The basic conditions for a double dissolution as laid down in section 57 of the Constitution-had certainly been fulfilled. Those conditions were there to provide a trigger only. The word 'trigger' became almost an in word in this Parliament. The trigger was there for a double dissolution. I would like to examine the issues over which this election was called. On 4 February this year a special Gazette was issued. This Gazette carried a proclamation by the Governor-General outlining that the conditions of section 57 of the Constitution had been fulfilled for a double dissolution. In the Gazette a number of Bills were listed which had been twice rejected by the Senate and on which the then Prime Minister had asked for, and been granted, a double dissolution after some correspondence with the Governor-General. There were nine sales tax Bills, all of which had been introduced at the same time and defeated at the same time in this place. Whilst there were a number of them, they were all connected in some way. The special Gazette also stated that another Bill which had been twice rejected by the Senate was the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1981. Listed also were the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1981, the Australian National University Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1981 and the Social Services Amendment Bill ( No. 3) 1981. The sales tax Bills which I first mentioned were Bills to increase the rate of sales tax on a wide variety of goods. The Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill and the other two Bills-the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Australian National University Amendment Bill (No. 3)-would have allowed fees to be charged for second and higher degrees. When one first looks at the Social Security Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) one wonders why the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats at that time rejected a Social Services Amendment Bill. But it really was an industrial relations Bill dressed up in social service clothing. That Bill would have prevented spouses of workers-the workers themselves would have been unable to receive benefits-from receiving benefits, even if they might have been eligible under normal conditions. These Bills were outlined in the special Gazette of 4 February 1983. But did the Government really intend to reintroduce these Bills if it had been returned to government? Would it have gone as far as bringing them before a joint sitting of the Parliament, if that had been necessary had it been returned to government, to make sure that these Bills were passed? I sometimes doubt it. The then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, during the election campaign would not say for sure whether he would reintroduce the sales tax Bills. I have doubts whether the other Bills would have been introduced if that Government had been returned to power. In other words, the Bills were just a trigger. They hardly rated a mention during the election campaign because they were not what the then Prime Minister was interested in. He was just interested in getting back into government and he used those Bills as an excuse to dissolve the whole of the Parliament. It is not as though these Bills were of recent origin when the double dissolution was announced. It is interesting to look at when they were last discussed in the Parliament. The Sales Tax Amendment Bills (Nos 1A to 9A) were last discussed in this place on 22 October 1981. Yet in February 1983, well over one year after these Bills were last discussed, Parliament was dissolved. The Bills were almost forgotten. The Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill was last discussed here on 19 May 1982. Admittedly, that was less -but it was not much less-than a year before the double dissolution. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) was last discussed in this place on 24 November 1981. So too was the Australian National University Amendment Bill (No. 3). The Social Services Amendment Bill (No. 3)-the Bill I referred to a little while ago-was debated here on 25 November 1981. That was well over one year before the then Prime Minister went to the Governor-General and said that these were important Bills that had to be passed and asked for a double dissolution. It is incredible that Bills which had not been debated for over a year were used as an excuse for an early election. It is a prostitution of section 57 of the Australian Constitution to use Bills in this way: To request a double dissolution, to just have Bills pile up and not have any intention of doing anything with them if returned to government after a double dissolution. The same people who stood by and watched this happen now argue against fixed- term parliaments. I have no doubt that a lot of Opposition members do not want fixed terms. What they want to be able to do is to call elections at a time of their choosing, at their whim, when they think that an election may be necessary . The people of Australia are sick and tired of early elections. They want to see governments get on with the job that they were elected to do. I first stood for the Senate in 1970 at a half-Senate election. Since then there have been Federal elections in 1972, 1974, 1977, 1980 and 1983. Whilst the last two-those in 1980 and 1983-may appear to have been after three-year terms they were not. The 1977 election was in December but that of 1980 was in October. The next election was in March 1983. So we have not had a full three-year term since I first stood for the Senate in 1970. There has been some talk in this Parliament, and in the community as well, that we should have four-year terms. I am yet to be convinced that a four-year term is necessary. We should remember that three-year parliaments have not been given a fair trial. The average length of a parliament, since Federation, has been about two and a half years. In recent years it has been even less. We should look at giving the three-year term a fair trial before we look at a four-year term. Any proposal to fix the term of parliament will, I am sure, receive wide support. A recent opinion poll showed that 70 per cent of Australians want Federal Parliament to run normally for a fixed term with the exact date of the election known years in advance. The Australian Public Opinion Polls conducted a poll in March this year, after the 5 March Federal election. In this poll 2,074 people throughout Australia were asked the questions, first: Do you agree or disagree that terms of Federal Parliament should be extended from three to four years? To that question 52 per cent of those asked said that they wanted the Federal Parliament to be extended from three to four years; 41 per cent opposed the proposition and 7 per cent were unsure. Therefore, a majority of people would like to see the term extended from three to four years. Of course if we just extended the term from three to four years but do not make it a fixed term there is no guarantee that we would have a four-year term or even a three-year term. The second question that people were asked in this opinion poll was: Do you agree or disagree that Federal Parliament should normally run for a fixed term with the exact election date known years in advance? In other words, that is the fixed term proposal. In answer to this question 70 per cent of those asked said that they wanted the Federal Parliament to run for a fixed term with the exact election date known years in advance, only 27 per cent opposed the proposition and 3 per cent were unsure. If we had a proposal before the Australian people to fix the term of the Parliament it would receive wide support. I think that it might even receive wider support if we first moved to a three-year term and gave that a fair go before we looked at the possibility of a four-year term. I return to the election of 5 March. It turned out that in calling that election the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, made a gigantic mistake in thinking that he would win. The people understood the political expendiency that had been employed in calling that election and the inevitable result was that the Government was sacked by the people of Australia. It was not sacked by one person, as one government in Australia was sacked; it was sacked by the people of Australia. Labor was called upon and asked to restore the prosperity which had disappeared under the seven dark years of the Fraser Government. The results in Queensland, the State that I represent, for the House of Representatives were particularly gratifying to us. When I became a member of this Parliament there were five Federal Labor representatives from Queensland- four senators and one member of the House of Representatives. Now, after the 5 March election, we have 14 Federal representatives from Queensland-four senators and 10 members of the House of Representatives. Before the 1983 election Queensland had five Labor members of the House of Representatives. We have now doubled that and have 10. I will mention the Queensland seats which were gained by Labor in the recent Federal election. I will start at the north of the State and move southward. The northern-most electorate of Queensland is Leichhardt. It stretches from below Cairns to the Papua-New Guinea border. Geographically it is a large electorate. This electorate was held by the National Party but was won by Mr John Gayler, a well-respected lawyer from Cairns. The next seat south is Herbert, which centres on Townsville. This was held by the Liberal Party of Australia but was won for Labor by Mr Lindsay, who is also of the legal world. Mr Lindsay is a well-known and respected solicitor in Townsville. Further south, just on the outskirts of Brisbane and moving into the Redcliffe area, is the seat of Petrie, which was held by a Minister, as was the seat of Leichhardt. That Minister was defeated and the seat ws taken by Mr Dean Wells, a well-respected and well-known academic from the University of Queensland. Bowman, a seat on the southern side of Brisbane, was regained by Mr Len Keogh. Mr Keogh previously held the seat from 1969-1975. The electorate of Fadden which has, I think, the largest enrolment in Australia was won by Mr David Beddall, a man experienced in small business. It was no mean feat for Mr Beddall to win this electorate. It is large in terms of population and it had been held by a long time survivor Mr Don Cameron. But Mr Cameron was defeated on this occasion. As I said, these gains took Labor's total number of seats in Queensland to 10 and we now have over half of the Federal seats in Queensland. Those of us in the Labor Party in Queensland are now looking forward to the State election later this year. Despite the terribly malapportioned electorates in Queensland there is every possibility that a Labor Government can once again be installed in that State. If we hold half of the Federal seats there is no reason why we should not hold half of the State seats as well. If the calling of the double dissolution and the 5 March election were unnecessary and a cynical abuse of the system, as I have pointed out, they were certainly a forewarning of Mr Fraser's later performance. I refer to his resignation only 26 days after he was re-elected by the voters of Wannon to represent them in the Federal Parliament. Electors have a right to expect that their wishes, expressed through the ballot box, will be honoured. In fact, the Commonwealth Electoral Act specifically states: No nomination shall be valid unless- . . . the person nominated consents to act if elected . . . Mr Fraser, however, exhibited a total disregard for the choice of his electorate and for his obligations as a successful candidate in a Commonwealth election. Before the election of the Labor Government he should have made it clear to his constituents that if he were to serve them it would be contingent upon his Government being re-elected. Instead they found less than a month after they endorsed him that he had opted out. Now they are forced to return to the polls- they will return to the polls this week-end-for the fourth time in six years to select another representative. As well, the country will be forced to bear the cost of yet another totally unnecessary election. Sir Billy Snedden was almost as unconcerned for the opinion of his electorate, announcing his retirement merely 46 days after being elected as the member for Bruce. The expense of both of these by-elections is unwarranted and one would not blame voters in Wannon and Bruce for being totally disaffected with the so-called democratic process. Finally, Mr Acting Deputy President, I take the opportunity to touch on one other matter of concern to me. It is far different from the matters that I have so far mentioned. I refer to the entrance fee at the Australian National Gallery . As the Senate will no doubt recall, when in Opposition we opposed the introduction of a $2 entrance fee to the Gallery and promised to remove it when we came to government. Whilst the money raised by the admission fee was to be strictly allocated to fund new art purchases, we in the Labor Party held to the view that the Gallery had been constructed at taxpayer's expense and belonged to the Australian public. We stated that we would compensate the art acquisition fund for the amount lost through the removal of the admission fee. There is some concern at the moment that the Government might not in fact go ahead with its plans to abolish the fee. I understand that it is currently the subject of a Gallery report and no firm decision has yet been made. However, I urge the Government to honour its commitment to abolish the fee. It is inconsistent with the procedures adopted in all other public buildings in the national capital. There is no admission fee to the Australian War Memorial, to the National Library of Australia, to Parliament House or to the Royal Australian Mint. Another aspect of some concern to me about the Gallery is the fact that for several hours each week-end it is open only to members. I have now heard of several incidents in which visitors have been turned away from the Gallery between 10 a.m. and 12 noon on a Sunday when it is for the use of members only. This has been a source of some annoyance to visitors to Canberra who may have only a limited time available to see the Gallery or those who have made a special trip only to be told to come back later. It seems to me that Sunday would be a most popular time for visitors and members of the general public to view the collection, and perhaps the Gallery should reconsider these arrangements, especially in the light of the difficulty that it may be creating to visitors to the National capital. Mr Acting Deputy President, it has been my pleasure to support the motion for the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General' s Speech which has been moved by my Queensland colleague, Senator Margaret Reynolds. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(9.36) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask that you pass on my congratulations to the President of the Senate and the Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Hamer, on their elections. Earlier this afternoon and this evening we heard four maiden speeches by new senators. I congratulate Senator Reynolds, Senator Cook, Senator Jack Evans and Senator Crowley on their speeches. Senator Crowley and Senator Maguire are new South Australian senators. At the declaration of the poll, as you will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, I welcomed them for being among the 10 of us chosen by the South Australian people and I wish them well. I also wish them, as members of the Australian Labor Party, not too long a stay in this place, as I think that the Liberal Party should return to a majority. I want to make, as did Senator Colston before me, some brief remarks about the recent election. I join with all of those who earlier remarked upon former Senator Sir Harold Young as being an excellent President of the Senate and whose non-return to this place we much regret. He was a friend to me; he was a wise and good senator for South Australia; he knew our State very well; and we certainly wish him well in his retirement. But the youthful Liberal politician from South Australia, whose role in the Parliament was foreshortened by the election-we all understand the mechanisms of democracy-is my very close friend, Grant Chapman, the member-the former member-for Kingston. I slip so easily to say 'the member for Kingston' because he served Kingston, comprising the southern suburbs of Adelaide, so well since the 1975 election. Against all predictions he was re-elected in 1977, again in 1980, and he missed by a small swing in the recent election. He missed coming back to Parliament by a whisker. I can say only that we very much regret that he is not in the other place, the House of Representatives, to work hard for the people of the southern suburbs of Adelaide. I make this reflection: I grew up in the electorate of Kingston. I was born at Glenelg, and I spent my teenage years in Somerton. I know Kingston very well-the beaches, the sand hills and the schools. I attended Glenelg primary schools and Paringa Park primary school. I rode about on my bicycle and I met with so many people. I have been directly involved in campaigning for the Liberal Party and have campaigned in each of the Kingston election campaigns throughout the 1970s. Never before have I, as a Liberal senator, had such a positive response in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. People in those areas recognise Grant Chapman as a hard working, conscientious member. It was not on his account that they voted against him again becoming the member for Kingston. Rather it was because of national factors about which all of us can speculate- the high rate of unemployment, the high expectations that the Liberals had given to the people of Australia, which we were not eventually able to maintain, the recession, the drought, the downturn internationally in all our economies, and I think also, to be honest, the calling of an early election despite, I believe, the best intentions of the former Prime Minister. As I have said, these general factors acted against us in Kingston. We had a small swing of only 2 1/2 per cent-nothing like the national average-but it was enough for this marginal seat to be lost. I have moved my Senate electorate office from the city of Adelaide to the southern suburbs of Adelaide in order to be in the heart of the electorates of Kingston and Hawker. I have returned to the place I love and to the people whom I want to serve most specifically. Although as a Liberal senator I represent the whole State of South Australia and will go to every part of it to serve the people, I will especially be available to the people in the electorates of Kingston and Hawker. If it is their wish at the next election, I hope to see Grant Chapman and a Liberal candidate for Hawker in the other place. I certainly want to hold out that prospect to the people of Kingston who have such a fond and close relationship with Grant Chapman. He was an excellent member of the House of Representatives. I turn now to the Address-in-Reply debate. I support the motion before the chamber that was moved this afternoon. I wish to speak about the economy and the Governor-General's remarks on education, youth affairs, foreign affairs and defence. I have before me the Governor-General's Speech-some six or seven pages- which was prepared for him by the new Government. This debate is about that gracious speech at the opening of the Parliament. It will form the Address-in- Reply which will eventually be taken personally by us to him. In those six or seven pages the Governor-General touches upon the various areas about which the Government made promises to the people during the election campaign. There have been a few changes since the election. The program we have before us is the program that the Parliament should expect in the coming three years-or will it be only a year and a half before we see a general election? Despite all the statements that have been made about elections being too frequent I still fear that the people of Australia will have thrust upon them a general election for both Houses as early as November next year. The Governor-General's Speech outlines the program that this Parliament should expect from the Government for whatever time it may be in government. The crucial and introductory part of that speech relates to the economy and quickly moves to the outcome of the National Economic Summit Conference which was held some few weeks ago. Earlier today, in a debate on a matter of public importance, a number of honourable senators on the Opposition side took the opportunity to try to urge the Government to give a much higher priority to wage restraint. Wage restraint was the most overlooked aspect of all the speeches at that Summit Conference. When the report to Parliament of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was tabled in this chamber by Senator Button yesterday-it was about 15 pages in length and it outlined the achievements of the Summit Conference-there was not one reference to wage restraint having been achieved. Yet the Opposition believes that wage restraint is the single measure most available to the Australian Government to get unemployment reduced and thus attain a more healthy economy in this country. So we took the opportunity this afternoon and earlier, during Question Time in the Senate-our colleagues in the Opposition in the other House yesterday took the opportunity in a similar debate-to press upon the Government the view that wage restraint needs to be given a higher priority. It is shameful that in the Prime Minister's report to the Parliament there is not a full-bodied presentation of speeches during the Economic Summit Conference which urged wage restraint. I will refer to that matter later. I am not in this Senate to make slick points. I am in this Senate, as a Liberal representative for the people of South Australia, to speak constructively and to urge the Government of the day to take account of what I, after conversations, thoughts and representations from the people of South Australia, see as being the best solution to the pressing problem of unemployment and the problems of our economy. I was not represented at the National Economic Summit Conference; the Opposition was not there. The unemployed were not there and small business people were not there. I know that journalists at large have said that the Summit Conference achieved a great deal. I do not entirely want to be critical of what was an achievement-that the facts about the economy were brought before the people of Australia in a very clear way. It was a debate in which people were able to put some points of view. All the journalists of Australia-not just the Opposition-said that this was a summit conference of the three bigs-big government, big business and big unions. Where was the Opposition? Where were the small people? Where was the community interest? Where were the unemployed represented? The Opposition takes the opportunity today in the Senate-we have only been sitting a few days-to press home to the Government, in as constructive a way as we can, the fact that there has been a singular oversight in the report about the Summit Conference to this Parliament; that is that the most available single remedy, wage restraint, has been avoided. I will outline the three scenarios which the Treasurer, Mr Keating, brought to the Summit Conference. Very helpfully the Treasurer outlined in a summay speech, with papers appended, a whole series of economic facts, statistics and expectations according to three different sets of assumptions. He called these scenario A, scenario B and scenario C. Scenario B was what one could call the gung ho unionists' great ambit claim, even if it is still of a somewhat moderate character. Scenario B assumed an immediate end to the wages pause that the Liberal Government had set up in November and an immediate full catch-up to compensate for all the consumer price index increases then outstanding. There would then be an immediate return to full indexation with quarterly adjustments, the first such adjustment occurring in August and September 1983 with a return to productivity increases early in 1984. In other words, we go back to the big wage increase as soon as possible with some small degree of moderation. That was called scenario B. In all of the graphs and extrapolations that are based on those assumptions one gets the worst outcome for inflation and the worst outcome for unemployment. On that basis the unemployment prediction in 1986 would be more than 12 per cent. At the moment unemployment in Australia is tragically high at 10.4 per cent of the work force. This involves some 731,000 people. If we had all the wage increases in scenerio B we would see unemployment rise to more than 12 per cent by 1986. That was put up as something of a straw man for the National Economic Summit Conference to reject. Certainly the Opposition rejects it. The representatives of big business rejected it very quickly. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, to its credit, seemed to reject it also. Let us hope it has the discipline and authority to win that with the individual unions in the coming 12 months. So that was the straw man which was one extreme. The other extreme-it was put as an extreme-was that which showed the greatest restraint in wages. It is the one to which, quite frankly, the Opposition is most attracted, although we could still want to see modifications to scenario C which would take those advantages even further. According to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) scenario C states: . . . assumes the continuation of the current wages pause until April 1984 followed by a return to half-yearly, partial indexation with compensation for CPI increases in the September and December quarters of 1983. An 80 per cent partial indexation is assumed with a return to productivity increases commencing only in April 1985. This scenario has the best outcomes for inflation, for the lowest level of unemployment, and sees the economy coming back to the most stable and healthy state. Paradoxically it happens to have, in the short term only, a slightly higher deficit. This was referred to by Senator Walsh earlier today. He tried to damn this approach on that ground alone, but we do not. We note that point but see the other advantages. The Australian Labor Party appears to have chosen the so-called middle scenario, which is scenario A and which is the first scenario set out in the Treasurer's paper. It states: Scenario A assumes no catch-up for CPI increases prior to the current wages pause, a 3 per cent wage increase during the latter half of 1983, followed by a return to full quarterly wage indexation and early in 1985 a return to annual productivity cases. This is a moderate way. In brief, it is a 3 per cent wage rise towards the end of 1983 and a fully indexed rise in 1984. This has moderately good outcomes in unemployment and inflation and a moderate deficit in comparison with the other two scenarios. But none of them actually are moderate. Do the people of Australia realise that that choice, which appears to be favoured by the Labor Government, would still have unemployment in 1986 at 10 per cent, the same as it is now? that is why I feel the urgency as I do. As constructively as I can I urge the Government not to accept this so-called middle way but to tighten wages and salaries and other incomes for all of us, not just for those who are receiving the average weekly wage or less but for all incomes. The Government should tighten all wages so that there is a restraint in this area which will most help the unemployed and bring recovery to the economy. I know this is an old analogy; that is, we have one cake which is to be divided into pieces. At the moment the Australian economy-this Australian cake-is not growing. If we cut it into bigger pieces for those who have already got a piece-the employed-it can only be at the expense of the unemployed. It will deny some, who are presently employed, gaining a piece at all. I believe that there is justice and fairness in such a wage restraint. This will allow a fairer division of that national economy, that one cake, so that more people can have a piece and so that unemployment does decrease. This would most be achieved with maximum wage, salary and other incomes restraint. The Labor Party has been quite clever in setting up these three scenarios. It is like a three pea trick. One puts up a scenario which will obviously lead to the worst outcomes. That is to be rejected. One puts up another one which looks like it is really hard and responsible, and which is taking the direction that the former Government was taking. The Government says: 'Let us compromise and let us go along the middle way'. In fact, that is the wrong way of viewing it altogether. It is better to view these three scenarios as, firstly, the one that most helps the unemployed, secondly, the one that least helps the unemployed and , thirdly, the one that half helps the unemployed. When unemployment was the critical issue at the last election why cannot we, as a Parliament, and as citizens of this country, choose the scenario that will most help the unemployed and not the one that will half help them? Why cannot we choose the one that will most help the economy become sound again, rather than the one that will half help it become sound again? As carefully and as genuinely as I can, as a person who was not represented at the Summit and in response to the Governor-General's Speech, I now urge the Government of the day to choose wage restraint and so help the unemployed and this economy. In my State of South Australia 68,000 people are unemployed. When we look at the young people, the school leavers aged between 15 years and 19 years, we see that a total of 17,000 are unemployed. In broad terms that is about 10 per cent of the adult work force of my State or 30 per cent of the young people of my State. All of us on both sides of this chamber regard those figures as too high. Yet if the Government chooses the scenario it is now inclined to choose, those figures will not improve-they can only get worse. If the unions push the Government towards scenario B, the one with least restraint, then it will get worse. According to the Treasurer's papers at the Conference we will see unemployment rise even to 12 per cent. Why cannot we all restrain ourselves? Not only politicians' salaries, professional salaries, businessmen's salaries and workers' salaries and wages, but all wage payments should be restrained. In this way we will have the best outcome as has been portrayed in the Treasurer's own papers. I will give an example of what the ALP's present inclination would lead to. Average weekly earnings are currently $350 a week. A 3 per cent to 4 per cent increase later this year would increase this amount by $14 a week to $364 a week . If there were full indexation and, let us say, 10 per cent inflation during 1984, the amount would be increased by a further $36 to $400 a week. As average weekly earnings increase from the present $350 a week to $400 a week in the middle of next year, that increase in the piece of cake going to those who are currently employed can mean only a denial of those resources to the unemployed. I reject that. I urge the Government not to permit those wage, salary and other increases. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in the introduction to his statement yesterday to the Parliament on the outcome of the Summit, stated: 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. I hope it is not too late for these remarks, and the remarks of others in the Parliament, to have some impact upon that action plan. I have been somewhat repetitive, perhaps, given my speech this afternoon, because the Prime Minister' s statement about the Summit Conference does not pick up at all the significant speeches about wage restraint delivered at the Summit conference. I will refer briefly to four of them. The first speaker after the Prime Minister's opening remarks, was Mr Hughes, the President of the Confederation of Australian Industry. He said: . . . the counterproductive role of wage indexation during the years 1975-81 must seriously raise the question as to whether wage indexation is a desirable and economically and socially justifiable policy at any time. Full wage indexation leads to large wage increases. He continued: In general, a most essential requirement-in which the Federal and State governments must play a leading role-is to ensure the continued restrain of wage and other labour costs increases. . . . . An improvement in profitability of the private sector is an essential requirement for the achievement of a sustained, strong recovery of the Australian economy. By the same token, it is equally essential to continue wage restraint through an extension of the wage pause until at least the end of 1983 . . . He was the first speaker on behalf of industry. But, in a most significant speech, the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Kelty, along exactly the same lines and receiving the real applause of the people at the Summit-it was not reported by the Prime Minister when he presented his statement to this Parliament-said: The ACTU believes unequivocally that the priority of this nation must be employment growth. We therefore reject the policy prescription of fighting inflation first through increased unemployment. Such a policy is a policy of despair and defeat. We accept that seeking the achievement of lower rates of inflation and higher levels of employment will involve moderation in wage demands. Mr Dolan, the President of the ACTU, spoke before Mr Kelty in a similar way. He said: In relation to wages, we believe that the principle 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. Representatives of both industry and unions urged this principle upon the Summit . But not a word of this can be seen in the Prime Minister's statement which was presented to the Senate. The person who summed up the matter most exactly was Sir Keith Campbell, who so tragically died in the week after the Summit Conference. In his final public speech he said: The Treasurer presented, in his expose, three economic scenarios. He warned us correctly of the deficiency in econometric models and asked us to concentrate on the broad messages. The broad but very clear messages were: The longer the wage pause and the lower the wage adjustments, the lower the rate of inflation, the higher the rate of growth and the lower the rate of unemployment. For the jobless and I suggest for the whole economy, scenario C offers the most hope. But it still predicts, its deficiencies accepted, an unemployment rate on average in 1985-86 little different to that in 1982-83. Surely that is not good enough. If we genuinely care about the jobless . . . The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.7) —I rise to support the motion for the Address -in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech. I say at the beginning that I will not support the amendment moved to the Address-in-Reply by the Opposition, for the reason that the first paragraph of the amendment states: (a) that the program outlined in the Governor-General's Speech will result in higher unemployment and represents a callous disregard of the needs of the Australian people; The group who made this statement presided in government for seven years and created the largest level of unemployment ever seen in the history of this country and now has the gall about four weeks later to move that motion. That probably beats the hide of almost anybody. In the speech we have just heard the honourable senator proceeded to lecture the new Government about what it ought to be doing. He had the audacity, in relation to the National Economic Summit Conference, to make the comment that the unemployed were not represented. I suppose that members of the Liberal Party have a great concern about the unemployed; after all, they created them and therefore they want to look after them. They had their opportunity while in government to do the things about which we have heard pious lectures for the last week or so. I would be much more interested to hear what constructive comments they can make about solving the problems of this country. Until they do so, they will remain seated on the Opposition benches. I wish to discuss, in relation to the Address-in-Reply, that part of the Governor-General's Speech which refers to constitutional and electoral reform. I raise this matter because Australia has just been through what can be described only as one of the most nauseating experiences that this country has ever seen in an attempt to reform the Constitution. I despair completely that a convention constituted entirely of politicans will ever reform the Constitution of this country. The petty party squabbles and the comments made by those sitting around me from the Liberal-National Party coalition that since they had the numbers they would use them illustate fairly well the attitude taken by most delegates at the Australian Constitutional Convention in Adelaide. I propose what I believe is the only rational and reasonable alternative to what went on in Adelaide; that is, to hand back the Constitution to the people of Australia. Before this Federation was formed the conventions were of two kinds. The first kind consisted of appointed representatives from the various colonial parliaments. They made no progress; they faltered. It was only when finally the governments of those various colonies decided that they must allow popular representation that the conventions picked up speed and actually made any progress. If the conventions had continued to consist only of politicians from governments, I am quite sure that the Federation would never have occurred. Indeed, if the Convention which sat in Adelaide last week had been sitting before 1900 I am sure we would still be without a federation even in 1983. I believe the courses open to us are to have either a popularly-elected convention or to have what I believe to be superior-a citizens' initiative. I believe the advantages of a citizens' initiative over a popularly-elected constitutional convention are many. Probably the dominant one to my mind is that a popularly-elected constitutional convention would be nothing more than a rerun of the party operations that we have seen to date; whereas a citizens' initiative is a totally different operation and, where it has been applied, it has always worked outside the party system. That is probably why, when one canvasses this idea around the country, one meets no opposition to it from the people. In fact only one identifiable group can be found to argue against it- politicians. It would remove part of the power that is currently vested in this Parliament and return it to the people for their use. The citizens' initiative idea is a very simple one. It would involve the gathering together of sufficient signatures of citizens of the country on a petition. In most of the countries which have citizens' initiative such petitions are formally recognised by the highest legal representatives in those countries. In our Commonwealth that would be the Attorney-General. He would recognise the petition as a document and issue it from his office at the request of the citizens. If a sufficient number of signatures were gathered in a certain period-generally six months-the question on that petition would go to the people for their determination. Probably the dominant argument against it comes from people who say either that they are conservatives or that they are reformers. If they are conservatives they say that it is an instrument of reform. If they are reformers they say that it is an instrument of the conservatives. I put to honourable senators that a detailed analysis of the history of the citizens' initiative as it has operated in America since it was first instituted there in 1898 shows it to be an ideologically neutral mechanism that can be used by people of all political philosophies to challenge the status quo, and to challenege it effectively, in that it puts to the people a question that the people can deliberate on. In this place and elsewhere after elections we have much discussion about whether a government has a mandate for this or that item. This happens because of the confusion about what was in the front of the electors' minds when they cast their votes. I will put to the Senate some dominant questions which may be exercising the minds of the citizens of this country at the current time and which I believe would gain sufficient signatures to allow a citizens' initiative. They would be such questions as whether Australia wanted a nuclear industry or whether the Australian public wished a dam to be constructed in South West Tasmania. They are issues of high political concern upon which large numbers of people on both sides have strongly-held views. I believe they are appropriate questions to be decided by the people. I suggest that in a democracy our next step must be to give the people the ability to raise questions of these kinds and to decide them by their votes. Those votes may not correspond to the votes they cast for the group they wish to have in Parliament, governing the economy of the country. They may cut directly across those types of ideas. Whereas they may wish to vote into power a Labor Party government, at the same time the same electors may wish to vote against an item which the Labor Party holds as central to one of its main platforms. The same could happen with the conservative side of politics. One question is whether such an initiative would be abused. I think that is a very interesting question. While I have heard many politicians argue against citizens' initiative, I have heard them argue that way only in this place. I have been to hundreds of meetings to discuss this particular proposition and I have not yet heard one politician say to a public meeting: 'I do not believe you ought to have the power to decide these types of issues'. That argument is kept solely for debate in parliaments. I believe most of the arguments against citizens' initiative are not of much substance. For example, there is a concern that people may use such a power in relation to the tax laws. This concern probably arises from the much-heralded Proposition 13 in California which halved the rate of land tax on the citizens of California. The same people gathered sufficient signatures two years later to have Proposition 11 put to the people. Proposition 11 in California proposed the halving of the rate of income tax. It was lost in a landslide. One immediately sees from that that that the arguments against the proposition are basically anti-democratic. Basically the underlying theme is: 'We really cannot trust the people with power in a democracy and we are not willing to take the next step in the evolution of democracy, which is citizens' initiative'. If half a million signatures were necessary for such a petition to be presented , only issues which had really galvanised the community's attention and which caught its imagination would be put forward. Only such issues could get together people of sufficient strength and dedication to gather a petition of that magnitude. Such a question would be of importance to the Australian electorate. It would be one upon which people in the electorate would want to have, not a vote by representatives but a direct vote themselves. I believe that in this way if such an initiative were instituted all issues within this country would and could be faced up to. Many issues are never tackled by parliaments because they are too hot, too controversial. They are put to one side. They are put on the back burner simply because when parties look at the electorate they say, 'Well, this major group or the maor group would be upset'. If there were a citizens' initiative those issues would be raised. Highly controversial issues such as abortion would be raised and a vote would be taken. Those types of issues would find their way at long last on to the law-making agenda. The decisions would be brought closer to the people by the fact that they had a direct vote on these matters. Publicly arrived at decisions would lead to better and more open government in this House and in the other place. I believe that the last major important reason, apart from many others about serving the public interest and the like, that is why the citizens' initiative should be welcomed is that in a democracy such as ours one hears time and again calls that the citizens are apathetic. They will not do this or they will not do that. Various solutions are proposed to overcome this apathy. I do not believe that the citizens of Australia are apathetic. I believe that they are powerless and that that powerlessness represents itself in an identical way to the way apathy identifies itself; that is, non-activity in the political area. The diagnosis has been wrong. The solutions proposed have therefore been incorrect. The solutions proposed are to take more and more government to representatives. If, in fact, we believe that the citizens are powerless the solution is obvious. More power must be given to the citizens. It is only when they have the power that they will seek information. When they seek information, the demands upon government for open government will be so overwhelming as to be irresistible. Freedom of information Acts will be put up and possibly passed in this place and they will be a great advance on what has been suggested and legislated for previously. Nevertheless, I believe that they will not be used in any really effective way by the citizenry. I believe-one can see this in places where the initiative is exercised-that where the citizens have a deliberative vote on a particular issue they want to know everything, and they make inordinate demands on the bureaucracy and the representatives and they are not satisfied until they get that information. I believe that that is the way to continue a healthy growth within the democracy that we have. If we are not willing to go along that path, I believe we are not willing to grasp the next major nettle, and that is how we can actually involve the citizens much more in what goes on in this country. After all, the people's interest is the public interest and it is the public interest that we seek to serve. I believe that if one looked at the reasons proposed against a citizens' initiative, imagined oneself standing in front of a hall of 2,000 citizens and thought how many of those particular arguments one would be willing to put to the citizens against their having that power, in front of such a gathering of the electors of Australia all of those objections would dissolve rapidly. That is the final crunch test. Unless one is villing to say to the citizens' faces, ' You cannot be trusted. You should not be trusted' any constitutional change in this country will take place, I am convinced, only through a citizens' initiative. Debate (on motion by Senator Evans) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to Standing Order 38, I lay on the table my warrant appointing Senators Baume, Bolkus, Chipp, Collard, Colston, Robert Ray and Sibraa to be members of the Standing Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications. Reference to Estimates Committees Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1983, the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1983 and the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1983 in relation to the parliamentary departments. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the referral of certain matters to Estimates committees. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (1) That the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1983 and the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1983 be referred forthwith to Estimates committees for examination and report. (2) That the votes contained in the schedules to Appropriation Acts (Nos 3 and 4) 1982-83 be referred to Estimates committees for examination and report. (3) That the committees consider proposed additional expenditure and the votes contained in the schedules to Appropriation Acts (Nos 3 and 4) 1982-83 in the Estimates committee groupings agreed to by resolution of the Senate of 22 April 1983. (4) That the committees report to the Senate on or before Thursday 19 May 1983. Honourable senators will note that the particulars of proposed additional expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments for the year ending on 30 June 1983 have not been referred to an Estimates committee on this occasion. This is because there are no items within the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the Senate, Joint House, Parliamentary Library and Hansard departments. Items of expenditure cover only the House of Representatives Department which traditionally has not been discussed by the Senate Estimates committees. This matter has been discussed with the President, party Whips and Senator Harradine and I trust that the Senate will agree to this course of action. Question resolved in the affirmative. Human Rights-Australian Constitutional Convention Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(10.29) —I take this opportunity as one of the older senators, in service if not in years, to congratulate you, Mr President, on your appointment to the office of President of the Senate. Having served under three of your predecessors, I know that you will uphold the standards already established in this place and that both sides can expect a fair and just adjudication whenever the occasion arises. I will not detain the Senate for any length of time but I want to speak very briefly about freedom because it is a very precious commodity to me, as I am sure it is to other honourable senators. As one who was twice incarcerated for a few short hours perhaps it is more in my mind than in the minds of other honorable senators. I want to speak briefly about those people throughout the world who have not committed any crime but who are, nevertheless, incarcerated. I think particularly of those people who live under military juntas, fascist regimes and dictatorships, whose only crime-if one can describe it as such-is the desire for freedom for themselves and their people. I think of the mothers of the lost who daily parade their grief in the streets of South American countries who really do not know whether their sons and husbands are alive or dead or even whether they are amongst the bodies that were found quite recently. I think of the people in Chile, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, El Salvador, Lebanon-the list is endless-and I think particularly of the small contribution that we in Australia can make in regard to that freedom. We hear almost daily of atrocities being committed, of people disappearing and inadequate justice being provided for those who perhaps fortunately are brought to trial. I think of the people of the church, people like Father Gore whose so-called crime was that he wanted a reasonable standard for the people he loves and was not prepared to stay silent and watch the exploitation of human beings. I think tonight particularly of people like Karl Gaspar. There may be some honourable senators in this place who are not aware of this lay preacher who is at present incarcerated in the Philippines. I recognise that there is not a great deal that Australia or Australians can do about people such as Karl Gaspar except perhaps to use this forum to bring to the attention of foreign governments the fact that we are not prepared to sit back idly and allow to arise situations in which human rights do not prevail. That final sentence relates to the advice that I have since received. This afternoon I was informed that whilst legal counsel may have access to Mr Gospar, it is not the counsel of his selection but the counsel provided by the Philippine authorities who are also the prosecutors. I know that this is not an isolated case. We hear all the time about people not obtaining justice as we know it but I believe it is incumbent on people in this Senate and those who have the use of forums such as this to bring to the attention of the people throughout Australia and other free countries, and to foreign governments who have representatives in this country, the fact that we are not prepared to tolerate a system which denies the basic human right of access to justice. By ' access to justice' I mean justice of the individual's own choosing, justice that will at least enable a person to put forward a case in his or her own right and to have the case determined by a court of law which will determine whether any impropriety or crime was committed or was about to be committed. I have some doubts that the Mr Karl Gaspar that I know of, who has been charged with subversion and inciting to rebellion, has the capacity for that type of action. He is a law abiding lay worker with a church who in the past has demonstrated a great love of people. I doubt that he would do anything that would put in jeopardy those he serves in the Philippines. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.37) —I rise tonight to set the record straight on the composition of the Tasmanian delegation to the Constitutional Convention in South Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The phantom, she never sleeps. Senator WALTERS —Just wait until I have finished, Senator Evans. Up to date you, in your inevitable fashion, have told half truths. Indeed, you do not tell truths; you tell untruths and when caught out resort to half truths. In the course of the next couple of minutes-that is all it will take me-I will demonstrate to you how this has occurred. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will address her remarks through the Chair. Senator WALTERS —I am sorry, Mr President. I will certainly do so. In Question Time yesterday, in answer to a question by Senator Sibraa, Senator Evans said: It is the case that at least two of the delegations to last week's Constitutional Convention were blatantly and unashamedly stacked. He said: . . . the Tasmanian delegation contained only two members of the Labor Party out of 12. Senator Peter Baume, by way of interjection, said: How many Liberals? Come on. Senator Evans answered: It contained four paid-up and practising members of the Liberal Party. In reply to my interjection that the whole thing was an untruth, Senator Evans said: I am giving the full-I emphasise the word '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. According to Senator Evans, the fact that Independents might vote that way is something to be suspicious about. He continued: Of the seven lower House delegate positions, which it was squarely within the capacity- I would like honourable senators to mark that phrase- 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. Senator Evans, not satisfied that we may not have taken the meaning of his words accurately, said: 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 . . . He goes on to elaborate how the Western Australian Government overcame the situation that was peculiar to Western Australia and not peculiar to Tasmania at all. He also said: 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. He really castigated the Premier of my State in no uncertain terms. Indeed, he said that the delegation was blatantly and unashamadly stacked. Now we can perhaps have the real and full truth of the matter. What I say applies to Senator Evans and, indeed, also to Senator Chipp who has on many occasions since the Convention in South Australia publicly berated our Party for stacking our delegation and who is not in the chamber tonight to listen to the adjournment debate. Perhaps we now can have the full truth. The Schedule of the Tasmanian Constitutional Convention Act No. 73 of 1972 states that there will be 12 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, five from the Legislative Council and seven from the House of Assembly. This is the situation that neither Senator Evans nor Senator Chipp would acknowledge. I am quite sure that it would not take much research, particularly with the facilities at the disposal of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), to find out, if he so cared to, the full truth of the matter. It is stated in the Schedule of that Act that each appointed member continues to be a member of the delegation whilst he remains a member of the Parliament or until he has been appointed otherwise. That determines the membership of the delegation. So really Premier Gray had no option. He abided by a 1972 Act put through by the Labor Government of our State which stated that five men would be appointed by the Legislative Council and seven by the House of Assembly. In 1973 the first Convention had these members: Mr Fenton, an independent; Mrs Benjamin, a Labor member; Mr Carines, an independent; Mr Dixon, an independent; and Mr Michael Hodgman, the member for Denison in the House at the moment and who was at that time an independent. From the Assembly we had Mr Everett, the Labor Attorney-General; Doug Lowe, who was at that time a Labor member; Mr Austin, a Labor member; Bob Baker, a Liberal member; Mr Bessell, a Liberal member; Andrew Laurie, a Labor member; and Bob Mather, a Liberal member. As you would know, Mr President, Doug Lowe has now resigned from the Labor Party in Tasmania. He is now an independent. Mr President, you remember that Senator Evans said that there were two Labor members and one independent. It is not the Premier's fault that Mr Lowe decided that he could no longer tolerate the Labor Party, that he resigned and became an independent member. He must remain part of the delegation because that is what the Act states. It provides that he remains part of the delegation while he remains a member or until the Parliament decides that he is no longer worthy of holding a seat. I think it would be a completely wrong action to say that Doug Lowe should not be a delegate and that he should not take his place at that Convention. We now have the situation where one Opposition member of that delegation is still Andrew Laurie and we now have Mr Barnard as the other Opposition member. We still retain Doug Lowe because the present Government sees nothing wrong with anything Mr Lowe has done which should debar him from remaining as a delegate. The four Government representatives-Mr Gray, Mr Bingham, Mr Pearsell and Mr Bushby-have taken the place of the former Government representatives who are no longer in the House. If Senator Evans had decided, before he came out so robustly yesterday in Question Time saying that he was telling us the full and absolute truth of the matter, to get one of his many staff to do a little research, perhaps the miscarriage of justice would not have been so clearly heaped on the head of the Premier of my State. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.47) —Senator Coleman gave us an unhappy and moving recitation of the condition of liberty around the world and, indeed, in our own region. We are indebted to her for drawing the attention of the Senate to the very distressing state of affairs, as she did. She is correct in saying that this Government has made a very firm commitment to taking up a heightened interest in human rights issues. She is correct in identifying the Gaspar case as being very much one such issue, as, indeed, the intervention by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) already in this case clearly demonstrates. Cases of this kind ought not to be regarded as simply a matter for this Government however. This is an area in which we ought to be able to view the world through bipartisan eyes. Indeed, there is a strong tradition in this Parliament of doing just that through the organisation of Amnesty International of which many honourable senators and members from both sides of the chamber are active, committed members, including Senator Coleman. I think the kind of issue Senator Coleman raised tonight is a lesson to all of us to take seriously our obligations as individual parliamentarians by continuing to draw attention to these matters in the hope that, thereby, severe injustices can be remedied. Moving from bipartisan consensus matters to matters of partisan strife and warfare we come-inevitably in that context-to the contribution tonight of Senator Walters. It is just as well that Senator Walters does not have to earn her living as an advocate because I am afraid she would be eking out a rather poverty-stricken existence in those circumstances. The situation is that she did not in any way challenge my description of the composition of the Tasmanian delegation as comprising five so-called independents in the upper House who voted to a man in all the instances I can recall-presumably those she can recall or identify as well-with the conservative Opposition on the floor of the chamber . In that respect she behaved very differently from the way in which previous upper House components of Tasmanian delegations have behaved. I can recall that there have been some real statesmen among them. Charles Fenton, over the course of a number of conventions, has behaved in that way. There has been a clear sense of what was right, which has not in any sense toed a visible or discernable party line, in the way in which those independents have voted in past delegations. I suggest in all honesty that that was not quite the situation on this occasion. Even Mr Brian Miller, whose former pedigree is that of a Labor Party member, was rather overcome, it appears, on this occasion by his anxiety not to fall out of step with his colleagues, given the forthcoming presidential election for the Legislative Council. He, too, demonstrated no willingness that I could discern to behave other than as a disciplined member of a conservative majority. But the Legislative Council in Tasmania is a special case as we are all aware. Maybe not too much should be made of that. But what of the situation in the lower House in Tasmania where a great deal can be made- Senator Peter Rae —Let us not cast aspersions on particular people. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, including those present in the Senate tonight. The situation was particularly acute and particularly scandalous, I believe, in the context of the composition of the lower House component of the Tasmanian delegation. The unchallenged fact remains that the four Liberals assumed their seats together with two current members of the Australian Labor Party and one former member of the Labor Party. That is still a four to three majority even if one regards Doug Lowe as a member of the Labor Party, which clearly is not the case these days. But he voted with the Labor Party to the extent that there were divisions of that kind in exactly the same way as the upper House members voted the other way in their capacity as independents. I readily acknowledge that state of affairs. Senator Walters says that this is all defensible and all understandable by reference to a state of affairs which I chose not to draw or neglected to draw to the Senate's attention yesterday; that is, the terms of the Tasmanian Constitutional Convention enabling legislation of 1973. Senator Walters very proudly read into the record the proposition- Senator Walters —1972. Senator GARETH EVANS —It was 1972 with a 1973 amendment, I thought I heard Senator Walters say. But in any event that is not the point. The substance of the provision as I understood Senator Walters was that each nominated or approved member of the Tasmanian delegation to the Constitutional Convention continues in that office or role while he or she remains a member of Parliament or until Parliament determines otherwise. Senator Walters read that particular proposition into the record tonight. Therein lies the manifest falsity of the allegations she then proceeded to make. The reality of the matter is that there is perfect flexibility vested in the Tasmanian Parliament to vary the composition of its delegation from one convention to the next in exactly the same way as there is perfect flexibility vested in this Parliament to vary the composition of its delegation from one convention to the next. There is perfect flexibility vested in the capacity of every other parliament in this nation to vary the delegation as necessary to equalise imbalances that may otherwise arise . There was no reason under the sun why it should have been perceived by anyone to be the case that there was any obligation to maintain a delegation which was stacked-I repeat the word advisedly-in the way that the Tasmanian delegation was stacked on this occasion. The reality of the matter is that there were two Labor Party members out of twelve. There were three Labor Party delegates if one counts Doug Lowe in some surrogate capacity to which he himself would not admit. There were three out of twelve. Wherein lies the significant distinction between that and the situation which prevailed in relation to Queensland? Wherein lies the moral difference? There is certainly no technical difference in the powers available to respective governments and to the respective parliaments to adjust their delegations to produce the particular result that justice, comity and constitutional good sense would demand. I repeat finally that to the extent that there is-- Senator Peter Rae —Take your bat and ball home. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Peter Rae may need to take something else home if he can manage to do so. To the extent that there was a situation that needed to be redressed and balanced by virtue of the idiosyncratic character of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, I repeat the example of such adjustment that was, I understand, the case in Western Australia. Faced there with the situation of a preponderance of conservatives in the upper House, the former Liberal Government of Western Australia chose to appoint a delegation with a majority hostile to itself from the lower House in order to redress that particular imbalance. I have heard very little by way of praise for the previous Government of Western Australia. In that respect I do believe it was acting in a way consonant with dignity and a sense of occasion that is appropriate to constitutional conventions-a state of affairs which, unhappily, was not repeated by the Tasmanian Government or the Queensland Government on this occasion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.55 p.m. The following paper was presented, pursuant to statute: A statement of land acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act.