Thursday, 5 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. 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 Covention 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 Bjelke-Petersen (from 115 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 21 citizens), Sibraa (from 117 citizens) and Teague (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that United States, Australian and allied forces used huge amounts of toxic chemicals for military purposes, such as Agents Orange, Blue and White, in Vietnam during the war there; (2) many of these chemicals were, and are, known to be highly dangerous to human health; (3) Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families are suffering many severe problems which may be due to their exposure to these chemicals; and (4) the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia has been seeking a Royal Commission for well over two years to ensure an independent investigation of these matters. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) express its support for the Royal Commission; and (b) urge the Federal Government to establish the Royal Commission immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Haines (from 514 citizens) and Macklin (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That citizens of Western Australia view with great alarm the removal of Director of the Office of Child Care and fear for the future of that office and the children's services programme which it administers. We believe the Office of Child Care to be inappropriately placed within the Department of Social Security, where children's services are in competition with welfare services for the aged, disabled, and other such groups. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled , should take every step as necessary to obtain immediate withdrawal of the Office of Child Care from the Department of Social Security and the establishment of a Children's Commission. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned that a residential suburb shall be built in Allens Creek near Kambah in the Murrumbidgee Gorge Corridor of the Australian Capital Territory. Your petitioners declare that the Murrumbidgee Gorge Corridor near Canberra in almost unspoilt native forest should be part of the National Estate. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled shall take all possible steps to prevent the building of a residential development in Allens Creek in the Murrumbidgee Gorge Corridor. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 302 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Hawke Government's decision to terminate the previous government's pilot study into the use of commercial child care centres for the benefit of low income earners was unwarranted, precipitate and not in the best interests of those parents who, by virtue of their financial circumstances, of place of residence or work, find it difficult to use the services of other community facilities. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list that has been 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. Committee on Overseas Professional Quali- fications-Fourteenth Report 1982. 2. Australian Egg Board-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947. 3. Australian Honey Board-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962. 4. Fishing Industry Act 1956-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956. 5. Fishing Industry Research Committee-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. 6. Australian Dried Fruits Corporation-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 36 of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978. 7. Dried Fruits Research Committee-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971. 8. Australian Capital Territory-Statement of Receipts and Expenditure 1981-82- pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. 9. Australian Capital Territory Activities During the 1981 International Year of Disabled Persons-Report. 10. Australian Capital Territory Architects Board-Annual Report 1981-82. 11. Criminal Deportation Policy-Text of a statement made to the House of Representatives on 4 May 1983 by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs . 12. Law Reform Commission-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. 13. Australian Atomic Energy Commission-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953. 14. Australian Safeguards Office-Annual Report 1981-82. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.5) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Mr President, I think there is no doubt that when we get the report it will be worthy of consideration. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.6) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As this report is noted on the list as not being available prior to tabling and since it has not been available for perusal I seek leave at this stage to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.7) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Again I observe that this is one of the reports which have not been available prior to tabling. On that basis I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(10.8) —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. At its first meeting on Friday, 22 April 1983, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare resolved to continue the inquiry into children and youth under institutional and other forms of care-a matter which the Senate referred to the previous Committee towards the end of the last Parliament. This was the only reference before the previous Committee that was not completed before the double dissolution. The inquiry into children and youth under institutional and other forms of care was advertised in the national Press on 29 June 1982 inviting interested persons and organisations to submit their views to the Committee. The Committee also sought submissions from private care institutions and associations, Commonwealth , State and Territory governments and agencies, and others. Since then, the Committee has received over 100 submissions together with a large volume of supporting material. Two public hearings were held prior to the double dissolution. The Committee now proposes to continue the inquiry where the former Committee left off. It is the Committee's intention to proceed immediately with a series of public hearings, inspections and informal discussions in all States and the Northern Territory. Public hearings will also be held in Canberra. The Committee plans to report to the Senate on this reference as soon as possible following the completion of its program of public hearings and inspections. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following messages from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment of Joint Standing Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, Foreign Affairs and Defence and the New Parliament House and Joint Select Committees on Parliamentary Privilege and Electoral Matters: Message No. 6 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly: (1) That a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report on- (a) all proposals for modification or variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19 November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for Territories and Local Government, and (b) such matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to it by- (i) resolution of either House of the Parliament, or (ii) the Minister for Territories and Local Government. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government Member as its Chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (8) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (9) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub -committee. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (13) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (15) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (17) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. H. A. JENKINS SPEAKER House of Representatives, Canberra, 4 May 1983 Message No. 7 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly: (1) That a joint committee be appointed to consider and report on- (a) foreign affairs and defence generally, and (b) such matters as may be referred to the committee by- (i) the Minister for Foreign Affairs; (ii) the Minister for Defence, or (iii) resolution of either House of the Parliament. (2) That the committee consist of 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 4 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (6) That the chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 sub-committees consisting of a minimum of 3 of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (8) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (7), the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee be ex-officio members of each sub- committee appointed. (9) That the members of a sub-committee elect one of the members of the sub- committee to be the chairman of that sub-committee. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament. (12) That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. (13) That 7 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee and 3 members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (14) That in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (15) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, appointed in previous Parliaments, relating to any matter on which those committees had not completed consideration. (16) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered, with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee. (18) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. H. A. JENKINS SPEAKER House of Representatives, Canberra, 4 May 1983 Message No. 8 Mr President, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly: (1) That a joint standing committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto. (2) That the committee consider and approve the developed design for the building, which, in conjunction with the revised brief for Parliament House, dated August 1980, shall be used as the basis for the design and construction of the new Parliament House, unless both Houses resolved to vary any section of the brief or have any section reconsidered by the committee. (3) That the committee determine user requirements for approved non-building items and consider other issues relevant to ensuring that the requirements of Parliament are fully met when transferring to the new building. (4) That the committee also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by- (a) the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, or (b) resolution of either House of the Parliament. (5) That the committee consist of- (a) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (b) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979; (c) 6 Members of the House of Representatives, 3 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and (d) 6 Senators, 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate , and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (6) That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be joint chairmen of the committee. (7) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (8) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (9) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to appoint the chairman of each sub-committee, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the committee is empowered to inquire into. (10) That the committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Parliament. (11) That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. (12) That 7 members of the committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the committee and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (13) That in matters of procedure, each of the chairmen whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman occupying the Chair have a casting vote. (14) That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote only. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House appointed during previous Parliaments. (16) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it. (17) That the committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the Parliament House Construction Authority as the authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House . (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. H. A. JENKINS SPEAKER House of Representatives, Canberra, 4 May 1983 Message No. 9 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to review, and report whether any changes are desirable in respect of- (a) the law and practice of parliamentary privilege as they affect the Senate and the House of Represenatives, and the Members and the committees of each House; (b) the procedures by which cases of alleged breaches of parliamentary privilege may be raised, investigated and determined, and (c) the penalties that may be imposed for breach of parliamentary privilege. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Oppositition Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That, in addition to electing a chairman, the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (5) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (6) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (7) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege appointed during the previous Parliament. (8) That the committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (9) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (10) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. H. A. JENKINS SPEAKER House of Representatives, Canberra, 4 May 1983 Message No. 10 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon all aspects of the conduct of elections for the Parliament of the Commonwealth and matters related thereto, including- (a) public funding and disclosure of funds; (b) franchise and registration of voters; (c) voting systems; (d) polling procedures; (e) legislation governing, and the operation of, the Australian Electoral Office; (f) ballot paper format, and (g) electoral distribution, procedures and systems. (2) That the committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (7) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub -committee. (9) That members of the committee, not being members of the sub-committee, may participate at the discretion of the chairman of that sub-committee in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (10) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (11) That the committee have power to consider and make use of submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (13) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (15) That the committee report by 31 August 1983. (16) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. H. A. JENKINS SPEAKER House of Representatives, Canberra, 4 May 1983 Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That consideration of Messages Nos 7 and 10 transmitted from the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the Senate concurs in the Resolutions transmitted to the Senate by Messages Nos 6, 8 and 9 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of Joint Standing Committees on the Australian Capital Territory and the New Parliament House and a Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege . (2) That the provisions of the Resolutions, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) That the foregoing Resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: 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. Address-in-Reply Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Reynolds: 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 your have been pleased to address to Parliament. Upon which Senator Peter Rae had moved by way of amendment: 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 specifice measures to assist primary producers who are recovering from the drought'. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(10.13) —In my contribution to the debate on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech I want to follow briefly the theme developed as part of Senator Colston's speech last night, particularly in relation to elections. I am naturally a little disturbed, having been here for a relatively short time-some nine years on the 18th of this month-to have had to face the electorate on four separate occasions. I am particularly disturbed at the former Attorney-General's statement following the Australian Constitutional Convention last week. Senator Durack was quoted as having said: ' I believe that elections are good for people'. I do not believe that elections are good for people. I do not believe that they provide members of parliament with an opportunity to be members of parliament and working in the best interests of their constituents in the first instance. They are a very expensive exercise to undergo at the rate we have been undergoing them in the last few years. I am certainly not of the same mind as the former Attorney-General. Perhaps that is why he is the former Attorney-General. Let me just briefly outline my particular situation. I was elected on 18 May 1974 at a double dissolution and served some 18 months prior to the coup that took place when an elected government, the Whitlam Government, was tossed out of office because of the conniving between a former Governor-General and the then Opposition. I was re-elected in 1977-I got the short end of the stick-and was not due to face the people until the end of this year, with my term of office to be concluded on 30 June 1984. Now, because of the early election, my term of office is back-dated to 1 July 1982, which means that once again I will not serve a full term of office. It is a disgrace to the people of Australia that we allow this situation to develop time and again because of those few people who are elected who believe that they have a God-given right to rule. I, for one, have been quite vociferous in my attack on them for having done so on this occassion. The timing of the election was interesting. It was called at that time, I believe, by the former Prime Minister because he believed that, in accordence with his born to rule ethic, the people would not discharge him from office. But the people have spoken and that is why, in the House of Represenatives particularly, so few members of the Liberal Party have taken their places. I want to refer briefly, because of the time available to me, to a number of matters raised in the Governor-General's Speech. I refer particularly to the statement made with regard to equality for women. It is heartening to see so many women not only entering this place but also being elected into the State Parliament in my State of Western Australia. Honourable senators may be aware that in the recent State election in February five new women members were elected to the Legislative Assembly and two women members now serve in the Legislative Council. All are members of the Australian Labor Party. It is an indication, as was stated in this place last night, that the statement that women cannot win seats is a myth. It has been accepted by the community that women are just as competent in this House as they are in their own homes and in industry, and that they have the capacity to equal the contributions made by male members who have for so long dominated all houses of parliament. I look forward to the day when the numbers will be much more even. There has, of course , always been a tradition of male domination in the Senate. I have raised that matter on a number of occasions, particularly during adjournment debates-those debates have made interesting reading over the years-because of my concern that women were not accepted as being in their proper place here. To a large extent discrimination was exercised when I first entered Parliament and perhaps that is why I welcome the new female members so warmly. Senator Crowley —We are even more discriminating. Senator COLEMAN —I am reminded by Senator Crowley that women are even more discriminating, but her meaning is slightly different from mine. I will speak briefly about the need for women to be recognised in our society. Every day during the short time that the Parliament has been in session petitions have been presented calling for the dissolution of the National Women's Advisory Council. Those petitions contain a lack of recognition of the worth of the National Women's Advisory Council and the work it has done over the years. There has been a lack of recognition, not only in the community but also by the previous Government, of the work that has been done for women by women in other areas of the community, such as women's refuges. I raised this in part in a question yesterday to Senator Grimes, the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In our community, because of external circumstances, greater pressure is being placed on the family unit. There is more unemployment, which causes more stress, which creates more strain on those individual units and results quite frequently in the necessity for people to vent their anger and frustration on the people whom perhaps they love most. Women's refuges are constantly being used to house people in those circumstances. On my doorstep at 3 o'clock in the morning have stood people who have received the most violent application of their partners' make-up because of their frustrations at not being able to provide adequately for their families. Once the initial frustration is over, of course, there is always that contrite feeling-'I am sorry I did it and it will not occur again'. But in the meantime that family unit has to be housed somewhere, and the only places available to them are women's refuges. In Western Australia there is gross overcrowding. Because we do not have halfway houses as such and because welfare housing is at such a premium women have to stay in those refuges for such a long time. There is nowhere else for them to go. There is not in the community an acceptance of a need for urgent welfare housing and government departments, as we all know, move slowly. With a new Labor Government we need to channel more funds into that area of our communities to ensure that those women, and particularly those children, have a secure base during that tremendous upheaval in their lives. I firmly believe that unemployment is the greatest single cause of family breakdown that the Australian population is facing today. I will speak briefly too, as I did in the adjournment debate last night, about human rights and the peace initiatives that have been undertaken by the people of Australia within the last few weeks. Over the years there has been amongst Australian people a growing concern that we have to demonstrate our preparedness to stand up and be counted on matters which vitally affect our future and the future of our children and their children. As a mother and a grandmother, I am vitally concerned to do all that I can to ensure that my children and my grandchildren have a future. If we leave it to the super-powers I very much doubt that that will be so. I believe that there is in the community a growing concern, a feeling of 'What can I do about all this? My voice will not be heard. No one listens to me when I talk about these things'. I have a fear of nuclear war, as I have a fear of any war-of any conflict. I can cope with verbal conflict. Physical conflict I find extremely difficult to consider. Given that in the event of a nuclear war we would be totally unprepared and there would be nothing that anyone could do, I believe it is the right and the responsibility of all people, particularly in Australia which is a peaceful nation, to support those groups throughout the world, including the women of Greenham Common, the women in America who are now actively speaking out against President Reagan's war initiatives and people in other countries, who are not prepared to sit back and just let events decided by the super-powers overtake them. Only a few weeks ago we saw in Australia 150,000 people demonstrating against nuclear war. Among them were people, particularly in Perth, who had never before demonstrated in such a way. I asked a number of them why they were choosing this particular time to come out. One of the men said: 'I looked at my son sleeping last night and I realised that if I did not do something he may sleep permanently'. I believe that this Government has the initiative to take matters of peace to their ultimate conclusion, to express its concern at statements made in a much more powerful way than the previous Government was prepared to do and to recognise that we have a responsibility, not only to defend out nation and therefore to set up our defence mechanics, but also to fulfil the Australian Labor Party obligation to establish a research and peace institute. I look forward to the day that I can stand in this place and congratulate the Government on such an enterprise. Some years ago I was heartened about the establishment of the Murdoch University in Western Australia because it was intended to have a Chair of Peace there, but for some reason that did not eventuate. I believe that if it had been established at that time we would have been in a much better position now to provide information and advice to those governments who are obviously preparing for war, advice to enable them to take the action that would be necessary for them to disarm, to reach detente and to come to a peaceful conclusion to their problems. Right throughout the world, in places such as Lebanon, Palestine, Chile, Argentina, Uraguay and Paraguay, we are seeing invasions of not only the privacy of the individual but also a complete ignorance of the human rights that we believe are so essential to all human beings. I believe that my Government, the Labor Government under Prime Minister Hawke, will make a valuable contribution to the world scene. It might consider acting as a mediator in the areas of greatest conflict. It might be possible for us, as a peaceful nation and because of our geographic isolation, to do much more to bring the world to peace rather than the situation which now exists. I intend to speak to some of the matters that have been raised by the Opposition senators in their contributions to the Address-in-Reply debate. On looking at my notes I realise that I have not taken the opportunity of congratulating the new senators on their maiden speeches. I will do that now. I thank Senator Reynolds, Senator Cook, Senator Jack Evans and Senator Crowley for the contributions they have made. I am sure they will participate in a very worthwhile way not only in the operations of this chamber but also in its committees and the operations of the Government. I was a little disturbed by some of the comments that were made last night by honourable senators. The former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Messner, expressed his concern at the Government's actions in a particular area that were going to affect people in his State of South Australia. I sat on the benches opposite for seven years. I listened to members of the then Government blaming the Whitlam Government for all of the ills of Australia. The Whitlam Government was in power for only three years and did not cause the utter devastation to the people of Australia that honourable senators now sitting on the Opposition benches would have us believe. If they raise in this chamber matters of public importance such as they did yesterday, one question is raised not only in my mind but in the minds of all Australians who listen to the debate-not that I believe there are that many-or who read the Hansard and the Press extracts. If the Opposition thinks the proposals that it has are such a good idea, why did it not implement them when it was in government? It had seven years in which to do all of these things-to have the economy recover and to create employment opportunities. It has not done that, yet it anticipates that in the few short weeks in which the Hawke Labor Government has been in office we will be able to do all things for all people. We have never said at any time that that will be the role of the Labor Government. We have made certain commitments and we will abide by those commitments where it is possible. But what the people sitting on the Opposition benches have to remember is that it was through their conniving, their underhand methods and their distortions of the truth that the Labor Government came into power with such a tremendous deficit. It is the deficit only which is preventing us from fulfilling all of our election promises. Every single member of the Executive of the former Liberal Government knew damn well prior to the election that the deficit was indeed $9.6 billion and that we would not be able to fulfill our obligations. They knew that it was not a deficit of $ 6 billion, the figure that the former Prime Minister and Treasurer were bandying about. I totally reject the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. I reject it for all of the reasons that I have just stated. I reject it particularly because I look forward to the next seven years at least of their remaining on the Opposition benches. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.32) —The Senate is debating the speech given by the Governor-General in this chamber on 21 April. This, therefore, is the Address-in-Reply debate. A number of factors are normal in the Address-in-Reply debate. First of all, it is traditional that the Address-in- Reply debate is taken as an opportunity for new senators to make their maiden speeches. This has been occurring. I join with others in welcoming all of the new senators on both sides of the chamber. I say how much I enjoyed the contributions that they have made. They showed a capacity and an ability which will add to the experience and the enrichment of this chamber. I congratulate those who have spoken. I welcome them and wish them well for the future. I wish them every happiness within this chamber, which has a unique atmosphere which is quite distinctive when compared with that in the other place. The Address-in-Reply debate also has a number of other characteristics. Traditionally the Speech itself is directed by the government of the day to outlining the policies that it proposes and foreshadows for the years ahead. It is doubly so in the first year of the Government because it would be expected in that Speech to foreshadow to the community of Australia its policies and the promises it has made in the election campaign and upon the acceptance of which it was elected. The fundamental test is whether this Speech outlines the Government's policies and the promises it has made over the past months. Is it therefore the substance of the mandate? Because there are great defects in the Government's approach the Opposition has moved the following amendment: 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'. The Opposition has moved this amendment and the Opposition will support it. What is more significant is that all information supports it. Let me direct my remarks to this. A cynic who has become well known over the years and who obviously knew the Australian Labor Party well has said that a political platform is like the platform on the back of a bus; it is meant to get in on and not to stand on. Indeed, nobody could be taking the public for a ride more than the present Labor Party. Within days of its election on its platform the Government knew that it would not stand on that platform and it abandoned it. Let me direct my remarks to these factors because they are relevant indeed to this amendment to the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's speech. I think nobody would deny that Mr Hawke, on 13 February, in the midst of the election campaign, said that jobs and unemployment were the key issue of the campaign. Therefore, he emphasised that the Labor Party's promises about jobs and unemployment would be those essential promises which it would carry out. No one, I think, would fail to remember, although it is embarrassing now, two statements made by the Labor leader of 13 February, in the teeth of the election campaign. The first statement by Mr Hawke was that unemployment could be held at present levels over the next year-that is throughout 1983. He went on to say that he also maintained that he would expect unemployment to be 2 percentage points less at the end of a full term under Labor. We have two clear statements on the basis of which the Labor Party went to the people and said: 'Elect us because we will resist any further increases in unemployment in the year ahead and by the end of our term unemployment will be at least two percentage points below what it is now'. The fact of the matter is that within days the National Economic Summit Conference was called. Within days papers were circulated-not within weeks or months, but days. What did the papers state? They stated quite clearly that, in fact, unemployment would increase in the years ahead and that unemployment, in terms of the number of unemployed, would be substantially greater at the end of the three-year term of the Labor Party than it is now. So much for the platform and so much for the key promise! Lest anyone has doubts at all about this matter-we are all chided that we should look to the Summit and its papers-I will refer to the key point in the address of the Treasurer, Mr Keating, who, talking about the three projections, said: Even in the case of projections A and C, the overall unemployment rate on average in 1985-86 is little different from that in 1982-83. In other words, the rate will be about the same. Clearly, because of the growth in the work force, the numbers will be greater. That was stated, despite the promise of the Labor leader. I will now refer to the National Economic Summit Conference paper of April 1983 entitled 'Projections of the Australian Economy to 1985-86'. The Labor Party, the Government, came forward at that Conference and said: 'We give you three projections, options A, B and C, to see what your choice might be and what course the community might follow'. Essentially, having done that, it implied that one of those projections at least would be the projection that would emerge from the Conference. It could scarcely leave out from its projections the one that it hoped would be adopted, the one that it desired. About those three projections it said: 'These are the projections for the years ahead'. Let me look at them. I turn first to projection A. It has been said and not denied that that is the projection that the Labor Party favours. Let anyone deny that. In any case, what the Government cannot deny is that one of the projections A, B or C is the projection that it favours. Let us examine what happens under projection A. The figures of the Treasurer show that in 1982-83 620,000 people will be unemployed. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has promised that the unemployment rate for the next year will be the same or lower. The projection for 1983-84 is 700,000 unemployed, an increase of 80,000 over the previous year. What has happened to the Government's promise? Under projection A , in 1984-85 720,000 will be unemployed and in 1985-86 710,000. In fact, under option A, which is allegedly favoured by the Labor Party, at the end of this Government's regime unemployment rather than decreasing by two percentage points will have moved from the base that the Labor Party identified as 620,000 in 1982 -83 to at least 710,000. That is a very significant increase in the numbers of people unemployed. Indeed, the Prime Minister was supported by Mr Keating in his statement that the unemployment rate will remain the same. Of course, projection B is more horrific. It puts unemployment at 620,000 for 1982-83; 740,000 for 1983-84-an increase of 120,000 when Mr Hawke said that there would be no increase- 840,000 for 1984-85; and 880,000 for 1985-86. Option B, which was put to the Summit for consideration, projected an increase of 260, 000 in the number of unemployed during the period of the Hawke Government. Let us examine projection C. It shows 620,000 unemployed for 1982-83 and 680,000 for 1983-84, an increase of 60,000-what has happened to Mr Hawke's promise?-680,000 for 1984-85, and 640,000 for 1985-86. So, at the Summit, when speaking about each of the three projections, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister said: 'We will in fact have more unemployment at the end of the Hawke Government's regime that at the beginning'. Yet, the whole of the election was poised on the issue of jobs. The argument was that the Labor Party would create many more jobs than the Fraser government would have created. Now, indeed, the Labor Party has changed its tune; but what an extraordinary change in tune. Having listened to delegates to the Summit and having heard it said by the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party that the issue facing the Summit concerned three things, jobs, jobs and jobs-that achieved applause from the Labor Party-we now find that the Summit itself said there will be fewer jobs, fewer jobs, fewer jobs over the three years of the Labor Government. Of course, it will not necessarily run three years. I understand that Mr David Combe has indicated that his view is that an election will be held at the end of the next year. That is an extraordinary situation for a government which is deriding anything but fixed term parliaments. I looked at the address of the Governor-General bearing in mind that it was written by the Labor Party as a Labor Party document and I said to myself: ' Clearly, if this is to be the policy speech of the Labor Party in precis then, of course, it will essentially be directed towards the relief of unemployment- jobs, jobs, jobs'. One has to search hard to find a mention on unemployment, or any real evidence of job creation in this document. I think that the document uses the word 'unemployment' some five times and enlarges on it in only one paragraph which says that unemployment has increased. The document states that we will have a community works program which will include jobs on local roads. There must be great cheer about that. After all, that is scarcely something that will excite the imagination of the community or give rise to the concept that there will be an increase in skills. We have an extraordinary situation in which the whole campaign of the Labor Party, based on the reduction of unemployment, is reduced to nothing, turned around at the Summit and subsequently muted in the Governor-General's Speech. In my political lifetime, which extends over the post-war years, never before have I seen such an abdication from the policies of the Government. However, the Government is in no way in any difficulty about this matter because at the moment on virtually everything that it touches it turns its policy around. There is a great noise that consultation, discussion and consensus are the things. My goodness, today members of the Government have said: 'We will not have any pre- Budget consultations at all. We will have an Economic Planning Advisory Council which will consist of a group of the biggies; we will not have any consultations with sections of the community.' That goes out because now that the Labor Party is in government it does not have to worry about those kinds of things. It has been quite fascinating to watch, one by one, the great outcries of the Labor Party about the purchase of Boeing 707 aircraft for their ordinary purposes of carrying military personnel between Butterworth and Australia, or to be used for refuelling. What will the Labor Party do now? It will not sell the aircraft which it said it would do; it will buy two more. Why will the Labor Party buy two more? It will buy them for refuelling purposes, so it says, even though it derided us for using them for such a purpose. I will be very interested to hear from the Labor Party about one of its former promises. Will the Labor Party say, even though the security people in Australia made it very clear that no Prime Minister of Australia should travel overseas on a commercial aircraft because of the dangers of putting at risk ordinary people on that aircraft, that it will not use any VIP aircraft for overseas travel by its Prime Minister or other Ministers? Will it state that such people will fly on commercial aircraft or on chartered aircraft? How will Mr Hawke travel abroad in the immediate months ahead? What an extraordinary situation it is now that the Government has changed its policy! How extraordinary it is that the former Labor Government chose a man, saying he was the superlative choice of all people, to be Governor-General of Australia and because he did not do as the Government told him, turned on him when he was appointed to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. He was a man much more qualified in the law than others, a man of international status, President and conceiver of the Law Association for Asia and the Western Pacific but it is all right for the people who criticised him to appoint their former Prime Minister to such a position! I do not criticise that. Gough Whitlam will do a good job. What kind of irony is it that the Government should first of all laud a person, then seek to destroy him; to say of a man with no more qualifications that he is suitable and that the other person is not ? So step by step they knock things. There were promises in the election campaign that there would be tax cuts. Where is the mention of tax cuts in this report? Let me look at the extraordinary issue that ran very strongly in the election campaign. I refer to the Gordon below Franklin Dam. One would have thought that if one were opposed to the Gordon below Franklin Dam one would have fixed policies to ensure that the people of Tasmania had electric power and jobs and that those policies would be in position. It is a little aberration of thought that the former leader to the Labor Party gave an undertaking in writing to the people of Tasmania that this was a State matter and that there would be no Federal intervention. That broken little promise along the journey, was capable of being reported. Now what do we find? We find an extraordinary statement in this document. Let me read it because it is in prospect, not in retrospect. It states: My Government is also committed to investigating possibilities for alternative hydro electricity schemes and employment-generating activities in Tasmania. The Government is investigating them while it is seeking in the High Court of Australia to stop the construction and create disemployment. Investigating them? It is committed to doing it. There is no sign of the fact that it had any kind of policies in hand for this matter at all; it will investigate it. Indeed, it is fascinating to read through this report. Honourable senators should look at the kind of matters mentioned. For instance, was there any suggestion or disclosure to the Public Service of Australia before the election that the proposal was to re-enact one of the nasty influences of the Whitlam regime-the creation of a new level in the Public Service; to bring in people from outside, as it did, and create all the troubles that it created in the past? Did the Government do that? No. That was what we call a sleeve trick; it was up the Government's sleeve. We are looking at the kind of statements and promises that were made. There was to be a national recovery loan scheme to raise money to provide jobs for the unemployed. If it had been embarked upon it would have been disastrous, but it was the key in the election campaign to providing the money. When Mr Hawke was asked: 'Where will you get the money?' He said: 'We will get it largely from the national recovery bonds'. Now, this morning, the Government has said: 'We do not think we are going to have them'. Thank God for that! I could not think of anything more stupid than indexed bonds which would get preference over other lending and which would draw money out of the building societies and savings banks-draw it away from enterprise generally-and put it into that scheme. But no , both the promises about unemployment and about the money to assist unemployment have gone now-gone with the wind. There were lots of fascinating little euphemisms about how we will get on with the Association of South East Asian Nations. What an embarrassment to the Labor Party it must have been this morning, still flirting with the idea of giving aid to Vietnam, when it was disclosed that the Vietnamese are extensively using chemical warfare on the people of Kampuchea. How can Government senators sit there a day longer without saying: 'We must stop any thought of this because an increase in civil aid would enable the diversion of resources in Vietnam and Kampuchea towards the military and towards the bloody murder of people'? What use is there in people standing up here and talking about peace when they are in fact advocating policies that will encourage destruction? Let the Labor Party look today at the headlines in the paper and look to the fact that it is now on an enormous tiger. Wherever I look in the Australian Labor Party's policy speech I notice a very interesting thing. I notice a reference to the fact that it will embark upon its stated policies to reverse all the off-shore legislation. Let the Government deny this. The clear statement in its pre-election campaign was that it would reverse all the legislation that had been so painstakingly put through this House. The Australian Labor Party said, when it was talking about the Franklin Dam: 'Oh, no, you mistake us. We are not really destroying the Federal system'. Not much! I know of nothing that will cause more havoc and more mayhem amongst all State Premiers, including the four Labor State Premiers, than to assert the sovereignty of the Commonwealth to low tide mark. Let any honourable senator opposite get up and say that the Government is not going to do it. We would be very interested to have an admission that that is so . Let any honourable senator get up and describe the centralising powers of the inter-state commission that will be set up. When one looks at the Gordon below Franklin Dam, apart from the aberration and embarrassment of what has been said by the previous Labor leader, one needs to look at all the other centralising activities that are being set up. So we have in a most extraordinary statement a reference to aviation. But does that statement refer to a two-airline system of aviation? Not at all. The whole of the second system of airlines-Ansett Airlines of Australia and the other private airlines-is omitted. The Government has said that it will support further the government airlines. In the absence of any suggestions that the Government will maintain the two airline system, I take it that that is a direct threat-as it always has been-to the twin airline system. Wherever one looks throughout this statement one sees a running away from the most essential thing that is necessary for the development of Australia which is the water resources program. There is a statement to the effect that the Government will refer the various programs to the Study on the Perspective of Water Resources to the Year 2000. This Government knows, because it was stated in the Senate, that that Committee had seen and approved the list of water projects that had been announced. But there are no projects that could create jobs for the future and all the projects that were ready to go are now being put aside and shelved. I predict that they are being put aside so that the Government can make political decisions as to what electorates will be favoured and what electorates will not. Let the Government now say that it will proceed with projects such as the Splitrock Dam project. Let it say that or let it be criticised properly for hiding behind a pretext because indeed that Committee reviewed those things. We have a situation where the Governor-General's Speech was supposed to reflect the Labor Party's policy speech. The policy speech had been geared to unemployment and methods of creating jobs. Nothing in the Governor-General's Speech focused upon that. It mentioned casually in passing a number of times the word 'unemployment' but it did not set out in any specific detail at all the key and vital things. It showed that step by step the Labor Government will distance itself from its promises and that it will do so on the most faulty of all pretexts. The Government will say: 'We would have loved to have done all these things but the Budget deficit is too big'. I remind honourable senators that for seven years the Labor Party has said: 'We need great expansive opportunities in Australia. We need to expand the Budget deficit so we can do more and more'. That was its argument in this campaign. It knew very well that a deficit which would be running at at least $4 billion in this financial year would be running at a very much higher figure in the future. It argued, nevertheless, that it would spend more and more. In no way could a Labor Party in this place use the excuse of a large deficit to hide behind broken promises. It has made those promises. It has made the promises on how to fund unemployment. It said it would fund the unemployment in any case with a loan scheme which it is now running away from. Step by step it is now proving that the things that it proposed cannot be implemented. Mr Keating and the papers of the National Economic Summit Conference prove that the Australian Labor Party knows-and knew-that there will be more unemployment at the end of the Labor Party's three years in office than at the beginning. There could be no greater condemnation of any policy speech or any address than that and those facts. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.1) —I rise to speak on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech to make some observations on aspects of that Speech. A number of us would have liked to have had perhaps a little more time to prepare our observations. There has been some telescoping of debate today. I notice that the 'telescoping' has lost the Australian Labor Party altogether because there are to be three Opposition speakers in a row. We will, therefore, endeavour to bring forward points which are relevant in the discussions of the Governor- General's Speech and to indicate attitudes on a number of general matters. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to convey to the President-as this is the first opportunity I have had-my warm congratulations to him on his elevation to the Presidency. He has, by his long service in this Parliament and his service as Chairman of Committees, indicated his fairness and ability to perform the duties with which he has now been entrusted by this Parliament. I have no doubt that he will make a very outstanding President of the Senate. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you also to convey my congratulations to the Deputy President. He is a colleague of mine from Victoria and has been a close personal friend for many years. I have, likewise, the same great confidence that he will perform his duties admirably. His great interest in the Parliament and the future of the institution is such that there is no doubt that he will be very helpful to the President and to the Senate in the performance of his duties. I also would like to make some remarks about the new senators who have already spoken. I have listened to most of their speeches. It is obvious that a considerable amount of new and excellent talent is coming to the Senate. Their addresses have been excellent. Even more important will be the contribution which they will make in the committee work of the Parliament. I welcome them and wish them well in their careers. Criticism has been made in the Address-in-Reply speeches to the Governor- General's Speech which the Governor-General delivered on behalf of the Government. I must say that I am disappointed in that Speech. I will refer to a couple of aspects of it. I hoped it would have more content in the actual proposals being made by the Government. In the concluding stages of that Speech, at page 15, the Government has this to say: The spirit of co-operation which marked the National Economic Summit Conference last week has, my advisers believe, laid good foundations for a renewed national effort to enable Australia and its people to surmount the present grave crisis and indeed emerge from it a more united, stronger, and better nation. The comprehensive program I have outlined is designed to further the great national goals of reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction. I did feel that there was some moving from the high rhetoric which had enveloped Mr Hawke during the election period. I did not think that that Speech indicated very much in the way of co-operation that would be proposed, and which I think is a desirable feature of government in this Parliament. I will not repeat what was said by my colleague, Senator Sir John Carrick, in respect of the lack of reference to unemployment in the Governor-General's Speech. But it is indeed curious that after the tremendous, and I think important, emphasis that was given to it during the election campaign there is so little about it in the Speech and so little indication of the positive steps that will be taken. In addition, and more specifically, the Prime Minister emphasised a spirit of co- operation during both the election campaign and in his statements immediately after the election. I refer in particular to the references made in the Governor-General's Speech to parliamentary, legal and constitutional reform, which I will deal with in a little more detail in a moment. The Speech states: My advisers deeply believe that public confidence in the effectiveness and integrity of our parliamentary institution must be strengthened. I could not agree more with that statement. It is my belief-I have spoken about this on many occasions, both in public and in this chamber-that the Parliament has moved very much away from centre stage; that the Executive has too much dominance in this country. I would have liked to have seen the Prime Minister expand on what he means by increasing confidence in the effectiveness of Parliament. The Speech deals with a couple of instances with regard to legislation. But very little is to be gained from the Speech about the fundamental area of the major role which the Parliament should play but does not play. The Governor-General's Speech states: The Parliamentary Committee system of the national Parliament will be strengthened to give Members of Parliament a more effective role and participation in the great affairs of this nation. I understand that it is proposed that the House of Representatives should cease to have merely a few sporadic committees, which has been the case for some years , and will have a more organised committee system covering wider fields of policy. I would have liked to have seen the extent of that proposal. I will make some practical suggestions later about the parliamentary committee system. We in the Senate tend to be very proud of it and perhaps excessively confident in its continued existence and strength. I do not reflect on the committee systems in other areas of the Parliament. I would like to see more detail about those matters. I have said that the Government made a very strong plea for a spirit of co- operation. In past years in Budget debates, I have made many speeches in which I have made the same plea and request that we should reduce the extent of polarisation, conflict and division which have rent the Parliament for many years. Those ideas were certainly picked up and applied very effectively by the present Government in the last election campaign. I regret that when we were in government we did not do more to achieve a reduction in the polarisation and conflicts which occurred, and did not more positively seek co-operation, which would have had economic as well as useful political effects. One remembers that on the night of the election, when it was clear that Mr Hawke had been elected, he made strong statements about the fact that he wanted to involve all Australians, including the Opposition, in the work of government, in the work of the Parliament and so forth. So far there has been inadequate demonstration that that will become a reality. A small example concerns the Parliament's sitting hours, the possible discordance between the two chambers and the difficulties which will be faced by people trying to organise committee meetings which concern members of both chambers. In this area the previous Government did involve the Opposition in this chamber in discussions about sitting hours. I believe that the present Government has not really done so. The hours were announced to the Parliament. I know that they are operating on a temporary basis only, but I suggest that to a small degree-I do not want to make too much of this-it was an indication that there needs to be more co-operation. Both sides of the chamber have problems with regard to meetings and the proper conduct of their business. I hope that these matters will be given further attention. Senator Coleman, earlier this morning, had some fairly strong things to say about the number of elections we have had in this country over recent years. Basically I agree with what she said. In my opinion the holding of many elections in a country is not necessarily a good thing. Of course, in the United States, which I have just visited, the House of Representatives, a relatively weak chamber, goes out every two years. The presidential election runs over a year or more. There seems to be a great deal of electioneering all the time. It is not my opinion that long periods of electioneering, instead of long periods of government, are desirable. I hope that we are moving away from a period of premature elections which sometimes brought the two Houses into alignment and sometimes put them out of alignment, as has happened recently. I hope that we are reaching a period when we will know where we stand. I will not go into the question of fixed terms, but I will certainly have plenty to say about that shortly. My views on that subject are well known from remarks which I have made publicly and privately over many years. Senator Teague —We certainly need a remedy on both sides. Senator MISSEN —We need a remedy and we also need some certainty. We also need to remove from the economic community the insecurity which it has over long periods in that it never knows whether there will be an election now, in six months or next year. The mere expansion of the term from, say, three years to four years will not cure that problem. In fact in some ways it will exacerbate it because it will mean, as we see Mrs Thatcher doing at the moment, that there will be a longer period in which to play with the public as to whether there will or will not be an early election. Therefore, I think we have to find a real solution to this problem in the interests of the economy, quite apart from the interests of Parliament in being able to settle down and clear its decks of legislation, which most parliaments have not done in the last eight or ten years . We have left behind matters which have had to be reintroduced and then proceeded with. The excessive number of elections is widely criticised by the public now and we in this Parliament must do our best to find proper solutions to that problem. There has been a great deal of discussion about whether we can achieve consensus in the parliamentary situation. To an extent I think the word ' consensus' is an unfortunate one. I think it more important that there be positive attitudes in a parliament. Of course there must be conflict. An opposition seeks at all stages to get itself into a position from which it can become a government as soon as it can. It seems to me very important that in opposition there be a positive attitude towards a government program and that there be a recognition that whenever a government wins an election decisively it is entitled to expect that its program generally will be brought to fruition. If an opposition does not like that program or does not like aspects of Bills, it will criticise details of the Bills and will try to improve them, but if a government insists generally it should have its way. That will be an area of argument to be used against that government in an attempt to turn it out at the next election. But oppositions should not consider themselves governments in exile and I certainly do not intend to take any such attitude in this Parliament . There has been criticism of the National Economic Summit Conference and support for it. I was out of the country when it took place. I was attending a conference which I will refer to in this speech. From what I can see, I believe the Summit Conference was a worthwhile venture. Obviously, some of its achievements will be disappointing and, in fact, those achievements were not as great as perhaps one would believe at first glance. It should be recognised, however, as an excellent effort by the various elements of the economic equation to get together and to try to find solutions. I regret that political leaders were not also at the Summit. I think in that way it was narrow in its concept. That was a pity. But I cannot agree with those who seem at times to criticise the leaders of our business community for having attended and having made efforts at that Conference. I believe that their efforts were desirable and good and that they should be praised for them. They should not be denigrated for their attempts to achieve things; nor should it be suggested that they were naive in their approaches to these matters. I believe that there is a lot of experience in the economic community that needs to be brought into operation and which governments should use. I welcome that, along with the further information which the Summit Conference obviously brought out so that people could have a better idea of what are the problems in the economy. So far as attitudes are concerned, in this Parliament there will, of course, be plenty of opportunities for us to examine the Government's possible legislation. I hope to take positive attitudes, although critical on occasions, towards the legislation which it brings in. One of the areas in which I am interested is that of constitutional and legal affairs. The Government has quite a massive program on that subject ahead of it. I recognise that a number of those areas are areas which we, when in government, did not pursue to the full. There is unfinished business which the last Parliament did not tackle or debate. Amongst them are matters of family law which, quite scandalously really, are waiting to be dealt with by the Parliament . Parliament has not put aside sufficient time to deal with the recommendations which a joint committee of the Parliament made two or three years ago. Many of the recommendations have been added to the Bill which was before the last Parliament but which was never debated by it. In the same category is the Criminal Investigation Bill. It has been introduced into various parliaments, has been met with a howl of rage from police forces- not the Commonwealth force, but police forces of the States who fear that it may be used as a guide to their legislation-and each time the Bill has then been sent off for further study. I am glad to see that it is coming back into the Parliament and that, at last, the recommendation which the Law Reform Commission made-it must be eight years ago now-will at least have a chance to be debated for the first time by the Parliament. The way in which the very valuable work of the Law Reform Commission has been presented to the Parliament over the years- only to a very limited degree has it been implemented-is one of the failings of the Parliament. It is not a party political failing. It is, I think, a failure by members of the Parliament to be prepared to take up the results of money which has been spent, the work which has been done, and the opinions explored throughout Australia by the Law Reform Commission and to actually see whether they can be brought into force. We have to find better means of ensuring that those matters are dealt with. In regard to the law reform and constitutional program of the Government, so far as I am concerned, I personally am determined to operate in a positive way towards it. I might feel some disappointment that the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee's report on freedom of information, which I had the honour to present to this Parliament in 1979 and which was implemented only in part by the previous Government, is now to adorn the credit of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and others because it is now going to be implemented, largely in its entirety, I hope. If it is not going to be-if the little hints one gets that the Attorney-General is having difficulty in getting that legislation through are true-I can assure him that I will be harrying this Government, as I harried the Whitlam and Fraser governments, so that those things will be brought to fruition and that promises will be kept. I say, as a promise to the Parliament, that so far as I am concerned-- Senator Chipp —A promise or a threat? Senator MISSEN —Let us call it a promise. Let us be positive and not talk about threats. My promise is that I will certainly be probing away like mad to see that the Government's promises are kept and that Ministers, once they settle in and surround themselves with their 'Sir Humphreys' and their other public servants, do not find themselves induced not to give away the secrets which are so beloved of public servants. I have just been to the United States of America where I spent a number of days in Washington looking at the freedom of information legislation. The Congress of the United States has not yet even altered the United States freedom of information legislation but the Reagan Administration has done an enormous amount to tear the heart out of the practical operation of that legislation by intimidating public servants through presidential directives requiring them to enter into pre-publication agreements and to submit for censorship any information that they have and by threatening them with holograph or lie detector tests to ascertain whether there are leakages as to the various ways in which the United States Government has operated. That being so, the principle of freedom of information has suffered considerable blows in the United States of America, but it is not because of alteration of the words of the legislation. In general I warn the Government that insofar as information relating to national security and other matters of that sort may be put forward as information that ought not to be disclosed, it should be very careful not to draft legislation in such a way that unsympathetic governments or unsympathetic Ministers can manage to make use of these things to deny real freedom of information to this country. I believe that a positive attitude towards the law and constitutional reform is essential. I hope that the Opposition will develop that positive attitude. I shall just make a glancing remark about that happening last week-at the Constitutional Convention in Adelaide. I found it to be an incredible gathering. It was incredible that gerrymandering should be used so blatantly to concoct majorities for certain things. I really do not think it matters much which way the votes went at that Convention. I think the case for an elected or partially elected convention was made even more strongly by the holding of that Convention . I think it was a regrettable incident to be put rapidly in the past. I hope that very little notice will be taken of the sizes of votes and majorities that took place at that rather regrettable Convention. My main reason for using this example of reform areas is a belief that we on the Opposition should face all the various areas of law and constitutional reform in which we have had some slackness of effort in the past. I believe that we should look at those areas thoroughly and criticise proposals where they are subject to criticism-we should not move away from them just because of embarrassment-but at the same time we should adopt a positive attitude towards those matters which have been put positively before the electorate and largely endorsed. In this Parliament our numbers are such that there is weakness so far as the Opposition is concerned. In any election where there is a fairly dramatic swing, the people who are lost are often the young and the talented members. Clearly, the Opposition has suffered in this way. I wish to make a reference which I did not make as part of the remarks directed to retiring members last Tuesday evening because I did not want to ruin the atmosphere which was then engendered. A not so young senator, but one of great ability, who was lost from the Senate was Senator Neville Bonner. I deeply regret his loss because I believe that he had a fine contribution yet to make to the Parliament. I believe that I understand what happened in regard to him. I make no reflection, of course, upon my colleague from Queensland Senator MacGibbon who took former Senator Bonner's place. Three honourable senators were retiring and there were only enough Liberal votes for two of them to be re-elected. Nobody can criticise any retiring senator for wanting to be re-elected. But we know that Senator Bonner lost his seat-I remind the Labor Party of this-because of the Labor Party preferences. We know that it will be to the eternal disgrace of the Labor Party in Queensland that-- Senator Tate —Who dropped him from his correct position on the ticket? Senator MISSEN —Yes, the honourable senator can say that. I will criticise people in the Liberal Party who, I think, took racist attitudes in Queensland and who are now sorry for doing that. I do not in any way move from that situation. I believe that was a terrible and foolish decision which those people regret. But Senator Bonner was not defeated by that fact because he was 17,000 votes ahead until the Labor Party preferences in Queensland were counted. I have in my hand a document showing the preferences, for example, in Mr Hayden's seat, and they are about the same in every Queensland seat. The preferences of the Labor Party go-after their own candidates and the Democrats-to the National Party, the Liberal Party, the Socialist Workers Party and, almost at the end of the list, Senator Bonner. The Labor Party swept Senator Bonner aside and ignored a serious candidate. That turned a lead of about 17,000 votes into a deficit of 10,000 or so votes. I do not exclude from this criticism the Australian Democrats. It is true that their preferences were hardly used or they may not have been used at all. Senator Chipp —We didn't give preferences to anyone. Senator MISSEN —I am sorry but the Australian Democrats did give two lots of preferences on their card. They gave the Liberal Party preferences which, of course, went against Senator Bonner. The alternative was the Labor Party preferences which also went against Bonner. The Democrats did not have a card directing preferences to Senator Bonner. In fact, they gave preferences against Senator Bonner doubly, but actually those preferences were not used. The Democrats were lucky in that they did not get enough votes for preferences to have to be used. I just say that I believe the Democrats also were, to a minor degree, at fault in ignoring the fact that they gave two preferences, both of them hostile to a worthy candidate. To the Labor Party, because it has to take the main blame, I say this: Senator Bonner risked a great deal of criticism. He probably helped to put himself in a bad position in his own party by voting for Senator Ryan's private member's Bill on Aboriginal affairs. He took a strong stand on Aboriginal affairs. He was, in fact, crucified by Labor Party preferences, 19 per cent of which went to him and 81 per cent of which went to the Liberal Party. Senator Tate —Our how to vote card was designed to reduce the informal vote; that was the sole reason. Senator MISSEN —I do not accept that it was only for that reason. I heard the Labor Party's secretary in Queensland being very critical of Senator Bonner after the election day. He was very critical and stated that Senator Bonner might be given a job or might not be given a job because he talked about certain matters. I doubt that that is altogether a true reason that Senator Tate gives. On the other hand, it is still a disgrace because one cannot use that across-the -card business when a serious candidate will be affected. If one does that, one eliminates and ignores a man who could obviously poll well and who could have been elected. Honourable senators opposite must suffer the consequences. One must bear in mind that the Labor Party has besmirched its record in this respect . Senator Sibraa —We had a national executive decision to make all of the tickets as simple as possible because in the past it has cost us control of this place. Senator MISSEN —Yes, to make them as simple as possible is a good idea but not at the expense of a serious candidate. That is ridiculous. Anyway, I make the point that his departure from the Parliament is because of the preferences of other parties and their actions. The public should never forget that. I was going to say something about the Ottawa conference which I have just attended but I think time will not allow me to say more than that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Tate and I were away for some weeks at the conference on delegated legislation which was a very successful conference. No doubt there will be opportunities later to speak about that conference. From that conference came an indication that there are moves in the United States of America and the rest of the world to see that the control over regulations and the scrutiny of them is dealt with in a way which is perhaps better than the way in which we deal with regulations. We deal with regulations in a 'technical' scrutiny sense. In this Parliament we in fact have powers which are greater than those in any other parliament. On the other hand, nowhere in the Parliament do we examine the policies or merits of the regulations, the need for regulations or the best method of considering regulations. I just wanted to make that point in passing. I hope to have an opportunity to speak at more length on that at a later stage. It is an area with which I hope this Parliament will deal. I hope that we will not rest on our laurels because of the fact that we have fairly good control in this area, particularly in the Senate because of the work performed by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. More has to be done in the control of regulations in this country. There are indications elsewhere of the ways in which it may be done. I conclude my remarks by saying that I hope a bipartisan approach will be adopted in relation to many issues that will crop up in this Parliament. For example, I hope that in the human rights area we will have considerable opportunity to adopt a bipartisan approach. I believe that we are facing a situation in which the world, particularly the United States Government, has moved into a very quiet phase on human rights. There are indications that countries such as the United States and Australia ought to use sometimes discriminating opportunities to exercise human rights powers. Indeed we ought to do more in this direction. This Parliament has many matters with which it has to deal. I have not mentioned dams. I have not mentioned the various other changes. There are many areas in which parliament, I believe, can be constructive if the Government really wants it to be constructive. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.31) —I wish to talk about organised crime in Australia, particularly organised crime in Sydney. I want to talk about the inability or the lack of purpose of politicians in pursuing organised crime, the extent of organised crime in Australia and, to some extent, the capacity of royal commissions to deal with organised crime. Before I do so, however, I wish to refer to His Excellency the Governor-General, whose Speech we are replying to today. I have looked with great interest at the published correspondence between the former Prime Minister and His Excellency concerning the reasons for the recent double dissolution. I have some difficulty in contemplating constitutional matters because I am not a lawyer and the more lawyers talk about these matters the more confused I become. The reason for my confusion is that as I understand the speeches made by His Excellency when he was a justice of the High Court-these remarks are not necessarily meant as a criticism of His Excellency, the present Governor-General-he believed that the mere trigger of a Bill being rejected twice by the Senate was not enough to warrant the automatic and immediate granting of a double dissolution. I hope that I am not paraphrasing His Excellency incorrectly when I say that. We had a chain of circumstances recently wherein the previous Prime Minister requested a double dissolution of the Parliament. The mechanical triggers for a double dissolution were available because Bills-I think 13-had been rejected twice by the Senate with the prescribed three months interval between their rejection. Of those Bills, nine related to imposing sales tax on the necessities of life. Those Bills had been rejected the previous year. That seems to have been forgotten in the debate that has ensued about the recent double dissolution . A Bill was introduced to prevent the dole being paid to the spouses of strikers. Another Bill sought to reintroduce the payment of fees for tertiary education. The rejection twice to those two Bills could hardly be described as making the Parliament unworkable. One assumes that if the Parliament was said to have been unworkable the rejection of the nine sales tax Bills, which represented part of the Budget, must have been the reason. The Bills were rejected not in last year's Budget, in August 1982, but in the August 1981 Budget. The Parliament had worked perfectly well for over a year notwithstanding the rejection of those Bills. What then were the circumstances under which the recent double dissolution was granted? I will not be told that that is not a fair question for a senator to ask. This is a hung Senate, although not a hostile Senate. It is not inconceivable that Bills will be rejected in this place during the term of this Government. It is not unreasonable to assume that some Bills may well be rejected twice with a three-month interval in between. I believe that I am entitled to know-not as a leader of a party, not as a politician, but as a citizen-under what circumstances can double dissolutions be granted. Honourable senators will remember that, apparently, His Excellency was not satisfied with the original reasons given by Mr Fraser in his first letter and on his first visit. Sir Ninian Stephen requested further information. As I understand it, with my non-legal mind, His Excellency wanted to know whether because of the rejection of 13 Bills Parliament was unworkable or, to put it another way, whether the passage of those 13 Bills was crucial to good government in this country. The then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said: 'Yes, they were'. Clearly the Governor-General cannot and should not, in my view, question or cross-examine a Prime Minister or argue that point with him. If the Prime Minister of the day says, 'Yes, the Bills are crucial to good government' or ' the Parliament is unworkable because they have not been passed', that should be enough for a Governor-General to say: 'Privately, I might disagree with you but I cannot argue with you. Therefore I will grant a double dissolution'. That leads me to another point. I would have thought that the present Government would be interested in it, because it is pursuing vigorously, with the total support of the Australian Democrats, fixed terms of Parliament. I commend the Government for this and I wish it luck. God knows we deal with some trivial legislation from time to time. Let us assume that the Government brings in a Bill to make parking in the Australian Capital Territory cost $10 for half an hour, that it is passed by the House of Representatives and that it comes into the Senate and we knock it out. We wait three months, it is returned and again we knock it out. That Bill satisfies the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution. Following the last scenario in which Sir Ninian Stephen and Mr Fraser exchanged letters and conversed the present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, could say to the Governor-General: 'I want a double dissolution; I have satisfied the provisions of section 57'. The Governor-General would ask: 'Is this Bill crucial to the performance of your Government?' If Mr Hawke said yes, which would be an absurd thing to say, am I given to understand that from that point on the Governor-General of this country has no option but to grant a double dissolution of the Parliament? I raise these matters in a serious way. I will continue my correspondence with His Excellency, part of which has been published already. I hope that the responsible media will take up the matter and that it will engender further debate in the thinking sections of the community. This applies not only to lawyers but also to those people who have had a gutful of premature elections. Knowing that every election now apparently costs $18.5m and knowing that the average time between Federal elections in this country since Federation has been something like two years and four months, this state of affairs, if it is as I understand it, is an invitation to an existing Prime Minister to tell a fib to the Governor-General-I put it no higher than that-if he sees a chance to have a double dissolution which politically suits him or his party. Surely that is an undesirable state of affairs. If I am in any way correct, this argument might be used in the forthcoming debate when the issue of fixed terms is put to the people, I hope this year. I thoroughly commend the Australian Labor Party for its courage, foresight and initiative in going ahead with this proposition after the failure of it in Adelaide. I now turn to organised crime. Senator Tate —We don't regard it as much of a turn. Senator CHIPP —The pay is better than that for a politician, I should think. I now turn to discuss organised crime. Dr Alfred McCoy wrote in his world acclaimed book Drug Traffic: No city in the world could rival Sydney's tolerance for organised crime. That is a very serious accusation from a distinguished international author. Sydney happens to be in the State of New South Wales about which serious accusations as to its legal processes have been made. Last weekend the Australian Broadcasting Commission's program Four Corners alleged that there had been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in New South Wales. It was as clear and as simple as that. On the program it was stated that there were informants who would testify to that fact. The transcript reads: None of our informants were to appear on this programme but each is willing to give evidence on oath before a properly constituted inquiry as to the truth of the statements they've already made to us. Further in the transcript this appears: The magistrates we have talked to, felt that none of the responsible authorities were sufficiently independent of the New South Wales Government of the day. They had little hope that steps would be taken to establish the truth. I shall join the two statements together. McCoy said that no city in the world could rival Sydney's tolerance for organised crime and a responsible television program stated that there had been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice . I would have thought that these are very serious matters. Let none of us think that if there is organised crime in Sydney its effects remain in Sydney. If it is the crime capital of Australia, as the Moffitt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales established, and it was established for that purpose, the heroin peddled on Acland Street, St Kilda, flows from the organised crime that is running rampant in the city of Sydney today, aided by crooked policemen supported at higher levels by all sorts of other creatures. I have no intention of referring to political figures or attempting to gain any political capital. All I say is that, as the Senate knows, some writs for defamation have been taken out against the ABC. We know that, under the peculiar , strange or unusual laws relating to sub judice and also the very peculiar laws relating to evidence in New South Wales, the mere fact that those writs for defamation have been issued precludes all public discussion within New South Wales and, to some extent, in this chamber of the allegation made on the Four Corners program. It also precludes discussion of any kind in the New South Wales Parliament until the writs have been satisfied. Has any honourable senator in this Senate ever heard of a writ for defamation being heard within a reasonably short time or am I correct in assuming that sometimes it can take up to two years or three years? What does a writ for defamation do? I am not saying that these are the reasons for the writs that have been taken out. If those kinds of aspersions had been made about me I would have had a writ on the ABC quick and lively also. I am not being critical of that. It is a politician's right to do that, but it means that any real discussion about these accusations will not be able to be held for one year, two years, three years or whatever. It is pathetic to think that people who had the courage to say last weekend that they were prepared to give evidence on oath as witnesses will to some extent be softened up one year, two years or three years from now. I remind the Senate that this is happening in the city of Sydney which is unrivalled in the world for its tolerance of organised crime. Does anybody in this chamber really believe that those witnesses will be as enthusiastic about giving evidence of a conspiracy to pervert justice two years from now in a city which is as notorious for hoodlums, gangsterism, violence as any in the world? Senator Robert Ray —If they are so conscientious you would think that they would have made the allegations six years ago. Senator CHIPP —If Senator Ray has any information which will throw light on this matter I will yield to him so that he can produce it. In fact he will have an opportunity during this debate. I believe that we need speakers to jump up and give us the benefit of their knowledge and experience on the matter. I would be grateful to hear the honourable senator on this matter. That is why I was dismayed at the Attorney-General's response to me last Tuesday. Clearly, the writ for defamation on the ABC was properly and rightly lodged by the Premier of New South Wales. All that it seeks out, as I read the transcript, is whether a phone call was made by the Premier to Mr Farquhar and the contents of that phone call. It does not go to the issue of whether there was a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The Wran writ cannot go that far. Where does that leave us? In two or three years we will let that question go by default. I regard that as an extraordinarily serious matter. I turn now to another matter concerning organised crime. Sometimes I despair and that is why I have asked the Federal Attorney-General to intervene in this matter. I did so virtually with tongue in cheek because other than Costigan, who has been brilliant in opening up the corridors of power and corruption in this country, I am singularly unimpressed with other Federal incursions into fact- finding in the area of crime in this country. I refer to Woodward, Williams and Stewart. With your permission, Mr Acting Deputy President, because I know I am on delicate ground, I will mention those commissions to some extent. Over a year ago, in March 1982, in the Senate I had occasion to remark on the report of the Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking. The major part of the report was made available on a private basis to the then Senate Opposition Leader, Senator Button. In the course of the debate on the report I made the following points: Firstly, that the heroin street market has been generating profits-profits, not turnover-of $250m a year, emanating from illegal importation. That, by itself, is a greater profit than that made by Telecom Australia in any one year. Equally, there were profits of $250m from the illegal sale and importation of cannabis. Another $100m to $155m in profits was made from illegal gambling, essentially in the city of Sydney, through which at least one royal commission has established, drug money is laundered. This is going on in our own country. I also remarked that with those kinds of profits available, what policeman, magistrate, judge or even politician can be considered safe from possible attempts at corruption. I then stated that in my view the Queensland police force, among others, had been exposed as one of the most corrupt groups of law enforcement officials in the world and that the royal commissions of Williams and Woodward were tragic and useless wastes of money. During the debate Senator Sir John Carrick challenged his fellow senators and said: 'Look, we all ought to stand up and be counted if any of us have any information at all on drug trafficking'. He recommended that we go to the royal commissioner with information that we had in our possession, and expressed his confidence that the royal commissioner would be willing to take information in confidence. That is fair enough. The Australian Labor Party, through Senator Gerry Jones, voiced solidarity with the Liberal Government in this regard. Senator Jones stated: Senator Chipp does not have the evidence. Senator Chipp is naming people. In fact, I named no-one, not one name. Senator Jones continued: It is very easy to name people in this place. We should allow the joint task force, those commissions and those people investigating the matter, to take the evidence and then let us be the judge. Let us not judge on rumours, say-so, correspondence or a story which someone has told . . .we should let the royal commissions do the job. I agree with every word he said. It is commendable stuff. I listened to those arguments and I took them seriously and took them at their word. In May 1982 I hand delivered-after giving evidence to the Stewart Royal Commission-to Mr Justice D. G. Stewart, the royal commissioner, on the inquiry into drug trafficking, 376 pages of detailed notes, original documents relating to various matters connected with the illegal importation of drugs into Australia. For my own protection-I do not want to sound melodramatic on this-I asked the then Prime Minister of Australia whether he would take carbon copies of the documents so that there would be some protection of me. He graciously agreed to do so. The information I provided to Mr Justice Stewart named names. It provided tangible evidence which suggested corruption on the part of very senior officers of the Queensland police force and others. By the very nature of the subject matter of my submission to the royal commissioner this undertaking was fraught with grave risks to the personal safety not only of me but also of all persons who could be traced as informants in those 376 pages of documents. Ten months later the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Stewart, wrote to me. The Standing Orders ensure that I say only this: I am deeply disappointed by his response. I wish the Standing Orders could allow me to say a lot more about Mr Justice Stewart. Mr Justice Stewart's letter fell into two sections. He told me, in general terms, how wonderful the Commission was and how many exhibits, statements and witnesses the Royal Commission had considered. He then said how baseless and untrue were the inferences arising from the submissions I made. The most remarkable paragraph in the letter was perhaps the following. It states: Only police forces have the basic resources to investigate criminal activities. Amateurs without access to criminal intelligence may cause sensations but they will rarely assist in catching the drug trafficker. The Commission is firmly of the view that any person, whether a member of Parliament, of the press or of the public, who has any material suggesting that criminal offences have been committed should make that material available to the Queensland Police or the Australian Federal Police Force and should reject the temptation to publish the material. In other words, a person who has evidence against a policeman should not publish it; he should go to the police so that they can investigate the matter. A royal commissioner told me this. I suggest, with respect, that that statement is one of the most ludicrous that can be imagined, when the Queensland Police, including very senior police officials, together with other officials are under suspicion. When the officials themselves stand accused, with good reason, of major wrong-doing, they can hardly be expected to handle accusatory evidence against them and their colleagues in a fair and impartial way. Is it not Ceasar being asked to inquire into Caesar? Only the very amateurs which the Commission has derided can pierce the veil of official secrecy and corruption. In any event , Mr Justice Stewart knew that all of the 376 pages that I gave him were submitted to me by a fully trained former police investigator of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. That was known by Mr Justice Stewart, yet he said to me: 'Don' t give me evidence submitted by amateurs'. I am sad to say, on the basis of what I have seen of the work of the Stewart Royal Commission, that it has joined the ranks of the Woodward Royal Commission and the Williams Royal Commission in making little contribution to investigatory progress. It is a sad day when those persons who are courageous enough to bring the evidence to the one branch of officialdom where it might do some good-the Royal Commission-are made to feel that they have acted foolishly or precipitately. This exercise has not given me much comfort that the little person has any reason to expect effective action from the Government or its agencies. When we are confronted, even as politicians, with allegations such as those made in the Four Corners program, where do we go? Do we have any confidence at all in the New South Wales Police being able to investigate why charges of fraud brought several years ago were dropped? Does anyone have any confidence that they will be able to take such action? Allegedly, they will not be able to start their official investigation until the defamation writs have been settled. Does anybody here have any confidence that a royal commission will be able to find any truth and get to the bottom of organised crime in this country which, I repeat, now carries profits of over $700m a year? Does anybody believe that that action will be useful? The Attorney has described one commissioner as a 'de facto crimes commission', which had brilliant success in this area. I ask the Attorney at least to allow it to put its fingers into the smokey corridors of corruption that exist in Sydney and Brisbane. If I go alone on this matter, so be it, but I will not let it rest. I remind the Senate that if we cannot have some form of proper investigation the Senate has powers. It is not impossible for it to appoint a select committee to inquire into these matters. I will contemplate that course of action unless we receive more co-operation on this matter from the Attorney and this Government. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.58) —I take this opportunity to speak during the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech, made on the occasion of the opening of the Thirty-third Parliament on 21 April 1983. Firstly , I congratulate the newly arrived senators who were successful in the election held a few weeks ago. I believe that the new senators who have arrived will bring considerable experience to the Senate. I am particularly pleased-as are, I believe, all honourable senators-to see in the Senate the increased number of lady senators. I was speaking to one of the lady senators earlier today. I remarked that there were now 13 lady senators. I was corrected and she said; 'No , there are only 51 men senators'. Nevertheless, I hope that the lady senators will bring considerable experience to the Senate. I hope too that their presence here will encourage other legislatures in Australia to have more lady members. It is a very pleasing thing to see. Debate interrupted. Senator LEWIS —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, is again about the Royal Australian Air Force photographic flights over South West Tasmania. I refer the Attorney-General to the confirmation in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by the Minister for Defence that he did not give directions for the flights as required by paragraph 14 of the Defence Instructions (General) document which the Attorney tabled in this chamber on 22 April. I ask the Attorney: How does he reconcile the Minister's acknowledgement with the Attorney's statement, as recorded in Hansard of 22 April on page 67, that these flights involved no breach of the explicit language of the directions under which the Defence Force operates in these particular matters? Further, how does he reconcile his statement that these flights involved no breach of the explicit language of these directions with paragraph 17 (a) of these Instructions which state that where aid is provided in a no-force situation, which I assume this was, it must be first approved by the Chief of Defence Force Staff? Senator GARETH EVANS —One really wishes that the Opposition would cease behaving like a collection of political down and outs nosing around the back alleys and garbage cans seeking scraps of trivia with which to belabour a government trying to get on with the serious business of running this country. That much said, let me proceed to answer the specifics of the question that the honourable senator put to me. The first point is that Mr Scholes has made it clear on the public record that he agreed to the particular task that was proposed to him. He has drawn a distinction between the agreement which he signified to me and the direct and specific authorisation of a particular task within the terms of the Defence Instructions to which the honourable senator referred. It is the case that there is no such direct written authorisation, although there was ministerial agreement. As a matter of law, since the Defence Instructions are themselves issued at a purely departmental level, as I understand it, there can be no question of their overriding in their effect the force of the agreement given at the ministerial level. So to that extent there is nothing to explain so far as the question of authority is concerned. There is a real question as to which set of Defence Instructions should govern situations of this kind. There are, in fact, two possibly relevant sets of Defence Instructions. I have tabled only one such set because only one set was known to me at the time; that is, the Instructions relating to defence aid to the civil power. There is another set of Instructions relating to another category of aid. Regrettably I do not have them with me, otherwise I would be only too delighted to table them but I will make them available to the honourable senator afterwards; that is, the category of defence assistance to the civil community. I am endeavouring on this occasion, as on all others on which this matter has been raised, to be full, frank and honest in my dealings with the Senate and to lay out all the information that is available to me, a state of affairs which regrettably was not achieved by the Opposition when it was in government. There is some argument, I understand, within the defence establishment as to which was the appropriate set of procedures, defence aid to the civil power or defence assistance to the civil community. Under the latter set of procedures a quite different flow of authorisations and instructions, not involving the Chief of Defence Force Staff, let alone the Minister, is required. I simply make that point. If the Opposition is minded to make anything of the authorisation process, there is a real question as to what were the appropriate instructions. I by no means-- Senator Chaney —But to which instructions were you referring in your answer? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was referring to the defence aid to the civil power about which there is some ambiguity anyway as to how one should read the force and effects of section 14, as I stated in the Senate. I do not think there is anything more I can say on that particular score. There is a condition of some uncertainty so far as the procedures which ought appropriately to apply at all levels of aid to the civil power are concerned, not only in non-force situations of the kind we are talking about but also in situations of call out, of civil violence or of a repetition of the Hilton bombing affair, should that ever recur . There is a very real need for a clarification of the law and procedures that should govern all these situations, a need that I made clear when in Opposition and which I now make clear in Government. I will be seeking a review of this whole area of law and practice with my colleague the Minister for Defence in the hope that we can do something to get all these procedures clearly established once and for all so that there will not be a repetition of this degree of uncertainty in the future. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Arising out of what the Attorney-General has told the Senate, will he table those documents rather than just provide them to me? Secondly, and more importantly, given that he acknowledges that he did not know about those instructions until very recently, at the time he was involved in these arrangements for this flight was he aware of the Defence Instructions generally which he tabled on 22 April? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no. Senator McINTOSH —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it the case that appointments to the new board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be influenced in any way by incidents stemming from the broadcast of a Four Corners program last Saturday night? Has the Minister written to Professor Kramer about remarks he made in the Senate yesterday? Senator BUTTON —Appointments to the new Australian Broadcasting Corporation will not be influenced by any discussions which have taken place or the fact that the Liberal Party Opposition in this place has sought to exploit an incident which occurred in relation to an Australian Broadcasting Commission program recently. Appointments to the board of the Corporation will be made on the basis that people will be chosen because of expertise, business experience and knowledge of broadcasting. It is outrageous to suggest that there will be any political bias in appointments to the new Corporation. I note with interest that in the House of Representatives today the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, whose credentials and credibility as an economics spokesman for the Liberal Party have been totally eroded by his conduct prior to the election, has now bought into this area of alleged propriety in relation to appointments. Some of the comments he made this morning indicate an extraordinary ignorance about these matters. This Government is fully committed to the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the legislation which will be enacted, and which is identical in almost all respects with legislation introduced by the previous Government last year, will be brought into the Senate next week. It is ridiculous for the former Treasurer to be saying that the Government is introducing legislation, as he said this morning, to dispose of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Basically it is the Opposition's legislation. Basically, it is bipartisan legislation. That sort of comment is quite intolerable. In relation to the independence of the Commission, criticisms of the present Government come strangely from honourable senators in this place who were in government for the last seven years. I will just give the Senate an example of what I mean. There is a strain within the Liberal Party which has a genuine concern for the independence of the ABC. It was represented by a former Minister , Mr Staley, who consulted with the then Opposition about proposed appointments to the ABC. The proposed appointments which Mr Staley had in mind were impeccable. Those concerned were impeccably neutral people. Those appointments were never made by the Fraser Government. They were never made for reasons which , subject to conversation with Mr Staley, I am happy to reveal. They were never made for reasons which indicated a degree of lack of concern about independence for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I want to say something about questions which were raised yesterday in relation to the position of Professor Leonie Kramer. I said in answering such a question that if any honourable senator on the Opposition side of the chamber wanted to follow up a comment I had made about Professor Kramer I would be happy to discuss it with him. Senator Peter Baume —Here is the place to do it, not privately in your office. Senator BUTTON —I said that I would be happy to discuss the matter with any honourable senator who raised this question. Not one Opposition senator spoke to me about it. Instead, this noisy Bonnie Prince Charlie in exile, Senator Baume, raced on to television and shot his mouth off in some of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard from an Opposition spokesman in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. What Senator Baume needs is more experience in Opposition, and he will get it. I said yesterday that I would write to Professor Kramer relating to the comment which I made. I have done so. Professor Kramer, if she wishes, will be perfectly free so far as I am concerned to release the contents of my letter. Then Senator Baume can jump to his feet and ask a whole series of further questions if he wants to do so. Senator CHANEY —I direct my question to the Attorney-General, although in spirit I might address it to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who shows a similar irritability at being questioned in this place. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw that remark. Senator CHANEY —Which remark, Mr President? The PRESIDENT —The last remark that the Minister showed a desire not to be questioned in this place. I think the remark exceeded the provisions of Standing Order 418 and I ask the honourable senator to withdraw it. The honourable senator directed his question to the Attorney-General and then made an imputation against the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask the honourable senator to direct his question to the Attorney-General. Senator CHANEY —In deference to you, Mr President, I withdraw. I ask the Attorney-General why he castigated Senator Lewis for asking him a further question with respect to the flights across the Franklin River when in the course of his answer he disclosed information which had not previously been made available to the Senate and the existence of a further document which was relevant to the propriety or otherwise, and the authorisation of, those flights. Senator GARETH EVANS —The issue is a dead one so far as everyone is concerned, except the people on the other side of the chamber. There is an absolute mass of documentation within the Department of Defence which can be construed as possibly relevant to this issue including documentation of flights all over the country by Mirages and F111 aircraft at every hour of every day of the week. I would be happy to table that information and to make any further suggestions for disclosure that might be sought by honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. There is a mass of material within the Department of Defence as to internal procedures that apply or do not apply, as the case may be, in relation to different sorts of requests received from different sorts of people for different sorts of contributions by the Department. If any further specific information is sought on this matter or on any others by members of this chamber on either side I will be only too happy to oblige them. Senator Teague —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I do not want to canvass or disagree with your ruling but I ask whether, under Standing Order 418, the word 'irritability' is what you have referred to as an offensive word. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I want to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Attorney-General, in light of his reply, whether he will have the documentation within the Department of Defence examined to see whether there are any other documents which are directly relevant to the procedures which should be followed when a request of the sort he made is made of the defence forces. Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer is that I have made that request already through the officers of my Department in the aftermath of the flights issue erupting. It is as a result of that request being made and my getting some further information that I was in a position to explain to Senator Lewis that there were in fact two sets, not one set, of defence instructions which were potentially applicable to this case, it being a matter of interpretation and some current and continuing doubt as to which set of instructions was the appropriate one in this sort of non-force request for co-operation situation. I can assure him that there does not appear to be any other possibly relevant document governing this kind of procedure. The situation is as I described it- one of some degree of uncertainty and, I think, an appropriate matter for review . I know that the whole question of defence aid to the civil power is an issue in which the previous Attorney-General had a major and continuing interest in the aftermath of the-- Senator Durack —I still have. Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed, and no doubt we will hear from the honourable senator in due course when he can summon enough energy to rise to his feet. I will be only too happy to assist the honourable senator when he does ask a question. Senator MAGUIRE —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy: Is he aware of statements by the Chairman of Santos Ltd, Mr Alex Carmichael, to the company's annual general meeting in Adelaide this week that while a tax on profits instead of a tax on production had merits, uncertainty over resources taxation was harming oil exploration? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the Government's intentions about a resources rent tax? When will it be introduced? What effect will it have on Australian extractive industries such as South Australia's major resource project in the Cooper Basin? Senator WALSH —I was aware of the report to which Senator Maguire referred. I am gratified, as the Government is gratified, that the superiority of a profits based system of taxing extractive industries is recognised by the Chairman of Santos and by many other prominent mining industry figures. The concept of rent and the objectives behind it I think are such that one should not occupy a lot of time in Question Time explaining in full the reasons for the application of a rent-type tax instead of production taxes, as generally apply now. But I would like to say that virtually all mining and petroleum activity does pay taxation now. Sometimes the taxes paid are extremely high, particularly the taxes on crude oil and export quality coal. Almost all of the taxes applied are applied on production, applied indiscriminately to high cost and low cost mines and in times of industry boom and recession. Where the existing tax is a low proportion of market price the administrative simplicity probably outweighs the greater efficiency and equity of a rent-type tax. But where it is a high proportion of market price it induces serious distortions and inequities. The two commodities to which that situation applies are crude oil and export coal. It is in those areas-- Senator MacGibbon —You want to subsidise the inefficient New South Wales producers and put Queensland producers out of business. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh is answering a question. Senator WALSH —The ignorant comments emanating from the Opposition back bench have almost persuaded me to reconsider my earlier decision not to occupy 10 or 15 minutes of Question Time in trying to educate the economic primitives in the Liberal Party of Australia on the economic rationale for a rent-type tax. The honourable senator tempted me to reconsider that decision but I will do that on another occasion. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. Having been chided once this morning I am perhaps conscious of the use of unparliamentary language. The reference to an interjector as a primitive does not, I think, uphold the dignity of this place. I seek its withdrawal. The PRESIDENT —In view of the objection taken by Senator Chaney, I ask the Minister to withdraw the remark, but I ask all honourable senators to realise that Question Time must be conducted on a sensible and balanced basis. I ask Ministers, in answering questions, to be as brief as possible and certainly not to debate the issue. Senator WALSH —I withdraw the reference to 'primitive'; 'unsophisticated' might be a more parliamentary term. When I was interrupted by the interjection I was explaining that it is in the area of export quality coal and crude oil that the Government is interested in applying this tax. The legal ownership of coal is vested in the States and without the co-operation of the States I do not believe that it will be possible to proceed very far. What we envisage and what we have explicitly spelt out on numerous occasions is that we are not contemplating additional taxes; we are contemplating a profits based rent-type tax as a replacement for the existing levies on production. New South Wales and Queensland are the two States which are concerned with coal and arrangements are being made for a meeting with those States in June for a general discussion about the problem. As I have said, if the States do not co- operate I do not believe that there is very much we can do. However, if as a result of that non-co-operation and insistence on maintaining the existing taxes on production a substantial section of coal producers is further disadvantaged the State governments will have to bear whatever political odium may flow from their non-co-operation and its adverse effects on the industry. In my view it is not feasible to introduce such a tax on oil in the next financial year. The current plans of the Government are that a rent-type tax will replace the existing crude oil levies in 1984-85. My predecessor in opposition, Paul Keating, gave repeated assurances to the industry that no such taxes would be introduced without adequate consultation. I have repeated those assurances in opposition and in government. Senator CHIPP —Is the Attorney-General aware that Sydney is commonly held to be the centre of organised crime and corruption in Australia, as evidenced by the Moffitt Royal Commission, and that Dr Alfred McCoy stated in his book Drug Traffic, 'No city in the world could rival Sydney's tolerance for organised crime'? Is the Attorney-General aware that some magistrates have allegedly stated that there was a perversion in the course of justice and that they would give evidence on oath before a properly constituted inquiry as to the truth of the statements they have made? A Four Corners program stated: The magistrates we have talked to, felt that none of the responsible authorities were sufficiently independent of the New South Wales Government of the day. They had little hope that steps would be taken to establish the truth. Is the Attorney-General aware that because defamation suits now before the courts could take up to several years to complete there is a danger that some of the witnesses might lose their enthusiasm to testify? Given these facts, will the Government alter its intention not to hold an inquiry into allegations of political corruption, past and present, in New South Wales or will the Government favourably receive a motion from this side of the chamber calling for a Senate select committee to undertake the task? Senator GARETH EVANS —I simply reiterate the point I made in answer to Senator Chipp when he first raised this question. Matters relating to the administration of justice within a State and involving no larger national issues or allegations about breaches of federal laws are and must remain properly a matter for the State concerned. I do not believe and the Government does not believe that it would be appropriate in the circumstances to which Senator Chipp referred for the Commonwealth to involve itself in a matter which is quintessentially one of States rights. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of representations from some oil refining companies concerning the present arrangements for calculating the coastal freight allowance in the determination of the import parity price for Bass Strait crude oil? As these arrangements, which provide for a notional average freight allowance, actually discriminate against refiners operating in Sydney and Brisbane, can the Minister indicate what alternative arrangements could be instituted which would have greater regard to actual freight costs? Senator WALSH —Yes, I am aware of representations being made by some companies and yes, I believe that the existing arrangements disadvantage some refiner marketers. The arrangements are complicated but, in brief, they ensure that refiners pay the actual cost of moving Australian crude from the oilfield to the refinery in such a way that the total cost of shipping crude around the Australian coast is minimised, which is obviously a desirable objective. Because of that arrangement some refiners pay more than others for crude oil because they pay the basic price plus freight. In particular the refineries located in Brisbane and Sydney are in that position. The Petroleum Products Pricing Authority sets equal capital city prices for petrol. Therefore, the refiners in Brisbane and Sydney cannot recover the higher costs that they paid for the crude from the market for refined products. The refiner marketers-each of the marketers, with one or two exceptions, has only one refinery in Australia- exchange products between refineries on an equal volume basis to minimise the freight costs of shipping refined product around the Australian coast or moving it by land. That objective also is sensible and is supported by the Government. The refined product in Sydney and Brisbane at the retail level actually has a higher real market value because of the added on freight costs. But the combined operations of the second and third points that I mentioned-the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority and the equal volume exchange-preclude the Sydney and Brisbane refineries from recovering the higher costs which have been thrust upon them. I think there are three options available to overcome this problem. They are: First, to redistribute between companies the present freight costs; secondly, to approach the PPPA to vary the capital city wholesale prices, which would be an imperfect solution for complex reasons which I will not detail at this stage; and, thirdly, to approach the companies to exchange product on an unequal volume basis which takes account of the fact that refined product in some locations in Australia has a higher real market value than refined product in other locations in Australia. I have approached the companies with a view to having them adopt that fair and efficient solution to the present problem. If a satisfactory response is not received, the first option-that is, some re-distribution between companies of the existing total cost-though it is complex and would be somewhat arbitrary, I believe must be considered by the Government. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, follows that asked by Senator Chipp. Is it a fact that, under the guidance of the Attorney-General, the Hawke Government is proposing to legislate using variously the external affairs power, the Aboriginal affairs power and the corporation power, and is even prepared to use the Royal Australian Air Force, in an endeavour to restrict the activities of a State electricity authority? Is it also a fact that the Attorney-General will not even investigate allegations of corruption of the administration of justice in New South Wales, where it has been said there are no responsible State authorities sufficiently independent of the Government led by the President of the Australian Labor Party to have the truth established, and that he will not do so because of State rights? Has he made the same conscientious search for some head of power under which he could have these serious allegations properly investigated? Will he repeat his reply to an interjection that he is a selective advocate of State rights? Can we expect this tender regard for State rights only where ALP governments are involved? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Hawke Government has a very keen regard for States rights and has demonstrated that regard in the context of the Tasmanian matter, to which the honourable senator refers, by entering into a long process of negotiation and attempted negotiation before proceeding to act on the basis of the powers available to it. The reason it finally decided to act on the Commonwealth powers available to it is that there has been a very clear perception on the part of this Government, shared by an overwhelming majority of the Australian people, that the matters in issue in Tasmania are not simply matters for the State in question but are matters of national and indeed international importance. It is on that basis that the Commonwealth is exercising the powers available to it. Indeed, it is only because of their importance, measured in those terms, that the Commonwealth will prove to have the power to act in this area. The matter is quite distinct from the other matter which was the subject of earlier questioning. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Attorney -General to address the question I put to him. I asked him whether he had made the same conscientious search for some head of power under which he could have these serious allegations investigated or whether he had simply wiped the matter off. Senator GARETH EVANS —If I had any belief, or any argument was put to me, that there were matters involving potential offences against Federal criminal law, or which involved the administration of justice in a way that was nationally relevant or significant, I am sure that a head of power would be appropriately available under section 61 of the Constitution. But since no suggestion has been made by anyone that this is a matter involving other than the administration of justice at a State level, I do not believe that such a search would be productive in this instance. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I have received many representations-no doubt other senators have as well-about the removal of many drugs from the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as a result of the previous Government's revision of the scheme. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the widespread criticism of the revised scheme. If so, will he be addressing this criticism? What system is to be established for the operation of this system in the future? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Coates has asked me about the very important changes that were made to the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by my predecessor who established an organisation to examine the use of drugs under the Scheme. I think it is true, as Senator Coates has mentioned, that there has been widespread reaction to the new scheme that was introduced by my predecessor and began operating on 1 March this year. The opposition comes from doctors, pharmacists and, in particular, ex-servicemen. I advise the Senate that I have had more representations on this issue than I have had on any other issue in all of my activities in public life. As a consequence I have reviewed the decision that was made by the previous Government, which aimed at some control over the use of drugs prescribed by a local medical officer. Whilst I think there is some evidence that a lax attitude has been taken by some of the medical officers in this area, I doubt the effectiveness of the proposals which the previous Government adopted. In other words, it established bureaucratic machinery to deal with what I believe to be a social problem. The consequence of that within the first couple of weeks in which the scheme was in operation was that the Department of Veterans' Affairs was required to process some 18,000 prescriptions which doctors made as a result of representations by ex-service patients. It seemed to me, philosophically, that that was repugnant to the Australian Labor Party. I would have thought it would not have been acceptable even to the philosophical position of the previous Government to have such procedures adopted in dealing with what were clearly, I acknowledge, some social problems. However, as a result of my review I suspended the scheme for six months so that I would have the opportunity, with my parliamentary colleagues, to see whether we could overcome the difficulties that appeared to exist when the previous Government changed the scheme. The pharmaceutical companies were exploiting the fact that drugs were on the list that operated within the Department as indeed they have in respect of those associated with the scheme which is operated by the Department of Health. It ought to be brought to the public's attention that the pharmaceutical companies having got the drugs on the prescribed scheme are then able to charge whatever price they like. It is also true that some doctors do not carry out their proper responsi- bilities in this area. The net result is that tens of thousands, in fact scores of thousands, of ex-servicemen were affected because of the decision which operated from 1 March. The consequence of that decision is that the scheme has been suspended for 6 months. We will be having a look at it with a view to redressing the problems that exist but not at the expense of the ex-servicemen themselves. I give an assurance to Senator Coates that he, and my colleagues, will be consulted on the new scheme when it is proposed to be introduced. The only other point that is worth referring to is that any new drugs prescribed by local medical officers have to be referred to the Department as from 1 March. But in respect of all the previous prescriptions, the new system that was instituted by the previous Government is no longer operating. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It deals with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Is it a fact that of the 158 nations which occupy chairs at UNESCO sessions in only about 30 are people free to say and write what they think about their governments? Is it also a fact that UNESCO has established a new world information communications order which seeks to have substantial control over the means of circulating information around the world? Is it also a fact that for this purpose UNESCO has established the international program for development of communications? The previous Government refused, along with a number of other democratic countries, to fund this program. Will the new Government give an undertaking that it too will refuse to fund this program so that the interests of the free Press can be maintained? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Harradine for his question. I will ensure that it is brought to the attention of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the new incumbent of the ambassadorial office in question, who will no doubt play a significant role in that forum, as indeed he has in others, in advancing the cause of freedom around the world. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. It refers to an item in the Auditor-General's report tabled on Tuesday . In the section dealing with the Department of Primary Industry the Auditor- General drew attention to discrepancies in the administration of trust accounts, delays in the payment of interest due on trust accounts and imbalances between the Department's investment ledger and records of the Department of Finance. He also found that security over investment records was not entirely satisfactory. Can the Minister explain how such a poor performance was possible and whether it is likely to continue in the future? Senator WALSH —The Australian Labor Party has long been concerned about the Department of Primary Industry, statutory authorities coming under its control and scandals emanating from those authorities, not the least of which was the disappearance without trace a few years ago of $3m from a Singapore slush fund into a Swiss bank account. It is now concerned about the accounting discrepancies revealed in the most recent Auditor-General's report. I think it would be fair to say, given the calibre of the two Ministers who have been responsible for this Department for the last seven years, that we really could not have expected anything better. The Department, of course, now has a new Minister. I have no doubt that the administration of trust accounts and other matters will now be properly supervised. Senator WALTERS —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, also refers to the spy flights over Tasmania. Government senators interjecting- Senator WALTERS —Mr President, the Government does not like this line of questioning. I refer to the Attorney's answers to the questions asked by Senator Lewis. I ask: Was an assurance given by the requesting authority, as required by paragraph 17 (b) of the Defence Instructions, that the assets available to the authority had been fully utilised to the maximum possible extent and that the only recourse left was Defence Force aid? If so, which civil government authorities, such as air charter companies and scientific photographic companies , were approached and when? Why was this evidence not tabled? Senator GARETH EVANS —The denizens of that political skid row to which I referred earlier are certainly demonstrating an incapacity to lie down on this issue. It is regrettable, because there is nothing more to be obtained by this kind of churlish searching after tidbits of this kind. The reality of the matter, as I have endeavoured to explain to the honourable senator-I appreciate there is some lag time between explanation and understanding in the case of the honourable senator-is that the instructions to which she has referred were manifestly not applied in every respect in terms of the procedure of authorisation that was adopted on this occasion. One of the reasons they were not applied was that apparently there was some difference of belief or understanding within the defence establishment as to whether they were the appropriate instructions, or whether the appropriate instructions were the others to which I referred, DI(G) OPS 05-1-if that means anything to the honourable senator-which relate to defence assistance to the civil community and which do not require any elaborate consultative process of the kind mentioned. I will not be surprised if the honourable senator, after she has ploughed through the said document DI(G)OPS 05-1, which I tabled, finds some aspects of that document that have not been complied with. It is perfectly possible in this case. But all of those points have been readily acknowledged at all stages of this debate. For the umpteenth time, there has been no question of endeavouring to conceal anything. I hope the honourable senator will appreciate that fact. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Is not the truth of the matter that in fact and in law the Attorney-General had no authority at all to direct the Defence Force in this matter and that such a direction was therefore unlawful? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is perfectly true that I had no authority whatsoever to direct anybody to do anything. The truth of the matter, however, is that I made no such direction or purported direction; I made a request. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Quite often situations of violence occur when children are handed over from the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent for weekend or out-of-hours access. The effects of such violence are very harmful to the parent and in particular to the children. I understand that the South Australian domestic violence committee chaired by the women's adviser to the Premier put a submission in April 1982 to the previous Attorney-General for a pilot project for the establishment of supervised and secure access changeover facilities. No support was forthcoming. Can the Attorney-General tell me whether he intends to support the submission; whether he will fund it; and, if so, when? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge of the fate of the earlier submission to which the honourable senator referred. All I know is that on 30 March this year I received submissions or representations from both my colleague Senator Ryan and the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, requesting $13,500-worth of support for a pilot study of this question of supervised access and changeover facilities for the persons to whom Senator Crowley referred. Within three and a half weeks of that, on 24 April this year, I approved the grant-in-aid in question, demonstrating thereby some greater alacrity on these matters, as indeed on so many other matters, on behalf of this Government. The project to which Senator Crowley referred is, I think, best explained by the Premier of South Australia in his submission to me. It is a project that is to be run by the Life Line group of the Adelaide Central Mission. I was told by the Premier that the proposal arose out of a long-standing and grave concern in the community-this is a national concern, not one confined to South Australia-about the harmful effects of violence which sometimes arises when children are handed over from the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent for the purpose of weekend or out-of-hours access. Many makeshift arrangements have been attempted by various agencies all over Australia in the past to provide some supervision of this often volatile moment. But the need for formal security and the demand for after-hours resources in this respect has led to the downfall, I am told, of best intentions in this area. What has happened as a result of that concern being expressed around the place is that a pilot scheme has been devised by the Premier's Department in South Australia in conjunction with the Adelaide Central Mission which should, I am advised, meet the complex requirements of such a service at very little cost, with the aim of providing hitherto unrecorded data also on the dimensions of the problems and responses to the provision of such a service. It seems to me, and it seemed to me when I received these submissions, an entirely admirable initiative which certainly deserved the support of the Federal Government. As such, I am pleased to be able to advise Senator Crowley that my response in the affirmative to this proposal was very swift indeed. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and may also concern his capacity as Acting Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister seen a report in today's Australian which states that the Victorian Environment Protection Authority has granted a licence to a firm of wool merchants to discharge effluent comprising 170 tonnes of salt per year into the River Murray from its plant in Albury? In view of the fact that leading industry figures and agricultural experts are predicting that many of Australia's irrigation areas will not survive because of the long term effects of water pollution, erosion and high salinity levels, and that in particular the South Australian citrus industry is doomed, does the Minister believe it is appropriate for one State Government authority to make a decision so detrimental to the economy of another State? If the Minister does not believe that this is appropriate, will he move to have decisions such as this made by the River Murray Commission or some other impartial or at least multilateral body? In short, is he prepared to act, if necessary, by amending the River Murray Waters Agreement or the relevant Act to prevent the River Murray from becoming nothing more than a sewer flowing through South Australia wrecking the health and livelihood of thousands of people en route? Senator WALSH —I was aware of that report in the Australian and from other sources was also aware of the case a few days earlier. I understand that the River Murray Commission is appealing against that decision and that the appeal is to be heard in Victoria. That is an important matter because this is the first test case of the River Murray Commission's new powers to exercise some control over water quality. Senator Chipp —Appealing to whom? Senator WALSH —It is appealing to some Victorian authority. I am not sure whether it is an appeal court or whether the appeal is an environment protection authority appeal. I understand that the Victorian Government will accept the decision of that appeal body. The Federal Government has no power of direction over the River Murray Commission because it is a creature of four different governments. Indeed, no particular government has power of direction over it, which is one of its potential and actual weaknesses. I do not know whether the facts stated in the article in the Australian to which Senator Haines referred are accurate, but to put the salinity question in some sort of perspective, 170 tonnes of salt are stated to have been added to the salt load by the proposed scouring plant. If I remember correctly-the load varies from year to year-the river carries down a total of about one million tonnes a year. So, whilst not wishing to trivialise the matter 170 tonnes of salt is a very minor addition to the existing load. I expect that other environmental objections to the proposal relate to dangers other than the salt load. The broad question of River Murray water quality is under review by the Government but there are, I understand, innate constitutional difficulties in any government exercising effective control over the difficulties which the River Murray Commission itself reflects. Among the firm proposals the Government has in mind is to reintroduce-I am not yet sure into which House-the Institute of Fresh Water Studies Bill which was passed by the Senate. It will not be introduced during the autumn session of Parliament, but probably during the Budget session. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware that payments to north Queensland students receiving Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowances originate from the Brisbane office of the Commonwealth Education Department and that payment delays and confusion have caused unnecessary hardship to many James Cook University students? Will the Minister investigate the need for payment to be established from the Townsville office? Senator RYAN —I am grateful to the honourable senator for drawing this problem to my attention. I was not aware, until she raised this matter in Question Time this morning, that such delays were occurring. The Government places the highest priority on increasing participation rates in tertiary education. We recognise that the payment of TEAS allowance, inadequate though it is to meet the needs of many students, is a crucial element in enabling many students to pursue their studies. Consequently, it is desirable that the payment of this benefit be as efficient and as speedy as possible so that students are not deterred by financial hardship from pursuing their studies. As Senator Reynolds has drawn this matter to my attention this morning I undertake to her that I will have my Department investigate the delays immediately and if they can be overcome by transferring payment of the allowances to the Townsville office I will request that that be done. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the fact that he has consistently maintained that the spy flights over Tasmania were lawful. In so doing he has relied on the Defence Instructions headed 'Defence Instructions (General)', which he tabled. During a debate in the Senate on 22 April, after having been asked by way of interjection about ministerial responsibility, as recorded on page 67 of the Senate Hansard, he answered: It involved neither a breach of the law nor any fundamental breach of propriety , nor does it involve any breach of the explicit language of the directions under which the Defence Force operates in these particular matters. Clearly, the Attorney-General was referring in his speech to the document he had tabled. Is it not a fact that in answers he has given here today he has acknowledged that that statement was not true and that there were breaches of the procedures set out in this document? He has informed the Senate today that there is another Defence instruction called 'Policy and Procedures for Defence Force Assistance to the Civil Community', which in his view as the first law officer apparently is relevant to his claim in this matter. When did the Attorney-General first become aware of this new document? Senator GARETH EVANS —I congratulate the former Attorney-General on his persistence but not on the quality of his cross-examination. To restate the obvious is not to serve his cause or that of the national Parliament. I have readily conceded that I may well have erred in saying that the precise chapter and verse of this particular document, which for the record is coded DI(G)OPS 01 -2, entitled 'Defence Force Aid to the Civil Power', may not have been adhered to. Indeed, that was the nub of the objection of the Chief of Defence Force Staff and some of the other people within the Defence establishment to what happened on that occasion. Senator Chaney —That is contrary to what you told us in the Senate in that answer. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, but having had this document thrust into my hand literally about 15 minutes before I walked into the Senate on that occasion and having had an opportunity only to have a cursory look at it, I quite genuinely believed that the chapter and verse of the procedures there set out had been followed. I do not believe any longer that that belief is entirely sustainable. Equally, I make the point that that does not affect the quality of the basic answer I gave, which is that what occurred was entirely lawful. None of these internal directives can override the force and effect of a ministerial agreement to the task in question. That is the advice I received from the Solicitor- General in answer to a question I put to him as part of a larger question as to the lawfulness of what occurred. There is no question whatsoever as to the lawfulness of these flights. I reiterate that there is a question as to which is the appropriate set of internal Defence procedure instructions that should govern such flights. The argument in favour of the civil power document to which I referred the other day is that that document explicitly refers to law enforcement and these flights were part of a law enforcement exercise. The argument in favour of the more generalised set of instructions that I am now in a position to table-I do so-is that they refer in general terms to the kind of assistance to the civil community in relation to such tasks as photography that occurred during the flights. It is a matter for argument as to which instructions are appropriate. It is not a matter for elaborate, neurotic, obsessive nitpicking in either a court of law or a national Parliament of the kind to which we have been exposed today. Senator DURACK —Mr President, the Attorney-General did not answer my specific question. The PRESIDENT —Does the honourable senator wish to ask a supplementary question? Senator DURACK —No, it is a question that the Attorney-General did not answer. I specifically asked him: When did he first become aware of this additional document entitled 'Policy and Procedures for Defence Force Assistance to the Civil Community' which he is now offering to table? Why did he not table it before and provide the Senate with the full truth about the matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —My recollection is that I became aware of this document on Monday of this week when I was preparing myself and girding my loins for the further onslaught on this subject, which, regrettably, has not been forthcoming. That has been a profound disappointment to those of us who expected a more effective performance on this issue. It was in the context of being briefed, at my request, on what other material was available relating to the procedures for authorisation in these matters-a request to which I referred earlier in Question Time-that I was supplied with this document. My recollection was that it was at the beginning of this week. I would need to check that. Senator Chaney —Why did you wait to be asked? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator asks why I waited to be asked. Senator Button —Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The time has not expired. The light is still on. The honourable senator should wait until the light goes off. The hour is not complete. Senator Missen —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Peter Baume —Running scared again. Senator Button —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —Senator Button might be prepared to withdraw his application. Senator Button —I have already described Senator Baume as Bonny Prince Charlie this morning. I would do it again. But Senator Baume-- Senator Missen —Mr President, I take time to raise a point of order. Surely there is nothing binding on the one-hour period. According to our program we were to sit through lunch time. We are not going to sit through it now. Many of us have tried to ask a question all this week and have not managed to do so. Why are we not sitting on? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Button —I was indicating that Senator Baume has a great penchant for trying to run Government business from his seat in opposition which he will get used to. Senator Baume, by way of interjection, said that I was running scared again. I am not scared of any question from Senator Baume. I invite him to ask a question and I will again ask that further questions be placed on notice. The PRESIDENT —Before Senator Baume asks any questions, if Question Time has not concluded, the next call is for a senator on the Government side. I call Senator Giles. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact, as reported in the West Australian of 26 April this year, that the Australian Federal Police are investigating allegations that a number of Sydney private hospitals were involved in a scheme whereby doctors were offered inducements in the form of low interest loans to ensure that the hospitals maintained high occupancy rates? Is it also a fact that Medibank raised this patient recruiting scheme with the Commonwealth Department of Health in 1981 but was told that there were no grounds for action? Senator GRIMES —Senator Giles refers to a report concerning this matter appearing in the West Australian and in other newspapers. I am informed that in 1981 Medibank Private wrote to the Department of Health enclosing documents on investigations it had made into certain claims lodged by a number of private hospitals in Sydney. It sought the Department's view of whether the benefit was payable. The hospitals referred to at the time were eligible for the Commonwealth bed-day subsidy because patients did occupy beds and because the government assessment of medical need is not a criterion of eligibility for such payments. The payment was then $16 a day and was payable because the patients were admitted by a doctor. There was no other requirement at all. They were admitted by a doctor, they had occupied a bed and this satisfied the legislation at the time. Steps have been taken to amend the legislation to tighten this eligibility criteria. The question of whether the benefits paid by the funds were payable is , in fact, up to the funds themselves. They must determine whether they pay their side of the hospital benefit, not the Commonwealth Government. This matter is being pursued by Medibank with the Australian Federal Police, as was pointed out in the article. Other so-called criminal aspects, which it is understood have also been pursued by Medibank with the Australian Federal Police, are the matters of kick-backs to doctors for getting patients into hospitals, secret commissions and conspiracy to defraud. But that matter is now with the Australian Federal Police where I believe it should be. When further information becomes available on that matter I will seek to obtain it for the honourable senator. Senator PETER BAUME —Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate confirm or deny that he approached the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission once or twice during the election campaign complaining that the then Leader of the Opposition had not been sufficiently well treated on the ABC's AM program? Did Professor Kramer refuse to interfere with the running of that program? If that is so, is that the reason why Senator Button is now putting in the boot? Senator BUTTON —I confirm that I approached the Australian Broadcasting Commission about several matters which occurred in the course of the election campaign. I suggest that honourable senators who are concerned about whether that took place should consult the tape of the program Nationwide last night. I twice had conversations with the ABC about matters of that kind and about other matters in the course of the election campaign. That has no reference to any question of the independence of the ABC or otherwise. Senator Peter Baume —What you said yesterday about Professor Kramer. Senator BUTTON —Senator Baume, in respect of what I said yesterday about Professor Kramer, I have indicated that I have written to her indicating the matters to which I was referring when I made the comment which so concerned the honourable senator that he was not interested enough to find out afterwards what I meant by it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have an answer to a question that Senator Lajovic asked me yesterday about Boeing 707 aircraft. I sought to get an answer as soon as possible from the Minister for Defence, which I now provide as follows: The prime role of the two Boeing 707 aircraft currently operated by the Royal Australian Air Force is to provide a strategic air transport capability for the Australian Defence Force. Current tasks include fortnightly scheduled air services to Butterworth, air logistic support-including support for exercises and Defence Force elements overseas-and special purpose flights. The two aircraft currently in service have been configured for both passenger and freight services. The Government has recently approved the acquisition of two further B707 aircraft to be used for RAAF strategic transport requirements. It is proposed to modify the four B707 aircraft for in-flight refuelling to extend the capabilities of F111 and FA18 aircraft. The sale of the two aircraft now in service would realise less than half their original cost and as there is a requirement for aerial refuelling capabilities, which was acknowledged by the previous Government and which is accepted by this Government, there is no intention to dispose of them. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 1 dated 5 May 1983. General Business taking precedence of Government Business at 2.15 p.m.- Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That notice of motion standing in my name relating to the Non-Government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1977 be postponed until the next day of sitting. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(2.15) —I move: That, following the Hawke Government's conversion to the previous Government's economic policies, the Senate notes the Government's adoption of the previous Government's social security policies, and in particular: (a) the introduction of family income supplement for needy families; (b) retention of the mobility allowance for the disabled; (c) the increase in the over 18 year old unemployment benefit; (d) the maintaining of the twice yearly indexation of pensions and benefits; and (e) the retention of other Budget family measures. I wish to draw attention to recent Government practices of adopting the former Government's policies in respect of social security. Those points are well set out in the motion. In specific terms I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Government, having come to power in recent times, has adopted the previous Government's approach to economic matters and now clearly has adopted that approach in respect of social security matters. In particular, we on this side are very pleased to have seen the new Government take up its role of continuing our policy, as announced in last year's Budget, in connection with the family income supplement for needy families, the retention of the mobility allowance for the disabled, the increase in the over 18-year-old unemployment benefit for those without dependants, the maintenance of the twice yearly indexation of pensions and benefits, and of course the retention of many other benefits. We have to acknowledge that during the election campaign the present Federal Government made many commitments to the electorate. Indeed, many offers were made and they clearly encouraged people to vote for the Australian Labor Party. We need quote only a couple of statements made during the heady days of the campaign, some attributable to Senator Grimes, the present Minister for Social Security, to confirm that fact. For instance, he is quoted as saying on 15 February: Labor would introduce an expansionary economic policy that would put people back at work and provide more money for social security spending. It is part of our history, of course, that already the expansionary economic policy appears to have been put on the back burner, as does the possible increase in social security benefits. We have not seen any clear statement at all from this Minister or from the Government generally as to its policy in respect of social security matters. In fact, during the election campaign the Government promised increases of the order of $402m in social security spending, but there has been no confirmation that that will be proceeded with by this Government. We look to the Government and to Senator Grimes in particular to assure us that that program will go forward. Part of the reason for my raising this motion today is to try to get some definite reply from the Government as to its attitude and its directions. We do not want justifications by blaming former governments. That is not good enough. The present Government made the promises; it now needs to keep faith with the Australian people. We want firm statements from this Government as to its future direction. Various commitments were outlined by the new Government during its election campaign. One of those announced on 16 February by the now Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, in his election policy speech was that the Government would be committed to raising the basic pension rate to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. According to the information provided to me, if that policy were adopted it would cost a further $1,100m approximately, in addition to the $400-odd that I mentioned earlier. Is the Government to proceed with that policy? I acknowledge that its undertaking was to increase the basic pension rate to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings over a three-year period, or perhaps over the life of a Parliament. Nevertheless, the people of Australia are concerned about this matter. There is no acknowledgement by the Government of its commitment in that area. People want to know what is going on and when this promise will be implemented. Other things were included in the total welfare package. There was to be more money for social security benefits, higher wages and, of course, one of the most significant things, lower taxes-presumably, lower taxes for those at the lower end of the income scales. Can we ever forget that ringing statement by the now Prime Minister during his election policy speech, when he claimed that he would offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the campaign? Yet immediately we were conditioned to think that not only would a fistful of dollars amounting to some $600m, promised people during that election campaign, be snatched back by the Government but also promised social security benefits amounting to some $400m were at risk. What are the Government's views on these matters? If we consider some of the statements put out by Ministers we find nothing but confusion. The Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, said that the hopes of social security recipients could be dashed by the Federal Government in its attempt to promote growth in the economy. I think he said something to the effect that increased social welfare payments could be swapped for government funding of high technology industries as the Government looks to support silicon chip-type industries-the big growth areas of the 1980s, as he is so wont to express. He is reported in the Australian of 25 March as saying: This time we may be in the unpalatable position of having to say to these people (on social security): 'Look will you wait for a while'. Is this the Government's position in relation to social security? I want to know which people will have to wait a while. Is it the poorest in the community? Is it the most needy? Is it those who would have been in receipt of tax benefits, promised falsely in the election campaign? Who indeed? Perhaps Senator Grimes can help us in the course of this debate. People are genuinely concerned about the policies of this Government. We have to be sure of what its policies are and the directions in which they are heading. That is what this Parliament is about and that is why we need answers to these questions. In acknowledging these matters, Mr Deputy President, I am most pleased to see that the Government has continued the implementation of the family income supplement brought down in last year's Budget by the former Government. Further, we have the retention of the mobility allowance for disabled people, which I think in the Budget debate was acknowledged by the new Minister as being a most worthwhile initiative to help the disabled. He acknowledged a further point in relation to that in answering a question I asked him the other day concerning tax deductibility for disabled people. I hope that the Government will pursue that matter and ensure that its promises are put into practice. Probably the most significant social security breakthrough of all during the seven years of the Fraser Government was the indexation of pensions and benefits. We know that is a substantial cost to the revenue but it protects those who need it most. It protects those who need the most protection against inflation. The most needy groups in our community, bearing in mind the way in which our income testing system operates, are receiving benefit from that measure. The aged and other needy groups in the community recognise the value of that policy. I hope that the Government will continue the policy and will bear it in mind during its current review. Whilst the Government put up pensions according to the indexation principle in the last month we are committed to a six-monthly adjustment of pensions. Consequently, we look forward to the November adjustment to see whether the former Government's policy will be continued or whether there will be changes. I draw that point to the attention of the Senate because of the very serious issue of cost. According to the statistics and figures that were presented, I think by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, during the National Economic Summit Conference, it costs something like $900m a year to index pensions and benefits. Is it this Government's intention to raise taxes to pay for that indexation? People are asking these questions. I think we need to know the Government's intentions. As all honourable senators know, the statement of accord with the trade union movement, which was greatly bandied about by Mr Hawke during the election campaign and in the period preceding the campaign, clearly indicates that there is room for manoeuvre with the trade union movement for the Government to raise taxes to pay for increased social security benefits. Will this Government examine that option very closely and raise taxes in such a way as to pay for the indexation of pensions? It is not just the Opposition that is speaking on this matter but also a concerned group out in the community that wants to know these answers. The plethora of confused views emanating from the Ministry is leading to increasing concern on all sides. The Government has adopted certain measures and I commend it for adopting the former Government's policies. I hope that we can look forward to further debates on issues of this kind as the Government comes forward with its own suggestions for policy improvements. All kinds of matters are likely to need attention. I have been reading some magazine articles in recent days which have quoted the now Minister for Social Security. I am pleased to see that he believes that anybody who suggests that pensions and benefits should be cut should be shot at dawn. I wonder who will be doing the shooting? I am sure that it will be clear that many other options are available to this Government, as I have just outlined, without its having to consider cutting benefits. I have pointed out an option which may well be implemented by the Government as a result of the statement of accord. With the trade union movement we need this information and we need it soon. We need one Minister-presumably the responsible Minister in this place-to make clear the Government's intentions in this area. We look forward to getting that information as quickly as possible. The Government has before it a four-week or five-week sitting program. I think we can look forward to plenty of opportunities to discuss these matters further. But we need some advice from this Minister as to the future direction of the Government's social security policies. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(2.30) —When I came into the chamber this afternoon I was not quite sure what the notice of motion put down by Senator Messner was all about. After listening to him for about 15 minutes I am not much the wiser. I think the notice of motion itself is an incredible one. It states: Senator MESSNER: To move-That, following the Hawke Government's conversion to the previous Government's economic policies, . . . Taking that point first, the Senate sat for two days a couple of weeks ago and we are now in the second day of this sessional period. The House of Representatives has sat twice. During that time, in Question Time, in speeches made by shadow Ministers and supporters of the Opposition on the back bench, in the Press and on the radio we have heard nothing but continuous criticism of the Hawke Government and its economic policies. We have heard from the Opposition about the inadequacy and wrong direction of those policies. Senator Peter Rae has given us lectures on the inadequacies of those policies. Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, has continually harped on the inadequacy of the Hawke Government's economic policies. A senior shadow Minister has now come into this place and said that the Hawke Government is following the previous Government's economic policies. All I can say about that sort of nonsense is that it is about time members of the Opposition got their acts together. Senator Messner now comes into this chamber and alleges that people are confused by the statements that have been made on social security matters by various members of the Ministry. The only statement which has been made since we came into government- because of the Opposition's incompetence-was a statement from which he quoted allegedly made by the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones. I have not seen that statement but I daresay that I will find it to be a misrepresentation of what Mr Jones said. The shadow Minister did not quote what any other Government Minister has said. Yet he came into this chamber and told us that we are confusing social security recipients and members of the community generally because of repeated differing statements made by members of the Government. I put it to the honourable senator that it is the Opposition that has to get its act in order. Senator Messner came into this chamber and told us that the Labor Government's problem is that it has been converted to the previous Government's economic policies. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Peter Rae, an Opposition spokesman in the economic area, and other spokesmen have told that our economic policies are crook. I think the Opposition has to make up its mind what economic policies it wants us to follow. The second part of Senator Messner's motion, which he did not address much during his speech, I think is also incredible. It states: The Senate notes the Government's adoption of the previous Government's social security policies, and in particular: (a) The introduction of family income supplement for needy families; (b) retention of the mobility allowance . . . (c) the increase in the over 18 year old unemployment benefit; (d) the maintaining of the twice yearly indexation of pensions and benefits . . . of all things and-- (e) the retention of other Budget family measures. Apparently, he would have liked us to have come into government and then to have wiped out all those things so that he could have attacked us. He would have liked us to destroy all those things, none of which we opposed in opposition, so that he could have attacked us. But because of his disappointment that we did not do that sort of thing he has come into this place and said: 'You are not very good anyhow because you have just adopted our policies'. Senator Teague —You-- Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator should just hold on. We listened to the Opposition in silence and Opposition senators should listen to us in silence. Senator Messner also said during his speech that he had some inkling that if I replied to him I might have the cheek to say something about the previous Government's record in the areas of social security and economics. Because he said, 'We do not want to hear what previous governments have done, we want to hear what you have done', I will disappoint Senator Messner and I will talk about some of the things that the previous Government did in the social security area. It is as a result of that Government's policies in the areas of economics and social security that it has only a handful of people on the Opposition benches. It is as a result of those policies that it lost the election overwhelmingly. It is as a result of that that it is now on the Opposition side of the chamber and we are on the Government side. When honourable senators talk about neglect and confusion I ask them to consider the previous Government's record in this area. Under the previous Government the number of people who needed welfare assistance rose dramatically and, in many cases, benefits provided by the Government to those people fell dramatically. We sat in this place last August and September and listened to a Budget debate in which we were told that about $1,500m was going to be spent on unemployment beneficiaries this year. On Budget night we were able to demonstrate that it would be at least $200m more than that. A month later we were able to demonstrate that it would be $400m more than that. The then Treasurer eventually had to concede that it was going to be $600m more than that . It certainly will be even higher than that. That is the most recent and dramatic demonstration of the increase in the number of people who need unemployment benefit and social security benefits in general. Those people found themselves on the unemployment rolls because of the economic policies of the previous coalition Government. I should like to give two examples of how the value of those pensions fell. The real value of the unemployment benefit for single adults-I note that Senator Messner demonstrated a new-found concern for them in his motion-fell by nearly 20 per cent between 1976 and 1982. The real value of family allowances fell by over 15 per cent between 1977 and 1982. In fact, there was a prolonged period during which there were no increases. During the time of the previous Government we saw the abolition of the maternity allowance. During the time of the previous Government we saw the abolition of the automatic indexation of the unemployment benefit for single adults. If we are talking about confusion, where do we get greater confusion than in the treatment of pensions and benefits under the indexation system which Senator Messner also has the cheek to mention in his motion? It was the previous Government of which he was a member which first introduced automatic twice-yearly indexation. It then abolished it. Then, after pressure from the then Opposition and welfare organisations in general, it reintroduced it. All this occurred in one year. How much more confusion can you get in the welfare system than to have that sort of thing going on? The only serious attempt at improving welfare arrangements generally occurred just prior to the last election when the former Government introduced most of the measures that Senator Messner mentions in his motion and which we thought were to be the subject of his speech. However, since the most important of those initiatives, the family income supplement, was in fact first talked about in this country as part of the Australian Labor Party's 1980 election platform, it is hardly surprising that this Government, which came into power in March when the introduction of the scheme was well under way-advertising had been prepared, the printing had been done and the Department was geared up for its introduction -kept the scheme going. As a form of it was our initiative in the first place is it surprising that we kept it going? Considerable difficulties are associated with the introduction of the family income supplement. I am sure Senator Messner will find some difficulties with it, if he has not already done so. Pensioners, beneficiaries and others will probably ring up and say: 'Why weren't we included in the family income supplement?'. Indeed, this Government, in its review of the family income supplement, will have to look at that question. The family income supplement has been introduced on a very narrow scale and a very tight means test applies to it. Very complicated administrative problems are associated with administering the family income supplement. The Government will review it to see what we can learn from experience gained in the first few months of the introduction of that supplement. We will see whether we can improve the whole system, particularly for those low income earners who, in the past, have not been assisted much by the social security system. I suggest it is absolute nonsense to imply, for the sake of a debating point on a Thursday afternoon in the Senate, that if we were a proper government which disagreed with the previous government then we would wipe out that benefit which we did not oppose during the Budget. The reason Senator Messner and his party have been discredited-it is the reason that the previous coalition Government is no longer in government-is that the Hawke Labor Government was able to show during the election campaign that our economic policies presented a real opportunity to get Australia out of the mess left by the Fraser Government. The country was disillusioned with the previous Government. The former Government's most overwhelming contribution to the welfare budget was to increase the number of unemployment beneficiaries, not the number of people unemployed, from 188,000 in June 1976 to the current figure of about 620,000. It is no wonder, with a disastrous economic policy like that-a very large burden was put on the social security budget mainly as a result of the vast increases in the number of people unemployed-that the community got fed up with the previous Government. It is no wonder that members of the previous Government are now sitting on the Opposition benches. When the election campaign started we were very circumspect about what we were able to promise in the area of welfare. As Senator Messner well knows, changes and reforms in this area are costly. We costed our social security policies at about $420m. I note that the then Treasurer agreed essentially with those costings. But we were aware of several things. We were very suspicious that the economy was considerably worse than this Parliament had been led to believe by the Government. We knew that the stated deficit in the last Budget of $1,500m was nonsense. We knew it was nonsense on Budget night. As the weeks went by it became obvious that it was nonsense. The then Treasurer had to admit that the Budget deficit was going to be about $4,000m. People who worked with us in the economic area sat down and worked out their own figures. They suspected that the deficit may actually be about $6,000m. We were confronted with the problem that if we got into government we knew we would be faced with a large deficit. We would be faced with the problem of raising revenue and we would be faced with the problem that that would be of considerable difficulty to any government. That is why our promises were not profligate or wild. We did promise that we would restore the level of the standard rate of pensions and benefits to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings . They were almost at that point when we left government in 1975. They had fallen to about 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. We knew that to do that in one hit, as Senator Messner has said, would cost a lot of money and cause considerable difficulty in controlling the economy. We said we would restore those pensions and benefits over the term of the first three years of government . We said we would do it in stages and that the extent of those stages would depend on the state of the economy. We made that promise quite clear. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made that promise and I made that promise. We stick by that promise. What we did not know and what was not known by anyone in this community apart from the previous Treasurer, the previous Prime Minister and, I understand -because the previous Treasurer put her in-the former Minister for Finance, was that the Budget deficit was nearer $10 billion. Nobody in this community knew that but despite the fact-- Senator Townley —Anybody could have worked it out. Senator GRIMES —Senator Townley says that he could work it out. He was a candidate in the election. If he had known that fact it was his duty to let the people of Tasmania know that his government was crook and that his Treasurer was lying to the people of this country. He did not let them know. Senator Townley —I didn't say I did work it out. I said I could have worked it out. Senator GRIMES —If Senator Townley knew about the disastrous situation facing this country he should have come clean in the election campaign. If Senator Townley knew, he was the only person opposite who knew, apart from those I mentioned, because when the figures came out people on his side were visibly shocked at the fact that they were so bad. We made that promise to lift the standard rate of pensions and benefits. We made a similar promise about raising the rate of the unemployment benefit for single people. It had fallen way behind because of the previous Government's vindictive policy of blaming the unemployed and removing them from the indexation of pensions. We said that our first step would be to increase the unemployment benefits for the single unemployed to half the married rate as soon as possible in May. We said that our other promises were to be introduced in the Budget. As a coincidence, essentially the only promise made by the Liberal Party of Australia, made by Mr Fraser in his policy speech, was to do the same thing-to increase unemployment benefits for the single beneficiaries to half the married rate in May. We did it. I was sworn in as a Minister on 11 March. Four days later we had a Cabinet meeting and decided to do that. We passed legislation on 21 April. I pointed out in the second reading debate that, in doing that on the first day of the sitting of this Parliament, we in fact completed the Liberal Party social security policy for the last election campaign. Now we will get on with our own. The good Senator Messner is complaining. He introduces a motion into this place that we have adopted the Liberal Party policy by increasing the over-18 single unemployment benefit. Really and truly, if that is the best he can do in criticising our activities in this area-- Senator Messner —Tell us what your policies are. Senator GRIMES —The Government, which I represent, is not, quite frankly, prepared to stand idly by and watch the plight of those Australians who have been thrown by the previous Government, through no fault of their own, into circumstances of hardship. Every welfare organisation, every investigator of the area, every voluntary organisation in this community has been telling the previous Government that the numbers of people in poverty in this country has been increasing, not only from the numbers on unemployment benefit, but also from the increasing ranks of the single parents whose benefits for children have not been increased in line with inflation, whose base rate pension has dropped over the years and whose opportunities for employment have not been there. But all other pensioners and all other groups of the community have been in this difficulty. What we have to do is sit down and work out who are the winners, who are the losers and who are the furthest behind, bearing in mind the fact that we have been left one hell of an economic mess in this community, bearing in mind that we have been left with a Budget deficit which was absolutely unheard of during the election time or at the last Budget, bearing in mind that we will still sit down to work out our priorities and we will still produce a social security program for this Budget which will be far in excess of anything that the previous Government would have done and will show our concern for those who are in greatest need. Senator Messner has the gall to come into this chamber on the first general business day of the Senate and say to me that I must get up and give details in this Parliament of what we are going to do in this area at the next Budget. Senator Messner —You have four weeks of sittings to tell us. Senator GRIMES —Let me compare our policy with that of the previous Government. The previous Government's welfare policy in the last election campaign consisted of three things. It consisted of putting 10,000 young people to work in the defence forces. The defence forces did not want them. Heaven knows what they were going to do there. They were going to decrease the efficiency of the defence forces, yet that was the basis of the welfare problem. The Liberal Party was going to solve the unemployment problem in this country by taking 10,000 of the 600,000-odd persons who were on unemployment benefits and putting them in the armed services. The previous Government did not ask the armed services about it. It did not ask them what they were going to do with these people. Senator Tate —They were horrified. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Tate said, they were absolutely horrified. That is the first leg of the previous Government's policy. In the second leg it was going to provide 150 additional child care centres. Senator Messner suggested that the Liberal Party might increase some of the income limits and raise the single unemployment benefit rate to half the married rate in May. Our objectives included and include: To increase the standard rate of pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings over the first three years of a Labor Government. We recognise the difficulties which are faced by pensioners in particular areas such as the Northern Territory, north Queensland, the north of Western Australia , the outlying areas of South Australia and New South Wales and the west coast of Tasmania by introducing a zone allowance for pensioners and beneficiaries in those areas. We wanted to get away from the discrimination between those on pensions and those on benefits which had come about by the failure to index the single unemployment benefit rate. We promised to do that over the three years of the Government. We also promised expanded child care centres to help those people who are in need of child care and to get over the maldistribution of child care facilities in this country. These were the things that we put down in the policy speech, which we believed were achievable and we still believe are achievable. They were the basic things that we thought should be done and the basic things we still think should be done. Whereas we may have had some sort of an idea of how to do those staged improvements in pensions and benefits, we certainly will have to sit down and think abut how large the first stage will be in the light of the extraordinary deficit which the former Treasurer of this country kept from us. But they remain our aims, as does the general aim of freeing the social security system, providing a proper appeals system-all these things are under review-introducing a youth policy to this country, and overcoming the difficulties which are facing young people when they leave school. They find that they have no choice but to get a job, which is very difficult, or to go on to unemployment benefits. In other countries there is a co-ordinated youth policy which provides education facilities, training facilities and everything else. We have all sorts of structural things we want to do about improving the lot of those in women's refuges and those who are running women's health centres. We have a great number of areas for improvement in relation to Aboriginal welfare which my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is dealing with and we have got to work on these matters. We are getting as much information as we can from our government departments and, where necessary, we have set up interdepartmental committees and task forces to find out what is going on. We have only been in Government for what is essentially six or seven weeks. I put it to honourable senators opposite that we have been more active and have shown more concern for the disadvantaged people in this country than honourable senators opposite did for the seven years of their Government. The fundamental differences between these policies were underlined in a forceful manner by the electorate on 5 March 1983. One of the crucial problems which faced the previous Government was that it did not understand the differences between its policies and our policies; that it does not understand the direction or the difference between its policy and our policy. Our policy is aimed at improving the lot of the disadvantaged; our policy is aimed at finding out those who are disadvantaged in the community and caring for them; and, above all, it is aimed at changing the system so that fewer people rely on the welfare system than rely on it now. If Senator Messner does not understand that, I suppose that explains why he, as a Minister in the previous Government, is now a shadow Minister in this Opposition. I think it explains why he is going to be a shadow Minister for a long time yet. Senator Walters —I wouldn't bet on it. Senator GRIMES —My dear friend Senator Walters has returned to the chamber. She is the greatest example in this place of the fact that whatever happens there are always some things that never change. Some things that never change are the attitudes of the Liberal and National Party members towards the social security system in this country which they believe is, in fact, an area where they should be able to apply a bit of patronage just before elections to fool the electorate that they are concerned. At other times they should do things like they did in 1977, I believe it was, when they dropped twice-yearly indexation and then, in great confusion, reintroduced it. They think they can do such things as introduce family allowances, which was a worthy change, but then ignore them for five years and let them be eroded. They think they can take funeral benefits from people and not cop the difference. Sooner or later-it was not so much later this time-the people catch up with that sort of attitude. I suppose another thing which will never change is the inane standard of interjections we get from Senator Walters. This motion is not worth supporting. It is certainly rejected by the Government. If the Opposition wants us to support motions of concern for the welfare of disadvantaged people in the community, the motions will have to be worded better, be more factual and be more relevant to the situation than this one is. The Government will not support the motion. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(2.56) —In speaking in support of this motion this afternoon I must say that nothing that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) said persuaded me to change my mind about the fact that the Australian Labor Party has seen fit to adopt some of the social security policies of the previous Liberal-National Party Government, as Senator Messner outlined earlier. There are five different sections in this motion. In regard to the family income supplement for needy families, I maintain that family allowances are necessary for most single income families in Australia. The single income family is being hit hardest by rising living costs and higher taxation. If we keep the wage pause going until the end of the year, as has been suggested, there is a chance that costs will stabilise. However, if as has been suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), he and the Government are supporting a 3 per cent to 4 per cent increase in wages to appease the unions, it stands to reason that costs and prices must continue to rise and that there will be even more need for a family income supplement, not just for needy families but for all families. I have no doubt that some women feel they need to earn a second income to try to help with costs. The second part of the motion concerns the retention of the mobility allowance for the disabled. During the last session of Parliament I was interested to hear a lady who appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare explaining that this was a very good allowance and how helpful it was for people who had to live in a wheelchair in that it aided them in getting somebody to help them in their home rather than having to live in a nursing home or hospital . So I am glad to know that this mobility allowance for the disabled is worth while. Paragraph (c) of the motion concerns the increase in the unemployment benefit for those over 18 years old. I have no doubt that the rising costs arguments apply in this case also. It is essential for the unemployment benefit to be raised in this way. I have no doubt that many unemployed would be very pleased to get a job. If we could believe the promise made by the present Government before the recent election that unemployment would soon fall, we could expect many of these over 18-year-olds to be able to get work soon. However, unfortunately we have not seen much sign yet of unemployment decreasing; rather, it is increasing. All I can say is that while such projects as Ben Lomond outside Townsville are being closed down because of Commonwealth Government actions, with the loss of 1,200 jobs, and while such projects as the units that the Japanese want to build at Surfers Paradise are being knocked back because the Government does not agree with Japanese money being used, with the loss of 1 ,000 prospective jobs, I certainly feel there will be need for more money to be spent on unemployment benefits. Much more will have to be spent on them rather than less. I have said before, and I still believe, that a brains trust should be established to see how the Government could implement a scheme for people to work for the dole. This could be done either by subsidising local authorities or by private enterprise making the dole up to the full basic wage. I feel that this would be a way of absorbing people on the dole into the work force. I always believe that people appreciate more what they have had to work for than what they get for nothing. There is a tremendous amount of money being spent on unemployment benefits. I come to paragraph (d)-the maintaining of the twice-yearly indexation of pensions and benefits. I suppose one could say that this is a very worthwhile but very costly objective. We on this side of the chamber would like to know how the Government is going to raise the money to do this. Will it raise taxes to pay for the indexation of pensions? I really do not see how it will be able to meet this cost in any other way. I did not hear the Minister explain in his speech exactly how the Government is going to meet the cost of this indexation. Paragraph (e) of the motion concerns the retention of other Budget family measures. Of course, the family is the basic unit of society and all measures to help the family must be proceeded with. In conclusion, let me say with Senator Messner how pleased I am that this new Labor Government has seen fit to recognise the value of our Government's social security policies and has decided to continue with so many of them. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.2) —I was not going to speak in this debate, but I was drawn into the debate by the extravagant utterances of Senator Grimes. I have really had enough of this supposed $9.6 billion deficit that the Government is hiding behind. At the end of this financial year we will have a deficit of $4 .5 billion-nothing to do with $9.6 billion. Let us get that clear. It will be $4 .5 billion, not $9.6 billion. Whatever the present Government's Budget for next year comes to, that will be the deficit-nothing else. Whatever it decides to spend and whatever it decides to collect, we will have the deficit that comes from that Budget-nothing else at all. It will have nothing to do with what the Government promised the Australian people during the election. The Government is hiding behind that. Senator Grimes told us that at this stage the Government will sit down to work out who are the winners and who are the losers in the area of social welfare. What were honourable senators opposite doing for the seven years they were in opposition? Absolutely nothing at all. Now that they are in government they have suddenly decided that it is time for them to take an interest in the social welfare problems of this country. Now they are going to sit down to start working out who are the winners and who are the losers. To date they have not bothered to do so. They have not given it a thought. They have done nothing at all about it. It is a disgrace. They have come into government without any policy whatsoever. Senator Grimes at least admitted that the Government has carried out the policies of the previous Government. He has said that some extravagant promises were made prior to the election, such as the promise to reduce income tax, particularly for the lower income workers. But then the Government held the National Economic Summit Conference and said: We will get out of that. The Summit will decide that we really will not have to do so'. In the Senate today Senator Grimes said: 'Our welfare policy is this: To implement the previous Government's welfare policy and over a three-year period to increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We will take into consideration all of those people in outlying areas by way of a zone allowance'. He gave no details of this allowance. He said: 'Because the previous Government was so appalling it did not take into consideration the single unemployed and index their pensions, but we will do so'. He appeared to promise that the Government would index the unemployment benefit for single people. The Government in the very short time it has been in office, has set forth a tremendous number of rumours. We have had-I believe Government back benchers have had also-an influx of phone calls from all sorts of pensioners asking: ' What in the heck is the Government going to do? Is it, indeed, going to means test pensions? If so, how, when, where and why would it do so?'. Some Government back benchers have made wild promises to protect their seats. Senator Grimes has not said a word about that rumour he floated. The other rumour he floated concerned the abolition of the dependent spouse rebate. Again, we have had no quietening of that rumour. Single income earners are showing great concern. I assure Senator Grimes, if he has not received any mail, that I certainly have. The single income earners of this country are already disadvantaged to a very great degree by the present income tax methods. I will give some examples. I will take the case of two family units-a single income family and its next door neighbour, where both the husband and wife work. The annual income for both families is $18,000. The amount of tax paid by the single income earner is $348.50 more than that paid by the two income family. It gets worse. If the same two family units earned $25,000 a year, the single income earner would pay $1,228.50 more, which is considerably more, than the two income family would pay. On an even higher annual income of $40,000 the single income earner would pay $4,058 more than the two income family. The Australian Labor Party's women's advisory group has said to the Labor Party : 'Get rid of the dependent spouse rebate. Those women should be out working. They should not be at home looking after their families. The rebate encourages women to stay at home'. Those were the words used to the ALP by its women's advisory body. Even though there are not enough jobs available, in the work force, it recommended the abolition of the dependent spouse rebate. Is it any wonder that single income earners are very concerned that this is one of the methods the Labor Government will adopt to raise some of the money that it needs , for instance, to pay off Trans Australia Airlines, because it cannot make a go of it against Ansett Airlines of Australia. The Government will prop up TAA with $115m. Senator Button —What a silly comment. It is inaccurate, apart from anything else . Senator WALTERS —It is completely accurate. Senator Grimes has also said that the Government cares for the underprivileged. To date, as I have said, the only thing that Government senators have done is to say in this place that they do not have a policy; that they will now sit down and work out who-- Senator Crowley —That is what you say. Senator WALTERS —No, those are not my words; they are Senator Grimes's words. I wrote them down as he said them. He said: 'We will now sit down and work out who are the winners and the losers'. For seven years in opposition the present Government did not do anything about social welfare. We, as a government, certainly did. I will outline the things we did. We introduced a full consumer price index increased twice yearly for pensioners. We took the issue out of the political football arena so that pensioners could depend on it. Mind you, wages were not indexed during that time. Pensioners knew that their income would not deteriorate and that the increases would not be used as a political football, to be put forward at Budget time as the Labor Party did. It put it forward at Budget time when an election was close, but not otherwise. We also introduced the family allowance. We took the allowance away from higher income earners and gave it to the people who did not earn enough to receive the tax rebate for children. We gave women in low income families the family allowance. Yet Senator Grimes stands back and says that we had no concern. We showed a far greater practical concern for the disadvantaged than was shown, or is likely to be shown, by the football tactics of the present Government. Surely for the Government to say that at this stage, now that it is in government, it will be working out who are the winners and losers underlines to people in the community that the Government has no social welfare policy, but it will be hurriedly working one out. We will see which areas of social welfare will suffer . Will it be the dependent spouse rebate? Will the family allowance also be means tested? We will see which families the Government takes it away from and to whom they give it. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.14) —Under extreme provocation I, like Senator Walters, have finally decided to say a few words-but I do mean a few. It seems to me that this motion is somewhat typical of the intellectual bankruptcy of the new Opposition. I can only say that I hope that it improves with practice . The motion is interesting in that it contains a number of rather oddball suggestions. The first is that the Hawke Government has been converted to the previous Government's economic policies. I suggest first of all that the Hawke Government has not been in government long enough for us to find out what economic policies it has or even if it has any, since at the moment it seems to be operating under some sort of odd spirit of consensus-- Senator Messner —Thanks for making the point clearer. Senator HAINES —Senator Messner seems to feel that the fact that the Hawke Government does not have any economic policies indicates that it is following the lead of the previous Government. That may well be the case. It is a truism amongst the community that governments of all political persuasions look remarkably alike once they get on to the government benches and that oppositions do not change much either from one political party to the other. Leaving aside the first statement contained in the motion, it then comes up with five statements of policy which are generally known as 'motherhood statements' in that we all agree with them and nobody in the community would be prepared to put his head on the block and disagree with them. They are as much Australian Democrat policy as they are Liberal Party policy or Labor Party policy. I suppose that in effect this motion is saying in some strange way that we have all come together coincidentally over the years in a spirit of consensus over how low we should keep people's incomes. The third point I would like to make is that those people who are below the poverty line-there are vast numbers of them-and those who are disadvantaged in the community do not give a damn whose policies have made them go under for the third time. So there really is very little point in discussing the various elements within the motion. I believe it is absurd. It is hardly worth the paper it is written on. It is certainly not worth supporting if only on the ground that I hope the new Government will not adopt the previous Government's economic policies. Question resolved in the negative. 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 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 meditate 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 these 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. The Government has warned the community that it has a hard time ahead of it and that it will be a matter of years before any significant improvement can be made in the rate of unemployment. That is a dismal enough prognostication but, assuming that we accept it-I suppose we have to since, after all, it is the Government which is calling the shots-it then implies an immediate need for special measures to be taken to lessen the effect of unemployment on young people and to give them some greater measure of hope and opportunity within the present economic constraints that the nation faces. This can be done. The means are known. It can be demonstrated and I suggest it needs only the will and organisation to do it. As a Parliament, our task is to encourage the Government to do that. The Democrats' first suggestion is that the Government go to the unions to consult on alterations to awards and conditions of work which will somehow resolve the appalling and chaotic situation which the growing framework of part time work in Australia has reached. We have to get a formalisation of this situation and encourage job sharing in appropriate areas. I hope that the Government will not simply play about with this matter but see that it is dealt with thoroughly so that part time work, which is a fact of life in many areas now, can be better regulated and extended into areas where it is at present actively discouraged. Recently, I heard of a case-I think most honourable senators will also have heard of it-of a young man who went to work at a surf shop in a State I will not name. He was offered a dollar an hour in cash to work in that place. He was told to shut up and not to say anything about it. His is not the only example of that kind I have heard of. This is going on extensively in our society. It is disgraceful and tragic that young people are now being exploited shamefully in the area of part time work basically because no central authority has got together the idea that part time work is needed in the community, it exists in the community, and it has to be regularised. Senator Giles —How old was he? Senator MASON —He was 14 as it happens. I feel that a Labor Government, for philosophical reasons, would want to do something about these things. But there is the other side of the coin. I will quote from an article which appeared in the Geelong Advertiser, which honourable senators from Victoria would know, on Friday, 22 April, about a Dr Mario Marchesani who was facing gaol because he did not want to pay a fine or pay his former receptionist for hours which she did not work. He was caught at the other end of the scale. He, apparently with her concurrence, gave his receptionist work on a part time basis for between 21 and 30 hours a week for which he offered to pay her. Because of the conditions of her award it was found later that she was due to be paid for the whole working week and he was sued for the balance. He now faces gaol. Both those extremes are a disgrace. They indicate that the Government must intervene in this area as soon as possible. Part time work is, of course, only an economic palliative. We do not suggest it is more than that. It does not increase the amount of work or income available but it has considerable value as a palliative. In the first place it obviously takes more people out of unproductive and psychologically corrosive idleness and gives them something to do and a better source of income than the dole. A further value is that more people are given work experience. Of course that is the catch 22 situation for so many of our young unemployed. No job is offered them until they have experience but without a job they cannot get any experience . An effective part time work and job-sharing program would significantly increase the number of people with work experience who would be available on a full time basis later as the economy improved. This would seem a rational basis- - Senator Messner —Have you examined how much it would cost the business sector to do this? Senator MASON —I do know that large areas of business would prefer to have that option made available to them. Many small businesses, as the Senate may be aware , cannot really take on another full time person, but if they were permitted to take on a person on a reasonable part time basis they might be able to build up their turnover to the extent that that person got a full time job later. I think that is a very important area of economic expansion that bears thinking about. There is, of course, the additional value that as more people have even a little more money-more than they need for bare survival-the community benefits. All areas of business, initially small businesses, must benefit from the additional spending power. The Australian Democrats are well enough aware of the nation's financial problems, which are serious enough, but we urge the Government at least to liberalise extensively the amount of money that can be earned before the unemployment benefit is reduced. We do not think that the present system saves the country money. On the contrary, it applies a very powerful disincentive to people not to enter into part time work and it costs the economy productive effort. If all unemployed people knew that they could get a reasonable additional sum of money without penalty they would do their best, I think, to go out and earn it, and spending power would be better equalised as a result. We would then get some alteration to the highly dangerous effect, now growing in this society, of having a majority-admittedly, it is still a large majority-with high spending power, much of which they do not use but devote to savings because they are afraid of losing their own jobs, while we have an increasing minority of people with no spending power beyond mere survival. This is why, of course, we cannot sell things within our own economy. The more this goes on the worse it will get. Liberalisation of the amount of money that people can earn would help to ease that situation and would, indeed, make a tremendous difference to people 's self respect. I should think that an unemployed married man with children ought to feel that he can earn without a penalty a decent amount of money to provide his family with some of the things that it should have. The second part of the motion urges measures to encourage the provision in various businesses of one more workplace into which young people could be placed on a roster or part time basis in order to give them work experience. As I said earlier to Senator Messner, many small businesses are at the stage where they cannot afford another full time employee but could use the services of another person on a part time basis. We suggest that the Government recognise this as a situation which has very powerful potential to get more people into work, even if it is only for one, two or three days a week, and to enable people to gain work experience. I suggest that many small businesses would find this useful as a transition period before giving a part time employee, or even another person, a full time job. Businesses would get the chance to build themselves up to the extent that they had such a person gainfully employed. We believe that the current incentives should be continued, but that they should be monitored very carefully to ensure as far as possible that they are not abused. That is not an easy matter, but it is worth more attention. Another obvious measure open to the Government, but again one with its difficulties because of the problem of revenue replacement, is payroll tax. These State taxes are a positive disincentive to employing people, and we believe that their abolition is a nettle which must be grasped soon. It would be to the benefit of society generally if they were. The basic need seems to us to be for the unions to give some ground and to recognise that while in earlier eras it was reasonable enough to consider work as something offered on a full time, weekly basis, that is something not now appropriate to the society in which we live, and indeed, something which increasing numbers of people do not want. I turn to an article in the Age of 27 April which refers to a study made in New South Wales, interestingly enough, by the Deputy Leader of the New South Wales Opposition, Mrs Rosemary Foot, who raised $60,000 privately to pay for a study of permanent part time work. The article reported one of the conclusions of that study to be as follows: Permanent part-time work may be preferred by up to a quarter of Australia's work force, . . . I can believe this, having been into factories to talk with young married women who have children and who are working. They have said that they will work only until they get the washing machine, or whatever they are saving for, because they have husbands and children. It is too much for them to work a full time week and then be expected to go home and look after their families as well. Both they and their employers have told me that they would prefer a regularised part time basis of work whereby a young woman would be trained in a certain job, and continue in that job for a year or perhaps two or three years. Now they tend to leave after a few months and another person then has to be trained. That is uneconomic from the point of view of the community. Senator Giles —There are men who would like to do that, too. Senator MASON —I believe that is so. There are men who would like to do it too and I think that is not unreasonable. Men who want to study, to finish a degree they had never finished, or something like that, might well want to do that. Senator Giles —Or look after their family. Senator MASON —Or look after their families. I see that as a very reasonable point of view. There is nothing wrong with it at all. This is an increasing trend for the future. I think that those who do not want to hide their heads in the sand know very well that automation and robotisation will reduce the amount of work available steadily and quite rapidly from now on. We have to ask ourselves: Is this a bad thing? Is it not better that monotonous, manual, hard or unpleasant work should be done by machines? Of course it is better that it should, but we have to adjust to this. One way of adjusting is to allow those who might wish to work less than a full week to do so, and to encourage other people towards the same kind of attitude of sharing the available work. Robotisation and automation ought to increase overall productivity. It is important-indeed, vital-that the community share in this increased productivity in the form of higher rewards. I think we need to look away from the present methods of payment and increasingly towards a system of payment based on productivity rather than hours worked. Without that important change we will merely have a community which takes a neo-Luddite view that automation is automatically bad because it reduces the amount of work available. I know that payment based on productivity is not an easy principle to apply. It is impossible in some cases. I am also aware that there are areas in which it will never be possible to use that system. Not only should it be possible in the case of the majority of jobs but it is also urgently necessary for a move to be made in that direction. I think we need a change of thinking among those genuine conservatives in our union movement. There are some genuine conservatives in that movement who I think will have to smarten up their act and think carefully about it. The third part of this motion deals with the need for more educational and training opportunities. These need to be carefully planned, much more so than in the past. We cannot simply feel satisfied with a re-run of the Regional Employment Development Scheme, for example, although it is easy to be wise after the event. That program had its failings. While it might be very nice for, say, Wombat, New South Wales, to get a new toilet block in its park, I think we should be looking in these training schemes at getting to more positive wealth- producing or wealth-conseving national objectives. In this way they can be financed into the future without being the drain on the community that they otherwise would be. The second issue is that there is very little point in training more people for work areas which are already overcrowded. This is the bugbear of all young people. They ask: 'What shall I be? Shall I be an accountant?' There are too many accountants. 'Will I be a teacher', they ask. Many teachers are on the dole. This is not good. We cannot continue in this manner and think that we are to do anything of any real value. We must make a move towards new areas and provide rationally for them. I have mentioned before in the Senate the opportunities provided by the new energy industries. I will go over them again because I think they are vitally important. These are genuine new areas of employment which could be easily used. Let us suppose, for instance, that the Government decided to give a really generous tax concession to businesses and householders prepared to install solar hot water heaters anywhere in Australia. That concession would need to be large enough for the extra interest payments incurred by a young family in buying their house to be less than the saving in electricity charges. In other words, a financial incentive would have to be provided for putting in something which is, after all, of value to society and a genuine conservation measure. I predict that a new labour intensive, regionally distributed industry would spring up throughout the nation rapidly and that it could provide as many as 100,000 jobs within two years. If at the same time government training schemes offered young people training in the know-how in that area, the people would be there to do the work. Is this pie in the sky? Is it impractical? The point is that this is already being done, successfully and efficiently, in a society very like Australia. It has been done for some years and could be done here with equal success. There are no problems and no doubts. We simply need to ask the Government of California for its paper work and send someone over to see how it is done. We could then introduce it in Australia straight away. We would have people at work within a matter of months. We need simply to follow that economic example. I refer to the Californian experience with what is called Solarcal, which is a commission or instrumentality designed to do two things: To encourage in every possible way the development of solar energy in the State of California, and, recognising the fact that the manufacture and installation of solar devices is labour-intensive, to increase employment. This has succeeded brilliantly. In the number of years that the program has been going, it has been enormously successful. In some parts of California, like San Diego county, it is now not legal to build a new house without putting proper solar installations into it. I suggest there are many parts of Australia also where that should be the law. It is in the pure interests of reasonable conservation of materials which cannot be replaced in this world. Of course, the whole Solarcal experiment is based on an enormously well worked out program of tax concessions, which I think is the key point because this provides people with an incentive. People get something like 55 per cent off their federal and state income taxes to finance this. At the moment the cost of a solar hot water heater is so great that the average young family in Australia will say that it cannot justify the interest it will have to pay on that money when compared with the savings that it will get by not using electric power. While that situation continues, of course, we will not have these installations in sufficient numbers in Australia. Of course, they have a very important bearing on our energy conservation requirements into the future. They are conservational. That is, or should be, a national intention. The Californian Energy Commission did its homework to a considerable extent-I have seen lengthy documents on this-and found that it was cheaper to have people provide these installations and subsidise them than build enormously expensive new thermal, hydroelectric or nuclear power stations. The Commission found that it was cheaper to subsidise people to conserve energy than it was to build those things. At the same time people are being employed. There has been an enormous increase in employment in California because of this one issue alone. The tax concessions that are given tend to be repaid to an extent by the new employment, by the fact that the people who are newly employed are paying tax and because they are not being paid the dole. I suggest that there would be the same effect in Australia. Documents on this matter from the Californian Energy Commission are available to this Government and, if necessary, I can provide them. I have them all in my files. But I think it would be a good thought if the Government had a look at those suggestions and introduced them in this country fairly soon. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.36) —I wish to speak only very briefly to the motion of Senator Mason. He has expressed concern about an issue which is of concern, I believe, to all Australians. I think he has illustrated his points with a degree of concern and compassion which the Government shares. The motion seeks to provide a number of suggested solutions to the matter of youth unemployment. I think the solutions he suggests are all matters which should properly be considered by government, but at this stage government is certainly not in a position to say that if one examines the relative economic merits of each of the propositions Senator Mason put forward they would be necessarily the solutions chosen by government. They may be the solutions which would contribute to alleviating some of the problems to which he refers. I quite agree with him when he says that attitudes to part time work in Australia have to change. I think that was one of the desirable conclusions which came out of the National Economic Summit Conference, not specifically in terms of part time work but in terms of changed attitudes towards matters which affected the unemployment level in Australia and the size of the work force in Australia. As I have said in the Senate in the last few days, I think any government which claimed-for example, as the last Government did-that it would provide a cure to unemployment in conventional terms, was making a mistake. That claim did not fool anybody, particularly the electorate. Ultimately the only people it fooled were members of that Government. I say that because a conventional sort of view is still about that if one were to restore the existing Australian economy to the level it was at in 1965 in terms of growth and relative affluence one would, by that process, dramatically reduce unemployment. I do not believe that to be true. I believe it would make an impact on unemployment but it would go no further than that. I want-not in any spirit of criticism of the suggestions Senator Mason made-to make one other point, which I think it is very important to consider, in relation to youth unemployment and that is the fact that by comparison with a number of other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development Australia has a high youth unemployment problem. But it also has a high youth employment problem, which is a different thing. For example, in the United States of America some 74 per cent-as I recall the figure-of people in the age group 16 to 22 years of age are engaged in education of one form or another whether it be training, apprenticeship training or in colleges. In Australia the figure is about 22 per cent, as I recall it. In Japan the figure is equivalent to the United States figure. So if one looks at comparable figures of youth unemployment one can see that our position is worse and that in terms of comparable figures of the number of young people in jobs, if this is regarded, as it used to be, as a favourable indicator, our position is better than that of a lot of other countries. We have many young people in work. I looked at the figures late last year and found that 25,000 15-year-old people were employed in Australia. I think 100,000 16-year-old people are employed in Australia. That is a problem which cannot be redressed overnight. One of the election commitments of the Australian Labor Party prior to the last election was a commitment to increase the participation rate in education over three years. The figure was given. I think it was 30,000 additional students who were to be encouraged into post-school education in the next three years. If nothing more, I think that indicates a recognition of one of the basic problems we face in terms of the employment or unemployment of young people in Australia. As I have indicated, I do not believe that this problem can be solved other than by a combination of policies. Some of the policies suggested by Senator Mason may commend themselves. Everyone in the community has different views about how we should solve these problems. The previous Government advanced one idea in the course of the election campaign. That Government was going to put 10 ,000 young people into the Army as part of a solution to the unemployment problem. Senator Chaney —For training purposes. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says: 'For training purposes'. It does not matter what purposes it was for. Senator Mason —The Army did not like it. Senator BUTTON —I know the Army did not like it. It was an interesting exercise in policy formulation because I heard about it before it was announced. What happened was that there was a meeting of the Tamworth Chamber of Commerce one night to which everyone was asked to come and put their views on what they thought should be done about youth unemployment. I am informed that every eccentric in the Tamworth district gathered together on that occasion, including the former Minister for Defence, Mr Sinclair. It was at that meeting that the suggestion came up that the solution to the youth unemployment problem was to encourage people into the Army. That subsequently became a policy matter in the policy speech of the former Prime Minister. Senator Chaney —Are you scoffing at talking to people in Tamworth? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney is offended by the suggestion. I am not scoffing about talking to people in Tamworth. I am scoffing at their view that a responsible government in this country would make a policy of that order on the run and off the top of its head as it clearly did. When the matter was announced in the policy speech of course it was roundly criticised by experts in both the area of social welare problem of youth unemployment and in defence matters who regarded it as a ludicrous suggestion from the point of view of the Services. That is all I am scoffing at. The only point I am trying to make is that there are dangers in quickly adopting any of these policies without examining the downstream effects-if I can use an expression I have acquired recently-of those policies in respect of other areas. So we commend the spirit of Senator Mason's motion which is before the Senate. We agree that the issues he raised should be examined just as a number of other matters should be examined in relation to trying to find a solution to this very difficult social problem. In respect of this problem we have been extraordinarily lucky. The repercussions which might have already followed because of the size of the problem, as yet, have not followed, although they probably will. We commend Senator Mason's views to the Senate and the Government will take them into account. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.45) —I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) for his warm response to the spirit of Senator Mason 's motion, which the Opposition also supports. The problem of unemployment- especially the unemployment of young people-does need new initiatives such as permanent part time work. We might look at some of the difficulties, in practice , of a roster basis, as set out in the motion, for each place of employment- including having a series of unemployed young people-or look at the actual ambiguities involved in the words 'without penalty' when the introduction of permanent part time work is taken on by unemployed young people. We do support the spirit of the motion, especially the third part that looks to full time-and part time for that matter-educational and training opportunities for unemployed people. I take this opportunity to add that there has been a great deal of discussion following the last Government's initiatives in the area of transitional education. I believe that whilst so many of the State education departments and the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority are looking at the structure of secondary schools, transition education should be incorporated within the comprehensive structure of secondary schools. Whilst there will be room for some transitional education in the technical and further education sector, I believe that the schools are letting down young people and school leavers if within the secondary schools comprehensive system there are not these transition programs. The second and last matter I want to raise relates to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts report on Preparation for the Work Force which was tabled here many months ago. It has been warmly received by many spokesmen in the State education systems, in non-government schools and even in this Parliament. But one matter which bears upon this motion, I believe, has not been fully understood. It relates to the case for restructuring the secondary school system. It is set out under the heading 'A Case for Restructuring the Secondary School System' on pages 32 and 33 of the report, especially in the first three paragraphs. I refer also to the introduction to recommendation 15 (i ) of the report. I want to draw this to the attention of persons such as Mr John Steinle, who has been appointed by the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian Government-I think the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is involved as well-and who is reviewing the structure of secondary schools. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the three paragraphs of the report that I have referred to together with recommendation 15 (i) in order to bring attention to the matter in the debate on this motion. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- A Case for Restructuring the Secondary School System A criticism of the education system that came through persistently during the inquiry was that secondary schools lack comprehensiveness in the sense that their curricula too narrowly favours those students who are academically minded and who aspire to enrol in post-secondary education programs. The charge has been made that secondary schools are geared to cater for an elite minority, a minority which has been expanding over the years but still remains nevertheless, a minority. To understand the basis of this bias and the nature of the problems faced by secondary schools, one needs to consider the dramatic change in retention rates that has occurred over the last two decades. Less than 20 years ago, about one student in ten who started high school went through to year twelve. That proportion has now increased to about one in three. These higher retention rates have created major problems for secondary school planners. The original concept of the Year 12 curriculum was to serve that very small minority of students going onto post-secondary studies. However, in successive years, the number of students failing this year of study has grown to be far in excess of those going on to tertiary studies. In the meantime, the original curriculum has persisted. Indeed many argue that the academic bias of Year 12 has expanded to a like bias in Year 10 and 11, thus the burgeoning numbers of students enrolling in the final years of secondary schools have far outstripped the development of more appropriate curriculum and school studies to best serve them. As a result it has been estimated that about one-third of all secondary school students, for varying reasons, are disillusioned and dissatisfied with their secondary school education. This dissatisfaction has given rise to negative learning attitudes in students as well as problems for schools. 15. Secondary School System (i) That the Australian Education Council urgently convene a conference between representatives of Commonwealth and State Education Departments for the purpose of drawing up plans for a restructuring of the secondary school system to provide curriculum structures that directly serve school leavers with non- academic outcomes. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.50) —I wish to speak just briefly because I think it is appropriate to commend both the Government and the Opposition for picking up Senator Mason's proposal and endorsing it so enthusiastically. I think that this is an indication of the spirit that we hope to see a lot of in this new Parliament. I compliment the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) on his enthusiasm for the proposal-not simply for the concept but for the detail-which he has obviously endorsed and intends to act upon. I also commend the Opposition for its approach to the proposal and hope that the spirit of consensus, co-operation and constructive debate in these vital areas, as distinct from some of the less important areas that we seem to have been debating over the last couple of days, is typical of what we are going to see in this Parliament. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.53) —I was told by the Government Whip that the debate on this motion would be adjourned. Quite a large number of issues have been raised which need to be analysed-for example, work sharing. I am sure that quite a lot of workers around the countryside would not mind sharing their work but they certainly are not prepared to share their pay. The fact of life is that many of them do not have enough pay to share as it is. Under the circumstances I feel that the debate ought to be adjourned. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.55) — I move: That the Senate oppose any aid from Australia to Vietnam so long as Vietnamese military forces are occupying Kampuchea and Laos. This is an important matter; it is central to the perceptions of Australian foreign policy and it is on the agenda of the Australian Government for decision . I urge that the Senate adopt this motion so that we may reinforce the views expressed to so many of us by people around Australia and by our neighbours in this region and the Government may take note of it. What are the facts about the Vietnamese military occupation of Kampuchea and Laos? Some quarter of a million Vietnamese soldiers occupy the two neighbouring, theoretically independent, countries of Kampuchea and Laos. According to the publication Military Balance, published by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Vietnam has 170, 000 troops in Kampuchea, being 20 army divisions, two marine divisions and support units; and in Laos it has some 45,000 troops, being three infantry division and support troops. These figures are broadly confirmed by alternative publications, such as Strategic Balance, which estimates there are some 200,000 troops in Kampuchea, and the Far Eastern Economic Review, the widely acclaimed publication in Asia, which estimates that there are 160,000 to 180,000 Vietnamese troops in Kampuchea. The huge, aggressive military forces of Vietnam are ocupying those two neighbouring Indo-Chinese countries-countries that, for more than 20 years, have suffered warfare, revolution, bloodshed, murder, drought and every kind of tragic circumstance. Why is it that there is such a public awareness of these problems? I believe that there are three reasons why the public is alert to this problem in Indo-China. We may well ask: Why is it that Australians are so interested in Indo-China? We have a natural neighbourliness between South East Asian countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and our major trading partner, Japan; with the country with the major population in this region, China; and with our traditional and close ally, the United States of America-or, for that matter, with New Guinea and the Pacific. Why is it that out of this range of countries about us the attention of the Australian people is focused on the problems of Indo-China? I think the first reason is the tragic division in this country concerning the tragedy of the Vietnamese conflict. It occupied so much of our time and caused a great deal of heart searching and debate and the involvement of our own troops in Vietnam. The repercussions of that hostile, difficult and divided period are still to some extent with us. The second reason concerns the by now thousands of refugees from that area, principally from Vietnam but also from Kampuchea and Laos, who have come to settle in Australia. Tragically, approximately one half of the refugees from that area are at the bottom of the sea because the frail craft that they used to escape the tyranny of communism and the lack of freedom in their homeland led them to take risks which caused their deaths in the sea. But one half of them did make it to Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia, or even all the way to the shores of Australia. There have also been repatriations to free countries about the world. Those refugees are now an important part of the Australian community. There are Vietnamese, Kampuchean and Laotian communities in Australia. Whilst this is a recent wave of refugees who have settled in Australia there is also a sympathetic group of refugees from Eastern Europe, also coming from communist regimes. The third reason-this is very significant-the Australian public are alert to the problems of this region is the tragic massacres of the people of Kampuchea at the hands of their own Government. The former Pol Pot Government in Kampuchea is notorious in Australia and in all parts of the world for its villainous murder, the genocide, of Kampuchean people. The response of the Australian people was individually, in small gifts, to donate a total of some $ 8m towards direct food and medical aid to the Kampuchean people who were suffering in those years. This was added to by direct grants-in-aid from the Australian Government. For these three reasons 'Kampuchea' is a household word for the Australian people. We cannot mistake the view of the Australian people. We cannot regard the Australian people as ignorant of this problem in Kampuchea and Laos where a quarter of a million Vietnamese military forces are in occupation. In addition, many Australians have travelled to this region. As an undergraduate I travelled about-partly hitchhiking, partly in trucks, on motor bikes and in cars, on the quite distinctive trucks that are in Thailand, for example-over the Mekong River into Laos and across the countryside in the peaceful days before the wartorn tragedy came to Cambodia, be it at Siem Reap or Phnom Penh. I travelled also in South Vietnam. Since then I have been back several times to each of those countries, but only once to Kampuchea. I am not alone; many Australians have taken a direct interest, not only in Indonesia and Malaysia which are closer to our shores, but also in this part of Indo-China. My brother returned this week from participation in an International Red Cross medical team on the border of Thailand and Kampuchea, where he was a surgeon assisting the Kampuchean refugees . He saw the Vietnamese army and air force attacks on these rather defenceless Kampuchean people, and indeed attacks on Thailand. Only three and a half years ago, with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, and Mr Jim Carlton from the House of Representatives I, representing the Senate, went to Aranya Prathet, a town on the border between Thailand and Kampuchea. I observed the refugee camp there and Vietnamese soldiers on the border and the problems as perceived by the Thai people. Delegates from the Association of South East Asian Nations Inter-Parliamentary Organisation are currently visiting Australia. Actually, they are in Adelaide today, in my home city. Last evening members of the delegation were here for dinner-they came from all five of the ASEAN countries-as guests of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. On the agenda of their meetings and in all the ASEAN forums the matter of highest priority is that of the security of the region. They pay the highest regard to the threat that Vietnam poses to those ASEAN countries and to the high priority which the ASEAN countries place on seeing Vietnamese forces completely out of Kampuchea and Laos. So there is wide public alertness to the problems of Indo-China. What must be done by Australia in response to these problems? There are two clear goals about which there is no dispute at the moment among the parties in this Parliament. Firstly, the Vietnamese forces must completely withdraw from the occupied countries of Kampuchea and Laos. That military force of 250,000 people should go back to Vietnam. Secondly, there should be free elections enabling the Kampuchean people to elect their own government. They should have free determination and should not be interfered with from outside even by their neighbour, Vietnam. The same thing should happen in Laos. Those goals are contained in the policies of the Opposition and, as I understand it, the policies of the Government. But the offending part of the policy of the Australian Labor Party which, I believe, is in contradiction to those goals is to give direct aid to Vietnam even before those troops are withdrawn. Senator Tate —Humanitarian and development aid. Don't forget the adjectives. Senator TEAGUE —This aid proposal was adopted by the Australian Labor Party at its national conference in June last year. Set out under a number of heads in its platform is a reference to Indo-China. Point c in the platform under the heading 'Indo-China', states: The Government should resume its commitment to the two aid projects in Vietnam suspended in January 1979. The aid projects were suspended by the Fraser Government as a direct result of the military occupation of Kampuchea and Laos by the Vietnamese forces. The platform continues: We should also resume cultural exchanges so as to promote greater understanding between our countries. The level of any future humanitarian and development aid should be consistent with our United Nations commitments and also should acknowledge our involvement in the Vietnam war and the subsequent need for rehabilitation in the interests of the Vietnamese people. I am sympathetic with the latter phrases of that platform statement only to the extent that the Australian people and members of the Opposition will not hold against every Vietnamese generation that the regime in Vietnam was an enemy in military involvement in Vietnam in earlier years and consider that it will be our enemy forever. It is our enemy now because it has attacked aggressively a weaker neighbour in Kampuchea and another weaker neighbour in Laos. That is the reason why it is perceived to be an enemy to freedom in that region. The Vietnamese forces, backed by the Soviet Union, are aggressive imperialists in Indo-China, just as the Soviet Union is an aggressive imperialist in Afghanistan and a number of other places in the world that are of concern to freedom loving people in Australia. Vietnam has cast itself in an enemy stance against Australia. The commitment in the Australian Labor Party's platform is thoroughly objectionable to me, to members of the Opposition and, I believe, to the great majority of people in Australia. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard extracts from five recently published editorials that relate to this matter. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- THE AUSTRALIAN Thursday, 7 March 1983 AID TO VIETNAM IS MISPLACED CHARITY . . . It is entirely honorable for Australia, as one of the countries which sent soldiers to Vietnam, to want to help the long-suffering Vietnamese people. But if we were to give aid in the present circumstances our charity would be misplaced and would harm the prospects of peace in South-East Asia. . . . There are at present 160,000 Vietnamese soldiers in Kampuchea. If Vietnam is ready to pay for an army occuping someone else's land, it has forfeited the right to be subsidised by other nations. Labor's opinion that by giving assistance to Vietnam we shall wean it from the Soviet bloc is not borne out by experience. The thousands of millions of dollars given in credits by the West to Poland led to no loosening of the Warsaw Pact. According to Lenin, ''the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we shall hang them''. There is no good reason why we should give Vietnam the rope with which to hang the Kampucheans. . . . Perhaps the most successful chapter in recent Australian foreign policy has been the achievement of good relations with China. China's opposition to the invasion of Kampuchea has been unequivocal. It would be tragic if our friendship were to be damaged by our continuing with the proposed aid. THE AUSTRALIAN Thursday, 5 April 1983 AID TO VIETNAM IS AID TO AGGRESSION Those optimists who expected that the American withdrawal from Indo-China would be followed by peace and reconstruction must have had their remaining hopes dashed by the latest events on the Thai-Kampuchean border. The much-maligned and seemingly discredited domino theory has acquired belated respectability. It is now obvious the Hanoi Government is committed to obtaining undisputed control over the whole of Indo-China and that it is prepared to risk hostilities with its non-Communist neighbors in order to achieve that ambition. . . . The danger of Vietnamese imperialism is recognised not only by Thailand but by the Association of South-East Asian Nations as a whole. Australia's relations with ASEAN are central to our foreign policy. While there is probably little we can do to help Thailand in the present confrontation, we should, at the very least, not subsidise Vietnam's military operations on Thailand's border. If the Federal Government carries out its apparent intention to send economic aid to Hanoi, we shall not only be helping the aggressor but damaging our own vital interests in the region where we live. THE AUSTRALIAN Monday, 18 April 1983 SECOND THOUGHTS ON AID TO VIETNAM . . . The visit of the Chinese Prime Minister offers the Federal Government the opportunity to strengthen an association of considerable importance to this nation. If, however, the government perserveres with the ALP policy of giving economic aid to Vietnam, irreparable damage could be done to our future contacts with the world's most populous nation. . . . Not only China but all of the members of the Association of South East Asian nations are opposed to the usurpation of Kampuchea and fear that even if it secures its domination of Indo-China, Vietnam's imperial ambitions would not be satisfied. Mr Hawke and Mr Hayden must be well aware of ASEAN's anxiety that the Federal Government should not proceed with its apparent intention to send aid to Hanoi while its soldiers continue their uninvited occupation of Kampuchea. The prospect of a breach with such a significant, and so far friendly, association of neighbouring nations should be enough to give any but the most dogmatic government cause for second thoughts. To antagonise simultaneously ASEAN and China would leave us almost entirely isolated in our region. . . . THE CANBERRA TIMES Thursday, 7 April 1983 PROVISO FOR VIETNAM AID The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, said before the election that a Labor Government would resume the aid (to Vietnam) which was cut off by the Fraser Government in 1979 in retaliation for the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Kampuchea and the Vietnamese policies that were causing a rush of ''boat-people'' refugees to Australia. It could well be a promise that Mr Hayden and the Government may wish to reconsider. Aid is definitely premature at this stage, given Vietnam's continued occupation of Kampuchea, its present aggression on Thai border territory and reports from credible observers of atrocities by Vietnamese forces in Kampuchea. If the Labor Government cannot condone the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, of East Timor by the Indonesians, of the Falklands (briefly) by the Argentines, it certainly cannot condone Vietnam's forceful occupation of Kampuchea, nor its current military action on Thai territory against refugees, in which a number of Thais have been killed. THE COURIER MAIL Tuesday, 19 April 1983 VIETNAM AID A HOT ISSUE The Federal Government is wise to postpone a commitment of aid to Vietnam until after consulting allies, neighbors and important friends like China. . . . Mr Hawke's assurance of consultation should go beyond discussion with allies and neighbors . . . he should test the feeling also of the people of Australia. Not only will he find most of Australia's friends and allies against Vietnam aid , he probably will find most Australians against it too. Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Senate. I believe that these editorials are directly representative of the views of the Australians people. When honourable senators read them as part of my speech they will see that they speak for themselves. But in contradiction to those views the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has gone to each of the ASEAN countries in turn to try to sell them the Australian Labor Party's policy, which I think he only half believes himself. The Government should note those misgivings and the misgivings of many people in its ranks in the Senate and in the House of Represenatives. The Government should use the response the Foreign Minister gained from the ASEAN countries to deny that so-called binding platform of the Australian Labor Party. When the ALP at its conferences adopts many planks in its platform some concessions are made to sectional interests within the Labor Party. Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. The honourable senator can have no knowledge of the internal operations of the Australian Labor Party, nor can he have knowledge of what is in the mind of the Foreign Minister with regard to the progress with which ALP policy will be implemented. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That may be so but no point of order is involved. That is a point for debate. Senator TEAGUE —In my view a number of Trojan horses and hostages are built into the platform of the Australian Labor Party. They are the policies of a sectional group of the Labor Party, principally sponsored by the Left. Aid to Vietnam is one of them. It is an embarrassment to many members of the Australian Labor Party. I am urging members of the ALP to reject that platform and to become more responsibly representative of the Australian people in this matter. A little earlier during the debate Senator Tate interjected and said that the ALP wanted to give only civil or humanitarian aid to Vietnam before the Vietnamese military forces withdraw from Vietnam. I oppose the granting of even civil and humanitarian aid because it would directly allow a diversion of Vietnamese resources from civil uses, such as agriculture or hospitals, to be used instead in the massive costs of the occupying armies in Kampuchea and Laos. The diversion of resources would be directly enabled by Australian aid. That is the principal reason we oppose it. It is also misplaced charity. I know that Senator Tate and other honourable senators would say: 'We are called by higher ethics to love our enemies'. I am not altogether wanting to neglect that view myself but we are also called to love our friends. If we were to love our enemies-the Vietnamese backed by the Soviet Union in this aggressive stance- could honourable senators opposite tell me whether that would be consistent, for example, with giving direct aid to a belligerent aggressor against even Australia? Would that be an excuse for doing so? It would be misplaced charity to give such aid. Did Australia give aid to Turkey at the time of Gallipoli? Did Australia give aid to Japan when we were seeking to relieve New Guinea, Malaysia or the Philippines in the Second World War? Did the Australian Government give any aid payments to Indonesia in the 1960s when Indonesian armies were in the full thrust of confrontation against Malaysia? I do not believe that we did. Charity was not misplaced then and it ought not to be misplaced now. Why then does the Government feel bound to execute ALP policy? It is because it has to watch for the left elements within the Labor Party at large and within the chambers of the Parliament. I put it to honourable senators that that is no ground at all for abandoning responsibility towards Australia, our ASEAN neighbours, Japan, China, the United States of America or, indeed, the great majority of countries in the United Nations that originally were opposed to the Vietnamese occupying armies. They do not support any such aid to Vietnam in the present circumstances. The time for such aid will come when those forces are directly withdrawn and not before. Today, following Mr Hayden's visit to the ASEAN countries the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Nakasone, is visiting those countries. Yesterday he was in Singapore. The Age of today reports in this way: Mr Nakasone's firm endorsement of the strategy by Australia's closest neighbours in the region, to induce Vietnam to withdraw its forces from Kampuchea, is expected to put added pressure on the Labor Government not to resume aid to Vietnam unless Hanoi is prepared to make substantial concessions over Kampuchea. He has spoken out strongly about it. So have all the other Foreign Ministers of the Association of South East Asian Nations. Senator Tate —Japan has got a pretty good record in South East Asia! Ask Senator Sir John Carrick. Senator TEAGUE —I know that Senator Tate is referring to the unenviable record of Japan but do not let us hold that against Japan for ever. Let us regard history in its right perspective. No one in Australia condones the terrible actions of Japan at that time. But do not let us hold that against the argument put forward by the properly elected Prime Minister of Japan. He made responsible statements in 1983 about this region. It is not as a result of any encouragement from our neighbours that the Labor Government wants to give aid to Vietnam. They are all urging Australia not to give aid. It is well known that the Chinese Premier, Mr Zhao Ziyang, came to visit Australia. It was an important visit to this country. He is the highest ranking Chinese person ever to visit Australia. The matter which the Press reported as being the most important item on the agenda of discussions between Mr Zhao Ziyang and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs was the question of aid to Vietnam. Premier Zhao Ziyang does not want that aid to continue. He does not want it to be a block to a good, practical and, I believe, healthy relationship between China and Australia-two vastly different countries in size and in political and social structures. The relationship between Australia and China has grown in the last 10 years to be of importance to us and, I believe, also to China. We ought to express concern in this debate not only for the consequences to Japan and China but also, principally, for the consequences to our nearest neighbours. We will alienate the ASEAN countries-our immediate neighbours-if we go ahead and give such aid. Are we going to brush aside those relationships? Are they not of importance to the Australian Government? Of even more consequence is the fact that the people of Australia will be affronted and alienated if such aid is given to Vietnam in these military circumstances. I happen to be one Liberal senator who has spoken out in this chamber for five years with a view to seeking the Australian public's understanding of the overseas aid goals of the Australian Government. I have spoken about the need for Australians to see the importance of development assistance to the countries in our near region. If this aid is given to Vietnam in spite of the military circumstances involved, I am convinced that many Australians now and in years to come will say that it is offensive to them. They will try to blacken any kind of legitimate and wholesome development assistance to the countries in our region. I do not want that to happen. I also do not want the Vietnamese people, the Kampuchean people and the Laotian people who come to settle in Australia to be alienated from the Government of Australia. We should not put on them during their resettlement process the terrible burden of being associated with an Australian Government that is giving direct aid to the Vietnamese people so that the Vietnamese can divert their resources to the military occupation of their neighbouring countries. This is a matter of very direct concern not only to our distant neighbours, China, Japan, the United States and our near neighbours in ASEAN and the Pacific , but also the Australian people. People from those countries form part of our community. Another reason this is a very real concern is that on 17 February 1979, as a direct result of the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea and Laos, the Chinese directly invaded the northern boundary of Vietnam. Eventually they withdrew but only after many weeks of bloody fighting in which there was loss of life on both sides. The international community was disturbed at the dangerous situation of two strong countries in the region directly fighting each other. I remember that a quite different situation applied when I lead a student delegation to China in 1968 during the cultural revolution. In 1968 the Chinese said to us: 'The Vietnamese and Chinese people are as lips and teeth; they are so close together' . Ten years later that situation had been reversed. In my view they had gone back to the more traditional, centuries old situation where emnity existed between these direct rivals. That hostility between China and Vietnam has not abated. In fact, it has grown. In recent weeks there have been further hostilities and loss of life on the northern border of Vietnam. Part of the reason for concern is that the earlier invasion by China was called the first lesson to Vietnam for its military adventures into Kampuchea and Laos. The question is raised: Will there be a second lesson? Will the solidarity, the close alliance that China offers to the Kampuchean Government in exile-or I should say the Cambodian Government in exile because, as I understand it, that is how it wishes to be known-bringing even more threats of violence, hostility, difficulty and danger to that region? If Australia goes ahead with direct overseas aid to Vietnam it will exacerbate all of those hostilities. It will make the relationship between China and Vietnam all the worse. If honourable senators opposite were to visit Kampuchea or Laos how would they face up to the ordinary people of Kampuchea or Laos when they ask: 'Why are you giving aid to Vietnam which has occupied our countries with such hostility and presented us with such difficulty, suffering and oppression? Why is the Australian government giving aid to that country?'. That question will not arise if the aid only goes to Vietnam after there has been a proper withdrawal of all of those troops. Honourable senators opposite should ask themselves this question: 'What kind of explanation will I offer to the ordinary people of Kampuchea and Laos if the Australian Government goes ahead with such a tragic decision and gives aid to the enemy of freedom in Indo-China?'. We of the Opposition will not identify ourselves with such a decision. We will seek to strengthen the alliances that have grown between Australia and the peoples in this region. We will seek to reassure the people who have settled in this country from Kampuchea, Vietnam and Laos that we have no part whatsoever in the decision of the Government. Today I have genuinely tried to be charitable. Only one section of the Australian Labor Party won this platform with which the ALP is now landed. Senator Tate — Well, you're wrong. Senator TEAGUE —Senator Tate says that I am wrong. Apparently all elements of the Labor Party support this platform. The responsibility for this action lies on all their heads, not just on the heads of their left wing members. I ask honourable senators opposite to urge their Government not to go ahead with this decision and to change its policy. I urge all honourable senators to support the motion that is now before us. Debate (on motion by Senator Ryan) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 2, ministerial statements on employment and the National Economic Summit Conference. Ministerial Statements Debate resumed from 3 May 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Senate take note of the statements. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.25) —Before resuming debate on the matter I might, just for the record, mention that the Opposition had proposed to continue with the debate on the previous item and had a number of speakers ready to speak on it. There were some small misunderstandings and alternative arrangements were made between me and the two Whips. The Opposition is simply honouring that arrangement which was made on the run. I wish to acknowledge the situation of a number of Opposition senators who had expected to speak on that matter this afternoon. They will welcome the opportunity to resume debate on the matter of aid to Vietnam, a matter which is, I am sure, of great interest to the Australian people and to a number of honourable senators. I have already had an opportunity to speak on the motion which is before us and which relates to the various papers and statement which have been put down by the Government with respect to the National Economic Summit Conference. I do not wish to recanvass all of the points which I have made in previous debates, but I do welcome the fact that we have had in the Senate, both through the agency of the Opposition bringing on a matter of public importance and through the Government bringing forward the statement for consideration, the opportunity to concentrate on the very large issues and problems which Australia faces at the moment. In the previous speeches which I have made this week I have concentrated on what I have seen as the essential decision which this Government faces in the short term; that is, what it should be putting before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with respect to future wage increases through the centralised wage fixing system which it is said the Summit endorsed. It was of course the publicly stated intention of the previous Government to come out from the freeze through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There are a number of public statements to that effect. To that extent there is a similarity between the procedures which are to be followed now and the procedures which would have been followed under the previous Government. The previous Government had made it clear that it proposed to seek an extension of the wages pause to a full year. That was always its intention and what it urged on the Commission last year. There was unanimity that there should be a wage freeze for at least six months and the question of an extension of the freeze was a matter which would have come before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in any event. I have already acknowledged what I see as the very valuable contribution of the Government in achieving a better framework for economic debate in this country through the Summit by publishing a great amount of Government information which has not previously been available, by making some very forthright statements on the relationship between wages and employment, by making forthright statements on the state of the economy and by providing a venue for some very significant Australian businessmen and for business and trade union organisations. I think there is a better public understanding of the difficult decisions which have to be made and of the trade-offs that there are between wage increases and levels of employment. Of course, as Senator Button made the point yesterday and as indeed I made the point in putting this matter of public importance forward, there are a whole series of policies which are relevant to employment. There is no single area of government decision and government submission which is of more importance than the area of the views which will be put before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by the Government over the coming months. What was put before the Conference by this Government, and what was put before the Conference and supported by most, if not all of the business participants, was that a great deal of restraint in wages was central to restoring profitability and hence investment in Australia, that it was central to restoring competitiveness for Australian industry and that it was central, therefore, to increased employment in Australia. Again at an earlier time this week I dealt with the reasons why there are some restraints-or why some people seem to think there are restraints-on the ability of Government to urge a continuation of the wages pause through to the end of this year. I do believe that industrial relations factors bear heavily upon the Government. These are reflected I think very clearly in the contribution which the Labor Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke made, where he quite squarely put his Government's view that wage restraint would best be served by an adjustment of wages in the second part of 1983. He quite firmly put the view at that time that some adjustment this year was necessary and that is in the light of the industrial reality. I repeat that if it is a fact that because of trade union attitudes it is not possible to exercise the degree of wage restraint that the Government put forward in, I think, scenario C then we still have some way to go down the track towards an acceptable consensus which will serve the interests of the unemployed in Australia. I turn very briefly to the second leg of the objection which is to continued wage restraint at the level which I think many contributors were suggesting at the Summit; that is, the question of the hardship of those on low incomes. I have already dealt with that. I merely wish to add the point which I should have mentioned before; that is, that when one looks at the hardship of people who are on earned incomes which have not been adjusted for some time, one has to compare that with the hardship which is suffered by those who are pitched out of employment and on to unemployment benefit. I think that the much greater hardship is suffered by those who are unemployed. The question of hardship of those who are in employment ought to be looked at, not in terms of trying to stand against what Senator Walsh I think has acknowledged is necessary-which was some reduction of average real incomes in this country-but looked at against the alternative which faces some people, which is unemployment. I would also like to comment on one other point which has struck me during the debate on the Summit here in the Senate. A number of comments have been made about the comparative couth of the Economic Summit and about the fact that the Parliament might learn something from the civilised discourse which took place at that time. I think that all of us who are concerned about the institution of parliament would have noted those comments and wondered to what extent we should take them into account in the rough and tumble of debate between the Government and the Opposition. I say to the Government that I accept that that rough and tumble is part of the necessary stuff of democracy, that we cannot get to the point where there is simply one single view which is embraced by all or we have given away a very precious part of democracy in Australia. I say to the Government that there does appear to be marked contrast in the way Government Ministers respond to points which were made very forcefully in the Summit and which were agreed to by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with a warm ' Thanks Bill' or 'Thanks Jack' or 'Thanks Rod' as they resumed their seat and the rather more critical responses that I and my colleagues have received in this place. I do suggest that there are perhaps some issues which are of genuine difficulty for the Government as they were difficult for our Government. I do not for a moment suggest that the difficulties of Australia have suddenly emerged. They were difficulties that we were facing and to which we were having real problems in finding solutions. I think that an exchange between us is one which can be at a level which perhaps might give more public confidence to the process here and which might also lead to a growth in the sort of consensus in the community which is apparently the wish of this Government; it is certainly its expressed wish. I have only a few minutes to go. I will mention something else which I think has been overlooked in debate so far. I would like to congratulate the Australian Council of Social Service for a number of elements which it put before the Conference. ACOSS in a sense was a lone voice speaking for those who the Opposition said were largely unrepresented-those who were not part of the trade union movement, of the business community or of the Labor Party. I think it endeavoured to put the interests of those unrepresented people before the Conference. I was particularly pleased to see that it was prepared to face up in its submission and through the words of Mr McKenzie to the reality that to bring about the sort of income redistribution that it advocated required the imposition of taxes. When I was first Minister for Social Security I complained that ACOSS was very prone to pointing up the need to have very large increases in social security expenditures and large increases in income redistribution without ever identifying the fact that some would have to lose in that process. I think that in the interests of a realistic political debate in Australia it was very proper and highly desirable that ACOSS should have put its views on tax reform as well as its views on income redistribution. It is an essential part of the process. If we are to move to a more realistic welfare debate and a more realistic income debate in Australia the sort of honesty which ACOSS adopted in its submission on this occasion is something we wish to see emulated by all participants. I also wish to acknowledge the range of income factors which were brought out particularly well by Sir Roderick Carnegie in his contribution. He pointed out that the total cost of employing people may be up to twice the wage rates which are actually paid, because of the various factors he mentioned-taxes on employment, the cost of workers compensation and the extended holiday provisions which apply in Australia. These are matters which both the Opposition and the Government must grapple with if we are to do something about Australian labour being priced out of the market. We all want increased standards for all Australians. We all have to accept that some hard decisions are part of achieving those increased standards. I hope that the debate in this place, as in the Summit, will lead to a better appreciation of what is required of policy makers, of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and of the Government. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.37) —We are discussing ministerial statements on the National Economic Summit Conference. I welcome the opportunity to speak to these papers. I would like to take up the point that Senator Chaney made when he referred to the mood and the general situation in Australia at the moment. I must take Senator Chaney back over the last seven years. I have to do that because, although Senator Chaney in his dulcet tones is perhaps trying to change the mood, the Australian people well remember the activities of his Government. He must accept responsibility for the sort of thing that happened, particularly in this chamber. Until a few moments ago Senator Sir John Carrick was in the chamber. Senator Sir John Carrick on many occasions has given us the benefit of his little homilies on deficits. What we did not know until after the election was that stealthily the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, was squirrelling away a monstrous deficit for this country. Of course, he saddled the new Labor Government with special problems because in one sense he summed up the style of the Fraser Government. We lived with the Fraser Government for seven years and I think the matter deserves to be adequately treated. The significant thing is that the Labor Government has changed the style and nothing is more symbolic of that attempt to change the pace in politics in Australia than the National Economic Summit Conference. The fetishes of the Fraser Government will not be placed on the Australian people. We will attempt to plan the future. We will try to bring the organisations of Australia together to see what can be done to face the economic crisis that the Labor Government has been left with. It is significant that the Summit was organised to bring together national and State organisations of capital and labour in the most positive manner. The most important thing is that the style of this Government is an attempt to be positive. In referring to the mood of Australia, Senator Chaney has to realise that only last year the stamp of the Fraser Government, with divisiveness being the order of the day, was on this country, Indeed, Senator Chaney on several occasions had to dirty his hands as part of the Fraser Ministry. I say that very deliberately because only last year in this place Senator Chaney had the carriage of a typical example of the style of the Fraser Government. I refer to the Social Security Amendment Bill 1982 which proposed to disqualify spouses of strikers from receiving the unemployment benefit. That legislation summed up the style of the Fraser Government. The then Government attempted to take the unemployment benefit from the spouses of people involved in industrial disputes despite the facts that only 16 per cent of disputes last longer than five days, only 8.9 per cent of all strikers are involved in disputes that last longer than 10 days and only one per cent of disputes last more than 20 days. The Fraser Government was not concerned with the money; it was concerned with scapegoating. That was the style of the Fraser Government and that is what the Hawke Labor Government is attempting to change. We are trying to prevent the division in our society which was so much a part of the seven years of the Fraser Government. Last year we were threatened with another convulsion in industrial relations. This was an attempt to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to introduce voluntary unionism and to withdraw the powers of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to award preference to unionists. This was very much part of the Fraser Government's program. In this case we were saved by the activities of an excellent Senate select committee. We were prevented from having the pre- election sham that the Fraser Government planned by attacking the trade union movement and forcing industrial disruption, as would have happened had that legislation been passed by the Senate. That involves a very significant description of the Fraser Government. A person by the name of Viner was the Minister in charge of those two pieces of legislation to which I referred. Mr Viner was a complete product of the Fraser era. Mr Viner set about following this disruptive path and it was only when he was completely unacceptable at the time that Mr Fraser was facing an election that he was replaced by Mr Macphee. The importance of dwelling on this for a moment is that there are two lines in the Liberal Party. Last year the line was that of Mr Viner, who represented the backwoodsmen of the Liberal Party and the National Party. On the other hand, there was Mr Macphee and his supporters. The Viner line was for the law of the jungle. The whole range of initiatives that he and his supporters took sought to take Australia back to enterprise unions and a whole range of other things which would have disrupted industrial relations in Australia. Honourable senators might ask why I am raising these things. The significant thing is that some of those people are still here. Mr Viner has gone by virtue of the Australian people and Mr Fraser followed him soon afterwards. Unfortunately some of the people guilty of the actions of that Government are still here-Mr Howard in particular. This person who has a credibility gap in relation to industrial relations or economic matters is still with us. That is the problem. It is serious because this morning's Australian Financial Review, shows that the problems to which I referred last year are still with us. An article at page one of today's Australian Financial Review states: Although it has begun the first major parliamentary session of the Labor Government by attacking the operations of the prices and incomes accord, the Opposition is still divided between adherence of a decentralised system and those who would like to develop an alternative centralised approach to that of the Government. That appears despite what Senator Chaney has just said to us. The article goes on to refer to a joint meeting of the Liberal and National parties this morning. It states: . . . the issue was sent to an all-party committee after no senior frontbencher could lay claim to there being an Opposition wages policy. The scene is now set for months of manoeuvring between the decentralists, led by the Shadow Treasurer, Mr Howard, and the centralists, headed by Employment and Industrial Relations spokesman, Mr Ian Macphee. The same people are leading the Opposition who, if they had continued in office, would have destroyed the unity of this nation. The same people are attempting to divide this country at present. The same people are guilty in the eyes of the Australian people. In the last few days we have heard some excellent maiden speeches, particularly by Government senators. I am reminded of my maiden speech in the Senate, in which I quoted from the National Times. It is pertinent to contrast the Summit Conference and the record of the Fraser Government. The National Times, commenting on the August 1977 Budget of the Fraser Government and referring to Mr Fraser, stated: He has set himself a target of sharply changing the balance of power in our society by diminishing the power of the unions and setting out to redistribute the national wealth up the salary scale to those whom he believes are the productive members of our society. The National Times described the Budget as one that could 'endanger the stability of the country'. It went on to say that the Budget was a 'declaration of class war'. I believe that that particular quotation summed up the policies of the Fraser Government and once again pointed to the differences that exist between the Labor Government and the Government led by Mr Fraser. At the Summit the trade unions, for the first time in seven years, were drawn into that process. The trade unions can compare this experience with the decision making processes of the Fraser Government. There was no consultation under the Fraser Government when the Prices Justification Tribunal was emasculated; no consultation when $55 a month was added to home loan repayments; and no consultation when it slashed allocations to the States, forcing them to cut back on services. Another aspect is the situation of spouses of people involved in industrial disputes. The erosion of the social wage by the Fraser Government through cost increases in the health, welfare and education areas has cost families at least $30 a week. This was done by a Liberal government, the members of which talked-Liberal members probably still talk-about family life. No government did more to disrupt family life than did the Liberal-National Party coalition when it was in power. People suffered tremendously during that time. During the Summit speakers described the tremendous debit we now have with regard to unemployment and suffering in this country. Not only the unions are concerned at present. The Summit demonstrated that there is a change of view throughout the business sector of this country. That is particularly so in the small business sector. This was reflected in the recent elections. In July last year a spokesman for the Bank of New South Wales, a significant conservative organisation in the community, stated: Here in lies a great weakness in monetarism: It is not always apparent when to jump off the bandwagon of high interest rates. The problem of staying on board too long might already be evident in the United States. That statement reflects one of our problems. The previous Government had a religious fervour for monetarism. There has been a public airing of arguments by the wets and the dries in the Liberal Party. But at the time of the election this year we had a dank, dismal mess. That is the inheritance the Government has received after seven years of Liberal-National Party Government. Of the speeches made by prominent business people at the Summit the problem was best summed up by the late Sir Keith Campbell. Referring to a significant view held by business people, he said: We agree that the Government's economic approach should now be based on a strategy to fight unemployment and inflation simultaneously. The economic and social implications of our unemployment are devastating. Clearly it must be the top priority of this Summit. Sir Keith Campbell, speaking as a very respected businessman, summed up the acceptance of wide sections of business in Australia that there is a need not to follow the false policies of the Fraser Government that have created such hardships in this country, but to follow a balanced, sane policy. That is the program of the Australian Labor Party. I remind you, Mr Deputy President, that almost every speaker at the Summit Conference emphasised the importance of unemployment as a social evil in this country. The speaker from the Australian Council of Social Service at the Summit Conference, to which Senator Chaney has just referred so properly in such favourable terms, was Mr Bruce McKenzie, who said: The proper role of government in a democracy is to ensure equity and fairness through its political institutions and expenditure. The challenge to each of us here this week is to develop social and economic measures to ensure that all Australians have the opportunity to participate in our community. That also sums up the change of style that is more than just the mood of the Press. The Australian people have had a change of style, reacting to a positive government in contrast to the seven dismal years of the Fraser Government. I must say that I have a preference for the trade union point of view that, at first, was so successfully put together with the Australian Labor Party, in the document which is the basis for this discussion. It is most important that we look at the broader range of issues, not just the wages and profit nexus. I refer to one of the contributions made at the Summit by my colleague Mr Fred Peterson from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and also a respected national official of the Clothing and Allied Trades Union. He pointed out something that I think is of concern to the Senate-that is, the severe structural problems in the Australian manufacturing industry. On behalf of the ACTU he proposed a number of remedies to the relative decline of traditional industries which is of great concern to me in my State and which, I believe, should be of concern to everybody in Australia because of the employment content of these industries. Mr Peterson referred to the erratic focus on tariff that we had under the Fraser Government. As I said earlier, we had plenty of statements, but absolute confusion in regard to the overall pattern that businessmen might expect to follow. One of the complaints of business people in this country is that under the Fraser Government we did not have an agreed position. We did not have consistency or national industry. No State government or local government organisation could plan ahead because the Fraser Government was a government specialising in elections and in recession. It did very little else to help the Australian people except create an air of expectancy about the next election. Mr Peterson also referred to something that I believe needs great attention, that is, the need for an industry development policy with wide supports in this country. It is absolutely essential if we are to regenerate manufacturing industry in particular. I agree with the reference that he made on behalf of the ACTU to the need for a dynamic producer goods sector in our economy. Once again I take the theme that Senator Chaney finished on when he referred to the need to consider the differences between the Summit Conference and what normally happens in Parliament. I remind honourable senators that at the Summit we did not hear what we heard for seven years from the previous Government, that is, that strikes are killing the country. That is the one-sided approach that has been the hallmark of the Liberal and National parties. They have blamed wage and salary earners for the crisis that has developed in this country. I would deal with this to remind people that the concentration on strikes by the Liberal Party over seven years presents a false picture when we set about to examine the problems of this nation because it does not even represent factually the hours that are lost from production in this country. I have said this before; nevertheless, it is still necessary to assert the other factors that cause the loss of man hours, person hours, or whatever the proper non-sexist word is for the time lost by the men and women of Australia because they are not able to work. The reality is that individual industrial disputes are a minor problem. To begin with, lost production due to deaths and injuries on the job cost over $ 100m a year more in 1980-81-the last year I have figures for-than did industrial disputes. There were 300 deaths. I was very interested to hear the maiden speeches of two Labor senators because both referred to the loss of hours caused by strikes compared with the loss caused by industrial accidents. I have used these figures before but I refer to them again because they give Australia's problems their proper perspective. I refer to the estimated costs of strikes, unemployment, absenteeism, injuries and fatalities, in the year 1981-82. Industrial disputes were estimated to cost $403m. Injuries and deaths were estimated to cost $526m. absenteeism was properly estimated to cost $5,929m and the cost of unemployment, on the official statistics, was estimated at $9,713, 000,000. Industrial disputes represented 2.4 per cent of the time lost. Injuries and deaths represented 3.1 per cent, absenteeism represented a shocking 35.7 per cent and unemployment represented 58.6 per cent of man hours lost. The wastage caused by the number of people unemployed is the inheritance of the Labor Government from the Fraser Government. That is what we are setting out to change and what the Summit significantly set out to change. It is significant that one of the major issues we are concerned about arising from the Summit that the Government is acting on immediately is occupational health and safety, which I assert has been an area neglected by the Liberal and National parties. They have been completely obsessed with the emotive issue of trying to blame the individuals involved in industrial disputes for the crisis. I refer to an example which has been used in other places. In changing the climate of debate, I think we have to look to the ways in which other countries deal with problems of making an arrangement with the trade union movement that is both principled and proper and understand how the trade union movement and the Australian people can participate and be more directly involved in the process of government. The Hawke Government has taken steps, as is very clear in the Senate chamber, to give more information to the people. The Summit was the first of a series of acts to demystify the position of government and to allow people to be involved in the process of government. I am interested in the experience of the Austrian Government because it is a country with vast numbers of people which has had a relatively stable situation for many years. It is significant that an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report makes the point that it is inconceivable that the Austrian Government would make decisions without consulting the partners in Austrian business. Even the reference to people being partners is in sharp contrast to the way in which the Australian trade unions over the seven years of the Fraser Government were neither consulted nor dealt with in such a way that they could reflect the views of their members and try to change the state of the nation. I refer to some of the positive aspects of the ACTU accord with the Labor Party that I believe are most important for the Government to give priority. The ACTU accord contains the elements of an industry policy. One of our problems is that we need a national economic planning mechanism in which the prices and incomes structure has a defined role. We need, as is being proposed by the ACTU and the Government, an industry level sectoral council which will be fully integrated into a national economic planning structure with a reformed Australian manufacturing council. This will give meaning to councils. People will be able to have a say. I participated in the councils of the Fraser Government. They were one day jaunts. People throughout Australia went to meetings of councils with a small staff servicing them and at which very little could be done effectively. This is another change that the Hawke Government will bring about as it is aware of our need to have a proper industrial policy. It is also proposed as a result of the ACTU accord that an appropriate tripartite consultation at specific industry level be conducted and developed over time. That is terribly important. It is in contrast with the piecemeal approach of the Fraser Government, an approach that was made worse by the procession of Ministers who had responsibility in the vital areas of industry development. In addition, it is proposed that corporate consultation on a tripartite basis will supplement the other machinery to ensure total consistency in the planning process. The planning mechanisms will reflect the priority decided upon through widespread consultation. The Summit represents a qualitative change from the past. It represents a move to growth from the recessionary policies which were synonymous with the Fraser Government. I think it was well summed up by my colleague Senator Ryan in her contribution to the Conference in her capacity as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. She said: For many women and young people the recession arrived long before the more privileged sections of the community were aware of it. The threat-and the fact- of unemployment has been present for many of our young people and for women for almost a decade. Senator Ryan was drawing attention to the fact that the Labor Party is aware of the suffering that has been occurring. At the Summit we recognised the existence of this suffering. We recognised that the reduction of unemployment and the creation of employment is a priority and have shown it in this symbolic way. I commend the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Ministers for doing that. We now move into a positive phase in Australia and we can soon bury the memory of the destructiveness of the Fraser era in Australian politics. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.8) —Senator Childs, who has just resumed his seat, has not been here for very long and has forgotten how Australia squirmed under the Whitlam Government between 1972 and 1975. It is all very well to criticise the Fraser Government's efforts over the last seven years but I think it is fair to remind the Senate of the catastrophe that occurred under the mismanagement of the socialist Whitlam Government from 1972 to 1975. That big spending Government-the socialist Government-leaned upon Australia to such a degree that our inflation rate reached something like 18 per cent and unemployment levels reached a record height up to that time. I am always interested to hear members of the Australian Labor Party talk about deficits. Again, they forget that the Fraser Government inherited a deficit of about $4 billion from the Whitlam Administration and was able, over a considerable period , to reduce inflation to 9 per cent or a little less. It was able to bring Australia back on a quite significant course of development. A $9 billion deficit, if that is the figure-I am not quite sure what the accurate figure would be but that is what I have been led to believe-- Senator Childs —Go and ask Mr Howard. Senator JESSOP —That is all right. The big spenders of the Labor Party were telling us when we were in government to increase the deficit. We increased the deficit last year. The Labor Party has forgotten that in November the Fraser Government provided the people of Australia with tax relief amounting to $1,570m and increased social welfare payments by about $1.2 billion. The Labor Party advocated big spending. We tried to relieve the tax pressures at the time, hoping that that would encourage people to spend more, buy Australian and so on, and thereby help our economic situation. Senator Kilgariff —What would $4 billion in 1975 mean in today's terms? Senator JESSOP —That is the point. That 1975 figure of $4 billion, in Labor Party terms-it is the party of big spenders-would probably now be of the order of $15 billion. I would like members of the Labor Party to remember that over the next year or two, for as long as the Australian people are prepared to put up with their administration. They will witness the efforts of Mr Hawke, the new Prime Minister, who, when he was the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, presided over the greatest number of strikes in Australia's history. His philosophy was: 'Grab what we want for the Australian workers by direct action. To hell with conciliation and arbitration'. I detected in the words of Senator Childs some disparagement of the idea that industrial disputation is insignificant in Australia. Certainly, the situation has improved . I want to refer now to the National Economic Summit Conference presided over by the new Prime Minister with his new look hair do. His performance at that time reminded me a little of a latter day political Liberace. Nevertheless, let us give him credit for the fact that he gathered many people together in the House of Representatives chamber to give them a chance to demonstrate their concern and put forward their views as to what ought to be done with respect to the Australian economic situation. Only three or four speakers at the Conference paid some attention to industrial disputation and the effect that it has on the economy. I do not think sufficient attention was paid to that matter. I heard the Queensland Premier mention it and I think Sir Roderick Carnegie made a passing reference to it. I believe that it is very important for the Government of Australia to recognise what demarcation disputes have done to wreck the confidence of our international partners and those countries which wish to trade with us. It is quite incredible to me that a situation is allowed to persist whereby an argument between two waterfront unions in Australia can tie up our exports for three or four months. These disputes tie up the imports of goods from other countries and seriously jeopardise businesses and industries throughout this country. More particularly, it is quite incredible that we allow that situation to persist to such a degree that the Japanese Government is now turning to countries like Brazil, South Africa and Canada for their raw materials and for other goods that hitherto we were providing in far greater quantity. The people of countries such as South Korea are eating more and more meat. It is our fifth largest trading partner, the second largest in Asia, and it is now saying: 'We would love to buy all our meat and all our raw materials for our industrial development from Australia but we cannot rely on it'. So what happens? Japan is cutting down on its purchases of coal, iron ore and so on, and turning more and more to other countries. That is a disastrous situation, one that I think was understated at the Economic Summit Conference and one with which we have to come to grips. I have said for 10 years that we ought to have an essential services Act. I drew the former Government's attention to the legislation that was introduced and invoked by the Queensland Premier with some success. I do not agree with all of the aspects of that legislation but at least the bones are there. At long last, after 10 years, the Fraser Government decided that it would introduce essential services legislation in the Parliament to protect the workers of Australia from irresponsibility in areas which could quite easily paralyse the nation. I refer to areas such as the petroleum industry, the power generating industry, communication and the waterfront. We, as a Commonwealth Government, have the powers, under section 51 of the Constitution, to take action and to introduce laws that will provide adequate protection not only for the industries in Australia and not only to ensure that our overseas trading is conducted with a minimum amount of disruption but also, more importantly, to protect the interests of the Australian workers. I might say that the Labor Party has no great record in the area of protecting the interests of the Australian workers. Any government that is worth its salt looks to the average citizens of Australia , the fair dinkum Aussie workers, to try to give them the support they need. I was upset that the Economic Summit Conference did not attempt to come to grips with that important question. I agree with what Senator Childs said concerning industrial accidents. I think the honourable senator from Western Australia made a good speech regarding health hazards and so on in industry. I agree that governments have not come to grips with that important aspect and they should. I believe the Liberal Government should have to come to grips with that problem and I believe that the Labor Government ought to too. I will give any support I can to any moves that will attempt to prevent loss of work through industrial accidents and illnesses which are a result of the environment in which some workers have to work. I think we have to look at the matter of industry unions in Australia. I did not think I would say that 10 years ago. But I recognise, having regard to the success of industrial relations in countries such as Japan and, perhaps, West Germany, that Australia could take some cognisance of that matter. We ought to reduce the number of trade unions in an attempt to overcome problems and to make easier communication and consultation with employers and the trade unions with respect to the conditions under which they work. I think the whole Conciliation and Arbitration Act ought to be scrapped. We ought to start again. On one occasion I talked to one of the arbitration commissioners and I was quite vocal in my condemnation of the way demarcation disputes are allowed to affect the welfare of Australian workers not involved in a dispute. I think that is a responsibility the ACTU ought to adopt in the interests of our economic recovery. It ought to be the one to say what jobs a seaman and a merchantman guild member ought to do. I think that would be a constructive job that the ACTU Disputes Council could take up. Having made the judgments, having made the decisions and having solved the problems between the unions I think the unions then ought to go about their jobs and if there is any messing around from there on the laws of Australia should be made adequate to deal with them. The commissioner said to me: 'We cannot do anything with demarcation disputes because the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is insufficiently framed to give us the necessary powers to deal with them'. Senator Kilgariff —It's crazy. Senator JESSOP —It is crazy. My colleague, Senator Kilgariff, agrees. I believe that we have a very important job to do in that area and I will continue to work to the best of my ability to see that something is done about it. I wish the Labor Party a lot of luck in recovering the lost ground that it claims the Fraser Government has caused. But as I said initially having regard to the successes we were able to achieve over those years, having regard to the deficit that was left to us by the Labor Party-- Senator Walsh —It looks like petty cash compared with the one you are leaving behind. Senator JESSOP —We should have regard to the international scene and the pressures that were brought upon us and to people such as Senator Walsh who is not going to do anything about developing our uranium industry. I will have a bit more to say about that matter at some other time. Senator Walsh might say that it is an uneconomic industry. That is a lot of nonsense. In one country alone-South Korea-there are three nuclear power stations and that country has a program to increase its numbers of nuclear power stations to about 14 over the next decade. There will be an increasing demand for that-- Senator Peter Rae —Japan, an extra hundred. Senator JESSOP —And Japan, an extra hundred. One can talk to people from Western Mining Corporation. They will say that we have to be in that area to provide ourselves with a future market. Even though the prices at the moment may seem to be a little lower than they were, they are going to be significant. Senator Walsh —Did Western Mining say that about Jabiluka too? Senator JESSOP —You would not really understand the problem at all. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —Order! Senator Jessop, would you please address the Chair and, Senator Walsh, would you please stop interjecting like that? Senator JESSOP —Mr Acting Deputy President, I thank you for your protection. I know you will protect me from the ravages of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) who is sitting opposite. I just want to point out that it is nonsense to suggest that the nuclear industry is uneconomic. I believe that the sooner we get stuck into that industry and provide certainly 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 jobs-probably 100,000 jobs- the better. If the Government is going to honour the promise of providing 500,000 jobs within the next 12 months the sooner it gets into developing the uranium industry the better. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(5.22) —It is quite refreshing to hear Senator Jessop, who has just resumed his seat, advocating at least a form of industrial democracy. I look forward to hearing his thoughts on this matter again when I hope it comes before the Senate for a full scale debate. I do not think the honourable senator is seriously saying that the Australian Council of Trade Unions, as a peak organisation, should tell its individual members what to do. But I do believe that at least the honourable senator is beginning to have a glimmer of understanding about the way in which workers should be consulted about their working conditions. I look forward to the day, and I am sure all my colleagues do, when it is possible for individuals to have that sort of control over their working conditions. It is obvious that the Premier of Western Australia, the Honourable Brian Burke , made quite an impression at the National Economic Summit Conference. He has already been quoted by Senator Chaney. I would also like to quote Premier Burke who, on the second occasion he addressed the Summit, made reference to the fact that what he had been hearing from the employer representatives and other people who were themselves employers seemed to convey to him that they were advocating that Australian workers should be required to work double the hours they currently work for half the pay, that all penalty rates should be abolished and that Australia should seek economic recovery through flooding the Asian market with cheap manufactured goods. I do not recall hearing anybody advocate, however-I sat through most of the Summit-that it would be desirable for Australian workers to possess the purchasing power of the average Korean or Malaysian. This points up what I believe to be a weakness in the position of almost every captain of industry who spoke at the Summit. I must observe that the content of much of what they said, if not the style, was very similar to what we have been hearing ad nauseam over the last seven years of Fraserism. There is a distinct tendency to tunnel vision , a luxury which is denied to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to this Government and even to the voluntary organisations which were invited to participate or to observe at the Summit. The industrialist who bemoaned the cost of labour generally-he was representative of many-and the cost of penalty rates in particular, will sell fewer car tyres, or whatever he happens to produce, if the incomes of his employees are reduced. In my State the tourist industry-it is quite a good example because, of course, it is another user of tyres-will be the first to suffer if workers in Western Australia lose their annual holiday loadings. The Confederation of Australian Industry in Western Australia is currently seeking, before the industrial commission in that State, to have this entitlement abolished from Western Australian awards. Some 90 per cent of travellers in Western Australia are Western Australians. The tourist trade, already in the doldrums, will be drastically affected if workers go on leave without that precious extra few dollars-in most cases much less than an extra week's pay. The employers' case that more workers will be employed, by small businesses particularly, if holiday loadings are abolished is blown sky high when one calculates that one worker's annual wage will not be saved unless 70 workers lose their loadings in the year in question. It is surely obvious to the least sophisticated of economic analysists-amongst whom I count myself-that, unless demand is maintained or increased, money so saved by employers will not be used to employ more workers. Quite apart from considerations of equity and justice, the surest and quickest way in which to maintain and stimulate demand is to ensure that the householders with the lowest incomes maintain their purchasing power. The economists' argument is based on the fact that such households are forced to totally expend their incomes in order to purchase luxuries such as food, clothing and shelter-to quote my friend May Hobbs! High incomes, those about which the industrialists know best, are often invested here or overseas in ways which generate no employment except for accountants and corporate lawyers manipulating money markets and stock exchanges. Very few women are in such positions or controlling such empires. The Summit meeting demonstrated clearly how poorly women are represented at the decision making levels of government, private industry and the trade union movement. Few people watching the Summit on television and seeing Jan Marsh with the ACTU delegation but not hearing her speak would know of her tremendous contribution to the ACTU's case. We assume that there were many such gifted women providing the research, ideas and logistical support for the industrialists and State government delegations. These women were unseen and unheard. At least our Government contributed the one woman speaker, Senator Ryan, whose performance, as outstanding as ever, could only marginally substitute for the vast amount of crucial information, based on the experience of 51 per cent of the population, which women are ready, able and willing to contribute to such a debate. The two observing women's organisations-the National Council of Women and the Women's Electoral Lobby-represented women competently and appropriately but they were not invited to speak. The National Council of Women has decades of history and something like 600 organisations affiliated within Australia representing one million members, Australian women, and international affiliation to non- governmental organisations accredited with the United Nations organisation. The Women's Electoral Lobby-the other women's organisation at the Summit-which is just 11 years old, brings in a new generation and new initiatives which are bearing on old, entrenched problems. These groups and many others have seen some significant changes over the last decade, changes engendered principally in response to economic developments-the opportunities for women to begin to control their own and their families' security and destiny. This being the case, should not these women have contributed to the debate? The Government has given early recognition to the place of women in Australian society by returning the Office of Women's Affairs to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. One of the first duties of this office, newly restored to its rightful position, was to prepare an excellent paper as background to the Summit. For those who are interested, this paper-I do recommend it strongly-is numbered NESC G1 addendum 2. I believe it is the definitive statement of March- April 1983 of the position of women in the Australian economy. The opening of this document makes these points: 1. This paper takes as its starting point the need to pursue economic recovery and equity simultaneously. If economic problems of the past are not to recur, recovery needs to be based on new and more productive activities and on maximisation of skills. 2. Women have the potential to contribute to economic recovery through participation in new high skill, high productivity enterprises and by enhancing the economic security of their families. Women's earnings, particularly in low income families, are essential to strengthening consumer demand. As I pointed out earlier, these are the families who spend the whole of their pay packet every week; those are households, in Frank Crean's phrase, are one week's wage off destitution. The paper from the Office of Women's Affairs continues: 3. Unemployment and underemployment hamper women's ability to contribute: unemployment is higher for women than for men; many women working part-time would prefer full-time work; most of the hidden unemployed are women. Our segregated labour market confines a great many women to low paid, low skill, low productivity occupations often in sectors which are contracting in the face of new technology. Yet for women, as for men, marketable labour force skills are the best defence against poverty. 4. Labour market bias against women results in economic insecurity for them and their families. This lack of economic security will characterise any recovery not based on equity. It will also add to the welfare bill. 5. Measures to promote sustained economic recovery consequently need to be directed to improving women's contribution through paid employment. Women's incomes in relation to men's have improved over the last decade but still women remain disadvantaged. Only about 25 per cent of women work full time and though women constitute a much greater percentage of the national labour force than that the rest are working part time. The average number of part time hours worked is 15 and the average award wage rate for women currently in Australia is in the vicinity of $5.50 an hour. In 1981 women received, on average, only 76c for every dollar earned by men. Wives of high income men are less likely to work than those of low income men. However, we all know of families where there are two incomes of doctors, two incomes of teachers, perhaps an income of a nurse and an income of an engineer. Those families are in the minority and in the vast majority of families where the wives are working the total incomes are low. There may be two or three incomes in those households but in very many cases they are insufficient to maintain a dignified standard of living. In the event that women did not work there would be all those extra families living in poverty. Those households in which the husband earns less than $10,000 per annum, on average, include wives whose income is highest as a percentage of the husband's-between 40 per cent and 70 per cent. In 1981 60 per cent of pensioners and beneficiaries were women. In June 1981 women comprised 66 per cent of age pensioners, 100 per cent of widow pensioners- of course-31 per cent of invalid pensioners and 95 per cent of supporting parent beneficiaries. Women know how to make small incomes stretch to their utmost. Women should be consulted by governments and by organisations generally. We have heard a little more lately than we usually do about international conventions. One has been attracting quite a lot of attention; that is, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I was delighted to hear my colleague Senator Reynolds refer to it yesterday in her maiden speech, on which I congratulate her most sincerely. It is a very extensive convention. It is based on the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which had its genesis in 1945 among the very first meetings of the United Nations. The Declaration was discussed internationally by women's organisations of all sorts. It has been advocated very clearly and very definitely by all non-governmental organisations associated with the United Nations. It culminated in a convention which was presented at the time of the mid-decade conference for women held in Copenhagen in July 1980, at which time a number of nations became signatories to Convention. The Convention will be ratified by Australia very soon, we hope. It goes to 50 Articles, as most conventions do, covering a great deal in its 50-odd Articles, but I draw one aspect to the attention of honourable senators. Article 7 of Part II states: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular , shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right: (a) To vote in all elections and public referenda and to be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies; (b) To participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government . . . I think that at the time of the Summit Conference the point was sufficiently made that this great deficiency existed and that women were not being consulted. It seemed to me, observing the Summit through the week, that that was a great tragedy. The opportunity was not being made available for an enormous amount of information about women's place in the Australian economy to be put before all those people attending, many of whom, I am sure, with the best will in the world , are completely unaware of the facts and figures which are included in this Summit document, which is only a precis of all the information that is currently available. The final outcome of the Summit-its communique-made an impression upon women, and most of it was favourable. The women who observed the Conference for various organisations-not just women's organisations-were a great deal more aware, I believe, than most of the males and most of the members of the Press who were observing, of one part of the accord with the trade union movement which received very little discussion. That part is of absolutely crucial importance to women. referring which refers to the social wage. I should like very briefly to talk about some the ways in which awareness of the social wage changes the debate quite considerably from one which concentrates on wage rates, penalty rates, productivity, hours worked and the relationship of those elements to the level of the standard of living. For example, the introduction very soon of a universal medical insurance scheme will make a great deal of difference to the incomes of many households in this land. One element which has created more hardship than any other over the last few years, I believe, is the necessity for a family with children-people at risk-to take out private insurance for their medical and hospital benefits. Medicare will be of great assistance to the low income families to whom I referred earlier. The ability for women, particularly, to be retrained in order to seek employment to maintain their sense of security, the standard of living for their families, their own skills and their own contribution society is absolutely crucial. The availability of good quality community-based low-cost child care is of crucial importance to this society and to those women to whom I have referred who seek to be independent or at least to add to the standard of living for their families. The cost of housing, a matter about which the Government is very determined to take prompt and effective action, is of crucial importance. Also, the adequacy of housing, the size of houses, the siting of houses and the planning of housing and communities are of crucial importance. These are matters that the trade union movement looks to the Government to implement so that the actual wage-the actual amount in the weekly pay packet-is not the only determinant of the standard at which a family is able to maintain itself. In summarising what happened at the Conference the women commented that they welcomed the return to centralised wage fixation, which protects the workers with the least bargaining power, amongst whom women predominate. They commented that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should be encouraged by all parties to use every opportunity of eradicating inequalities in rates for women's and men's jobs. Mr Deputy President, I think most of us are now aware of the fact that there is technically-theoretically, perhaps I should say-equal pay for work of equal value in Australia. But in practice this is not so when the work that women customarily do is valued much more lowly than the work which men do. To make comparisons between the value of jobs that women and men customarily do apparently has been too difficult to be tackled. When we see the worker with the skills required, say, to be employed in a child care centre and the worker, say, employed to work on a road gang putting down bitumen and we are able to compare the value of those two jobs, I know which in my book would be valued more highly . I also know which is currently valued more highly and who of those two workers has the opportunity for overtime and shift penalties and has the greater job security. The women at the Conference deplored any suggestion of a blanket extension of the wages pause which would further harm low wage workers, the majority of whom are women. At the time the wages pause was introduced a number of awards were lagging quite badly behind the increase which had flowed from the transport workers' increase, or the metal workers' increase, or whoever got there first. Guess who were the last on the line and who did not receive that $14 or $19? In effect, the wage pause for these people is just an extension of this wage cut, and that is how it has affected these workers. It is sincerely hoped that the Prices Surveillance Authority promised by the Government will have significant effects on the maintenance of living standards. In accordance with the stated aims of this Government, we hope that women will be represented on this authority. We also sincerely hope that the Economic Planning Advisory Council, which is currently being developed, will include women. We hope that the groups which have been promised places on that Council-the trade unions, consumers, governments and the welfare sector-will ensure that women are included in all their delegations. In addition, we believe that a place should be established on EPAC for at least one woman who has expertise on issues affecting the position of women in the paid work force, in the home, in the community and in the taxation and welfare systems. If honourable senators think that is a tall order I know a dozen women who could do it very easily. I think women generally have welcomed the commitment to significant government expenditure on job creation schemes in community and capital works programs. We hope that women of all ages will be given equal access to job and training opportunities in both areas. Once again, we have the comfort of the policy of the ALP and the awareness of our Ministers. We believe that private employers involved in both job creation and growth should be requested to adhere to the same principles of equality of opportunity. We look forward to the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation which, in the majority of cases, will make this mandatory. It was suggested that funding priority should be given to community services which have the capacity to provide economic stimulus to depressed regions, improve the quality of life and contribute to the social wage. An example of how this can be done is where a regional centre needs child care facilities. This may in the first instance require a new building. It will need to be staffed and maintained. The people who work in that facility will be spending their wages in that area. The women who are able to have their children cared for, in many cases will take the opportunity to retrain and further their education. The level of education and the standard of living in that area will be enhanced in dozens of different ways. There was considerable discussion at the Summit and prior to the Summit, about the fact that some Australians were having problems in tolerating the needs of the disadvantaged in the sense that amounts that were being allocated by Australian governments for social security payments of various sorts were really reaching extraordinary heights. In a speech which was extremely well accepted by the voluntary organisations and many others at the Summit, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, showed that Australia is comparatively miserly in expenditure on social welfare. Our social welfare expenditure, as a proportion of gross domestic product, places us fourteenth amongst the 17 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. I, and others who think as I do, do not consider that Australian society has any genuine problem in meeting the needs of the disadvantaged. In fact we believe that very many people would be quite happy to see more of their tax dollar go to alleviating the very real disadvantage that increasingly we see around us every day. We felt that it was a very encouraging sign to see discussion taking place about the relationship between the provision of public sector services and taxation levels. I believe also that many people would welcome a genuinely progressive taxation system which increased the quantum of public funds necessary for economic recovery. Clause 43 of the Summit communique states: Given the high levels of unemployment the Summit agrees that the basic rights of women should be recognised and protected and that the move towards greater equality and independence for women should be encouraged. There should be equal access to job creation programs, to employment, training, retraining and education and measures designed to break down occupational segregation and discrimination. I believe that this will be one of the high priorities of the Australian Labor Government. The initiatives that are now under way are palpable evidence that the Hawke Government is moving along the correct road to achieving, in the long run, economic recovery for Australia. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.50) —There is a danger for those who wish to discuss a media love-in like the National Economic Summit Conference in that if one points out what was not covered and what problems are left behind if one is not careful one sounds like a worthy citizen lecturing a lynch mob on the merits of trial by jury. To avoid any possibility of that happening I would like to start by referring to what good came out of the Summit. There were many good aspects. It would by churlish of us not to say so. The first thing-perhaps in some ways the most important-was the getting together of government, employers and unions over a period of four days to get to know one another. This can do nothing but good for our future economic relations. The possibility of problems being solved by a personal telephone call rather than a confrontation in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with lawyers present can do nothing but improve the possibility of better industrial relations in this country. The Summit also saw-I think it was accepted by all-the tight linkage between wage increases, unemployment and inflation. That is a very important acceptance, if the acceptance is genuine. There was also an agreement-I think a very proper one-that the wages pause not only should apply to wage earners but also should cover salaries, dividends, directors' and professional fees. That is also proper . It is quite unreasonable to expect one section of the community alone to bear the whole brunt of an economic restraint policy. There was also agreement to return to centralised wage fixing. I think that was inevitable but there are dangers and problems there-a point I will come to in a moment. I think it was also agreed-it was fairly clear-that we must tackle unemployment and inflation together. I think that is right. For structural reasons in this country-although in theory it works-in practice if one tries to tackle inflation , the power of the monopolistic unions can force wage increases out of the community when they are in no way justified by the profitability of the business concerned. That makes difficult any attempt to tackle inflation and unemployment merely by control of the money supply. We have to tackle wages, unemployment and inflation as a package. Recognition and acceptance of that-if there be acceptance-is very important for the future of this country. I deal now with the amount of information that the Summit put out. That was good. I wish that we in government had done more of it ourselves. The scenarios of the consequences of various movements in wages and so on are the sort of information that other countries customarily provide their management and unions . I think we should have done it in the past. I am glad that the Government did it at the Summit and I hope that it will keep on doing it. Finally, there was a general community awareness of the difficulties that we are in and the problems we have to face-difficulties caused by the simultaneous collapse of the three props of our economy: The first was the collapse of primary industry, through drought. This has now fortunately been largely relieved although it will be some time before farm incomes are back to a reasonable level. The second was the collapse of commodity prices around the world, which caused great difficulties for our mining industries in particular. The third was the very great loss in our manufacturing industry because of the explosion of wages regardless of the profitability of the manufacturing firms that pay them. These three things happened together and they have caused serious damage to our economy. It will take a national united effort to overcome these problems. They are the good things that came out of the National Economic Conference. I should like to turn now to some of the problems. The first point I wish to raise is that it was not, in any sense, a representative gathering. It was representative of big government, big unions and big business. The Conference cannot and must not be allowed to assume the role of this Parliament. Acquiescence in policies by that group must not be a substitute for acceptance by Parliament. This type of rule by sectional interests-big government, big unions and big business-was the centrepiece of fascism. That is what fascism was . We must never allow that sort of group to take over the role of Parliament. At that Summit Conference where were the women? Where were the handicapped? Where were the pensioners? Where were the unemployed? Where were those interested in national defence? Where were the Aborigines? Where were the migrants? Where were the consumers? Either they were not represented at all or there was only token representation. We must never accept the idea that a meeting of powerful groups in the community is in any way a substitute for a national parliament. As one example of the way in which agreement between powerful groups can damage the community and damage unemployment prospects let us look at the effects of penalty rates. I was interested to note that Senator Giles, touched on this in her speech, but she did not seem to grasp the problem at all. The fact is that penalty rates destroy jobs. I remember that I raised this matter a few years ago with a managing director of a big firm which owned hotels and motels. He said that he had done a calculation and had found that if all penalty rates were abolished it would only reduce the cost of a room by 60c. I said that I was not the slightest bit surprised. I was surprised that the amount was so high. I had stayed in its motels a number of times and as far as I am aware they provide no out of hours services of any description. The reason they do not is that they cannot economically afford to do so. The jobs of people who might have provided out of hours services, weekend meals, late night suppers and that sort of thing, had all been destroyed. The other point I must make here is that this is a cosy deal between the employers and the unions. Employers do not mind having to pay penalty rates; they do not have to pay them if they do not provide the services and they do not as long as their rivals cannot provide them either. There is a cosy deal between management and unions. The deal provides benefits for those in work at the expense of those people who are not in work. That is the danger of this type of Summit, representing sectional interests rather than the interests of the whole community. There was a very skilful presentation was made at this Conference. I must say that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did a superb job. He called on the Australian Council of Trade Unions as the representative of the employees, the workers. He called on the senior people in the ACTU to speak on behalf of the whole trade union movement. Admittedly, so far as employers were concerned, he invited representative employer groups. He also invited 14 other individuals and he nominated them to speak. Naturally they gave an impression of differences of emphasis and, in some cases, differences of principle whereas the union movement gave an impresson of agreement and solidarity. That was not a true impression. One only has to look at what has happened since the Summit. I have a report of a recent remark by Mr Gallagher, who was present at the Summit but who was certainly not called upon to speak. Mr Gallagher said: 'It does is show people where Hawke stands, right alongside the employers'. I find that remark of Mr Gallagher's very surprising, by the way. He said that no one should be surprised about that. Mr Gallagher described Mr Hawke as a kid playing with matches and said that his comments would not thwart the shorter hours campaign in the long run. Mr Gallagher said that he noticed that Mr Hawke never said that prior to the election and that 'even now he only says it in the coward's castle'. I take it that he was referring to Parliament. Another participant, Mr Ivan Hodgson of the Transport Workers Union, said: 'I do not recall agreeing to wage restraint at the Summit'. He went on to describe the Summit as a public relations exercise . I agree with Mr Hodgson in part but I do not like his statement that he did not recall agreeing to wage restraint. The point I am trying to make is that at the Summit, through good stage management, the union movement appeared to be united. The ACTU appeared to be in control. We know-I hope the public now knows if it did not know before-that that is a total misrepresentation of the true situation. The ACTU is a toothless tiger. What was not considered at the Summit in any detail? The first thing that was not considered with any sympathy was the situation of the unemployed. Certainly some comments were made about the seriousness of the problem. But the scenario adopted by the Government and the trade union movement in relation to future wages policy-despite the disagreement of the employers-promised no improvement whatever in the rate of unemployment in the next three years. One scenario; the so called Scenario C, which imposed a very high degree of wage restraint, was the only scenario which showed a reasonable growth and a reduction in unemployment. That scenario was implicitly rejected by the Government and the trade union movement. If we are going to get anywhere in solving our economic problems we must recognise that the 90 per cent of people who are in employment must make some sacrifices-they will be temporary sacrifices but they must make them-in order to provide a reasonable chance for the 10 per cent of the people who are out of work to gain employment. That was a clear failure of the Conference. It was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs but it never really tackled seriously the problem of how these jobs are to be provided. The second matter which received no consideration at the Summit, although one would have thought it was very relevant to a national economic summit conference , was the effect of industrial disputes on our economy. We are a great overseas trading nation. More of our gross domestic product goes in overseas trade than, for instance, is the case in Japan, which is a country that we usually think of as being very dependent on overseas trade. The effect of our strike record on our overseas trade is nothing short of catastrophic. We are universally regarded as an unreliable supplier. When options are offered people do not buy from unreliable suppliers. Senator Childs quote some statistics which were curious, to put it mildly. One of the problems with these sorts of statistics is that, for example, a strike of key workers in transport or in power generation might appear as 100 man days lost-10 men on strike for 10 days. But the consequence of that strike might be that a whole industry or a whole State is brought to a standstill. What has to be looked at when dealing with industrial relations is this: What is the consequent effect on the Australian economy? I think that anyone who pretends that the results are not serious is deluding himself. There was no consideration at the Summit of the impact of technological change. Technological change is hitting us now. I will give the Senate one example. In 1954 the proportion of the work force which was in primary industry was 15 per cent. It is now 8 per cent. That figure probably has plateaued. In 1954 the proportion of the work force in manufacturing industry was 39 per cent. It is now 27.5 per cent and inevitably will fall further. We must not look at the problem of trying to prop up employment in manufacturing industry because we will not do it. We must look at how these people can properly and usefully be absorbed into tertiary industry. One of the problems we have to tackle-among many other probems-is penalty rates . No consideration was given at the Conference to non-wage costs-the effect of workers' compensation, payroll tax, holiday pay and so on. All these things impose nearly as much cost on employers as the wages themselves. At present the Builders Labourers Federation wants a wage increase of $40. It says that it will forgo a wage increase of $40 in favour of a site allowance of $40 a week. This sort of manipulation of our system and the very high on-costs we have is a real deterrent to our economy and to our employment. There was no consideration of what has been happening to profits in recent years. Profits as a percentage of the gross non-farm product were 15 per cent in 1980, which is probably about right. They are now down to under 12 per cent, a drop of at least 25 per cent. This is disastrous for new investment. From new investment comes manufacturing efficiency and from manufacturing efficiency come new jobs. We must, as a matter of urgency, get profits back to a realistic level. This was not tackled at all at the National Economic Summit Conference. Worst of all, there was no real agreement on wages. The employers-perhaps rather weakly-agreed to return to centralised wage fixing. I do not think in practice they had much alternative, but for this agreement they extracted no promises as to what should be done to make centralised wage fixing work properly. Centralised wage fixing by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was what got us into our problem in the first place. If we are going to go back to it we must see that we do not gallop over the old battlefield again. We must get some parameters to make it work properly. The Summit, on all the key issues about wages, merely agreed to refer them back to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There was no agreement, for instance, on how long the pay pause should last, though the only scenario that showed the possibility of a reduction in unemployment suggested that the pay pause should last well into the next year. It is evident that it will end in some way later this year. But there was no agreement at the Summit on that issue. There was no agreement on the method of indexation of wages-not only what proportion of indexation one gets, but also who decides what the index is. There are many justified criticisms-I have not got time to go through them now- of the consumer price index as an appropriate index for the adjustment of wages. That was not tackled. It should have been. But most important of all, there was no discussion of what one did about comparative wage justice and the flow-on, whereby enormous damage has been done to our economy. Powerful unions, perhaps in the oil industry, pick on one industry which can afford to pay and then what they have managed to gouge out flows right across the whole industry to all sorts of areas which cannot afford to pay. This is a key area in any system of centralised wage fixing. It was not tackled at all at the Summit. The really important thing for this Government is how it speaks at the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when these matters are decided and what it says. If it wishes to be regarded as an honourable and respectable government it must not speak on behalf of the trade unions alone. It must speak for the whole community . That is vital to our economic recovery and I suggest to the survival and prestige of this Government. To return to my first point, there is no doubt at all that the Economic Summit was a public relations success. Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister, was an extremely successful entrepreneur of that Summit. As someone has said, across the distance of war he is doing fairly well. He has ditched all promises he made during the election campaign, which is exactly the technique used by Mr Wran in New South Wales and Mr Cain in Victoria. Mr Cain in fact kept one promise which was very unwise-he ditched all the others. This seems to be a standard technique and insofar as nearly all the promises were damaging or foolish I think that is definitely an improvement. Senator Collard —We may have medicare. Senator HAMER —We have not got it yet. I am talking about what the Prime Minister has done so far and not what he will do in the future. That is a really different issue. He has also implemented planned increased benefits for the unemployed. I think he deserves credit for that. He has walked back as fast as he possibly can on the subjects of East Timor and Vietnam. I think as soon as he can he will walk back on uranium mining. These are all improvements. This shows that he has some wisdom. I do not know how long he will be able to get away with that. He is now very worried about the size of the deficit and very properly so. But while he and his party were in opposition they were always urging us for a bigger deficit. Now at least they have realised, I hope, the consequence of it and they have set up their own razor gang to prune government expenditure. That is all good. In fact, if one looks at what he has done so far-not at what he is doing in the future-one sees that he has been behaving rather like a Liberal Prime Minister. I hope he does not follow-I do not mind if he does, I suppose- the lines of Mr Lyons and Mr Hughes, two former Labor Prime Ministers who found their associates intolerable and left them and joined us, but that might happen. Senator Mason —Would you have him? Senator HAMER —I do not know. We will have to think about that. It is not my decision anyway. My point is that so far in what he has done it is difficult to find much to which to object. The Economic Summit was, on the whole, quite a success. I do not think the left wing of his party will be able to continue carrying on like this. We will find much to criticise-much doctrinaire work will come from him. What I think he will stand or fall by will be what attitude he or his Government takes before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which will decide the essential future of the wage system in this country. The attitude taken by the Government will be crucial. I hope on that occasion it will speak for Australia and not for a sectional group. If it speaks for Australia he will have our support. I do not think it will. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.12) —I am reminded of a situation which has developed over 20, 30 or 40 years unchecked as a result of the philosophy and a style of government which this country came to accept as the normal. This was the Menzies style of government, the laissez-faire style which is known these days as the lay-back style-just let everything happen, no planning, no real co-ordination, no indications to commerce or industry as to which direction the nation is likely to take or that the Government would like it to take, but just allow things to eventuate as they will. Of course we are very fortunate because our destiny was determined by the great wealth and riches which were part of this land when we first came to it. At the end of the 1960s and early 1970s things started to go a little bit haywire. The Government was changed and a Labor government came into power with all of the instant solutions that it felt this country needed. It endeavoured to apply those instant solutions immediately again without any real consideration for long term planning but rather just to move into trouble spots and try to resolve those trouble spots with no consideration for the long term or even medium term impact of the solutions that it was applying. Many of those solutions turned out to be band-aids which peeled off pretty quickly. As a result of those two styles of government we entered into the 1970s which brought with it great economic problems for the whole world and not least of all for this nation. As a result of everybody then searching for scapegoats, we were to become a nation torn apart, a nation which was led by people with political objectives and very little else. We survived the 1970s. We barely looked like surviving the 1980s until there arrived on the scene either a brilliant politician even surpassing the mastery of his predecessor the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, or a great statesman. We are not too sure which of those he is. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is a great leader in prospect, provided he matches the reputation which he has set for himself in the media and in this Parliament up until now. I said 'in this Parliament' because his greatest performance to date was in this Parliament but at the National Economic Summit Conference conducted in this Parliament. But let us give credit at this stage because I think it is too early to criticise the potential output of that Economic Summit and its consequences. Let us acknowledge that it has the potential to be the first step towards the reconciliation of this nation and towards bringing the warring parties together. The parties which had been driven apart for political expediency were at last brought at least into the one arena with the one agenda and with the one common objective-to rescue us from the potential economic morass into which we were about to sink. It is fair to suggest that the Chairman of that Summit, the Prime Minister, made consensus seekers out of historic enemies. They sought solutions for the nation and not just for themselves, as had been the practice of most of the participants. They reached understanding and an awareness of each other's problems. The result was that the concept was condoned; a concept, I remind honourable senators, which was envisaged by Senator Chipp-and not by him alone-with remarkable foresight. When discussing the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill he said that the Government should take urgent and comprehensive measures to stimulate the economy, restrict imports and call a national conference to begin the process of long term co- operative indicative planning. This is the mark of that Conference. It has established a climate which will allow long term indicative planning to come about. Of course, that was anathema to previous governments, which felt that they had to clasp to their bosoms the forecasts and the actual situation of the economy and not reveal it to anybody outside the Parliament or the Government. I would like to refer specifically to the contribution made by the Confederation of Small Business Organisations of Australia which, despite Senator Teague's reference yesterday to the absence of any representation by the small business sector of the economy, was represented by Mr Don Gibbons. I believe he made a very valuable contribution not just to the debate but to the whole process. The group he represented reflected probably one of the broadest cross-sections of the Australian community. Small businesses are not just one industry group, one commercial group, one sector of professionals or one sector of employers or employees; they consist of not just men, not just women and not just young people. The whole broad spectrum of people concerned with the productivity of this nation is represented by the small business sector. I believe, therefore, that Mr Don Gibbons represented the view of probably the widest cross-section of people in this nation. Let me just refer to a few points made by Mr Gibbons and comment on some of them, because I believe they need to be highlighted. He said that his Confederation accepted the need for wage stability, wage predictability and wage adjustments related to productivity and to the real consumer price index, and he even hinted that automatic indexation based on an agreed formula would be acceptable. I suggest that it would be appropriate for us to look at plateau indexation, because it is obvious that all of us will have to tighten our belts; and those who can most afford to pull in their belts a couple of notches should be the people who make the greatest sacrifice at this stage. I suggest further, whilst looking at the overall economy, that one of the great beneficiaries of a surge in consumer demand would be the small business sector and that there is a need to stimulate consumer demand to get that surge going through the purchasers, the consumers. That is the greatest need for small businesses. There is not much point saving a few cents here and maybe a dollar or two there in costs if at the end of the line nobody has a dollar in his fist ready to purchase the goods or the services. It would be a stimulus not just to small business but to the whole economy. Mr Gibbons also made reference to an acknowledged need to stabilise wages and prices. Certainly he referred to the need for a sunset clause in any such surveillance system, but there is no doubt that there was acquiescence in some compromise, some solution, which said: 'We are prepared to pull our weight provided everybody else in the economy will do the same'. There was a recognition of the need for pump priming even though it would lead to a heavy Budget deficit; and in the short term this was considered to be acceptable. I would like to touch briefly on the self-expressed need for the small business sector in particular-although this was not said by Mr Gibbons, I believe the inference is there-and the large business sector as well to embark on a massive upgrading of their management skills. I think this has to start from the top. As a management consultant, I can assure honourable senators that the day has gone when top management imposed management training of junior executives in the hope that something would happen. Management training is desperately needed at the top, particularly in medium sized companies-companies which have grown out of a family enterprise, where the original entrepreneur, developer or builder of the company has outgrown his or her capacity and needs management training either at his or at the next management level. The acceptance of that need for management training is paramount because to send people to a training program and then to let them try to survive the old management processes which are endemic in an organisation is no way to go about the task of getting management upgraded. I am certainly conscious that most executives today, particularly those at the top- the entrepreneurs and the proprietors-are working 60 and 70 hours a week. However, they need to find a few more hours in which to upgrade their skills so that they may increase productivity, increase the job satisfaction of the people who are working with them, increase output and help to improve the environment in which people live. Let me touch again on a couple of factors that the Confederation of Small Business Organisations referred to. They are pointers which, if this Government is willing to take them on board, can give a fairly rapid injection into the economy, which would result in a stimulus going probably right across the board. I will suggest a couple: Getting rid of restraints on tourism would be almost as easy as the stroke of a pen. Just a couple of changes to awards and to regulations would make it possible to inject a real boost into the tourist industry. I do not mean that we should hit the tourist industry by getting rid of penalty rates; rather, let us get behind the tourist industry which obviously knows its problems far better than this Government-or any government. Let us help to develop that industry which has the greatest and fastest potential for growth in this nation. Let us inject funds into the housing industry, but let it be on a planned basis . What the housing industry suffers from almost as much as it suffers from high interest rates and the difficulties that arise from constraints on the economy at the moment is the shocking record of planning for the housing industry that this nation had had over decades. The housing industry is the first to acknowledge that point. It may not accept the responsibility or blame for it, but it certainly recognises that the peaks and troughs that come about through bad planning or lack of planning serve no useful purpose. The peaks bring into the industry the riff raff, the ratbags, who destroy the reputation of the industry and make it virtually impossible for people to survive in it. Of course , the troughs result in the very good people-the excellent tradesmen, the good managers and the good builders-moving out of the industry. They do not have to live in it-they can move into alternative industries. Better planning and a more even economic approach, and more even stimulus to the housing industry in particular, would make a huge difference, not just to the short term but to the long term economic future of the industry and the nation. It has been said before-I am not ashamed to say it again-that one of the ways that this Government, with an injection of funds, could create instant employment is to decentralise employment opportunities, in particular through local governments. I know a few people will shudder at the mention of the Regional Employment Development scheme. The thought of revisiting the REA scheme is anathema to some people. But I am not afraid to suggest that there were great virtues and benefits in the RED scheme. In my opinion, the RED scheme, properly managed and handled, even now could be of benefit to this nation. I believe it is that type of program which could give an instant stimulus to the economy. One of the difficulties, as expressed by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, is the over-regulation for individual enterprises and, in particular, the effect that has on their competitiveness. I stress again, as I did yesterday, the effect that this has on small businesses, compared with large businesses. One of the great, thriving industries in this nation is the lobby industry. I have said in public previously, and maintain, that if the skills, the persuasive abilities, of the people in the lobby industry were converted to marketing and exporting our goods overseas the country would be far better off. But instead of using their persuasive and marketing skills to persuade others to purchase our goods, much of this skill is used here in Canberra to try to persuade governments to provide added protection, benefits and relief which allow companies to compete unfairly with others. One of the things that small business would love to see would be a gradual whittling away of the regulatory controls established by all levels of government and statutory organisations on small business enterprises. I will touch on one aspect of the National Economic Summit Conference which came through as great initiative which was embraced by all and which has been a plank in the platform of the Australian Democrats, literally since the day we were formed. I am delighted to say that it was the subject of the very first policy paper which was agreed to by our members. I believe that was so primarily because of the inclusion of this factor: The need for this country, led by this Government, to have long term indicative planning, not just for itself but for all organisations-industrial, commercial and every other kind of organisation and enterprise in this country. We have barely survived without long term indicative planning. We need it now, not just for economic recovery but because we are entering, economically, the great unknown. We are entering into an economic future for which there are no precedents. All of the economic gurus of the world, from Friedman through to Galbraith today, are unaware of the path that is likely to be successful for any government from now on. It is difficult enough for those who manage and direct our enterprises in this nation, but if the limited information that is available is hidden from those decision makers at the top of commerce and industry, it becomes an impossible task for them to plan. I am delighted that the proposal for the Economic Planning Advisory Council has come forward. It needs to be expanded, but it should not be given more than it can digest at stage one. We would like to come forward some time later this year with some expansion proposals for that body or perhaps for an alternative organisation which could go beyond the terms of reference of EPAC. I guess the reason that this needs to be stressed now is the shudder that went through me and many other concerned Australians when it was learned that one of the significant Ministers in this new Government was denied an opportunity to present a paper which will have a significant impact on the future of this nation. I refer, of course, to the paper which was to be presented by the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, and which was denied an airing at the Summit Conference. As far as I can gather, his paper has been buried by the Cabinet and it is still hiding it. That is tragic because if all we are going to do is to solve the problems we have today with solutions which will last a few weeks or months, that is no long term solution which will benefit this nation; that is likely to lead us into even more dangerous areas. I hope that very shortly the Government releases the paper that was to be presented by the Minister, Barry Jones, and allows the whole nation to see some of the problems that lie ahead. I am quite sure, having heard the Minister speak on many occasions, that he offered potential solutions for the long term problems. Other items of great concern to the Australian Democrats, and I think to most people, came out of the Summit Conference. They include an agreement by most parties, certainly by those representing small business-this came out as part of the communique-that artificial schemes for tax avoidance and evasion must be removed. This is a great step forward because out of that group of representatives of many significant areas of this nation a change of attitude towards tax avoidance as well as tax evasion evolved. The change of attitude arising out of the communique and conference notes, as I read them, has been this: Let us stop this game of tax avoidance. Let us recognise that the tax avoider is not a smart operator, somebody whose skills should be admired, somebody that one condones or somebody whose advertisements in the Australian Financial Review one looks at a couple of times and wonders whether one will get in touch with that person to help one a little bit. Tax avoidance is now considered by most people in Australia to be anathema. I believe that we have changed from what was for decades, if not centuries, the attitude of the people of France, that how to avoid or evade, whichever one prefers, paying one's taxes, which one is entitled to meet, was the great sport of the nation. A new Australian attitude recognises that if one steals a dollar in tax avoidance one is stealing it from one's next door neighbour, from somebody who is unemployed or from somebody who is less able to cope than oneself. The thieves in this game are the people who can afford to pay tax. They are stealing it from those who cannot afford to pay. I think that the people of Australia have woken up to that principle and are now willing to say, 'Right, let's get hold of these people and not only make them pay their taxes but also treat them for what they are. They are criminals. They are stealing from others who cannot afford to lose these benefits.' I believe that the agreement by the Summit to improve the equity and efficiency of the Australian taxation system is, again, indicative of the attitude of all parties that it is no longer acceptable to deny officers, staff and facilities to the Australian Taxation Office and regard tax as something which does not really count. We have seen the evidence that a few millions spent in the Taxation Office can bring to the Government hundreds of millions, if not thousands of millions, in tax revenue which would otherwise have been avoided. That is an investment which everybody now recognises is justifiable. Senator Giles touched on the reference in the communique to the need for us all to give to women basic rights, recognition, protection and to move towards greater equality and independence for women. I simply endorse both the reference in the communique and the comments made by Senator Giles who, in my home State, is recognised as a champion of women's rights. I believe that we will see a revolution in the Parliament as a result of the increasing representation of women, a revolution not just for women's rights but for the rights of all people who until now have been denied equal opportunities. It becomes a very significant factor when included in that group is just over 50 per cent of the whole population of the country. The other group which has been denied and is still being denied not only representation but also economic wellbeing is the young people of this country. They are the ones who have copped it as a result of the economic decline. They have become the scapegoats. It is a very sad reflection on the Parliament and the people who have put down the policies which have allowed the greatest unemployment to occur amongst the young, and as a result, to bring about the potential for a whole generation of young people growing up disenchanted not only with the nation, the economy and the system but also with their own peers, some of whom have jobs, others who are unable to get jobs. As was suggested at the Economic Summit Conference we need imaginative policies and programs based on the involvement of young people at all levels of the community, not just moves that are imposed on them. We should confer with young people and not just the employed or the sons and daughters of people who are fortunate and who are able to articulate easily. We need to have the patience and the understanding to talk to those who have been denied educational opportunities and who are currently the real sufferers of our economic decline. That takes patience and tolerance which I hope this Government is willing to exercise. Finally, I touch briefly on the need expressed at the Summit Conference for educational training and retraining for the nation's present and future wellbeing. This is an urgent need and will obviously result in long term benefits above all else as it takes hold of the great investment in the greatest resource that this country has-our people. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(6.41) —In view of the lateness of the hour, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Australian War Memorial-Indo-China Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.42) —I refer to a report in the Canberra Times today. I would have raised this issue in Question Time if circumstances had allowed me the call. There is not a great deal I want to say. I raise this issue in order to obtain some indication by the Government of whether it has been drawn to the Government's attention and whether it has any thoughts on the matter. The front page article in the Canberra Times has a caption reading, ' Memorial dome to be blocked'. There was a series of photographs with the story of present views of and from the Australian War Memorial and pictures of a model of some proposed alterations to the entrance foyer and the effect they would have. I think everybody would agree that the Australian War Memorial is one of the best regarded buildings in Australia and, for the many tourists who come to Canberra, one of the great impacts of Canberra is the view of the War Memorial from Parliament House and vice versa. Not only are they good views, but also there is a very symbolic linking of those two buildings. I think many people have quite profound thoughts on the subjects of war, democracy and parliament when they visit either of those buildings. The Australian War Memorial is, of course, an extremely meaningful building. Its design is very particular and a very special one in Australia. The great feature of it is the Hall of Memory which has a large and very splendid dome which, as one approaches the Memorial, appears to be framed between two pillars. The story in today's newspaper points out that it is proposed that the facade of the entrance be substantially raised by building a new foyer on to the building. The effect of this will be to block the view of the part of the Hall of Memory one sees from outside and the dome as one approaches the War Memorial. Another effect will be to block completely from inside the vista across to both this Parliament House and the new one under construction. I am sure that many Australians and, in particular, many Canberrans, will feel very concerned about this. I visited the War Memorial this morning to see the plans and to discuss why they were necessary. Without doubt there is a need at the Memorial for a new foyer and the facilities that will go with it, such as information services, a new bookshop and some other facilities. However, the structure that is to be built is extremely high. It is to be made entirely of glass but at this stage it is not clear what sort of glass will be used. Whilst there is a suggestion that from the Hall of Memory one will be able to see through the glass to Parliament House and still have that extremely symbolic vista linking the two buildings, I doubt that that is very likely. I had hoped in Question Time today to ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, who represents the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in this chamber the following question : Is the proposed height of the foyer extension really necessary? I am aware that very lengthy and extensive discussions have been held among those who speak on behalf of the War Memorial, the National Capital Development Commission and the Government. I am also aware that even now scaffolding is being erected, so the alteration will begin very soon. However, whilst there is no hint of there ever having been any secrecy or anything untoward about these alterations, I think it is likely that the public at large were unaware that this was likely to happen. I refer in particular to people outside Canberra who have not visited the War Memorial recently and received whatever advice might have been handed out there in regard to these alterations. I would like an assurance from the Government that it will-if it has not already done so-look at this matter very speedily to determine whether it is necessary for those alterations to be so high. As I understand it the purpose of the glass structure and the height is essentially to let in light. If it is necessary for the structure to be so high, just how sure are those responsible that it will be designed in such a way that it will still be possible to have substantial views of the vista across to Parliament House? Finally, I emphasise that I have raised this matter not because I think people like to stand and look at nice views. In addition to the emotional experience of being in the very splendid and very impressive Hall of Memory, it is really a quite emotional experience to leave it and to appreciate the vista and the link between the two buildings. I urge the Government to pay some attention to this matter because I believe the War Memorial is a building that Australians feel about very deeply. Regardless of whether they or their loved ones have ever been involved in war, it is nevertheless an extremely symbolic building for all Australians, one which is regarded with great respect as well as affection. I think all Australians would want to be assured that nothing will happen there, for whatever worthwhile reasons, which will detract in any way from its symbolism or its effect. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(6.48) —Normally I would not rise to discuss matters which were raised in debate in the course of the day but Senator Teague made some suggestions concerning the policy of the Australian Labor Party towards Indo-China which to me were a personal affront. He attributed a motivation to those of us who supported that policy and indicated that we had a complete lack of grasp of the total situation in Indo-China. I feel compelled to reply to some extent on the same day to the charges-that may be too strong a term-or the caricature of our stance made by him. Our stance towards Indo-China is, of course, determined by a policy adopted at the ALP's national conference in July 1982. I think it is important to note several elements in that policy. One paragraph reads: Australia should support policies which would result in the independence of the three Indo-Chinese countries, based on democratically elected governments. It goes on: The Government should resume its commitment to the two aid projects in Vietnam suspended in January 1979. We should also resume cultural exchanges so as to promote greater understanding between our countries. The policy states further: The level of any future humanitarian and development aid should be consistent with our United Nations commitments and also should acknowledge our involvement in the Vietnam war and the subsequent need for rehabilitation in the interests of the Vietnamese people. In that latter part of the paragraph which deals with support for humanitarian and development aid there is an acknowledgment explaining the genesis of our concern to provide aid to a people impoverished after decades of continuous warfare which ravaged the lives, the countryside and the economic support structures of Vietnam. Insofar as Australians participated in that saga of continuous warfare in Vietnam, it is not surprising that there is a widespread feeling within the Australian community, and certainly within the Australian Labor Party, that there is a corresponding responsibility to help restore that country's economic structure and so provide a better life for its people. That is why Senator Teague's charge that this resolution represents some factional point of view within the Australian Labor Party or the Australian community is so far removed from reality. Mr Deputy President, I think you will agree that I am not often portrayed as a creature of the Left, though Senator Teague may think I am, at the mildest, a dupe of the Left in this regard. I prefer to think that I am simply one of those many thousands of members of the Australian Labor Party who, recognising the sufferings and deprivations of the Vietnamese people, want to alleviate those sufferings to a small and modest extent. One has to keep in mind that we would be providing only a modest amount of humanitarian and development aid. Only a very small drop in the ocean would be provided towards alleviating the deprivation and suffering in which the people of Vietnam exist. It would not be of a character or type which would allow the Vietnamese Government to choose to forgo certain projects in order to continue to occupy Kampuchea. The disparity in the sums involved is such that it makes that argument absurd. The idea that Australian aid would help to prolong Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea is ludicrous. It is a fact that the part of our policy which speaks of providing humanitarian and development aid cannot be implemented in isolation from that other part of our policy which states: Australia should support policies which would result in the independence of the three Indo-Chinese countries, based on democratically elected governments. Insofar as the continued occupation by Vietnamese troops of Kampuchea hinders an act of self-determination by the Kampuchean people, it is incumbent upon us to seek a way or a means for conditions to emerge which would facilitate the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and allow that process of free self- determination. Hence-and this is not acknowledged or recognised by Senator Teague-the continuous round of discussions by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, with various leaders of the Association of South East Asian Nations in recent weeks and with the Chinese Premier, which will end in the final week in June when he will have a conference with the Foreign Ministers for ASEAN countries and visit Hanoi. This is not occurring because we have any delusions that Australia can play some role as mediator in a conflict which involves so many actors from the world stage, including the super powers. It is hard to think of any other small nation not immediately involved in the conflict which so manifestly is vigorously attempting to express its concerns for the sufferings of all the ordinary people throughout Indo-China whose mode of life-indeed their very life-is threatened and disrupted, whether they be refugees fleeing to Thailand, people within Kampuchea trying to re-establish some normalcy of life after the barbarous and genocidal excesses of the Pol Pot regime, or Vietnamese whose only experience for a lifetime has been to live in a war-torn economy. It is not my intention to expound at length on this issue but it must be clear that the timing of any resumption of humanitarian or development aid of modest proportions will be the decision of the Government, as with all ALP policies. The earlier or later timing of that aid will not be made in some alleged response to either the Left or the Right. It will be made at a time and at a level when it serves the realisation of our whole policy towards Indo-China. As I said, that policy embraces the goal of independence for Kampuchea, Laos and Vietnam. That manifestly requires the withdrawal of any outside armed forces. Insofar as we also have as a goal the provision of humanitarian and development aid to all the peoples of the region, it is our hope that these goals can be pursued simultaneously and concurrently. I am sure that that is the wish of all decent, compassionate and concerned Australians. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(6.55) —I was not in the chamber to hear the comments made by Senator Martin about the Australian War Memorial and the possibility of the dome of the Memorial being blocked to view by some architectural-if I can use that expression-alterations which were referred to in an article appearing in the Canberra Times. I am not well informed about the topic but-- Senator Martin —And the additional point that the view through to Parliament House from the Hall of Memory will be blocked. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I am not well informed about the matter but I have now read the article appearing in the Canberra Times and I am pleased that honourable senators in this place are concerned about the aesthetics of vistas in Canberra. I merely want to say that the views expressed in the article appearing in the Canberra Times, having been pointed out to the Government and further comments having been made by Senator Martin in the Senate tonight, have been noted. Also we have noted the views of the Director, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, who says that he has been assured by the National Capital Development Commission that the dome will be visible from the Stone of Remembrance. I think this covers only one of Senator Martin's points. To cut what otherwise might be a long and tedious narrative I will conclude now by saying that I will request my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) to examine the matter as soon as possible and we will make a response to Senator Martin's suggestions in the Parliament as soon as we can. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.57 p.m. until 1.45 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 May 1983. The following paper was presented: Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1983-No. 2- Remuneration payable to holders of offices in the First Division of the Australian Public Service, and holders of public offices, dated 20 April 1983.