Friday, 21 October 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc., for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 139 citizens), Boswell (from 35 citizens), Button (from 41 citizens), Chaney (from 458 citizens), Durack (from 681 citizens ), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 14 citizens), Hamer (from 48 citizens)and Richardson (from 174 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia; We urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium; We urge the Government to not permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to ALP policy; and We urge the Government to discountinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray for peace, disarmament and a nuclear free future. by Senator Childs (from 78 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 an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 93 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 concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: (1) Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. (2) Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. (3) Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. (4) Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 56 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectively showeth: (1) That the Church of Mary Queen of Peace located in Klaipeda, Lithuania, was the only Church built in Lithuania after World War II; (2) This Church was closed by the Soviet authorities on 15 August, 1960 and confiscated in 1961 under the direct order of Mr Kruschev. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should request the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs to raise with its counterpart in the USSR the great concern of many Australians that the Church of Mary Queen of Peace be restored to the religious worshippers of Klaipeda in Lithuania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 20 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Taxation ( Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982. Bill received from the House of Representatives. The PRESIDENT —Before the Minister proceeds I draw the attention of honourable senators to standing order 402. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on the motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator Chaney-I take a point of order, Mr President. I am shocked that the Government Whip should ignore your reference to standing order 402 in a cavalier way. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to standing order 402. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave, Mr President, to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Mr President, I am pleased to be able to introduce this Bill into the Senate. The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide an up to date legal framework for management of the radio frequency spectrum, so that the development of radiocommunication services can proceed in an orderly fashion. I believe that this legislation will facilitate significant improvements in the range and quality of radiocommunication services provided to the community. In the course of developing the Bill, the views of the community, including those of industry, professional engineering institutions and user groups, have been sought and taken into account. A draft Radiocommunications Bill was published in February for public comment, although it had not yet been introduced into Parliament by the previous Government. The present Bill is based on the published draft and takes into account comments received in recent months. The radio frequency spectrum, for the purposes of this Bill, is the range of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation on which effective communications over significant distances are possible. It is a finite natural resource of vital importance to all radiocommunication and radionavigation services. Without it modern transport, business, entertainment and social activities would be impossible. For example, there would be no television, the operation of jet aircraft would be impracticable, and people in the outback would have no immediate contact with the outside world . The existing legislation governing the use of the spectrum is the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905. The extraordinary growth of communications technology over the last decade has highlighted the shortcomings of that Act, which has now become outdated and inadequate. A central deficiency of the Act is that it does not adequately provide for the prevention of interference to radiocommunication services. While under the Act the Minister is given certain powers to control the transmission and reception of messages by means of radio, the Act does not deal at all with radio emissions which are not messages. This has been a major weakness, because such emissions can cause considerable radio interference, to the detriment of legitimate users of the spectrum. Interference occurs both between radiocommunication services and between radio and non-radio devices such as industrial machinery and home entertainment equipment. Although the Wireless Telegraphy Act prohibits the unlicensed establishment, erection, maintenance and use of radio equipment for the purpose of transmitting or receiving messages it contains no power to restrict the supply or possession of unlicensable equipment. This not only makes it difficult to protect legitimate uses of the spectrum but it also places an unfair burden on persons purchasing unlicensable equipment in good faith. Currently the only means of limiting the availability of unlicensable equipment is to prevent its import under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. There are other deficiencies in the Wireless Telegraphy Act, including the lack of adequate provisions relating to spectrum planning, the review of decisions, and conciliation between parties to interference disputes. The enforcement provisions are out-dated. In addition, the Act does not bind the Crown, despite the fact that Commonwealth organisations are major spectrum users. Its extraterritorial operation is very limited, even though Australian aircraft and ships are important users of the spectrum. In the future Australian satellites and space vehicles will also use large amounts of spectrum. The proposed radiocommunications legislation is designed to overcome these deficiencies. Before describing the features of the Bill, I emphasise that it in no way deals with the licensing of normal domestic radio receivers or television sets or of broadcasting and television transmitting stations. In fact, the proposed legislation specifically excludes these domestic receivers from any licensing requirement. Turning now to the content of the Bill, Clause 3, the definitions clause, contains a number of definitions of principal importance. I refer to the definitions of 'radiocommunication', 'radiocommunications transmitter', 'radio transmission' and 'transmitter'. Taken together, the combined impact of these definitions allows subsequent provisions of the Bill to control radio emissions from all devices impacting on the spectrum up to 3 terahertz, the generally acknowledged upper limit for radiocommunications, and to control the emissions of laser type devices from above 3 terahertz, in the infra red part of the spectrum, to 1000 terahertz, the end of the visible light portion of the spectrum. The difference in the control over devices impacting on two different parts of the spectrum is to ensure that non-laser type devices operating in the infra red and visible light portions of the spectrum, such as all conventional light sources and infra red heat lamps, are excluded from the purview of this Bill. Laser type emitters are covered by this Bill since communications over significant distances are already being accomplished with these devices. Under Clause 9 of the Bill, the Minister for Communications is empowered to make standards for transmitters, receivers and radiosensitive equipment. The standards may cover the design or performance of equipment, and the wording of statements to be impressed on or be annexed to it. As the standards will have considerable impact on the design of transmitters, receivers, and other equipment that is capable of being affected by radio transmissions, the clause provides that a proposed standard is to be published with an invitation to interested persons to comment on it. The Minister, by sub-clause 9 (3) is required to give due consideration to representations received, before proceeding to make the standard. Sub-clause 9 (9) of the Bill allows for this procedure to be by-passed where the Minister is satisfied that the making of the standard is a matter of urgency. This provision would, of course, be used rarely , if at all. However, the Government considers it necessary to deal with situations where a quick reaction is essential to control the rapid prolifieration of equipment that would severely affect radiocommunications services. Clause 9 contains some of the most significant powers granted under the Bill. It is the Government's intention to develop standards not only for radiocommunications transmitters and receivers but also for things as diverse as radio frequency heaters and certain classes of audio equipment. In the former case, operation of radio frequency heaters can severely disrupt communications. Indeed, these devices have at times significantly disrupted communications with aircraft. In regard to audio equipment, much time and expense is incurred by officers of my Department in trying to solve interference to hi-fi sets and the like by transmitters which are usualy properly licensed. The transmitters are not defective in most cases of this nature. Rather the fault lies with the hi-fi equipment that, generally, for the want of a few cents worth of components is adversely affected by strong signals emitted from nearby radiocommunications transmitters. As more and more equipment is produced that conforms to sensible standards, more services will be able to coexist successfully in an increasingly crowded spectrum. It is necessary to provide for some circumstances where the use of sub-standard equipment may be necessary, for example in the development stages of new equipment. Clause 10 provides for this by the issue of test permits. The same provision could be used to provide for individuals and organisations such as museums, who have a legitimate requirement for sub-standard equipment. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for a maximum fine of $10,000 or 5 years imprisonment for persons who, without reasonable excuse, cause sub-standard transmitters to transmit, who supply sub-standard transmitters or receivers, or who have in their possession a sub-standard transmitter. The maximum fine that can be imposed on corporations can be up to $50,000 because of the operation of clause 83 of the Bill. Maximum penalties of this severity are justified, considering that sub-standard radio equipment can interfere with vital safety of life services, such as aircraft navigation and landing aids, ambulance services and the like. I would emphasise that transmitter standards may be made for any device emitting radiation covered by the definition of 'radio transmission'. At present, significant amounts of interference are caused by non-communication devices such as industrial heaters, faulty powerlines, electric motors and other electrical devices. The Wireless Telegraphy Act does not provide for control of emissions from these devices, and my Department has therefore had to rely on the goodwill of their owners in investigating and attempting to deal with interference caused by them. The desired cooperation has not always been provided. Concern has been expressed that this clause could affect persons such as radio amateurs, electronics enthusiasts and the like who may have sub-standard equipment in their possession for use as spare parts or for conversion to other uses. I would point out that paragraph 11 (2) (c) makes it a reasonable excuse for the person to have a sub-standard transmitter in his possession for purposes that do not include the purpose of supply or the purpose of causing the transmitter to make a radio transmission. Consequently I think this paragraph will give sufficient protection to persons who retain sub-standard equipment for legitimate purposes. This Bill will for the first time provide the power to deal with the technical causes of interference. To identify equipment that meets a particular standard, clause 12 of the Bill provides for the Minister to issue compliance statement certificates to persons authorising them to affix to equipment a statement verifying that the equipment complies with a specified standard. A significant feature of the Bill is the provision for radio frequency planning in Part IV. The purpose of this Part is to facilitate future planning of the radio frequency spectrum and to guide the development of services using it. Indeed, when issuing a licence the Minister is required to have regard to whether the operation of a transmitter is in accordance with the appropriate frequency plan. The overall spectrum plan is to be built up from a number of specialised frequency band plans that indicate in some detail the purpose or purposes for which various portions of each band may be used. In general, the plan will follow the outline of the present published planning document, the Australian Table of Frequency Allocations. Clause 20 allows for public comment on spectrum and frequency band plans while clause 20 (5) provides for Parliamentary disallowance of any plan. These provisions, the Government believes, will enable the public to have a significant influence on the development of spectrum plans. In formulating any plan, the Government has to take its international commitments, particularly those under the International Telecommunication Convention, into account. Naturally, the Government will ensure that our international commitments in this regard are upheld. I should also state that it is the Goverment's intention that spectrum and appropriate frequency band plans be made as expeditiously as possible once the Bill becomes law. Provision is made in the Bill in Part V for the issue of frequency reservation certificates. The purpose of these certificates is to enable persons to be able to reserve a frequency or frequencies for future use. Typically, the certificates would be issued to allow the developer of a communications system to be assured that spectrum space will be available to cater for future expansion. In the administration of the use of these certificates, my Department will take precautions to ensure that claims for reserved spectrum are legitimate so that spectrum is not being reserved unnecesarily. Clauses 22, 23 and 24 are the specific licensing provisions for radiocommunications transmitters. A person who operates an unathorised transmitter, or possesses such a transmitter for the purpose of operating it without reasonable excuse, will be liable to a maximum fine of $2000. The government considers it necessary to include in sub-clause 23 (1) an offence of possession of an unlicensed radiocommunication transmitter for the purpose of operation. Concern has been expressed to the Government that this provision is unnecessarily restrictive. The Government considers that the provision should remain because without such a provision my Department would be next to powerless in prosecuting persons establishing and using unlicensed stations where those persons have taken precautions to avoid being caught in the act of transmitting. Clause 24 provides the Minister with the power to grant a transmitter licence, and the conditions to which such a licence is subject are outlined in clause 25. Contravention of specified conditions is subject to a maximum fine of $1000. I would like to direct the Senate's attention to paragraph 25 (1) (g). The purpose of this provision is to permit the listed persons to direct the licensee of a radiocommunications transmitter to assist in an emergency situation. This assistance could take the form of either passing messages or possible ceasing operation if interference is caused to emergency services. Provision is made for guidelines to be made to guide listed persons in exercising their powers under 25 (1) (g). The Government intends to produce those guidelines after consultation with appropriate organisations and to distribute them to the classes of persons listed as well as to the larger organisations operating radiocommunications equipment such as Telecom, television stations and the like. This will enable both the listed persons and organisations likely to be affected by any directions made, to be aware in advance of the conditions under which valid directions can be given. Similarly it is the Government's intention to make guidelines under the provisions of sub-clause 25 (4) in relation to the exercise of its powers regarding interference to and between radiocommunications services. All guidelines made under these provisions are subject to disallowance by Parliament. The licensing provisions are in line with the existing provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 but also clarify and allow for streamlining of licensing procedures. I shall deal with the question of fees for licences and permits in my speech on the associated Bills. A knowledge of radiocommunications theory is in some cases necessary before a person can reasonably be allowed to operate transmitters either because the equipment is capable of causing interference if used improperly, or because a high standard of proficiency is required for safety reasons. An example is the specialised radio operator on board large ships. In order to maintain high standards of operation and effective use of these bands, it is necessary for these operators to have technical qualifications. To this end, clause 31 of the Bill provides for an examination process to determine eligibility for the specified categories of licence and for the issue of Certificates of Proficiency to those who qualify. Clause 34 establishes a procedure for deeming persons to have the requisite proficiency, thus enabling the Minister to declare persons with acceptable overseas or other qualifications to be qualified operators for the purposes of clause 31. Clause 34 will also be used to deem as qualified persons, licensees of citizen band stations, taxiphones and like services where no special qualifications are required in order to operate their transceivers. This procedure is necessary because of the requirements of paragraph 24 (1) (e) of the Bill which makes it a condition of a licence that the licensee be a qualified operator in relation to the licence. Part VII of the Bill addresses the question of licensing for certain classes of receivers. I would again like to make it quite clear that licences will not be required for receivers for radio or television programs intended for reception by the general public. It should be pointed out however, that radio receivers that incorporate broadcast band reception with reception of non broadcast frequencies could be subject to licensing if appropriate regulations were made. Technically, it is necessary to provide for the licensing of receivers that can tune broadcast bands as well as other bands for the simple reason that the requirement for licensing some classes of radiocommunication receivers could be circumvented by the inclusion of a broadcast reception facility in equipment designed primarily for other purposes. However, the Government has no intention of requiring the licensing of the typical multiband portable receivers, continuous tuning television receivers, shortwave receivers, scanning receivers or similar consumer devices commonly available to the public. The Government's policy on the licensing of receivers is that regulations requiring the licensing of particular classes of receivers will only be made where there is a clear need to protect them from interference, where there is significant radio frequency co-ordination effort required to be expended by my Department, or where special circumstances exist that require the licensing of certain classes of receivers to prevent the development of undesirable practices . Major receive-only earth stations, for example, would require licences. The overall effect of this Part, however, is deregulatory. Under sub-section 6 (1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act it was necessary to licence both radiocommunications receivers and transmitters while under the provisions of this Bill only a small proportion of radiocommunications receivers in specific classes will be prescribed for licensing purposes. The Government's policy will be to prescribe as few classes of receivers as possible consistent with our objective of efficient spectrum management. Part VIII of the Bill provides that the Governor-General may proclaim a 'period of emergency' in specified circumstances which could involve threats to the security or defence of Australia, serious threats to the environment or risk of injury to persons of property. The 'period of emergency' may be specified up to a maximum of three months, and during this time, controls over transmitters likely to interfere with radiocommunications are provided by orders under Clause 41. In this way, vital communications can be protected from possible interference during a state of emergency. Contravention of an Order, without reasonable excuse, bears a maximum penalty of $5000 to take account of the serious nature of such an offence. Clause 42 provides for the Minister to make guidelines to be applied by him with respect to his powers under Clause 41. The Government intends to make these guidelines as promptly as possible and will consult with interested bodies before making these guidelines. The guidelines made will not unnecessarily impede the operation of stations during an emergency. A feature of the Bill which will be of particular interest to the community at large is the provision in Part IX for the settlement of interference disputes. Disputes concerning interference occur between individual members of the public and between large organisations, often with sizable investments in electrical or communications equipment. Some of these disputes can be unreasonably protracted to the detriment of both parties. Major disputes have occurred, for example, between electricity commissions and organisations relying on telecommunications over theresolve the situation. Resolving such an impasse is a difficult task for my Department. Even simple disputes can involve the expenditure of thousands of dollars on administrative effort. To ameliorate the effect of intractable disputes the Bill proposes a conciliation process. Clause 46 of the Bill empowers the Minister to refer interference disputes to a conciliator, if necessary. The conciliator, appointed by the Minister, may hold an inquiry and report on the matter. In order to effect a settlement of the dispute, the conciliator may direct a compulsory conference between the parties concerned and recommend a solution to them. If the dispute is still unsettled, the likely cause for this is to be outlined in the report from the conciliator to the Minister. It is anticipated that this process will achieve practical results without the delay or expense of formal legal procedures. The existence of such a system may also relieve channels presently used for grievances, such as complaints to the Ombudsman. Noting the growing complexity and social impact of radiocommunications activities on the everyday life of the community, the Government has decided that provision should be made for inquiries to consider major radiocommunications issues that may be expected to arise in the future. Part X of the Bill deals with this matter. For instance, it is possible that due to the shortage of spectrum space all persons who wish to engage in providing major new radiocommunications services may not be able to do so. Consequently, licences to provide these new services may need to be rationed and a public inquiry system would be one means of determining which applicants would be recommended to the Minister for the award of a licence. Inquiries could also be held into many other issues involving radiocommunications such as the structure of frequency band plans, the best means of utilising new radiocommunications technology and the like. I should like to emphasise that the inquiry system will not in itself produce policy decisions. The power of the Commissioner heading the inquiry is simply to make recommendations to the Minister. It will then be for the Minister of the day to decide whether or not to implement these recommendations. Moving to Part XI of the Bill, honourable senators will note the severe penalty provisions of the sub-clauses 65 (2) and 65 (10). These penalties are to deal with threats to the safety of marine and aeronautical services, to provide protection to Australian radio and television broadcasting services from the transmission of pirate broadcast programs from outside the territorial sea, and to provide protection against substantial interference to internal and external Australian radiocommunications caused by sources outside the territorial sea. It is possible to use radiocommunications transmitters to cause an explosion. In some instances a transmitter operated near a quarry or armoury can emit sufficient electromagnetic energy to instigate a detonation. I am sure I do not need to outline the type of disaster that could ensue. The maximum penalty in such instances is a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. Delegation of the powers of the Minister under this Bill is authorised in sub- clause 66 (1). However, the making of standards for radiocommunication equipment and the making of orders during a period of emergency are powers that can only be performed by the Minister and may not be delegated to an authorised person acting on his behalf. The Bill provides for the appointment and powers of inspectors. Given the immediate and substantial impact that powers of this nature can have on the civil liberties of citizens this Government sought the views of the Council of Civil Liberties of New South Wales and these were taken into account in the public consultation process. The Council has made a number of suggestions for improvement of the Bill and these have all been incorporated in this Bill. Under sub-clause 3 (5), officers of the Australian Federal Police and territory police are deemed to be inspectors for the purposes of this Bill. Clause 69 outlines an inspector's power of arrest where any person in believed to be committing, or has committed, an offence against the Act. Although normally a search warrant would be issued by a magistrate under clause 70 to authorise an inspector to enter, search and seize property, a provision is made at clause 72 authorising inspectors to search a person without warrant or enter property when an emergency necessitates this course of action. An order of a court or warrant will not be required in an emergency search, provided the circumstances are sufficiently serious or urgent to justify immediate action. In certain circumstances it may prove necessary to obtain a search warrant as a matter of urgency but where an emergency search made under the provisions of clause 72 is not appropriate. Such situations could arise where suspect equipment is installed in a vehicle or aircraft and quick action is required to ascertain whether an offence has been committed. Clause 81 provides a mechanism for search warrants to be granted over the telephone by a magistrate where such urgent circumstances exist. The validity of a warrant granted under the provision is subject to conformity with strict conditions laid down in this clause. In particular I would point out that the magistrate must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for issuing the warrant. Where a court finds that charges are found proven in relation to an offence against this Act, the court may order forfeiture to the Commonwealth of any equipment used in the commission of that offence. One most important feature of the Bill is that it will enable the licensing of domestic satellites. Obviously the licensing of satellites under this Bill will cover matters dealing with the radio frequency management characteristics of satellites and the services accessing them. It will not control the broadcasting aspects of Australian satellites which will be handled under other legislation. The Wireless Telegraphy Act has only limited extraterritorial effect, so that under that legislation licensing of satellites is not possible. I should point out one feature of the Bill that will impact directly on domestic television and broadcast receivers. Clause 9 provides that standards may be made for specified receivers or for receivers included in a specified class of receivers. This will enable the development of standards for domestic receivers. At present large numbers of low standard receivers are widely available and marketed. The low engineering standards to which these receivers are built inhibits the efficient use of the spectrum. For example, certain combinations of television channels cannot be used at any one location because of the inability of many current receivers to distinguish between transmissions on these channels . The net result of this is that fewer television channels are available for use in any one area. A similar situation also prevails where FM broadcast receivers are incapable of distinguishing between two stations on adjacent frequencies. Much domestic equipment is also overly susceptible to transmissions made by nearby radiocommunications transmitters. In the majority of cases the transmitters are being legally operated, and the problem could be remedied by employing better circuitry in the domestic equipment. Consequently, when standards are made for domestic equipment the Government will give due consideration to incorporation of appropriate provisions in the standards to minimise this problem. It will be a matter of judgment as to what receivers need to be subject to standards. For instance the Government would be unlikely to make standards for $3.99 pocket radios but could contemplate standards being made for more substantial and sophisticated sets where purchases could expect that reception would not be compromised by the sets inability to cope with the operation of nearby transmitters. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that it will apply to certain non-communications transmitters and receivers as well as to radiocommunications equipment. Basically these transmitters and receivers are used for purposes covered by paragraph 51 (vii), (viii) and (xv) of the Constitution which deal respectively with navigational aids, astronomy and meteorology, and weights and measures. Given the proper concern of the Parliament with civil liberties, I am sure the following features of the Bill will be of interest. Under Clause 88 of the Bill, all decisions of the Minister which could, given the constraints of practicality, be made the subject of administrative review, have been placed within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Delegated decision-making will first be subject to an internal review. However, the decision taken on that review will be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government considers this to be an essential safeguard to the rights of individuals affected by the operation of what must be, to some extent, discretionary powers. Given the vast range of communications equipment and the needs of individual users and communities, it is considered that a certain amount of discretion is essential. Every effort has been made, however, to limit and define discretionary powers. The Bill differs markedly in this regard from the Wireless Telegraphy Act, in which powers of unfettered discretion were much greater. Some discretion should, however, be highlighted. Paragraph 11 (2) (b) allows the Minister to permit the supply of sub-standard transmitters. This power is intended to allow the transfer of collectors' items. It will not be used to allow a de facto trade in sub-standard equipment for use. A decision made under paragraph 11 (2) (b) is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The administrative instruments associated with standards, advisory guidelines and spectrum planning are subject to the discipline of public comment and Parliamentary review. Those instruments directly affecting individual rights will be subject to Parliamentary disallowance and even those which have a purely advisory or planning character must be tabled. The powers of suspension of compliance statement certificates and licences ( Clauses 13 and 28) are not subject to Administrative Appeals Tribunal review, because suspension would lapse before such a review was possible. In the more serious cases, where a prosecution is commenced, review by the Tribunal would conflict with consideration of the issues by a Court. It has also been considered unnecessary in these clauses to specify the matters that are to be considered in reaching a decision. According to legal advice, a power of this nature can only be utilised in terms of the provisions empowering the grant of the instrument, and the relevant considerations are therefore implied. Clauses 68 to 77 specify the powers of inspectors. Clause 72, in particular, allows searches without warrant in emergency situations. This power is necessary for the effective enforcement of this legislation, particularly in cases of deliberate interference to safety services or other cases of deliberate interference. The Government will not allow this power to be abused. It is purely and simply an emergency power and is subject to certain requirements which will be enforced by the courts. It is intended that this legislation will apply to the Australian Antarctic Territory and to all external territories. However, given the special legal status of Antarctica as defined in Article 4 of the Antarctic Treaty, and given our responsibility to facilitate radiocommunications for safety reasons in such inhospitable regions, I have determined that radio transmitters operated by foreign nationals in the Australian Antarctic Territory should be classed as '' prescribed transmitters''. This means that they would not require transmiter licences or temporary permits. However, the Governor-General is empowered under the Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954 to make Ordinances which could include, if circumstances warranted, ordinances relating to radiotransmitters operated by foreign nationals in the Australian Antarctic Territory. I have explained previously that the Government expects that the provisions of the Bill in relation to standards, spectrum planing and other measures will facilitate a reduction in the levels of interference to and between radiocommunications services. However, these measures will not be fully effective for some time, as the existing stock of licensed transmitters will not be subject to the standards provisions of this Bill. Accordingly, other methods are necessary to control interference. This control will be achieved by Regulations made under Clause 93 of the Bill, where provision is made for 'prohibiting or regulating any act or thing likely to cause interference, or risk of interference to radiocommunications.' Regulations made under this power will enable both specific and general interference problems to be dealt with. For example, regulations could be made specifying the acceptable level of interference that could be tolerated by vital safety services such as air-to-ground communications, and action that could be taken to eliminate any higher level of interference from offending devices. These regulations would also be capable of controlling interference to broadcasting and television transmissions. The financial impact of this Bill is difficult to quantify. In some areas, substantial deregulation is proposed. For instance, the Bill facilitates a substantial reduction in the licensing of receivers and low power transmitters. There will be consequent savings for the Government in the costs of administration, and users will no longer need to pay licence fees. Substantial savings can be expected both for the Government and the community as a whole as the Bill's provisions relating to standards and control over interference gradually result in the lessening of interference to and between radiocommunications services. The Government will need to spend proportionally less time on interference investigations and the private operator will be assured of a more efficient communications system. On the other hand, increased administrative costs can be expected because of the Government's commitment to public consultation and appeal rights against administrative decisions. Increased costs may be experienced by industry in some areas due to the introduction of standards for devices impacting on the spectrum . New equipment may need to be of a higher standard than that currently employed . In the medium to long term the Government expects that this Bill will result in substantially improved efficiency in the use of the radio frequency spectrum. This will confer appreciable economic advantages on the community as a whole as business, government and individuals are able to achieve increased efficiency in their operations resulting from the use of radiocommunications. I should touch on the subject of import controls over sub-standard equipment. While no mention is made in the Bill of prohibiting the import of sub-standard equipment, it is the Government's intention that sub-standard equipment would be barred from entering Australia through the mechanism of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. In conclusion the Government extends its thanks to all those in the community who gave freely of their time and expertise in the public consultation process leading up to the finalisation of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Ryan be granted leave of absence for one month on account of absence overseas on official Government business. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday , 1 November 1983, at 2.00 p.m. Debate resumed from 25 May 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(9.07) —The Bill before us gives effect to the changes that were announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his statement of 28 March. It makes three changes to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act. The changes that were announced by the Prime Minister did not follow the usual course of consultation with the Opposition, and the usual consultation with trustees on such matters. However, despite that, the Opposition does not oppose the changes announced by the Government in the parliamentary superannuation scheme. On behalf of my Opposition colleagues, I say that these matters are not opposed by us. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(9.08) —Two of the three changes to the scheme that the Government is proposing are unexceptional. The first relates to the conversion of no more than one half of the retiring allowance. It has been seen by members of the public as something of a handout when members of parliament can retire at sometimes quite young ages and, if they have been in Parliament for a sufficiently long time, take with them $400,000 or more and then move into -- Senator Archer —Which young members of parliament have done that? Senator HAINES —I am classifying as young anyone who is below the normal retiring age, and that is 65. This would therefore allow them with some impunity to go into a service, particularly in the private sector. A number of them have done so, and I dare say that some others will do so also. There is nothing wrong with that. It is simply that the public objects when people can leave with large lump sums and then continue in employment elsewhere. The only problem that I see possibly arising from the fact that members of parliament will be permitted to convert only a maximum of 50 per cent of their retiring allowance to a lump sum benefit may well arise given the decreasing age of members of parliament and the increasing instability of one's life as a member of parliament. It may well be that a member of parliament who gets elected at the age of, say, 25-that is becoming increasingly common in this country-survives for 12 years and retires or is defeated at the age of 37. If he is allowed to take only part of the lump sum, the Government is going to be paying him a pension, if he does not go into employment, for a considerable length of time since the payments are made for life. I note that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) indicated at the end of his second reading speech that the Actuary has said that there will be a diminution in cost to the Government and, hence, to the public under this arrangement. I sometimes wonder whether he has taken into account the decreasing age of members of parliament. In fact, a number of members of the present Parliament are in their mid-20s to late-20s and early-30s. Admittedly, most of them happen to be in safe seats and will probably be members of parliament for life. However, the fact is that members of parliament enter this place at quite a young age and undertake a job, the future of which is highly unstable. Given that they cannot take more than 50 per cent of their retirement allowance as a lump sum benefit, the Government and the public may be forced to put them on a pension for 30, 40, 50 or more years. The second change that the Government seeks to make relates to the spouses' annuity. One important anomaly under the existing Act arises in a case where a member has commuted his or her retiring allowance. If that member dies the spouse can be granted an annuity not related to the residual pension but to the pension as if the senator or member had not commuted at all. It is pleasing to see that the Government is making a significant change in this area. One proposal which does concern me, because I wonder whether it is not going to cause one or two perhaps unwitting anomalies, is the third change contained in the Bill which seeks to impose restrictions on the payment of parliamentary retiring allowances or annuities to a person who is in receipt of a salary as the holder of an office of profit under the Crown or a pension arising from the holding of such an office. I want to speak about the first part of this proposed change. Will the Minister indicate whether that means that any member or senator who leaves this place and is entitled, as he will be from now on, to some form of pension or part pension, will still retain that annuity if he takes up private employment with any organisation? Will he have that entitlement if he goes into any element of the Public Service-perhaps as a teacher or as a salaried medical officer? Senator Robert Ray —You have not read the Bill. You are talking about the upper echelons. Senator HAINES —How are we defining that? Does that mean a person has that entitlement if he becomes an ordinary classroom teacher but not if he is the Director-General of Education in a State? Senator Robert Ray —No, it is positions of patronage rather than the pure Public Service. Senator HAINES —This matter is still not particularly clear. Senator Withers —That is what the Bill does. Senator HAINES —Rather than conduct a conversation across the chamber with Senator Robert Ray, I would like some sort of explanation from the Minister. I might say to Senator Withers, who has just interjected, that what the Bill intends to do is not always what the Bill is sometimes seen to do. I would like this point clarified. The same position applies to the spouse of a former senator or member who has been in receipt of a salary or pension. Does this in fact mean that a member or senator who leaves this place and takes a job in a senior position with the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd can continue to receive his parliamentary pension but cannot do so if he becomes, say, the Director- General of Education in a State? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.14) —In response to the questions that were just asked by Senator Haines in regard to the third provision of the Bill-that is, to reduce the pension which would otherwise be payable to retirees holding certain positions in private employment -it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to have access to income received from private employment. With respect to other government positions, or positions ultimately paid for by governments, other than those contained in the Bill, while logically perhaps some case could be made out for what Senator Haines is saying, the third provision of this Bill is really aimed at the practice-all too common in the past-of appointing to highly paid positions, frequently overseas, people who have been embarrassments to governments. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Like Mr Whitlam. Senator Withers —Like the High Court and all that. Senator WALSH —I am not putting this in a partisan context. It is done on both sides of politics. The third provision of the Bill is designed to ensure that people who are given what perhaps could less controversially be accepted as being a sinecure by a government in power do not also receive full pensions. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle mentioned that the usual processes of consultation on these matters were not followed. That is correct. The reason for that was that there was a firm commitment in both the Labor Party's platform and in its election policy to take the sort of action this Bill now takes. One of Senator Haines's other points was about the effect of this Bill on, for example, a 35-year-old retiree with a life expectancy of 35 years being able to collect a full pension for the rest of the retiree's life. That option, of course, exists under the existing Act and will continue to exist under the present Bill. I suspect that such a retiree, unless getting an extremely high income from some other source, would actuarily be better off under the existing legislation and under the legislation as it will be amended by this Bill to accept the pension rather than to take the lump sum. However, people do not always make rational choices about these things. When offered a big heap of money in the hand, they are more inclined to look at the size of the sum they receive now than at the values of a lifetime pension based on normal life expectancy. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.18) —I would like some more advice from the Government on how the Actuary expects the effects of these changes to reduce the overall costs of the scheme. Is it because of the number of people who have been appointed to overseas jobs, or is it for some of the reasons that Senator Haines gave a moment ago? As I see it, with just a little bit of reasonably simple arithmetic, the cost to the Government will not be reduced by letting people take a lesser lump sum. People who actually take a lump sum, I think, do the Commonwealth a favour. Senator Walsh —It depends on their life expectancy and on their incomes from other sources. Senator TOWNLEY —Yes, but I would still like to get the Actuary's opinion on the cost of allowing people to take only half a lump sum. Let me say right now that I am not personally interested in taking it. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.19) —I do not have precise details of the Actuary's calculations. I will see whether they can be obtained later. There are at least two points to be made in response to Senator Townley. One concerns the decision by an individual to take a lump sum or a pension in any proportion at all. The option of taking the pension instead of a lump sum is not changed by this legislation. It is probably correct that at least on the expenditure side the Government would be advantaged, in the longer term, if younger retirees with a life expectancy of maybe 30 or 35 years took lump sums. It would, however, be disadvantaged in the short term. The expenditure side, however, does not tell the whole story because taxation questions are also involved, particularly when for the immediate future the lump sum is virtually tax free. A parliamentary pension, particularly one received by somebody who already has significant other income, could conceivably have applied to it the maximum marginal tax rate. So the net cost to government of paying the pension would be only 40 per cent of the nominal cost. There is a second way in which there will unquestionably be savings as a result of the amendment. The existing legislation allows the full commutation of a pension and the payment to a surviving spouse of five-sixths of the pension which would have been payable had the original pension not been commuted. That can no longer be done. Unquestionably there will have to be a saving on the expenditure side, although it is one that nobody can quantify with any certainty without knowing the length of time that spouses will outlive retirees. I will endeavour to obtain from Senator Townley any other working details of the Australian Government Actuary's calculations which are available. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(9.21) —I just wish to ask, and I declare a personal interest in the answer: If a single member or senator dies, is a proportion of the lump sum to which he would have been entitled payable as a lump sum to his estate, and does this Bill affect that entitlement in any way? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.22) —I am advised that the answer to Senator Tate's question is that a lump sum is payable to the estate of a deceased person who has no spouse or dependants, but it is a lump sum calculated on a different basis from the normal lump sum. It is calculated on the same basis as the sum payable to somebody who retires before he has served the length of time required to qualify for the pension; that is, the contributions made-in Senator Tate's hypothetical case, by the deceased member-plus two and one-third times that contribution. So a lump sum is payable but it is a lump sum calculated on a completely different basis from the pensions and/or lump sums payable under this legislation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.23) —Clause 7 is entitled 'Additional contributions by Ministers of State and office holders in respect of service before 12 June 1978'. I am not a trustee of the parliamentary contributory superannuation scheme and therefore have had no input in that particular area. I have had reservations about the scheme for some time, firstly, because of its generosity and, secondly, because of its further generosity to Ministers of State and office holders. Can the Minister explain the purpose of that clause being incorporated into this legislation, and what effect will it have? Senator WALSH(Western Australia) —Minister for Resources and Energy) (9.25)-I am advised that clause 7, as it states, amends section 14 of the principal Act, and is a consequential amendment only as a result of the changes made by clause 6 and clause 11 (2), I gather, for technical rather than substantive reasons. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. (No. 2) 1983 Debate resumed from 13 October 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.26) —I wish to provide, briefly, some of the detail of what is involved in the four Bills. The Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2) seeks to extend the term for which temporary assistance will be able to be granted from two years to three years. However, the Temporary Assistance Authority will still be required to present a report annually to the Minister. That is the main thrust of the Bill. There are a few other minor clauses which simply tidy up existing portions of the Act. The three Bills that are actually substantive start with the Bounty ( Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill, which proposes to amend the Bounty ( Agricultural Tractors) Act to double the present amount of base bounty. It is part of a package of short term assistance for the tractor industry pending inquiry and report by the Industries Assistance Commission. The second Bill is the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill 1983, which proposes temporary assistance by way of a bounty scheme for the production in Australia of cabs for fitting to imported tractors. The bounty will be at the rate of 15 per cent of the factory cost of the cabs exclusive of air conditioning equipment, radio equipment, sound reproducing equipment and sound recording equipment. It is payable where there is an Australian content of 85 per cent or more, providing the cabs are sold in Australia. The third Bill, the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill, provides that there be additional short term assistance in the form of bounty of 20 per cent of the value added. It will be paid on injection-moulding equipment and in injection-moulding machines for the production of moulded plastic goods and parts for such machines manufactured and sold for use in Australia. To be eligible for the additional bounty, producers will need to continue to be engaged in the manufacture of the machines between 10 June 1983 and the date of the IAC report, and maintain at least their level of employment existing at 10 June 1983 of persons directly involved in the manufacture of the equipment. The Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2) was foreshadowed by Mr Peacock towards the end of last year and is supported by the Opposition. The two tractor Bills are both short term measures and are also supported. I found it rather interesting that, in one of those rare rushes of blood to the head, the TAA had proposed that, in one case, there should be a $6m loan. I am not unhappy to see that that advice was not taken up and that alternative arrangements were made. I also think it was quite proper that although no assistance was recommended in the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill assistance should have been provided. The Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill is another matter. I was pleased to see that a lot more consideration was given to this area. I think it is right that added assistance was provided during this period. The Government will have to make a long term decision. Although the TAA recommended that there should not be any extra payment at this stage? I believe it is quite proper that the Government should have a better look at this matter, particularly now that there is only one Australian manufacturer and that there are, of course, various strategic and defence implications that go with Australia being down to this level of production with one manufacturer. Of course, the other point that was taken into account was that the manufacturer Battenfeld (Australia) Pty Ltd, is located in the Albury-Wodonga area. That will have substantial employment implications. The amount of money involved is not large by government standards. I think it is a worthy investment . It typifies a very difficult area of strategic necessity. It is one of the very difficult decisions ahead of the Government but governments are here to make difficult decisions as they appreciate. It typifies a whole group of industries which have been savaged by soaring wage rates, by adverse revaluation practices, and the effects they have on imports. It must progressively, under these circumstances, get into worse positions than those which it is now in. This Bill, in fact, provides a subsidy in the short term for employment. It does nothing that will encourage greater efficiency. It does not make the industry any better or any more secure at this stage. It will be interesting to see what sorts of recommendations come up after the Industries Assistance Commission has had a substantive look at it and after the Government has been able to consider those recommendations and take action. I support what the Government has done in each of these measures and support the Bills. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.33) —in reply-I note Senator Archer's comments without any concern. I agree with many of the observations he made. Difficult decisions will have to be made about the longer term future, particularly in relation to the injection moulding machinery industry. That is a matter that will be dependent on an Industries Assistance Commission report. At this stage we think it is desirable that the level of assistance provided in the three Bounty Bills should be provided. I am glad that those decisions have the support of the Opposition. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 2 June 1983, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.36) —The Senate is about to commence the debate on the Government's Sex Discrimination Bill, which was first introduced at the beginning of June. It has been available for consideration since then and has been, of course, the subject of a great deal of comment and debate in the community as well as amongst the senators and members of this Parliament. It is rather unfortunate that this debate is taking place today because the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who is responsible for this Bill , has gone overseas. The Opposition spokesperson in this chamber on matters concerning the status of women, Senator Kathy Martin, is unfortunately unwell and is unable to be here to open the debate on this measure, as she would normally do. In those circumstances it has fallen to me to do so on behalf of the Opposition, as I represent in this chamber the Opposition spokesman on the status of women and industrial relations, Mr Macphee. That is by way of explanation as to why I am on my feet at the moment. The Opposition entirely accepts the principle of equality of men and women and believes that this principle still needs some promotion and buttressing in our community. There has been a great improvement in the status of women in this generation. I do not put a particular point on when it occurred, but certainly there has been, in comparatively recent times, a much greater and wider recognition of the principle of equality and of the need to have regard to elements of discrimination against persons on the ground of their sex, marital status or pregnancy, which are the three major areas of discrimination with which this legislation deals. I think it should be looked at in the perspective generally of the problem in the community of discrimination on various grounds. Over recent years, probably as a result of the United Nations Charter and the declarations on human rights and so on, which have been such a feature of international thought and activity since the Second World War, there have been very strong movements against discrimination on many grounds, including race, creed, religion, colour and so forth, in addition to sex or marital status. This Parliament took a major step in 1975 in passing the Racial Discrimination Act which was the first clear legislative step to promote the acceptance in the community of equality of races. Similarly, this Bill is now taking a positive step to promote the equality of men and women and the elimination of discrimination between persons on the basis of sex. The Opposition has no problem with, and indeed supports, the object of the Bill to achieve that purpose and accepts the fact that some legislation is desirable and indeed, may well be necessary to effect that purpose. In an ideal world I think it would be better if this sort of problem were not tackled by legislation , but by the process of education, understanding and so on so that the members of the community not only accepted but also gave effect to and put into practice these principles. But we do not, as we know, live in a ideal world. As I have said, there have been great advances in the elimination of discrimination on many grounds. Today we are speaking particularly of discrimination on the ground of sex. Although there have been great advances in recent years, nevertheless clearly some discrimination still remains on this ground. The attitudes of some people have perhaps become very intractable. Unless some positive action of a legislative kind is taken it will be very difficult to eliminate those areas where discrimination still remains. However, I think it is fair to say that overwhelmingly the most satisfactory and effective way of eliminating these attitudes is by educating the community to accept standards rather than the imposition of them by legislation. I think that the more social and moral pressures arise in the community generally as a result of that process of education and the promotion of those standards, the more people will accept them and the more pressures there will be on others to accept them. That has already been a very effective process of implementing the principles with which this Bill deals and seeks to implement. The process of elimination of discrimination on the ground of sex, and particularly on the ground of marital status, has been the subject of a great deal of legislative as well as social discrimination in the past. Over the whole of this century at least-perhaps even going back to married women's property Acts in the nineteenth century-legislative steps have removed by and large the provisions of the law which specifically have discriminated. We ought to have regard to that long and successful process of elimination of those forms of discrimination-they are very serious forms of discrimination because of their legislative backing-which have been achieved over the years. We have had two processes-the removal, by and large, of the legislative barriers and the education of the community in and acceptance by the community of changed attitudes and social values, which have made a great difference. Great strides are being made. As I said, I believe those processes have been, and will continue to be, the most effective way of implementing the principles with which this Bill deals. However, as I have said, the Opposition recognises that some attitudes will still be retained by some people and it is justified that there should be some acceleration in the pace at which grounds of discrimination are eliminated by the Parliament in the form of legislation giving effect to the principles and providing some forms of redress if the principles are not observed. The attempt to do so in the shape of legislation has proved, and I am sure it will continue to prove, to be a very difficult exercise indeed. There is widespread concern in the community, as there is on the part of the Opposition, about some of the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, the Opposition's attitude to it is that it should be supported at the second reading stage, but a number of amendments will be moved by the Opposition in the Committee stage in an endeavour to change some of the provisions of the Bill which have given rise to a great deal of concern. There is also undoubtedly in the community some misunderstanding of some aspects of this legislation. We had a good example of that this week in respect of its effect on membership of clubs. Senator Button —They were golf clubs. Senator DURACK —It applies specifically to golf clubs, but other clubs are affected as well. Senator Button, who is at the table in his capacity as Acting Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women in relation to this Bill-just as I am in an acting capacity in speaking to it-clearly answered that misunderstanding yesterday. I mention that as an example of the sort of misunderstanding that has occurred. But there is not a misunderstanding in respect of other matters, such as education and the effect that the Bill would have on the freedom of action by educational bodies, particularly those of a religious character; it is a conflict of principles. Indeed, the attempt to legislate in this area reveals the degree to which there is conflict of principles. Principles of individual rights and liberties generally-principles of freedom of religion in this case-conflict, as I said, with the principles of equality between men and women and the elimination of discrimination on that ground. Basic conflicts of values and principles are brought into play by this legislation and by the attempt to give legal effect to those principles. This Bill is a very good example of how difficult the path is of those who wish to enact legislation in areas in which very sensitive moral, social and religious questions arise. So we have to treat the matter with great sensitivity and care and have regard to the deep concerns which have been expressed by sections of the community, particularly those in the private and religious schools and institutions of child care, about the effects of the Bill. I recognise that the Government has attempted, in a statement put down in the Senate last night and in amendments it proposes to move, to deal with some of these concerns, particularly in the area of education. We in the Opposition do not believe it has gone far enough and we will move a wider amendment than the Government is proposing. We believe it is not only a question of conflict on religious doctrine or beliefs. There are also schools which, not necessarily on purely religious doctrine, have values that they want to observe, but which adopt a broad philosophy of life, of moral values and principles of education and behaviour which I think should be recognised by the Parliament in the same way as we recognise that there is the principle of equality of men and women. As I have said, these are very sensitive and clear areas of conflict of basic values. I do not think it is wise or right for us as legislators to seek to impose one set of moral values, and certainly not religious values and principles, on sections of the community which feel very strongly about these matters. The Opposition, as I have said, will move a fairly wide ranging amendment to exclude the operation of this Bill where there is that conflict. The Opposition is also very concerned about the attitudes which have been expressed by numbers of people in the community, particularly women, that this Bill may impose upon them different values and attitudes as to their role as women and their role in their families and in society. We believe it ought to be stated quite clearly that this legislation is not intended to do that. Although things are said and statements made in the international Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women which give rise to that concern, justifiably, this legislation itself does not, I think, require people, particularly women, to change in any way the role they feel they have in society which, of course, large numbers of people accept. We propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill to point this out and to state that the Senate is of the opinion that the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid work force or to alter people's views of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children. We will also propose an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill to make it clear that nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving the articles of the international Convention which are not implemented by the Bill. It may be a misunderstanding of the legal effect, but certainly there is widespread concern that by appending the international Convention to the Schedule of the Bill somehow or other this Parliament is approving everything which is stated in the Convention. That is not the case; the Bill is simply making specific provisions against discrimination. These are set out in the objects of the Bill, which makes it very clear that its purpose is: to eliminate so far as is possible- I think that is an important reservation to be found in the objects of the Bill- discrimination against persons on the ground of sex . . . in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs; The Bill deals only with those specific areas and it does not intend to implement the international Convention as a whole nor is it giving approval to the Convention as a whole. This means that some provisions of the Convention will in fact be given legislative effect in this Bill. Once again it is very important that we should make it perfectly clear that we in this Parliament are not seeking to take from women who accept the role of wife and mother and do not believe in working or seeking to enter the work force the importance of their role in the family, particularly the role of mother. A large number of women in the community see that as their role and wish to remain in that role, and they do. They are very concerned about any attempt being made to change that role. We must acknowledge their concern and deep feeling. We believe that we should make it quite clear that in passing this legislation we are not seeking to change the roles people wish to play. All that we seek to do is ensure that those women who wish to enter the work force, or who for one reason or another need services-whether it be accommodation, loans from financial institutions or membership of clubs-will not be discriminated against simply on the ground of their sex, marital status or pregnancy. We believe these things should be made clear. The Opposition is also very concerned about the extent to which the Bill relies upon the now infamous external affairs power of the Commonwealth, as it has been recently interpreted by the High Court. The legislative powers of the Commonwealth, apart from the external affairs power, are quite extensive in the areas which this Bill covers. I do not want to go through all those powers upon which the Bill can draw. They are all set out in clause 8 of the Bill and enable this legislation to be given a wide effect throughout the Australian community, without recourse to the external affairs power. The Opposition has a very firm view-it had it in government and it maintains it in Opposition; it was put very firmly in relation to the South West Tasmanian dam case-that the Commonwealth Parliament should not seek to use its treaty- making power or enter into treaties to alter the balance of power between the Commonwealth and the States. Entering into a treaty such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women should not add to the powers to legislate in this sphere, which the Commonwealth already has. We know that, as a result of the High Court decision, on purely legal grounds the Commonwealth probably has that power. That does not mean to say that we, in this Parliament, have to exercise that power. We do not believe that that power should be used to expand the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament as this Bill purports to do. Whether it can legally effectively do that is a different matter all together. We believe that it is a matter of policy. As believers in the Federal system, we repudiate the use of the power which I have said the Commonwealth may well have, in that way. We will move amendments that will seek to remove the reliance this Bill has on the external affairs power. We recognise that there are very wide powers otherwise available to the Commonwealth to give effect to the Convention which Australia, under the previous Government, entered into. I think it is well to recall-I emphasise this fact-that when we were in Government we participated in and signed the Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. That gives further emphasis to our support for the principles. The mere fact that we do not believe that Convenant should be used in the way in which this Bill seeks to use it does not in any way derogate from our support of those principles. We are supporting the principles and the major provisions of this Bill which give effect to those principles. But we say that exercise should be limited to the powers the Commonwealth Parliament clearly has under the Constitution. Those powers should not be expanded by the external affairs power. Indeed the Opposition took this view when in government and it was our policy to give effect to this Convention but in a different way. We believe that it is more appropriate for the States to give effect to these principles. Some States have done so. Anti-discrimination legislation is effective in three States. In the process of time, we believed that all the States would follow suit and have their own anti-discrimination legislation. We had intended to legislate in the Australian Capital Territory and in the area of Commonwealth employment. Had we remained in Government this year we would have introduced legislation to give effect to the Convention in those two clear areas of Commonwealth responsibility. Our policy was and still is that the States should be given the first opportunity to legislate. We believe that, in due course, after the participation of the States in the ratification of that Convenant and after a process of consultation which we were having with them, all the States would have legislated in this way thereby eliminating the necessity of the Commonwealth taking the step on this broad front which is what this Bill does. The other area about which the Opposition is concerned is the machinery provisions of this legislation and the effect that they have on civil liberties. We are very concerned at the elimination of ordinary protection of civil liberties in this Bill in regard to proceedings before the Human Rights Commission and the Federal Court of Australia. There is a very serious provision in regard to civil liberties that the burden of proof is changed if findings of fact are made by the Human Rights Commission. Those findings of fact are then prima facie evidence in Federal Court proceedings to enforce civil liberties. There is a reverse onus of proof provision which is fundamentally contrary to the basic principles of the administration of justice in this country. In areas as sensitive as this I think that will work a very great injustice, and the Opposition proposes to move amendments accordingly. It also eliminates the privilege against self-incrimination in proceedings before the Human Rights Commission, and as those proceedings are now by and large to be held in public, that is a very serious derogation of people's rights. There are a number of other areas in which I believe there is a confusion of the roles of the Human Rights Commission as conciliator and inquirer, and its role as finder of fact in relation to people's rights. We believe that these matters need to be amended to make sure that in seeking to uphold one person's rights we do not eliminate another person's rights. I think this conflict goes to the very heart of this legislation. There is a conflict of people's rights in many areas. As legislators we should try to reconcile that conflict as best we can, knowing the very great difficulties involved. Our approach to this legislation must be to ensure that as far as possible, in promoting one set of rights for one person, we do not destroy the rights of another. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.08) —The Sex Discrimination Bill represents the response of the Australian Parliament to the work of successive Australian governments designed to place Australia in the forefront of those nations willing to undertake in a public and world-wide way certain obligations to ensure that human beings are not denied fulfilment because of their sex or marital status or the carrying of a child in the womb. Clearly, the latter status is confined to women. Sex and marital status are such that both men and women can be discriminated against or can be subject to some form of harassment. It would be fair to say that what we are concerned with today is a conscious attempt to raise the status of women. Indeed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which is the genesis of much of the thought behind the Bill, was designed to liberate women in quite different cultures from our own who quite often are the slaves and victims of very chauvinistic societies. It is with their plight in mind and as part of an international community that successive Australian governments have joined in this world-wide enterprise to raise the status of women. Mr Ellicott, when signing the Convention on behalf of Australia some years ago, said: It is a question of treating each woman as an individual with her own dignity and self-respect and the power to make decisions about her own destiny. We share the view of the then Liberal-National Party Government. This Bill is designed, as Senator Durack said, to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention. Not all of the provisions are transformed into our legal system by this Bill, but some of them are. Of course the overall design is to eliminate so far as practicable discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy, and to eliminate sexual harassment. Some may say: 'Okay, protection may be necessary in some cultures such as in China where infanticide is practised against baby girls'. I notice that the politburo there came out with a strong condemnation of infanticide some weeks ago. They may also say that protection may be required in India where young wives are quite often immolated by their mothers-in-law if they do not come up with sufficient dowries, or in Muslim cultures where the mores of the desert tribes have more effect than the Koran. Senator Chipp —Particularly Iran. Senator TATE —That is right. The Koran speaks very highly of women. But this ethos of tribes overwhelms that. It may be questioned: Why do we need to give adherence to such a Convention and to carry some of its provisions into legal effect within Australia? Even within Australia it needs to be conceded that sub- groups and groups within our culture engage in quite discriminatory practices. Some Aboriginal tribal groups, for example, subject young women, I believe in a discriminatory way, to the wishes of elder men within the tribe or clan through forced marriages. That has been a matter of public notoriety from time to time. Then again, some sub-cultures within our migrant community deal with women in a most horrific way with the practice of female circumcision, which again is an assault on their dignity as women. Senator Walters —Where does the Bill cover that? Senator TATE —I am trying to point out something. Senator Walters, in her usual ignorant way, has interjected without letting me develop the train of my thought . I am pointing out that even within the Australian culture we have instances which reveal that we, as a nation, have enclaves of extreme discrimination against women. In general, I think it is true to say that the lot of women could bear quite considerable improvement. In some ways, of course, the general attitude of the male Australian towards women maybe derives in part from our origins as a nation where four out of every five convicts were men, where the hardships of frontier life and the lack of women developed an ethos, a mateship, which is perhaps peculiar to Australia and certainly explains some of the reflex unarticulated attitudes towards women which are the case in our society. But it goes deeper than our historical origins. It is true that we in the industrialised democracies-and, Australia is one in particular-appear to have made most progress in relation to the liberation of women. Senator Durack mentioned some in the strictly narrow legal field. Of course, there is the emancipation of women in part by giving them the right to vote and so on. There has been quite a liberation of women from choices of stereotyped roles as supporters of husband and family if they are to be married, or some sort of single life either within the convent walls or in some secular equivalent in the caring industry such as nursing or teaching. Those choices of stereotyped roles have been changing in recent times. I also want to emphasise that this Bill does nothing, as Senator Durack quite properly pointed out, to force women out of a choice of human fulfilment within the mutual affection and the caring for children which they might want to pursue on a full time basis within their home. If they want to fulfil their human potential in that full time way within the household, so be it. We should do nothing, and this Bill does nothing, to hinder that. On the other side of the coin, nor should a woman be forced to give up the prospect of fulfilment in some field of employment, some career opportunity, the sheer pursuit of some education or skill for its satisfaction, enjoyment or enhancement of her life or to choose some form of recreation to escape from suburban neurosis or the expectations of society. We say that in relation to those matters she should be equally free to make a choice to fulfil herself. That choice should be facilitated. Certainly the law can properly be used with as many conciliatory steps built in as possible. The law can eventually be properly used to remove discriminatory practices which limit, hinder or frustrate that choice of women to find fulfilment within employment or education . As I say-this I say against those who keep on harping on the beauties of family life-we also have to recognise, not that this Bill deals with it directly, that there can be stereotypes within family life which are equally limiting to women. I quote from a paper by Dan Edgar, Director of the Institute of Family Studies in Melbourne, which appeared in a booklet entitled 'The Church and Families'. He points out that the stereotype roles of husbands and wives are a contributory cause of marriage breakdown. He wrote: Husbands often expect a wife to look after him like his mother did. Many a wife taught to be obedient to her father as a girl, and seeing her mother being submissive to him, expects her husband to take the lead and make all the decisions. This can become an inner pressure if her expectations are not met . . . In other words, do not let us paint too romantic a picture of that choice of family life. This is an assessment, as I have said, of stereotype roles within the family. I emphasise very strongly that this Bill is designed to create a situation whereby women in Australia can make a choice to find human fulfilment either within the mutual care and affection of a full time family role within the household or within employment or some educational opportunity. I really think that conservative people such as Senator Bjelke-Petersen who perhaps have found fulfilment in family life and at the later stage in that family's progress have entered public life do a grave disservice to their fellow Australian women by not recognising that we need to take steps such as are outlined in this Bill. Not all women have had the same opportunities, and perhaps the same opportunities for gaining self-confidence and self-fulfilment, as she. I wish to quote from a 1976 Social Justice Statement of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace entitled 'Towards a Whole Community: Reflections on the Situation of Australian Women'. Under the heading 'Being valued as a full person in community', it says, amongst other things: Woman as a person recognised as physiologically different but not biologically determined, gifted with freedom to give herself in ways responsible to herself, family, society not defined only in terms of motherhood or used as a sex object totally incorporated into the mainstream of society's activities, acknowledged and rewarded equally with men not ignored in her vital contribution as homemaker, nor confined to the house for lack of options fully integrated into society, into its political, economic, cultural, religious decision-making process contributing gifts and talents, expanding the human potential not maintained as a child, a dependant, a second class citizen The aspiration in that document is something with which I fully agree. In fact, I was a member of that Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace when the document was drafted. Senator Chipp —That was a visionary statement. Senator TATE —It was. It was prophetic. I say also that this battle for women's emancipation into a wholly human life does not have as its object an attainment of equality with men. That would be to give them a subhuman goal in the sense that we ourselves are stereotyped. We do not know what it means to be fully human because of the overall failure of society to break out of some of the stereotypes with which we are all familiar. Certainly, to set the present Australian male as some sort of goal towards which women should seek equality of status would be to deprive women of that full expression of humanity to which we all aspire. We must resolutely weed out all practices which tend to put women in the passive and gentle category and all men in the active and aggressive category. That sort of cultural tradition has a very long history. It goes back to our roots in Greek culture where the vital force was regarded as male and active and the passive, natural forces were regarded as female. Greek, thought, therefore, had tremendous difficulty in dealing with the transition to Christianity. Anyone who has seen the mediaeval exegesis of Genesis which says ' God created man . . . male and female he created them would know the grave difficulties which are part of our Western cultural heritage. I will not linger on that. The fact is that it is not merely a question of looking overseas to find cultures which, in some subtle ways and some very obvious ways, discriminate against and degrade women. We ourselves carry a certain cultural burden which leads to certain stereotypes which need to be broken out of. I think Senator Durack is right in saying that this Bill should not be regarded as the whole answer to this question within Australian society. But insofar as it does, in a very narrow range of matters, seek to use the law to counter certain practices which are adverse and dehumanising, I think the law, insofar as it is limited to those activities and practices, is carrying out a very proper function. I would like to touch on three matters which have been controversial and with which I have had something to do. Therefore, I feel the need to make some comment on them. In relation to the question of women serving in combat zones this Bill does not make it unlawful to discriminate against women in preventing them from serving in such combat zones as members of the military forces. I know that provision has caused some difficulties for those who both support and oppose the legislation. Those who argue that women should be permitted to serve in those zones I think rarely ever directly put an argument that women should be permitted to engage in the authorised slaughter-that is what military service is-of their fellow human beings. It was rarely put that there was some sort of right to engage in that sort of activity. Rather the emphasis was on the matter of choice. Freedom to choose one's career was said to be of paramount value. I do not accept and have never accepted that freedom to choose is a higher value than human life, but that is my personal position. I have recently had the sense that some sort of provision such as that which is now in the Bill should be reinforced by reading a book on the militarisation of women's lives called Does Khaki Become You?. It is written by Cynthia Enloe. I will perhaps quote from that book in a moment. I suppose the main argument put by those women who want to exercise this choice is that women should have the same access as men to this government mechanism for acquiring skills so that they will be able to move back into civilian employment with greater prospects of following a particular career choice. The usual example given is training for piloting commercial jets. Of course, the training would be for piloting Royal Australian Air Force or Royal Australian Navy jets so that one could then move back into the civilian airline industry. I think the simple reply to that is that surely our Australian society has enough wits and resources about it to find some means of enabling women to enter those fields of employment, such as commercial jet piloting and others, other than by requiring them to learn the skills of launching missiles and bombs and place themselves in a situation where they may have to render that military service in training for service in, say, RAAF jets. But my real answer is that the choice of occupation argument in relation to military service for women takes no account of the realities of the sheer, grinding, economic forces on ordinary women within our society which will force them into the armed forces and combat preparedness if no restraint is erected. The fact is that we, as senators and members, all know how our offices are flooded with young unemployed males looking for support to get into the military forces because of the grinding economic necessity of finding some employment. Cynthia Enloe teaches at Clark University, Massachusetts. She is a feminist historian and the author of many books on feminism and the military and police forces. At page 136, for example, of that book she says: The disproportionate number of black women voluntarily enlisting in the military in the 1980s as well as their political invisibility needs to be explained in order to make sense of how the current military recruitment strategies exploit women's frustrations and hopes. Black women-especially young black women-suffer some of the highest unemployment and underemployment rates in the American labour force. They, even more than white women, live in conditions which offer few options. She goes on to explain that that is one of the pressures which lead them to enter the armed forces. At page 132 the same point is made. I do not think I have time to quote from that. We must not close our eyes to the fact that many women, if combat related duties were open to them, would find themselves in that situation not from real choice but because that particular militarisation of their lives would be the only option open to them. In a review of that book in the Age on Friday, 7 October, Dorothy Green, a well-known writer on these matters, said concerning the military: . . . its authority is sustained by powerful myths, the most deeply embedded of which is the belief that the ultimate test of manliness is combat. . . . . . . The central issue- that is, to this whole question of women serving- is the militarisation of women. . . . the book should be read by women, if only to alert them to the dangers of regarding greater access to careers in the armed forces as a step towards women' s liberation. In regard to these military myths, it goes on to say: In breaking free from them- that is the military myths- women have a tremendous opportunity to say to men: ''We have had enough. If you want to go on fighting count us out.'' It is in that general framework that I support the Government's decision at the moment not to make it unlawful to discriminate against women by not permitting them to serve in combat zones. I repeat that what should constitute service in combat zones should be as narrowly defined as possible so that women do get as many opportunities as possible to find employment, if they so choose, within the armed military forces and to get that training, apprenticeship skills, or whatever it might be. Because the definition of what shall constitute combat duties will come back to this chamber, because it will be made by regulation, we will have an opportunity to disallow any too-wide definition of the scope of what should constitute combat zones. I for one will certainly be trying to confine the interpretation as narrowly as possible. I believe that is what we ought to do in this chamber. The other matter of some concern which is put by many people is that the Bill could convert a woman's decision to have an abortion into a right to demand that abortion. I have never thought that this Bill could be strained to bear an interpretation which would permit such a manipulation of its terms to achieve that end, an end which was never intended by those who promoted and drafted this Bill. I believe that no further clause was strictly needed to make that clear, but in deference to a certain amount of, at times, hysterical public pressure a clause has been drafted which I believe more than adequately achieves that end. The clause dealing with goods, services and facilities states: Nothing in the section applies to or in respect of the provision of services the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to members of one sex . I think that makes it very clear that, in relation to the provision of medical services which are specific to the persons of one sex, the Bill has no application whatsoever. That would include not only an abortion but also sterilisation procedures. The refusal of such a service cannot form the basis of a complaint under the Act. Other laws of States or Territories deal with such matters. Of course, the new clause is declaratory and utterly in line with the general policy of the Bill, which is concerned with discriminatory practices and is not concerned to confer rights peculiar to the one sex. That would be quite alien to the Bill. I have had conversations with many of those who originally were aroused to have fears and misgivings about this proposal. I think it would be fair to say that most of the reasonable ones amongst them have been satisfied. Certainly Mrs Tighe, of the Right To Life Association, who is a terrier around these corridors, as honourable senators will know, has indicated to me that she and her legal advisers are satisfied that this declaratory clause sets out the true position under the Bill. I only regret that some genuine and very sincere people have had their concerns about abortion in Australian society, and indeed its impact on the women who are subject to them, manipulated and fanned by those who are seeking their own political aggrandisement. For that reason I think I can assert that this clause, which may be open to some modification at the Committee stage, is designed to and does achieve that declaration of what the Bill is all about. The Bill has nothing to do with conferring any right to abortion or sterilisation. If people were really concerned about how some work practices, for example, can effect women who are pregnant, perhaps they ought to have taken a more positive line; their voices would have been so much more easily listened to. In relation to that matter, for example, one can find some very interesting provisions in the United States of America. For example, the American Federation of Labor/ Congress of Industrial Organizations-that is the equivalent of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-provides the following recommendation: When a woman is pregnant the health hazards to which she is exposed are a threat to her child as well as to herself. Toxic substances that enter her bloodstream are transmitted to the foetus . . . She must avoid even small exposures to toxic substances . . . And, most importantly, she must have a clause in her contract-- her contract of work- that protects her right to transfer to a safer part of the plant without loss of pay or seniority for the duration of the pregnancy . . . The Contract should also require the labelling of substances known to be . . . abortifacients. No woman should ever have to choose between her job security and her baby's health. Perhaps if we had heard something more positive from some of the more hysterical quarters along those lines, as I say, we would have found dealing with them a much better experience than it was. In any case, I assert that their fears are allayed. Finally, as to the argument that educational institutions ought not be required to tolerate on their premises or have in their midst those whose activities or even gender are not in accordance with the ethos or values which the institution is attempting to instil in its pupils, I believe that there were very real difficulties in assenting to this argument. After all, the Bill is part of a recognition that we, as elected representatives of the people, wish to eliminate practices in our society which deny fulfilment in employment or educational opportunities to any person within Australia on the grounds of their sex, marital status or pregnancy. It is hard to see why enclaves of resistence to this concept should be tolerated, particularly when these institutions are forming the outlook and values of the coming generations of adult Australians who will be responsible for the upbringing of their children, we hope in a society not dominated or determined by expectations of men and women which may limit their chances of reaching human fulfilment. However, certain concessions, once again, have been made. I support the Government insofar as those concessions have been made. Very broadly speaking, in relation to educational institutions-- Senator Chipp —Do you support the permanency of the exemptions? Senator TATE —I do if I can explain how I understand the exemptions. In this sense, what is provided in relation to educational institutions, is that they can discriminate on the grounds of marital status, pregnancy or sex, in relation to a particular teacher, say, where the discrimination is in accordance with the doctrines of the religion or creed and the discrimination occurs in good faith. In other words, it is not enough for the school to say: 'Extra-marital pregnancy or a de facto marriage is outside the scope of sexual relations as approved by our particular ethical code or religious tenets or creed'. That would not be enough to render the sacking of the teacher lawful. What has to be shown is that the discrimination itself on those grounds is required by the tenets of the religion or creed; that is, the conduct itself is not enough to trigger the making lawful of what would otherwise be discriminatory practices. The discrimination itself has to flow from the ethos, the creed, the values, of that particular educational institution. Looking at it in that light, the whole bundle of values which say a Christian school is trying to instil in its pupils has to lead to the conclusion that discrimination leading to a deprivation of livelihood of the teacher is required . It would not be enough to say that an extra-marital pregnancy or a de facto relationship is against the tenets of the religion. Senator Chipp —Homosexuality could be a disqualification. Senator TATE —That has nothing to do with this Bill. The Bill does not deal with sexual preference. In other words, one has to take into account that whole bundle of values of the religion, creed or, as Senator Durack pointed out, humanist values which might be the ethos behind the founding and the conduct of the school. When we do that, we have to take into account matters such as tolerance and some sort of compassion towards those engaging in that sort of activity, even if the activity itself is not condoned. I say that if indeed those educational institutions of learning are trying to transform and enhance the lives of their pupils by instilling certain values in them, they should see this as an opportunity to expose their pupils to that wider bundle of values, including compassion and tolerance, and there should not be merely an automatic reaction to the transgressing of some sexual ethic. Senator Grimes —Tolerance is not a great virtue in some schools. Senator TATE —I believe that Senator Ryan received certain undertakings, for example, from the Victorian Catholic Education Commission that the pregnancy of a school teacher would not be a cause for dismissal and, in fact, the normal practice was to grant leave of absence. That, of course, is the humane and tolerant thing to do. However, to summarise on that point, it is simply not good enough to show some transgression of a moral law within the religion or creed concerned. Discrimination must also be demanded by the whole bundle of beliefs, the whole body and ethos and tenets of the religion. That ought to be harder to establish than may have been thought. I support the Bill. It marks a most important point in our maturing as a society. It fulfils in a commendable way our international undertakings. It is jurisprudentially sound in that it makes unlawful only certain defined practices . It does not fasten on to frames of mind or attitudes. It does fasten on to, and render unlawful, activities which are either clearly discriminatory or of the nature of sexual harassment. It largely depends on conciliation and orders to redress wrongs suffered rather than the creation of criminal offences. In these ways I believe that in ridding ourselves of discriminatory practices and activities we will create a situation in which frames of mind and expectations will change such that we all, men and women in Australia, will live more humanly fulfilling lives. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.38) —It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today and support what I believe is a long overdue and very necessary piece of legislation. Indeed, if I have any complaints at all about this Bill they are along the lines that it does not go far enough. The aim of this Bill is to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women. Indeed, I hope it goes beyond that. I hope that it also promotes an acceptance within the community of the practice of equality of men and women. Many people have written to me alleging that they are Christians. They have argued very vehemently that the Bible in fact says that men and women are not equal, that women should remain in submission to and be disciplined by men and should in no way compete with a man. I would refer them only to St Paul's epistle to the Galatians. St Paul, who was probably history's greatest misogynist, refers-I think in verses 26 to 29, although this depends on one's version of the Bible-to the need for men and women to be treated as equals under the law. The Government, in an attempt to achieve these very worthwhile goals, has introduced legislation which aims to eliminate as far as possible-of course, as I think Senator Durack pointed out, we are not going to rid ourselves totally of the biases of some of the bigots in society-discrimination against persons on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. Inevitably, there has been an outcry as well as a lot of applause following the introduction of this Bill. Some of the outcry has consisted of deliberate emotional fear-raising and misrepresentation. Some of it has been genuine but misguided concern. I would like at this point to remind honourable senators and listeners to the debate that very similar emotional arguments were raised over three other legal movements that have taken place in the last 100 years in relation to establishing something like equal opportunities for women. The first of those related to the Married Womens Property Act in 1883 which, of course, was met with ferocious opposition from a lot of men. Until 1883 a women who married and brought into her marriage property was forced to hand over all the property to her husband. She had neither ownership nor oversight of it. If she earned money, the money became his and, in the case of a divorce, he retained the property she had brought with her and anything she had earned between the marriage and the divorce. When the British Parliament acted to end this appalling situation, there were outcries of how it would break up marriages , bring on nervous breakdowns-presumably in the male; it was never made particularly clear who was to suffer the nervous breakdown-and, for some obscure reason, cause infertility, presumably as a result of the breakdown of the marriage. The second major struggle that was undertaken in Britain and in other Western countries was one to allow women access to equal education, which was at that stage the norm for men and boys. Some medical practitioners, outraged at the thought of this, protested that if women had access to education which included a study of the sciences, maths and so on-subjects other than just needlework and literature-it would inhibit lactation, cause atrophy of the uterus, produce infertility and bring on nervous breakdowns. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened-I am sure that the young ladies up in the gallery could indicate whether at the end of a maths lesson or a science lesson they have ever felt particularly infertile or likely to have a nervous breakdown. Their teachers may well have felt likely to have such a breakdown, but I am not sure the girls themselves have. The next major move for equality for women in the Western world related to the right to vote and the right to be elected to parliament. Again, it was argued that women would not want it and that the time was not right. That argument is always a good one. It was argued that in any case women did not understand politics and that such a move would cause dissension in the home and break up marriages, presumably on the grounds that a women might dare not only to vote differently from her husband, but also to indicate to him, somewhat unwisely, that she was planning to vote differently from him. It seems to me that the sometimes hysterical complaints about this piece of legislation relate to equally improbable events, although so far I have not heard that this Sex Discrimination Bill will inhibit lactation or cause infertility. I have, however, heard that it will break up marriages for the reason, presumably, that it will end the domination in some cases of the husband over the wife. That is something, apparently, that he will not be able to handle . The Institute of Public Affairs in New South Wales has put out a multi-page pamphlet in which it expresses, through Dr Clair Isbister, some of its concerns about the legislation. For instance, it states: The basic philosophy of this Bill is to remove as far as possible all differences between men and women- I am not quite sure what the Institute means by 'all differences'. I am not sure whether it is referring to physical differences or just to psychological ones, or whether it is talking about education and employment differences. I cannot see how it can possibly end all differences between men and women. Despite the Freudian remarks about assertive women, that they suffer only from penis envy, I have yet to meet a woman who suffers from that, or who has any particular desire to acquire that section of the male anatomy. The document says that the Bill intends to 'remove the stereotype of man being the primary bread-winner and woman the primary care-giver for children and homemaker'. It does not, though, remove the right of a man to be the primary bread-winner and a woman the primary care-giver if that is what they choose. It does, however, allow the situation in which the woman is not forced to be the caregiver and the man to be the breadwinner if they choose, and in that regard it is something devoutly to be wished. The pamphlet then goes on to say: The individual replaces the family as the basic unit of society and, to ensure unisex equality- whatever that is- it removes pregnancy as any disadvantage to employment, quite regardless of the welfare of the child. All I can say is that I managed successfully, with no damage either to myself or my two offspring, to carry my two daughters through almost the full stages of my pregnancy while I was working. I was fortunate enough to be employed in a private institution which allowed me to take the babies with me when I went back to work. Again, no-one, not I, they or the people I was teaching at the time, suffered in any way at all that I am aware of. Certainly my children are a darned sight better balanced than the children I know of some families in which the mother has stayed at home and taken on the traditional role of primary caregiver and the husband has gone out and done his breadwinning bit. The document continues: It also requires the provision of extensive child minding from a very early age , usually at government expense to allow women in the work force to further their own desires regardless of the family needs. Providing the children are being well looked after and fed, as they usually are in well organised child care centres, and providing everybody at home eats well, I can see no particular harm in that. Of course, if her husband does not like it he can always stay home and look after the children. There should not be any imposition on making it only the woman's role to stay at home. It goes on to say : Family men and women are protesting that this Bill favours women in the work force and discourages women from taking time off paid employment to rear their children. If it does, it is only because of a long-standing tradition in Australia, and in other countries as well, which gives no credit at all for the talents required to run a home and to bring up children. If the accounting, budgeting and personnel management skills and talents that a woman requires on the home front were taken into account when she went back to get a job then perhaps she would not feel discouraged from taking time off paid employment to rear their children . Finally, the document asserts: Many consider that paid maternity leave in the public service has been abused. It disorganises schools, hospitals and many employers find it difficult to make allowances for the problems of employing pregnant women. I wonder why this is any different from the problems for those organisations when they employ men who are entitled to, and about to take, paid long service leave or sabbatical leave. They are both usually confined to men and yet schools , hospitals and many employers do not seem to find it difficult to make allowances for the problems raised by sometimes six months paid long service leave or a twelve-month sabbatical. This Bill in effect is not going to do a lot of the things that some people have asserted that it will do. It will not put us in the hands of communist countries. It will not make Australia the same as those communist countries which have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I point out that although, as is frequently stated, the United States of America and Great Britain have not ratified this Convention, both have signed it, indicating that they intend to ratify it. Canada has ratified the Convention. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no indication of unisexism rearing its ugly head in Canada. It is said that sex stereotypes in books, advertising and so on will be banned. All I can say to that is that rather than complaining about it I am cheering it on. I see no reason at all why children should be brought up from the cradle to believe that women are less intelligent, less capable and less effective members of society than men, with a narrower range of roles and a dim, docile and dependent nature which suits them only for cooking, cleaning and rearing children. I happen to have a much higher regard for my sex than a lot of men apparently do. This brings me to raise the question why, if so many men say 'We have a tremendously high regard for women; we clearly love our wives and respect them in their role as home makers, child nurturers', and so on, and extol the virtues of the home maker-if home care and child rearing is so important; it has such high status in the community-men entrust it to a species which they so clearly feel does not have the capacity to administer laws, run a business, take on the spiritual welfare of Christians or generally to participate in the development and running of society. Indeed, I wonder why, if home making has such a high status, a lot more men do not undertake it. I believe that, only when parenting is shown as one option for both men and women with other options also being depicted in the books, newspapers and role models that our children are shown from a very young age, will our children truly have the equal opportunity and the right to choose their employment options. Only then will society itself benefit not only from the talents and qualities of men but also from the talents and qualities which women can bring through their intellect and ability to society as a whole. The Sex Discrimination Bill which is before us today is not, as some people assert, about wrenching babies from the breasts of their mothers and shoving them in some impersonal government funded child minding centre while the woman is forced, more or less at gunpoint, whether she likes it or not, to go out into the work force. What it is about is acknowledging both the rights and the need of many women to work in the paid work force and the necessity to provide appropriate high standard child care facilities to enable them to do that. This Bill is not about giving a woman a job regardless of talent because of her sex and depriving a better qualified man of a job. At this stage, I refer back to the New South Wales Institute of Public Affairs document which states: The Bill does nothing to help unemployment and may well make it worse as male breadwinners lose their jobs to more highly qualified women. I would have thought, first of all, that it was in the interests of business and the development of society generally to make sure that the most highly qualified person available got the job. Secondly, I wonder whether the extension of this is not to say that a male breadwinner should not lose his job to a more highly qualified single man or a man who has no dependent children. What the Bill is in fact about is ending a practice, which is all too prevalent in Australia at the moment, of giving a man a job in preference to a woman regardless of the qualifications of either of them and generally coming down purely and simply on the side of his sex. Nor, I might add, is this Bill about a quota system. It is not attemping to force on either the public sector or the private sector a situation in which it has to employ 50 per cent of women or the Government will take away its industry assistance or the other grants it receives. What it is about is ending discriminatory practices which preclude women from having ever equal access to some jobs in the paid work force. Nor, as I have already said, is the Bill aimed at breaking up family life as we know it, or rather family life as some 25 per cent of the population knows it. It is not designed either to denigrate marriage or to denigrate either men or women who choose to devote their lives to the home making, child caring role. It is designed to give those women who want it or those women who have no option but to choose it the right and opportunity to achieve personal and financial independence. The Bill does not, of course, aim to produce a uni-sex population but to give to both sexes the right to develop their talents for the betterment of society and according to the qualities that they have as persons, with no denigration and no criticism from society regardless of what their choice is. It might, therefore, mean that women will no longer be seen as child-bearing drudges only and that both parents will look to sharing the responsibility for rearing children. Above all, I suggest that the Bill acknowledges that women are born with both a brain and a womb. Anybody who thinks about the matter at all will be aware that our brains remain productive and creative for a darn sight longer than our wombs do. Therefore, when one looks at the role of woman in society one ought to pay equal attention to the role of her mind and the role of her uterus. As I said in opening my speech, I feel that the Bill does not go far enough. It fails to do a number of things that supporters of the elimination of discrimination against women would like it to do. It does not, for instance, end discriminatory practices against women in the private sector. Indeed, even had Senator Ryan included her affirmative action section, it would not have done that since all that section required the private sector to do was to examine its employment practices to see whether it was wittingly or unwittingly indulging in discriminatory practices. Neither, for all that it has a very large sexual harassment sector, does it eliminate the hostile working environment for women, nor the sometimes subtle sexual harassment by colleagues, things which are just as likely to affect a woman's job opportunities at a particular site as harassment from an immediate employer. I hope that, perhaps, it will finish up ending the perpetration of the view, which is very prevalent in society still, that a woman's place is in the home unless she is some sort of oddity. At the very least I hope it will have some sort of propaganda value in that regard. I would like to refer to the document which Senator Gareth Evans introduced into the Senate last night. It is a discussion paper on the 52 amendments that the Government has introduced either for drafting reasons of its own, for policy reasons of its own or in response to the amendments that were foreshadowed both by the Liberal Opposition and by me on behalf of the Australian Democrats. On page 3 of that document the Government indicates that it has made an amendment relating to exemptions for educational institutions. Senator Evans's paper states: The Government amendment will provide a further exemption where education at the level at which the applicant is seeking education is provided only or mainly for students of the opposite sex. This is intended to cover situations where, for example, schools are primarily single sex but operate on a co-educational basis at some level. I sympathise with the Government's intention there. There are a number of schools which are co-educational at the primary level but not at the secondary level and which wish to remain so. I am concerned, though, at a problem which I have raised with both Senator Ryan and the Attorney-General's Department that this may have some unlooked-for consequences at tertiary education level where, for instance, a particular university faculty may use this to deny women the opportunity to study, say, engineering because at that level the subject is mainly undertaken by men. I was pleased that the Government picked up some of our concerns under the sexual harassment provisions and tightened them up. The Government indicates that its amendments to the section of sport should accommodate some of the concerns raised by the Australian Democrats, but I am not exactly sure whether they in fact achieve that end. The Government will move an amendment to limit the exemption in relation to sport by providing that persons of either sex can be excluded from any competitive sporting activity where the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant. The Government does say that it is of the view that this would encompass an amendment that I suggest-that sporting teams in which the participants were under the age of 12 should not be able to exclude one sex or another. It seems to me that that is very important since it is fairly well known that attitudes to role stereotypes are developed frequently at the primary school level and that at the same time it is at that very stage that girls are likely to be stronger, faster, smarter, and so on, than boys and that if they are entitled to engaged in sporting competition it will make it even easier to dispel the myths that surround women at post-puberty levels that they cannot engage in competitive sport against men. Certainly the amendment relating to clubs picks up our concern about the rights of both men and women to have access to the various memberships, at golf clubs in particular. It seems to me that there are many men who would be quite prepared to give up their right to play golf on Saturday mornings if they could become associates and pay a bit less. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of hysterical outbursts against the legislation are coming in fact from two vested interest groups. The first of those groups consists entirely of men who, with considerable justification, feel threatened; who can see the end of that nice comfortable existence they have always led and come to depend on; and who realise that when women can compete with them on an equal footing they themselves are likely to be found deficient. The second group of complaints tends to be coming from women in a very privileged position; women who have husbands of some considerable wealth; who enjoy manipulating their menfolk, who see the power behind the throne system as being the one that best suits them; who are in fact able to take advantage of their situation and can wield this behind the scenes power to their advantage and, at the same time, lead a nice comfortable and, I suggest with some respect, often parasitic existence in the home. There is no question, either, that double standards have been the single biggest barrier against equal opportunity for the development of women. These double standards have ranged from the sexual to the occupational, from the domestic to the economic. It cannot be allowed to continue. I suggest that slavery is slavery, whether it takes place on a cotton plantation or on a pedestal. Until women have the right to be independent financially as well as personally, until we have the right to be seen as whole individuals, until we are entitled and not just allowed to make our own decisions regarding our destiny, whether those decisions would see us as a home maker or a law maker or anything else, until the stage where women who want to be people are entitled to be people is reached, I suggest there will be no such thing as equality for women in Australia. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.06) —I situate this debate in its context by saying first of all that the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 emerges as a result of an international treaty ratified by the Government of Australia. That treaty, of course, is the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Senator Hill —That is the basis of it. Senator HARRADINE —That is, in fact, the basis of it. This Bill indicates that its objective inter alia is to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Of course, much of the campaign over the early part of this year asking parliamentarians not to vote for the ratification of the treaty was misguided because at present Parliament does not have any power over the ratification or signing of a treaty. One of the causes of the confusion has been that very fact and the fact that the Government has not detailed to the Parliament its interpretation of the many articles of that Convention. Naturally, there was a good reason for concern amongst the community, because for as many people who have looked at the articles of the Convention there are almost as many interpretations. I believe that that is a failing of the Government. The Government should have placed before the Parliament its interpretation of the articles in the Convention. No doubt, because the Government has signed the Convention, it has a detailed interpretation of the articles of the Convention on file. I give notice to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) that when we come to debate the Schedule of the Bill I will be asking her, article by article, for the interpretation that the Government places on each one of those articles before I am prepared to vote for this measure because the Convention is, in fact, part of the Schedule to the Act and the object of the Act is to implement certain provisions of the Convention. I will show later why it is most important that we have that interpretation. If we do not have the interpretation of the Convention placed in the Bill, the measures in the Bill will be interpreted by a non-elected, non-judicial sex discrimination commissioner. I believe that I have a right, as an elected representative in this Parliament, to know what I am voting for before I vote for it and should not have to leave the interpretation of this measure to some non-elected, non-judicial sex discrimination commissioner whose qualification for the job presumably will be a long track record of radical feminism. Senator Chipp —The Minister's interpretation would have no legal standing. Senator HARRADINE —If we look at court judgments we see that that could well be, because the Minister's second reading speech and explanatory memoranda of legislation are taken into account by judges in determining cases relating to legislation. I believe that ministerial replies at the Committee stage are now more frequently taken into account. That is one of the problems with which we are faced. That is one of the reasons I have foreshadowed the introduction of legislation to ensure that, prior to a government acceding to, signing or ratifying treaties, those treaties-apart from secret treaties-are laid before both Houses of Parliament and receive the endorsement of both Houses of Parliament. Prior to the ratification by the Government of the international treaty-the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women- requests were made for the Government to make reservations to some articles of the treaty. The Government did make a few reservations, but not many. A number of people, including myself, suggested that some of the articles were capable of quite radically different interpretations. Indeed, a group of women, namely the Women's Action Alliance, in the 1980s requested the Government to consider appropriate reservations which I believe would have eliminated many of the problems parliamentarians and the Government have faced over this issue. This Bill is to be discussed in that context. The Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 is a clumsy and to my mind an inexact and unimaginative attempt to give effect to certain provisions of the United Nations treaty. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the Bill contains provisions which are inconsistent with principles of justice and equality. It gives me no pleasure to say that, because I certainly have a vested interest-I declare it now-in the equality of women, because there happen to be seven women in the household in which I live. Women as defined in this Bill are females of any age. Furthermore, I suppose that of the people in this chamber I am the only one to have had experience in establishing sex discrimination committees. Senator Giles —No, you are not. I chaired the Western Australian committee. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry. I acknowledge that. I supported the establishment of and served on, those committees. Senator Tate —That proves that you do not have to be a radical feminist to get a guernsey on those committees. Senator HARRADINE —Of course not. I was fighting for the rights of women before the radical feminists entered the argument. Let me tell honourable senators what the radical feminists and the pro-communist Left did in 1969 at the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress. They supported an amendment to the equal pay amendment which was recommended by us on the ACTU Executive. The ACTU Executive recommended to the Congress that we fight for the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. The radical feminists at that Congress, supported by the pro-communist left, tried to amend that to the principle of equal pay for equal work. That is significant because it shows what they think about the differences between men and women. Fortunately, we in the ACTU Executive won the day-only narrowly, but we won-so that women do not have to be virtual hermaphrodites to get equal pay. I took one of the first equal pay test cases in Australia and won it. It gives me no pleasure to say what I just said about the fact that this Bill is, in my view, an inexact and unimaginative attempt to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, imperfect though that is, and that it contains provisons inconsistent with the principles of justice and equality. I also assert, because I know it is a fact, that some of the provisions of the legislation even misinterpret the United Nations Convention. Let me give honourable senators an example. One of the objects of the Bill is to eliminate discrimination against persons on the grounds of marital status in a number of areas, including education and accommodation. The Bill defines marital status to include a de facto relationship. Let us suppose that a married teacher entered into a de facto relationship with a senior student in a school and that it was a matter of public scandal within the school community. Let us suppose that the principal, the other teachers and the parents insisted on their rights to preserve a school environment conducive to the development, including the moral development, of the children. Under the legislation that is now before us, the principal and the parents would be discriminators and liable to action and damages. Senator Chipp —If they sacked the teacher. Senator HARRADINE —If they did something about the matter and insisted on a policy. In order not to be discriminatory on that ground, what the Government now says in clause 31A is that, first of all, the discriminator, namely the principal, has to admit that he has discriminated, has to prove that he has done it in good faith and that the act of discrimination is in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed under which the educational institution has been established. That imposes farcical and totally unreasonable tests on the rights of parents to insist that schools provide an environment conducive to the moral development of their children. I defy anybody here to say that Catholic schools are established for the provision of education or training in accordance with the doctrine of a religion or creed. That is absolute nonsense. Also, it will give the DOGS a real field day. It will put the meat on their bone if these farcical and unreasonable tests are required by a non-elected, non-judicial sex discrimination commissioner. In addition, I will ask the Minister on what constitutional grounds 'marital status' is defined to include the term 'de facto spouse of another person'. Does anybody know under what constitutional grounds that phrase appears in the Bill? If the Minister says that it is there under the external affairs power, he should have another think about it. In 1977 I happened to be at the United Nations as the political adviser from this Parliament. At that stage the draft of the Convention was being considered. The draft at that time mentioned discrimination against women whether married or unmarried. Then in the third session someone on the drafting committee came along and said: 'Well, what about divorcees and separated wives?' The words ' married and unmarried' were changed to 'marital status'. No mention at all was made of de factos. The Government had better have another think about the grounds on which it defined the term 'marital status', unless it is going to rely on the marriage power, which would be most extraordinary in the extreme. I will leave that matter, because there are plenty more things I want to say about it at the Committee stage. I am probably carrying on a Committee stage debate now. The Government has 52 amendments to this legislation. The Government's amendments to this Bill will not enable me as a parliamentarian with a desire to honour a genuine commitment to both sex discrimination legislation and the preservation of pro-life values to vote for this Bill. I invite the Government to give due consideration to that factor. I invite the Government to declare that its amended Bill cannot and will not be used to widen the scope for deliberately procured abortions. We heard Senator Tate talk about this matter. I invite him and all other honourable senators to read and examine thoroughly the legal advice which has been circulated by Mr Smith from the New South Wales Right to Life Association. If they do not have a copy, I will table the document after my speech. It is clear indeed from the document and from the responses of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) that that position is arguable. Given the fact, as has been genuinely stated by Senator Tate and inferred by Senator Gareth Evans, that this Bill is not meant to play into the hands of the pro- abortionists, I invite them to consider applying it to the Bill as a whole. Unless they do so, certainly clause 24 of the Bill will have quite devastating effects, for example, on hospitals governed by the Capital Territory Health Commission. This would also affect nurses and doctors in public hospitals who have conscientious objections to performing certain operations. Senator Tate —I will have a look at the wording if you concede the good faith of the Government in this matter. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you. I do. I accept that. In addition, I believe that at the Committee stage we have to have a good look at a number of other sections in the Bill. I feel we must not involve schools in endless, damaging litigation and put the rights of parents to unreasonable and farcical tests. I turn to another aspect of this matter. I am concerned about the fact that the interpretation of the legislation could be left in the hands of a sex discrimination commissioner-a non-elected, non-judicial person. In respect of the matter about which I have just spoken, I invite Senator Tate, the Attorney- General and others to examine Articles 12, 14 and 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which is attached to the Bill and see what sort of a field day a pro-abortionist would have if one were nominated to that position. Whilst talking about matters relating to complaints laid before the Sex Discrimination Commissioner I mention that the provisions of the Bill create an undue burden of proof. When matters are taken before the Sex Discrimination Commissioner there are certain findings of fact. When I have raised this matter before people have said: 'You have a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia'. There are two problems in that. One of the problems is in the Bill itself; that is, when the matter, as I understand it, goes to the Federal Court the onus of proof rests with the alleged discriminator. That person has to prove that those findings of fact are not correct. Senator Durack —Quite right. Senator HARRADINE —This reverses the onus of proof; that is right. I note the interjection of the former Attorney-General indicating that that is correct. There is the added problem-particularly now that the Government is seeking to move amendments to the effect that the inquiries by the Human Rights Commission or its delegate are to be in public-of the right of an alleged discriminator not to incriminate himself or herself. Surely this is a matter that must be of concern to civil libertarians in this chamber. I have not had a chance as yet to look at the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Maybe that Committee has made some comment about that. Honourable senators must be aware of the fact that this legislation is only part of what may be coming down the track. Yesterday I read in the Press that the Green Paper to be delivered by the Government on affirmative action has been delayed yet again. We had been given to understand by the Government that we would have that Green Paper some time in September this year. It presumably exists, but I have not seen it and it has not been tabled in Parliament. Presumably it has been prepared. Why does the Government not table the document so that we know what is around the corner and so that we do not buy a pig in a poke? Why hide the thing under the table and get the Parliament to pass this legislation without knowing the full ramifications of it and of what is coming down the track? I challenge the Government to be open about it. It has been prepared. The Government should come out into the open and give us its views on affirmative action because, if those views are simply to pander to the tastes of an elitist group, I believe we ought to know that now. If those views on affirmative action would force, through economic pressure, those mothers who desire to do what they see their most important job in life into the paid work force where no jobs are available, then let us hear them now. This piece of legislation will not create one job. Yes, it will. It will create the job of sex discrimination commissioner and an army of bureaucrats. But it will not do anything for the 23 per cent of young girls now out of work. The figure for boys , I think, is 22.9 per cent. We are facing, in addition to that 23 per cent, those who will be thrown on the scrapheap after they leave school. As a parent my main concern and that of anybody listening to this debate is about jobs for girls. I am concerned about jobs for my family, but this legislation will not create them. In fact, if the affirmative action which I understand is proposed, including the proposals to have economic pressure- Senator Giles —This is a piece of human rights legislation, not job creation. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Giles is on record as being against the spouse rebate . Senator Giles —That is right. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, Senator Giles says that is right. What will that do? Senator Giles admits she is against the spouse rebate. She wants to take 16 bucks a week from some workers in Australia and force the spouses of workers into the paid work force. That is why I want to see what is coming down the track. That is why I want to see the affirmative action proposals laid before this Parliament before this legislation is passed. To be concerned about people losing 16 bucks a week is not hysterical nonsense. It is not hysterical nonsense to be concerned for a mother who has raised a family and who has done a very good job in the community being forced into the paid work force. There are many voluntary agencies who welcome her assistance. Let us not have from Senator Ryan 's office false interpretations of matters I have attempted to deal with in a logical and reasonable way, because when we come to deal with exemptions under this legislation we must ensure that they are correct and will cover the situation. As Senator Tate will know, the effect of the Acts Interpretation Act when applied to the objects of the legislation-namely, to eliminate so far as possible discrimination against a person on the ground of sex, et cetera-is that discrimination will be interpreted in the widest possible manner and exemptions will be interpreted in the narrowest possible manner. Let us not forget that point when we talk about amendments to this legislation. An article in the Canberra Times of 7 October, dealing with the circulation of a paper by the New South Wales Right to Life Association, states: Senator Ryan's spokeswoman said last night that the arguments were not considered plausible by lawyers in the Attorney-General's Department. I contacted the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department, and he wrote me a letter on 18 October which states: You asked me by phone who were the lawyers in the Attorney-General's Department who, according to the Canberra Times of 7 October, did not consider the arguments in the New South Wales Right to Life paper to be plausible. I have ascertained that, at the time of the Canberra Times report, there had been no consideration by any officer of this Department of the New South Wales Right to Life paper and no views were expressed about it by them. I ask that sensible consideration be given to matters by the Attorney-General's Department. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(11.36) —The Sex Discrimination Bill is a very significant step towards Australia becoming a more just and equitable society. For a long time Australians have been discriminated against in a number of ways and on a number of grounds, but I think that in 1983 the most common ground of discrimination is that of sex. Surely in a country which regards itself as fair and democratic we can no longer condone practices which penalise or reward on grounds other than the capacity to do a required task, whether it be work, study , or paying off a loan. Some of the discrimination prohibited by this Bill may seem minor or unimportant to those who are not affected. Not all of us, for example, want to join a licensed club, but business deals are often settled in them, and a businesswoman is denied the opportunity to take part in that type of business if she is denied membership. Other areas of discrimination, though, have a major effect on the lives of those who suffer from that discrimination- for example, hiring for employment-and therefore also indirectly affect the lives of others such as their children. It needs to be emphasised that this is a Bill to deal with discrimination against either sex. The debate in the community has been mainly about women, but the Bill also prohibits discrimination against men. Its provisions apply to both sexes. Although only women can become pregnant, the effects of discrimination on the ground of pregnancy may disadvantage men as well; for example, if a woman is the partial or total breadwinner for the family. So much emphasis in the public debate has been put on the status of women that I should like to give three examples of discrimination against men which can be redressed under this legislation. At present many men are denied jobs which are traditionally regarded as female, such as those of secretary or pre-school teacher. I have had letters claiming that employers should keep the right to hire an attractive female secretary. Is that not discrimination against men? At present a man may be denied promotion on the ground of marital status. Many executive positions are reserved for married men who are thought, perhaps erroneously, to be more stable employment prospects and whose wives can do the company entertaining usually free of charge. Men are also frequently discriminated against as tenants. Landlords and landladies apparently believe that women are better at maintaining properties. Notwithstanding what I have said, women certainly have more to gain from this legislation than men. Senator Harradine —I would be interested to know what constitutional ground the latter would be. Senator ZAKHAROV —I do not have time to go into that matter now. It is in the legislation. The most important area of discrimination against women is in employment. The Women's Bureau of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has published figures on women at work for 1983. These show that for every year since 1966 female rates of unemployment have been higher than male. In August 1982, 7.4 per cent of females were unemployed compared with 6.3 per cent of males. The average time unemployed was also considerably longer for females. In part time employment, females far outnumber males. Part time positions are often inferior in conditions, pay rates and certainly in promotional opportunities. Some women certainly prefer to work part time-this fits in with their family arrangements-but many more do so simply because they cannot get full time work. The Women's Bureau paper, to which I have referred, shows that among those classified as discouraged workers-the people who have given up trying although they still do want work-87.6 per cent were female. So women are disadvantaged in the area of work. Some of the reasons lie in the area of education. I will come to that later. Other reasons lie at the point of hiring and in lack of opportunity for promotion. Over the years the barriers to employment have been slowly and painfully lowered for women. But they still find it very difficult to enter occupations which are traditionally the preserve of males. The traditionally female jobs are often the hardest hit by technological change; the most glaring example is what has happened to the copy typist in recent years. Females find it very hard to enter most of the skilled trades. In June 1982 females totalled only 6 per cent of all apprentices and most of those apprentices were learning hairdressing. Only 1.3 per cent of the 6 per cent were electrical apprentices and 0.2 of a per cent were vehicle trade apprentices. In February 1982, the unemployment rate for females with post-school qualifications-those who had finished school and gone on to something further- was nearly three times that of males with the same qualifications. Women are also discriminated against in promotion. Women are under-represented at the higher levels of most professions, such as the Australian Public Service, banking and the law. Female teachers far outnumber male teachers but there are very few female principals and even fewer female professors. There are reasons, other than discrimination, accounting for part of the variance, such as different parental expectations for their children and the effect that that has on school retention rates. But discrimination is rife in both hiring and promotion. It is not always even conscious on the part of the employer. One of the shocks I have had delivered in letters I have received on this Bill is that some people, usually male, genuinely believe that women are inherently or, as sometimes stated, by God's will, to be less intelligent, strong, persistent, logical and committed. I can name any of those desirable characteristics for an employee and I will find it in the letters there. In this case, discriminatory behaviour is not perceived, as such, by the person who is discriminating. Even when it is conscious it is often covert. For example, the sort of thing that happens is that the applicants with female names just do not get interviews. Related to the provisions of the Bill covering employment is the provision concerning advertising which, among other things, prohibits the publication of advertisements indicating an intention to practise discrimination; the sort of advertisement which specifies a male or a female. It comes as a shock to young women seeking employment that they are debarred from jobs still anachronistically tagged for males. It does not do much for their self esteem if they are trained for a job, and have perhaps done better than the males in the training course, to find that the job is mainly reserved for the opposite sex. When women are not seen to be employed in a particular career it has an effect back in the schools. That job is not perceived as being available to females, so subject choices are not geared in that direction. My own State has, for some years, prohibited advertising for sex tagged positions such as Girl Fridays. Honourable senators should just think of the connotations of that job description. Yet I do not think anyone has noticed a unisex society developing in Victoria as some critics predicted. The Bill also prohibits discrimination in services relating to banking, insurance and the provision of grants, loans or credit. Women often have to battle for the right to simple things such as charge accounts and minor loans. A female friend of mine recently inquired about a loan to buy a secondhand car. She was asked not only about her marital status but also whether she intended to become pregnant and, if so, when-this to buy a secondhand car. She bought her car elsewhere. This Bill aims to prevent that sort of discriminatory practice, which particularly affects single women seeking housing loans. The other area of discrimination to which I refer is that of education. This Government is committed to a policy of participation and equity in education, and this Bill will help us to implement that policy. There are still many schools at which students are discriminated against in their choice of subjects on the grounds of sex and again I refer to both sexes. Punishment is often handled in a discriminatory way. I believe that there are schools which exclude pregnant students. It is suspected that some tertiary courses include gender in their criteria for selecting students. Course advisers sometimes discourage girls from applying for traditional male courses, such as geology and surveying. This Bill will increase the range of educational opportunities available for females. A very important part of the Bill deals with sexual harassment in the work place or in educational institutions. Sexual harassment is defined as 'making an unwelcome sexual advance', 'a request for sexual favours' or 'engaging in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person'. It becomes discriminatory under the terms of the legislation when the person harassed has reasonable grounds for believing that refusal, rejection or objection to that behaviour would disadvantage him or her in respect of work or potential work or when that disadvantage actually occurs. There is confusion, I know, in some people's minds about the meaning of harassment. It refers only to unwelcome behaviour and usually to situations in which the harasser has some power over the harassed. Conduct of a sexual nature, as referred to in the Bill, includes oral or written statements such as messages left on typewriters or sexual remarks made about a person in their hearing as well as more obvious sorts of sexual conduct. A similar definition is given for sexual harassment in education covering disadvantage in admission to an educational institution or in study there. The most common example would probably be where the grade level given to a student is made dependent on sexual favours granted, commonly referred to among students as 'an A for a lay'. Many men seem to believe that sexual harassment is, at most, a minor or infrequent phenomenon. Males, of course, are certainly not immune from sexual harassment, but women are very aware of its prevalence. This Bill deals only with harassment which is discriminatory in hiring or promotion at work, in enrolment or assessment and education. In such situations sexual harassment is a form of blackmail-the use of power to obtain sexual gratification which, until recent years, was little talked about. State legislation against discrimination and the development of support systems among women have brought more of this behaviour under scrutiny, but legal procedures to deal with it have been lacking , in addition to the social constraints which keep such offences, as with sexual assault, largely hidden. The few cases which have received publicity have taken place at work. Successful or not, the penalties for women who are prepared to take their cases to court are great. I admire those brave enough to take this step. I suspect harassment is just as prevalent in education, particularly at senior secondary and tertiary level. There are academics, for example, against whom known complaints, let alone those unreported, run into double figures. To prohibit sexual harassment is to prohibit something which is anti-social and causes a great deal of stress and injustice. There are many exemptions from the provisions of this Bill-indeed, as has been referred to before, more than some of us would wish. I believe those exemptions now meet all reasonable objections. During community discussion on the Bill, as with discussion on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women with which it is linked, it has become clear that many of those voicing objections have not read or fully understood its provisions. Indeed, I would say from the handwriting on some of the petitions I have received that those signing are too young to be able either to read or to understand it. Perhaps because this Bill will help to break down many entrenched barriers to equality of the sexes it is being opposed so strongly, on such misinformed and sometimes malicious grounds, by a very vocal, well-organised minority. These people apparently wish to perpetuate a society in which people are excluded or handicapped in careers, education and recreation, et cetera, purely by accident of birth in that they happen to be born of one sex or the other. I would like to refer now to two of the false claims being circulated about the effects of this legislation, most of which were very adequately and well dealt with by Senator Haines earlier. This Bill is not anti-family. There is nothing in it to justify that label. Improved access to education should produce mothers better able to assist their children's development. Indeed, this Bill promotes the growth of the family as a more equitable grouping and thus a happier one by presenting a model in society which I hope will be followed in behaviour at home . I am sure we all know of marriages which have broken down because internal relationships have become insupportable for a partner who is treated as less than equal by the other partner. Nor will the Bill stop people having children. The removal of discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy may even encourage childbearing by removing the pressure in the work place not to become pregnant for fear of discrimination. The lessening of discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy will further delineate the separation of people's private from their public lives-surely a progressive step in any just and pluralistic society. I have been horrified to find that some opponents of this Bill believe, as did our forebears in less enlightened times, that the private lives of employees should be liable to scrutiny by employers. Clauses 45 and 61 to 64 relating to the treatment of complaints represent a very progressive step in Australian legal development as they allow representative complaints, a type of class action which is not currently available in the Australian judicial system. Such a procedure will enhance the principle of equality before the law by establishing the rights, or in this case redressing the complaints, of people who could not afford the time or money to take legal action as individuals. Allowing representative complaints could mean rapid change where a commissioner upholds a complaint because a large group of people could benefit from that decision at the one time and, therefore, achieve speedier quick redress; for example, a group of women denied promotion from low paid jobs or women students in a particular course. The power for a complaint to be lodged by someone other than the victim is very important because it will lessen the obvious risk taken by the complainant-the risk of future victimisation even if the initial battle is won. I welcome the education and research functions given to the Human Rights Commission. This has been very valuable in those States where similar legislation is in force. Commissioners are able to perform a valuable educative role with groups who might otherwise act in a discriminatory way, such as employers or teachers. More importantly, in speaking to groups of school students, community groups, unions and so on I have found that they are able to make victims or potential victims of discrimination aware of their rights. No legislation of this nature can be really effective if those it seeks to help are unaware of its existence. As similar legislation has done in some States, this Bill provides a relatively simple process for complaint. A simple and non- threatening complaint process is essential if the Bill is to be effective in preventing and redressing discrimination. In 1983 we should not tolerate the fact that Australia has any second class citizens. This Bill takes an historic step towards removing areas of discrimination between those who should be treated as equal. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.55) — The Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 has attracted vocal criticism. It is difficult to estimate the extent of the apparent disquiet because the volume of representations to honourable senators is not necessarily indicative of general community feeling. However, it is clear that there is a significant group of Australians who are deeply and genuinely concerned about the proposed legislation. Their worries demand careful consideration. Certain of those worries, such as the purpose of the Bill and the policy of anti-discrimination legislation, may be said to operate at a philosophical level. Another series of objections relate to the content of the Bill. They are questions about whether the principles of natural justice have been observed, the effect upon church and other private schools and whether the drafting has been such as to infringe upon what we are told are other non- intended policy areas such as abortion. In this speech I wish to refer to the Bill in principle. If it receives a second reading I wish to contribute to the subject of its content at the Committee stage because I believe it has very real deficiencies. Criticisms based on philosophy have tended to be as follows: That the legislation will undermine the family unit; that it will destroy the traditional concept of the family; that it will lessen the traditional respect accorded to women as homemakers; that it virtually consigns marriage to irrelevance; and that it will drive women who are totally satisfied with their role as wife and mother, sustainer and supporter, and upbringer of children to outside employment, against their wishes, and their children to creches. These are obviously serious and very emotive charges calling for answers. I have attempted to take cognisance of all representations. I have studied the Bill carefully, read the views of many commentators and tried to analyse the subject with an open mind. It is impossible to analyse Bills in a total vacuum. We all must have certain prejudices. We all must be influenced by our backgrounds, our education, our personal experiences and the experiences of our friends and acquaintances. I am on the record in this place as supporting the traditional family. I have expressed my concern at the degree of family and marital breakdown. I have looked at the factors causing family distress, particularly unemployment and financial difficulties, and have looked at ways in which we can support the family structure through such avenues as tax reform, support for marriage guidance, family counsellors and the like. However, I also recognise that many, through choice and no choice, do not live in a traditional family and they are equally entitled to my respect and concern. I have other prejudices. I have faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human purpose and in the equal rights of men and women. That is taken from the United Nations Charter. I believe that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, including distinction based on sex. That is taken from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I support the equal right of men and women to enjoy all economic, social , cultural, civil and political rights. I remind the Senate that that is an obligation of States under the International Covenant on Human Rights. All honourable senators will know that it was in the light of such declarations- despite such basic statements of principle extensive discrimination against women continues to exist-that the convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women came into being. Therefore, a convention with that objective would prima facie accord with my prejudice and, I think, would have the support of all Australians, male or female. Before someone says that extensive discrimination against women no longer exists, I remind the Senate of the words of the program of action for the second half of the United Nations Decade for Women: While (women) represent 50 per cent of the world adult population and 1/3 of the official labour force, they perform for nearly 2/3 of all working hours and receive only 1/10 of the world's income and own less than 1 per cent of world property. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debated adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate meet on Friday, 4 November 1983 and Friday, 18 November 1983 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. (2) That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 4.15 p.m. on those days. (3) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, on those days, shall proceed with its ordinary business in the following routine: (a) Petitions (b) Notices of Motion (c) Formal Business-Discovery of Formal Business (d) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (e) Motions and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (Government Business) (f) At 12 noon, Questions (g) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (MPI/Urgency Motion) (h) Further Motions and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (Government Business) The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 12 noon, under Sessional Order I shall now call on questions without notice, but before I do so, I remind honourable senators that I shall be suspending the sitting of the Senate at one minute to 1 o'clock to enable the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast its news program at 1 o'clock. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, I inform the Senate that Senator Gareth Evans will be absent from the chamber today. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Evans in relation to his portfolio should be directed to me, and any questions relating to the portfolios that Senator Evans represents in this chamber should be directed to Senator Grimes. I also remind the Senate of Senator Gietzelt's absence and ask that any questions for him be directed to Senator Grimes. Senator CHANEY —Perhaps I may preface my question by saying that if the Government insists on Friday sittings, we think that it should at least have the courtesy to produce the Ministers for the normal parliamentary forms. My question is directed to Senator Button as the Prime Minister's representative, as the Minister directly responsible for government relations with business and industry, and as a reported participant in the meeting on Wednesday at which Mr Hawke backed down from his commitment to the Roxby Downs project and new contracts for the Ranger and Nabarlek uranium mines which Mr Hawke gave directly to businessmen and through the pages of a business oriented magazine. Does the Minister agree that the reports which appeared in two leading newspapers this morning will seriously damage the credibility of the Prime Minister in particular and of the Government generally with the business community in the light of the clear statements that Mr Hawke has made on this matter to them? Senator BUTTON —I do not agree that the reports which appeared in newspapers will damage the standing or reputation of the Prime Minister with the business community. They might, in fact, damage the journalists who wrote them when the Government finally makes a decision on this matter. As I have indicated on a number of occasions, and as Senator Walsh and others have indicated in this chamber, the Government is reviewing its policy in relation to uranium mining. When that review is completed the Government will make decisions and will make an announcement about those decisions. Any gossip in newspapers about purported private conversations is not assisting the Government to make those decisions and is not damaging in any way except to those people who report those alleged discussions without any substantial basis in fact. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of that answer, I ask the Minister whether the business community of Australia can rely on the statement made by the Prime Minister to the Business Council of Australia that: . . . as far as our government is concerned- that is the Hawke Government- the Federal Government and the Government of South Australia, the Roxby development is going ahead and nothing is going to stop that. I ask the Minister again: Can people rely on that statement as a statement of fact? Senator BUTTON —The business community in Australia can rely on the fact that the Government will make a decision about these matters in the next week or two and that decision will be announced. As to the honourable senator's question about Roxby Downs, there is no member of the business community in Australia who is concerned that this matter should be addressed in the Senate today rather than on the Government's decision in a week or two's time. Senator ROBERT RAY —I preface my question by noting that there are three shadow Ministers missing today. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications: Is it a fact that Telecom Australia has people working full time to assist police in their drive against illegal bookmakers? Is it true that Telecom cannot allow State police to use call record printers because it would be illegal for it to do under the Telecommunications ( Interception) Act? Finally, is it practical, as suggested by Special Prosecutor Redlich, that Telecom should question the purpose for which a telephone service will be used? Senator BUTTON —I am able to answer the first part of the question. It is a fact, as I understand it, that Telecom employees are working full time in relation to the inquiries which are being conducted by the police involving the use of telephones for illegal purposes. It is also a fact, as I understand it, that under the legislation Telecom cannot at the moment allow State police to use the mechanisms which Senator Ray in his question described more eloquently than I can describe in the answer. With regard to the third part of his question, I am not familiar with Mr Redlich's comments and the extract which is taken out of the context of the report. I will address that part of the question to the Minister for Communications and see whether I can supply an early answer for Senator Ray. Senator MESSNER —I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. Does the preliminary analysis by the Minister's Department of questionnaire replies from pensioners over 70 years of age reveal that substantial numbers of such pensioners are entitled to full pensions but are currently drawing only the frozen over-70s pension? Is it a fact that this analysis also shows that most pensioners of all categories are earning more than 10 per cent on their investments which, as a result of the proposed assets test, will entitle them to higher pensions than they are presently receiving? By contrast, will pensioners with modest, but legitimate, low yielding investments such as farms, find their pension reduced and hence their capital eroded by the same 10 per cent test on assets proposed by the Labor Government? Would the Minister agree that the likely overall effect of this will be to increase rather than reduce the cost of providing old age pensions? If so, how can he claim that these changes are for the benefit of the most needy? Senator GRIMES —The assessment of the forms which have been sent out to and so far have been returned by people who are over 70 and who come under the new income test has revealed that some people-I am uncertain of the numbers at the moment but I will try to get the exact numbers-who previously were on the frozen rate pension should have been on a higher pension or the full pension. I think that is one side effect which we knew would happen with the introduction of the new over-70s income test. I will find out, when the full assessment has been carried out, just how many are involved. However, I think it is important that people who were entitled to more than they were getting should get those higher pensions. These people obviously are in need and I am glad that they will get their entitlement. I think it is important that they should do so. Senator Messner asked a question about the assets test. Certainly, there will be people who have put their money into legitimate investments, such as Australian bonds and power loans, for which they have been getting a yield higher than 10 per cent and who would be better off under the assets test than they were under the income test. From the first announcement, I have said that there will be an assets test. I have repeated that. It is interesting to note the numbers of examples which come up at meetings of where people will in fact be better off under that test. As I have said in this place, we are at the moment formulating the full assets test, the full regulations and the full outline of the test. One thing which is of importance in such formulations, as I have said here in answers to Senator Collard and others, is how we will handle the situation of those who own farms and, in particular, the situation of those who have lived on farms all their lives and wish to stay on in the house on that property while the property is run by a relative. I have had representations from pensioner organisations, individuals and farmer organisations about this matter. These representations are being taken into consideration at present by the Government and the committees of the Government, and they will be taken into consideration by the Cabinet next week. As a result of those considerations we will make an announcement and introduce legislation which will include the special treatment of people in that situation to make sure that hardship does not occur. If Senator Messner has any suggestions of his own, we are happy to listen even to them. In the meantime, I suggest that rather than cause anxiety amongst people, he should wait until the legislation comes in and for a complete outline of the assets test. We can then have a debate in this place on it based on facts. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister please address himself to the last part of my question which is whether this will, in fact, lead to increased costs to the social security system and whether it will assist the most needy? Senator GRIMES —Firstly, no, the introduction of the assets test will not lead to increased costs to the social security system. The aim of the assets test is to make it a more needs-based system so that we have more money to provide increases in the base rate pension for those who are in most need. As Senator Messner's predecessors came to realise, if a government is in a situation in which large amounts of money are being leached out of the system by people with fixed trusts, et cetera, that government-Labour or Liberal-is unable to raise those base rates of pension. Senator Chaney —But is it going to cost more or less? Senator GRIMES —I have said that the assets test, once it is introduced, will result in less expenditure on aged care. Senator Chaney knows this. He was involved in agonising over it for a couple of years himself. Secondly, yes, the test will result in removal of the discrimination which now exists whereby people with large asset holdings can so manipulate those holdings and avoid the income test, whereas people with weekly fixed payments such as superannuation pensions cannot do so and therefore, because of the Government's inability to increase that base rate pension, in fact suffer. That is what it is all about. Senator Messner knows what it is all about, I think, Senator Chaney certainly does. Senator Messner —But you just said that it was going to cost more. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator has already asked a supplementary question. Senator GRIMES —I suggest that Senator Messner, rather than sitting in this place at Question Time nitpicking and carrying on like a nark, should get to the job he said he would proceed with when he became shadow Minister-that is, for the first time, to develop a comprehensive retirement policy which the Liberal Party can attempt to sell. Senator RICHARDSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Has the Minister seen a report in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald which states that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has decided to pay the legal costs for a defamation action against the Premier of New South Wales by one of its senior reporters, Mr Geoffrey Sims? Can the Minister state whether the decision taken by the ABC is within its powers and functions as determined by the Parliament in the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act? The Acting Chairman of the ABC, Mrs Wendy McCarthy, in her statement this morning was reported as saying: . . . the ABC board's decision must not be taken as a precedent for further cases. The terms and conditions of the support have been put to Mr Sims and will be the subject of consultation with Mr Sims' legal advisers . . . The Board wishes to point out that its decision has been based on the particular circumstances, merits and facts that are currently known. Do her remarks indicate that the Corporation itself has doubts about the legality of its decision? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the report in the Sydney Morning Herald but the contents of that report have been drawn to my attention. I commence any comment I have to make on this matter by reminding the Senate that the ABC is an independent statutory corporation and it is not for this Government to interfere in the way in which it exercises its functions under its enabling legislation. I take Senator Richardson's question to ask me whether the action of the ABC in this matter is ultra vires in the sense that it is beyond the powers of the corporation of the ABC. I am not proposing to give a legal opinion, I just say that as a layman I would think not. Insofar as the specifics of the question are concerned, I understand that the ABC-that is, the Board or its representatives-has held negotiations on this matter with the Australian Journalists Association and with Mr Sims, the reporter in question. I am advised that the ABC Board has taken legal advice on aspects of Mr Sims's request for assistance and has subsequently resolved to support Mr Sims in respect of his costs only. The terms and conditions of that support have been put to Mr Sims and will be the subject of consultation with his legal advisers-as was suggested by Senator Richardson, who derived that information, as I understand it, from the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. I am asked whether one can place any interpretation on the remarks by the Acting Chairman of the ABC, Mrs Wendy McCarthy, which are reported in the Sydney Morning Herald. I can only say that I decline to do so because the honourable senator's interpretation would be as good as mine or anybody else's. I think the remarks stand, or fall, on their own merits depending on one's point of view. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that, according to the New York Times of 15 October, the Dow chemical company has abandoned its four-year, $7m effort to justify the use of its product 2,4,5-T and that as a result the use of 2,4,5- T will cease completely in the United States? The Dow company gave its main reason in the New York Times as public anxiety about 2,4,5-T. Did the Minister note that, according to yesterday's Melbourne Age, the Dow chemical company in Australia said it had no intention of withdrawing the chemical from sale in this country, and in the same issue of the Age the Victorian Government said it would not act until it had some instruction from the National Health and Medical Research Council? In view of widespread anxiety about the product's effects in Australia, and its decreasing use in any case by responsible people, will the Minister now seek an urgent, rational and up to date reconsideration of the use of 2,4,5-T here by the National Health and Medical Research Council? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I certainly had my attention drawn to the fact that the Dow chemical company had withdrawn from the various cases concerning 2,4,5-T in which it was involved in the United States for many years. It seems that for a long time the company used the very tortuous and complicated court system which exists in the United States to prevent the settlements of those cases. I think they have been mentioned in debate in this place in the past. It is my understanding that the Dow chemical company gave amongst its reasons the anxiety amongst the public that Senator Mason mentioned and also the financial burden that the company was under because of the cases running for such a long time. I have not noted the comments of the Dow chemical company's subsidiary in Australia. I will certainly draw the attention of the Minister for Health to those comments and seek from the Minister the urgent advice for which Senator Mason asks as to where this country should go in regard to the use of 2,4,5-T, and in particular whether the NHMRC should investigate the matter as Senator Mason suggested. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology. It refers to a report released this week by an independent review committee which criticised occupational health and safety practices in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Does the Minister believe the criticisms are justified? If so, what action will the Government take to protect the health and safety of workers in the CSIRO? Senator BUTTON —As Senator Zakharov said, a report was released by the CSIRO this week in relation to occupational health and safety in the CSIRO. I remind the Senate that that report was commissioned by the CSIRO itself because it was concerned about a number of aspects of occupational health and safety within that Organisation. The report contains, I believe, a number of quite alarming stories of incidents of lack of care in relation to health and safety aspects of work in the CSIRO. The review committee's report is generally critical of the Organisation's attention to these issues in the past. I understand that the CSIRO will be making a full response to the report, but within two days of its publication it has already announced a number of steps, including the appointment of certain experts to implement some of the recommendations of the survey report. As I understand it, the Organisation has implemented one or two of the recommendations already. It is a matter for the CSIRO, as an independent organisation, to follow up the recommendations in the report. It has already commenced that process. Dr Paul Wild, the Chairman of CSIRO, has made a public statement of response to the report saying that the CSIRO will act on it quickly. I believe that will be done . It is only the Government's function, I believe, to try to ensure that that process is as rapid and as effective as possible. Senator JESSOP —Mr President, I direct a question to you. By way of preface I wish to thank you for the statement concerning the electronic sweep which was carried out recently on committee rooms and the assurance you gave that random checks will be made on offices and committee rooms in Parliament House in the future. However, no mention was made of checks on telephones in Parliament House . Is it a fact that the so-called telephone rises installed in Parliament House are easy to tap? This seems to be borne out by the incident affecting Mr Dawkins 's telephone. Mr President, I ask whether your attention has been drawn to a statement in today's Age which states: ASIO is believed to have told the Federal Government that professionals wiretapped the office phone of the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, but left the job half-done. The article went on to say: The security assessment produced by ASIO is believed to conclude that the wire tappers may have fled after being disturbed while attaching a ''bug'' to telephone lines inside Parliament House. Following that, I ask: What is being done, or contemplated, to discover the identity of the alleged phone tapper? Is anything being done to improve telephone installations to eliminate or minimise the possibility of electronic interference with telephones in Parliament House? The PRESIDENT —My attention has not been drawn to the article in the Melbourne Age from which the honourable senator quoted. So far as easy accessibility to the telephone rises is concerned, I have been given to understand that that may create a problem. As a result, I have to advise that the Speaker of the House of Representatives and I have asked the parliamentary security advisers to consult with Telecom Australia to see what appropriate steps can be taken to ensure the security of the Parliament House telephone system. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Government decided on the new rates of workers compensation payments under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act? Since the rates have been adjusted in a fairly haphazard way under the previous Government, can the Minister give an assurance that ex-workers receiving Commonwealth Government compensation will, in future, be adequately compensated for cost of living rises ? Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Robertson for his question. I am aware that the previous Government was unwilling to upgrade the benefits to its employees who suffered from injury or other stressful situations. Over the years there was a considerable time when, in fact, no increases were provided. I think at one stage the previous Government did not raise those benefits for about three years while wage earners and other pensioners received consumer price index increases and other wage increases. The Government has considered the best way to adjust compensation benefits. It has decided that they should be indexed twice yearly in line with the application of the average weekly earnings index. The application of this percentage increase in average weekly earnings from November 1981 to November 1983 will result in a 4.79 per cent increase in the level of benefits currently payable. That means that the weekly incapacity rate will rise from $134.85 to $141.30 and the death benefit will rise from $42,000 to $42,010 with corresponding increases in other benefits under the Act. In our view this is an appropriate benchmark reflecting, as it does, the earnings-related nature of compensation payments-that is, the regime is based on wages and salaries rather than on the price-related and less predictable consumer price index. Of course, similar increases will be applied to benefits payable under the Seamen's Compensation Act which is a sister Act to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows a reply to a question asked by Senator Chaney in which Senator Button said that the Government was currently reviewing its attitude to uranium mining and export. I ask: During that review will the Government keep in mind the damage being done to this planet by way of acid rain which largely comes from coal burning power stations-- Senator Georges —Not again. Senator TOWNLEY —As reported in today's Australian in an article headed 'Acid rain eating up German forests'? Senator Georges —There is no comparison. Senator TOWNLEY —Will the Government keep in mind the irreversible damage that could be done to this planet by the rapidly increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which have the resultant effect of increasing global temperature that will affect not only the northern part of this globe but also the southern part? Will the Minister remind the Government that most scientists and engineers feel that we should stop burning fossil fuel as soon as possible and turn to nuclear power? Senator BUTTON —Senator Townley asked me a question about the review currently being conducted-it is becoming a matter of common knowledge to the Senate-by the Government in relation to its uranium mining and export policy. He asked me first of all whether the Government will keep in mind that rain from coal burning power stations contains a number of acids and so on and whether the Government will address that serious problem. In spite of the interjections by my colleague, Senator Georges, I must say that it is an immensely serious problem. The problem is so serious in Europe that I think that, by the end of the century, it is estimated-- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —There will be no trees. Senator BUTTON —Thank you, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. I am getting an awful lot of help here today. By the end of this century, there are likely to be no trees in Europe and, if the interjections go on, I hope there will be no honourable senators here, if we are to be assisted in the way in which I have been in trying to answer this question. Senator Georges interjected and said there was no comparison between these environmental problems and the problems caused by the use of nuclear power. With respect, I think there is a comparison because they both involve important questions of environmental damage. The very real distinction in relation to nuclear power is, of course, the existence and presence of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which is a separate matter. Senator Georges might, in that context, address his attention to the importance of biological weapons as well, I think. All of these factors have to be taken into account. Secondly, I am asked whether the Government will take into account what is called the glasshouse effect. Senator Messner —Greenhouse. Senator BUTTON —It depends on which school of uranium studies one attended. With the greatest respect, it is called the glasshouse effect in the United States and the greenhouse effect amongst this collection of Chauncey Gardiners who constitute the Opposition in the Senate in Australia in 1983. Whether it be the glasshouse effect or the greenhouse effect, the fact remains that that is also an immensely important environmental issue which any government has to address. The present Government, in considering the questions relating to its uranium mining and export policy, will of course have to consider these matters. Senator Chaney —Hear, hear! A very good answer. Senator BUTTON —They will be considered and, as Senator Chaney is concerned about this matter and desperately concerned about the plight of worried businessmen in the next week or two in relation to Roxby Downs, the Government will give an answer to these questions in the foreseeable future. Senator BOLKUS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to the tax recoupment legislation defeated in the Senate this week. I ask: What further liability, if any, would have been incurred under that legislation by a person who had received an assessment under the 1982 unpaid company tax legislation? Further, will the Minister say whether any and, if so, which, vested interests have been involved in the rejection of this legislation? Senator WALSH —The answer to Senator Bolkus's first question is that, disregarding the possibility of an assessment below $100, any person who received an assessment pursuant to the 1982 Act would have received an additional assessment pursuant to the Bill rejected by the Senate on Wednesday night had that Bill not been rejected by the Senate. I should like to be able to give Senator Bolkus an assurance that there was no vested personal interest involved by anyone who voted on that legislation but I regret that I cannot give such an assurance. Indeed, it is known that at least one member of the House of Representatives had a personal interest and, until this week, an undisclosed vested interest in defeating the Bill, at the autumn and spring sessions of Parliament. That person abstained from voting on the 1982 legislation and voted against the 1983 Bills in the autumn and spring sessions. The person, of course, was the shadow Minister for Finance. Mr John Moore, who, as the documents that I tabled in the Senate a couple of days ago show, inter alia, became, with W. J. Wilde, now of Coopers and Lybrand but at the time, I believe, a member of another firm and the continuing accountant for Mr Moore, on 31 March 1978, a director of Colinton Pty Ltd. On 24 April 1980, at a Colinton meeting-there were only two directors of the company-it was resolved to transfer the share register from Brisbane to Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. in Darwin. On 8 May 1980 the company office was actually moved from Brisbane to Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. of Darwin. On that same day Messrs Moore and Wilde resigned as directors and were replaced by Colin Hally Coghill and John Francis Edwards. They are the same Coghill and Edwards who are identified in the McCabe- Lafranchi report as becoming directors of Treamog Pty Ltd, among other things, on 30 June 1977. From then on, Colinton Pty Ltd, as was shown in the documents and summary of documents which I tabled earlier this week, went through the assortment of name, directorial and shareholder changes of the classic tax evasion, bottom of the harbour operation. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister is responding to a question about further liability which might be incurred if legislation were passed. He has answered the question. In fact, he did so very accurately in about two sentences. He is now moving on and attempting to involve Mr Moore in matters which transpired after the company in which Mr Moore was interested had been sold by him and after he no longer had any legal interest in or any control over the matter. I put it to you, Mr President, that the only object of this answer now-the question having already been fully answered-is to endeavour to smear a member of the House of Representatives by raising innuendos which are false. I ask you to rule the rest of the answer out of order. I do not believe that it has anything to do with the question which was raised by Senator Bolkus, which was a proper question and which was answered in this place in two sentences. The PRESIDENT —I have been following the Minister's remarks carefully. He has not, as yet, offended under standing order 418. I am taking it that the Minister is amplifying his remarks to explain the last portion of the honourable senator' s question. However, I ask the Minister to be restrictive in his remarks and to be mindful of the provisions of standing order 418. Senator WALSH —As always, Mr President, I shall do so. The relevance of Mr Moore to Senator Bolkus's question-and the relevance is direct-is that Mr Moore admitted in the House of Representatives, I think it was on Tuesday evening of this week, that he was in receipt of an assessment from the Commissioner of Taxation pursuant to the 1982 legislation. He, therefore, necessarily- overlooking the $100 clause-would have received an additional assessment if the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 rejected by the Senate on Wednesday night were enacted. The details of this case, tabled on Wednesday, show a classic wet Slutzkin operation. As I said, Mr Moore has acknowledged having received an assessment, although he declined to disclose the amount, pursuant to the 1982 legislation. There are two other points I want to make. One is that the directors of the company in question changed directly from Moore and Wilde to Coghill and Edwards . Mr Moore was not ignorant of the identity of the new directors. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I again say to you, Mr President, that this matter is of no relevance to the question that was asked and is clearly an attempt to smear a member of the House of Representatives by innuendo. The fact is that whatever classic example this may be, to use the expression of the Minister, the company was sold. What is done with sold property subsequent to sale is a matter that is beyond the control of the vendor . I believe that this is thoroughly objectionable. It is thoroughly typical of what honourable senators have to put up with from Senator Walsh. I believe that it should be ruled out of order. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to bear in mind standing order 100 and to bring his remarks to a conclusion. Senator WALSH —It is simply not conceivable that a man with Mr Moore's vast experience as an accountant, stockbroker, share-trader, former Queensland Liberal Party State President and Treasurer, did not know by May 1980 that Coghill and Edwards were bottom of the harbour operators. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The last few words of the Minister make it quite clear what his intention is and what he is doing in this chamber. He is abusing the forms of the Senate. I believe that he should be sat down. Senator Bolkus —On the point of order: It is apparent that the question I asked was in two parts. In the second part I asked the Minister to detail any vested interests that might have been involved. The information that the Minister is giving at the moment goes very much to the heart of and is answering that part of the question. Senator Missen —On the point of order, Mr President: You said that the Minister at one stage was getting near to not complying with standing order 418. But it is clear that the last part of standing order 418 states that 'all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly'. Even if the reflections are entirely true, they are reflections on a person who is not a member of this House. The whole purpose, surely, of that standing order is to protect members of the other House from being smeared in this way. I suggest, sir, that there must be a stage when you must rule in favour of this tactic being out of order. The PRESIDENT —On the point of order, no one has as yet asked the Minister to withdraw anything that he has said. But I really think that the Minister has had a fair go and I suggest that he has completed his answer. Senator WALSH —I will very shortly, Mr President. The second point I wanted to make-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the Minister has completed his answer. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister will recall that on 15 June 1983 he asked the Industries Assistance Commission to inquire into and report on certain dumping issues associated with imports of polyvinyl chloride. As part of the terms of reference , the IAC was given a period of four months in which to report, following long delays, I might add, up to that point. As that four-month period expired almost a week ago, can the Minister advise the Senate whether he has received the IAC's report on this matter? Can he further inform the Senate when he expects to be able to announce the Government's decision as to the recommendations of the IAC in this inquiry? Senator BUTTON —The IAC report on PVC was received five days ago, in the time stated under the terms of reference. I have received it; I have not yet studied it. But in view of the interest of Senator Evans and other interests outside this Parliament, I will be taking particular care to see that the Government's response to the report is expedited as much as possible. I do not want to put a date on that, but I am aware of the concern and I will see that that is done. Senator HEARN —Has the Minister for Social Security seen the social security benefits information presently being shown on the multicultural television channel? As social security benefit leaflets do not always reach the people who most need the information they contain, would it be possible for all social security benefits information to be similarly screened on other television channels in all States? Senator GRIMES —I have seen the advertisements which are being shown on the multicultural television channel. I saw them before they were shown. I think all senators who have seen them will believe they are very good and a very effective means of reaching the important group of people in the community who may require social security benefits. Certainly, I believe that television and radio are more effective than the method we use at the moment to distribute information about social security; that is, the traditional pamphlets which are issued, although I think there is a place for them, too. One of the problems with producing television advertisements of this type throughout the country is their very high cost. The Government is looking at improving the publicity mechanisms of the Department of Social Security. Included in those investigations will be the use of radio and television. I believe the previous Government also looked at this matter. But at the moment we would need to have some mechanism whereby the cost effectiveness of such advertisements was carefully assessed before we implemented a general distribution on television which, as Senator Hearn and all other senators on both sides of the House know, is a very expensive medium for indulging even in a short election campaign. If we try to produce advertisements of this type full time, which is what we would have to do if it were to be effective, the cost would be considerable. Senator WATSON —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that required art materials for tertiary fine arts students can cost between $1,500 and $2,000 per year and that this expense causes great hardship for students on tertiary education assistance scheme allowances? Can consideration be given to exempting art supplies required by full time fine arts students from sales tax as occurs for essential equipment needed in other tertiary courses? Senator WALSH —I will pass on that request to the Treasurer for comment. I do not think I can do other than that at this stage because I have no idea of the revenue implications of acceding to the request which Senator Watson has put forward or, indeed, of even the rate of sales tax which applies to the supplies used by fine arts students to which he referred. I will refer the question to the Treasurer and provide a response as soon as I am able. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It relates to the latest employment figures released last week. In view of the large surge in employment during September, does the Minister believe that the Government's objective in respect of employment generation will now be achieved? Senator WALSH —I think I have some figures on the question that Senator Foreman has asked. Several comments could and should be made about the September employment figures. One is that, in seasonally adjusted terms, they rose by more than 50,000 on the figures for the previous month. In actual terms they increased by closer to 120,000 month on month. In seasonally adjusted terms, the level of employment is now, in round figures, 52,000 higher than it was in March when the Government took office. In round figures it is 80,000 above what it was at the low point of April. In spite of that very substantial increase in employment during September as against August, April or March, when the Government took office, the unemployment rate rose-the rate being the ratio between those people who are classified as being in the work force and those who are actually employed. The reason for the apparent or superficial inconsistency between a rise in the unemployment rate at the same time as an actual increase of around 120,000 in recorded employment in September as against August is that the participation rate increased substantially in that month-the participation rate being that proportion of the adult population which is recorded as being in the work force. In the same month the participation rate increased by 0.5 per cent. I do not want to be held to be certain of these figures because I do not have them with me but I think it increased from 60.3 per cent to 60.8 per cent. Anyway, the increase in the participation rate was 0.5 per cent, which is a very substantial increase at any time, even in absolute terms, and in one month it is an extraordinarily high rise. Some statistical quirks could be involved but an increase in the participation rate of that magnitude in one month, should that trend be confirmed in subsequent months, is certainly a clear demonstration that, firstly, the Government's expectations of economic recovery are being realised and its policies are being successful, and, secondly, they are being perceived to be successful because more people are now making applications to get into the work force because they believe that there is a significantly better chance of obtaining employment than there was at the low point of a few months ago. That is an apparent expectation in the public which is, of course, supported by the very large increase in recorded employment during September as against August. Senator MISSEN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Middle East policy statement released by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs on 30 September 1983, and in particular to the Government's decision that it would consider allowing an Arab League office to open in Australia and permit unofficial contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organisation at ambassadorial level. While the Government has given an assurance that no PLO member or representative will be appointed to or employed at any such Arab League office, I ask the Minister: First, is it not a fact that the Jewish community in Australia is still profoundly concerned about the statement and has expressed reservations about aspects of the Government's policy? Secondly, how can the Government be certain that any such office will have no PLO members among its ranks? Thirdly, what action will be taken by the Government to ensure that Arab League offices do not act as a vehicle for promoting PLO activities and that they do not engage in any trade boycott activities directed against companies and individuals trading or wishing to trade with Israel? Fourthly, will he assure the Senate that the Government will not deviate from Australia's long-standing tradition of friendship towards and strong support for Israel against those seeking to isolate and undermine her? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Missen has said, the Government announced that it would consider sympathetically an application to establish Arab League representation in Australia. At the same time the Minister announced that the Government would insist that no PLO member or representative be employed at any such place. I remind honourable senators that the Arab League has information offices in the United Kingdom and the United States, and has had for some time. I am equally aware of the concern of some members of the Australian Jewish community in this regard, because of the conflict in the Middle East. However, the Government believes that it should talk to both sides in that dispute. The Arab League offices in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries have been a means by which information can be passed on and representatives of this important group in the Middle East can put their views. There has been no indication, nor is there any justification for what I thought was an imputation in Senator Missen's question, that this Government would cease to have friendly relationships with Israel, particularly in light of the fact that a former Leader of the Australian Labor Party in this country took part in international forums in the formation of Israel. What the Government seeks to do is to talk to the Arab countries and to Israel to ensure that we and the people of Australia have a balanced view. It may be that the office of the Arab League, without taking any part in any controversial international activities, is the best way to provide representation in a balanced way in this country. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has not answered the substance of my question, which was this: How will the Government ensure that there will not be a PLO representative in such an office and how will it ensure that that person will not be promoting boycotts of Australian firms' activities with Israel, which has happened in Great Britain, the United States and elsewhere? Senator GRIMES —First of all, I will seek further details on that matter. Of course, before any foreign national will be allowed to come into the country to take up a position in an Arab League office, he will need a visa and he will need to be investigated. I dare say that through this method of screening PLO representatives will be identified. Secondly, quite clearly, the establishment of such an office will involve conditions and I do not believe that the Government would favour the office of such an organisation indulging in activities such as banning and putting Australian firms under black bans. However, I will seek further details from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and obtain a more detailed answer for the honourable senator. Senator SIBRAA —My question is also directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the murder of the Prime Minister of Grenada, Mr Maurice Bishop, and ask: Is the Minister able to give any details to the Senate concerning his death especially as recently the United States of America had accused Mr Bishop of being pro-Cuban, yet it appears from news reports that he was murdered by pro-Cuban elements in Grenada? Senator GRIMES —The Government is aware of the attempt which was made earlier this week to depose Maurice Bishop, the Prime Minister of Grenada and the subsequent events which led to his death and the death of some of his close supporters. However, the full circumstances of what happened are not known to the Government as yet although we have seen the news reports that Senator Sibraa has undoubtedly seen. The Government certainly regrets that a Commonwealth Prime Minister, who obviously enjoyed strong support amongst the people of Grenada, has been killed in these circumstances. Mr Bishop was known to a number of Australians, including Senator Sibraa I believe, through the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting. I knew him for many years as we were both delegates for many years to the Socialist International. The Government and I hope that the current crisis will be resolved in a way which meets the needs and wishes of the people of Grenada on the basis of an open society and on the basis of democratic institutions. It is of great regret to me that Maurice Bishop should have died in this way. It is very sad that he died in the same way as his father died some 10 or 12 years ago. In my position as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs I would prefer not to comment on Senator Sibraa's remarks concerning whether or not the people who have overthrown and killed Maurice Bishop are pro- Cuban and the influence that the United States may have had on that. I will seek further information from the Minister for Foreign Affairs who I am sure will make a more detailed comment in the near future. Senator ARCHER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. As the Secretary to the Department of Aviation has today advised the fire fighters union that fire fighting services at Wynyard Airport will be withdrawn by the end of this financal year, will the Minister seek to have the question reviewed bearing in mind that Wynyard Airport is, I believe, thirteenth in Australia in aircraft movements and that the service is manned by seven fire fighters and two maintenance men? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of Senator Archer's concern and the concern of people who use Wynyard Airport about the Minister's announcement, although I am equally aware that, for many years, this action has been likely. I have no actual details on hand concerning the matter. I assure Senator Archer that I will seek such details from the Minister I am representing at the moment, and get that information for him. Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2 p.m. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —The President has received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of Labor governments to keep their promises to the Australian people. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.00) —This is not the first time that the Senate has debated the general proposition that this Hawke-led Government has broken the many promises it made to the people of Australia. I am quite sure that it is not the last time we will be debating this subject because it is becoming increasingly apparent that the word of this government is not worth the paper it is written on or the recording through which it is delivered. Indeed, the Australian Labor Party has invented a new approach to government and to gaining government, which approach involves being absolutely careless about what is promised to the Australian people. The important thing is to gain office, and then not to worry too much about it afterwards. In earlier debates on this subject we have had a fairly standard response from the Government. The Government has said: 'Well, of course, we came and we found a deficit which we did not expect. Therefore, all promises are off' . That is no doubt an answer we will hear again today. Indeed, Senator Robert Ray is nodding. Therefore, I start by pointing out that there are promises which do not involve expenditure. Statements were made which do not involve the expenditure of taxpayers' money and which have been brutally ignored by the Government because its internal circumstances have changed. I draw the attention of the Senate to the extraordinary failure of the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Hawke, to live up to the statements he has made about what the Labor Government will do with respect to uranium. This is a classic illustration of using words in such a way that they have no meaning at all. Let us look at what the Prime Minister has had to say about uranium over the last month or two and then let us look at where we are today. This sequence of events bears out the great propensity of the Prime Minister to say whatever his audience wants to hear and to temper and colour his remarks by the shape of his audience. The Prime Minister was very clear on this subject. At the beginning of September he attended a very successful lunch for the launching of the Business Council of Australia. That was a collection of some of Australia's top businessmen. It was the launching of a new organisation which was intended to give the business sector a more unified voice. The Prime Minister made himself very popular at that gathering by being very direct and clear on the subject of uranium. The Prime Minister said: . . . as far as our government is concerned, the Federal Government and the Government of South Australia, the Roxby development is going ahead and nothing is going to stop that. That is what Mr Hawke promised the business leaders of Australia just a couple of months ago. About a week later he gave a long interview which was recorded in Business Review Weekly. No doubt he had his mind on the same audience at that time. Mr Hawke said: And indeed, of course, when you talk in quantity-- he was talking there of uranium- terms about the daddy of them all-Roxby-it is covered. Mr Hawke was saying at that stage that Roxby was covered by the Federal policy. There could be no clearer statement of the Government's position and intention than that. We have since seen a series of half-hearted statements by the Prime Minister when he was speaking to his supporters, if that is what they are called , in the Caucus. His expressions in the Parliament have been quite different. He has been extremely doubtful; he was prepared to say that the matter is subject to review. But when he went to my State of Western Australia, where there is a fair interest in mining and where people would like to see some movement on the Yeelirrie deposit, for example, he became forthright again. The Prime Minister promised much but, of course, is delivering nothing. He made quite a clear statement on radio in Western Australia. He said that as far as Roxby was concerned there was no problem under the present policy of the Government. He said: The policy of the South Australian Labor Party is for the development of Roxby Downs and that, of course, is totally consistent with the Federal policy. I will be interested to see whether there is any firm and ringing affirmation of that view in the Senate this afternoon. Are spokesmen for the Government prepared to say that that statement, that promise, that clear statement of the position of the Government is still the clear position of the Government? Or is it true, as is recorded in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, that the Prime Minister has retreated on the subject of uranium and that, under the urging of people like Senator Button, who is of course very influential on him, he has had to agree that the matter should be sent to a committee of inquiry for six months ? The importance of this example is that it is in no way related to the budgetary position of the Government. There is no suggestion that the Government is having to temper its uranium policy because it believes that the Opposition has left it with a difficult budgetary situation. The fact is that the Government has said one thing but is doing another. In particular, the Prime Minister has said one thing and is doing another. I make it quite clear that the matters I refer to will not in any sense comprise a complete catalogue of the broken promises of the Hawke Government; to do that would take virtually the whole of today and, no doubt, most of tomorrow. I should like to draw attention to what I see as some of the very significant areas in which the Government can be seen to have broken its promises to the Australian people-promises which were made as recently as last February and which were the cause of the Government's election to office. I suppose the most central breach of faith by the Hawke Government concerns employment and economic policy. I shall quote some of the words in Mr Hawke's policy speech which was delivered on 16 February. These words struck a very responsive chord in the hearts of the people of Australia who were concerned about the issue of unemployment. Mr Hawke said: There are tremendous issues involved in this historic election on 5 March-first and foremost, the right of all Australians to a job . . . I repeat: . . . the right of all Australians to a job. A little later he went on to say: For the sake of the 1 million and more Australians who face unemployment unless there is a change, those policies-- that is, the economic policies of the previous Government- must be changed . . . by the Australian Labor Government after 5 March. Does anyone seriously claim that Mr Hawke is trying to live up to those words or that he has delivered what he promised? I suggest that the simple test is to look at the extraordinary difference between the approach advocated by the Victorian Government under Mr Cain and the approach advocated by the Prime Minister now that he is in government. Now that he is in government the Prime Minister does not talk about the right of all Australians to a job; he talks about kibbutzim. He thinks that kibbutzim are perhaps the answer. He says: 'Let us put some young people into a kibbutz'. He resurrected his marvellous suggestion of 1979. He and Mr Willis came forward and quite clearly said: 'There will not be a job for all Australians; there is no right for all Australians to have a job'. He went to Perth and gave the Curtin Memorial Lecture under the mantle of his idol, and he made it quite clear that we can forget the idea of all Australians having a job; that is of the past. I believe that any person most friendly to the Hawke Government would have to admit that what it said before the election- the promise it held out to the people of Australia before the election, the whole basis on which it went to the people of Australia-has been subverted by a change of mind. The Government thought it was a good idea at the time, but it has now changed its mind. I think most people thought the Government would embrace the economic policies developed in Victoria by the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and others. Those economic policies have been deserted by this Government. Senator Robert Ray —Are you supporting what the Victorian Government is doing? Senator CHANEY —I suggest that the honourable senator read some of the comments of Kenneth Davidson in the Age if he wants a more impartial observer's comment on that matter. The fact is that the Hawke Government has turned its back on what it promised the people of Australia in that fundamental area of employment. The unemployment rate for young people is now 27.5 per cent. Something like one in four young Australians are without a job. I do not pretend that is a new problem, it just happens to be an increasing problem. What is the Government doing about that? As I said, it is promising perhaps some kibbutzim to do something about it. It is totally ignoring some of the issues of substance such as the report by the Bureau of Labour Market Research which did a study on youth unemployment and which suggests that young people's wages are one part of the problem. They are too high and are pricing young people out of work. The Government shows no inclination to tackle or examine that sort of problem. No, Mr Hawke talks about kibbutzim. What does Mr Dolan, that great friend of the Government, that party to the accord, think about what the Government is doing about that particular problem? Mr Dolan on 17 October is quoted as calling the Government's programs 'a waste of money and not very well thought out'. Mr Dolan is reported as saying: Even if it had meant blowing out the deficit to an even greater extent, that deficit would have been overcome simply by the fact that people were employed . . . Youth employment projects 'only provided three to six months' work, anyway, and wouldn't eventually contribute a great deal'. 'I have told my parliamentary colleagues I am not terribly enamoured with some of the schemes that have been embarked upon . . . He was speaking to the New South Wales Young Labour Council. He stated: I don't claim to be an economist, but simple arithmetic shows if you can get people back into employment they don't need to be recipients of unemployment benefits and they are contributors so far as tax is concerned. We will hear speeches which will justify the Government's position from the members of the Government, but the fact remains that when they were in Opposition, when they were seeking election from the people of Australia, they would have denied any suggestion that they would tolerate the position they are tolerating now. They would have denied any suggestion that they would pursue the policies they are pursuing now. I believe that they are damned in particular for their cavalier approach to the statements that they made before the election with respect to employment and economic policy as against the position that they have adopted now. Many other areas are of concern to the Australian people. Let us look at something else Mr Hawke said on 16 February. Referring to the taxation promises-this is from his policy speech delivered to the Australian people, the inducement that he held out for them to vote for him-Mr Hawke said: Its key elements include immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers. What a farce. What a joke. Of course, there are no reductions in tax and we have instead a series of excuses. We had a promise from the Government that it would not change the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. The Prime Minister made a commitment, I think again to his friends in the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, that the Federal Government would not increase the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. The Government very quickly broke that promise to its closest supporters in the trade union movement. It promised in that same Budget speech to lift the tax threshold for pensioners to $5,893-it did not do that. It promised not to means test the over-70s pension and not to introduce an assets test. We know what it has done with those promises. The Government has produced reasons, but the reasons were known to it at the time the promises were made. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) was the shadow spokesman for social security for seven years. He is no novice at these promises. He worked very hard, he knew the Department, and he knew the economic arguments. He made promises and his Government made promises which they have simply broken. They were not carelessly made, they were made after most careful consideration and study. The Government promised to maintain for the home buyers of Australia the home loan interest rebate and it scrapped that; it promised to remove the sales tax on retreaded tyres, it scrapped that promise; it promised to reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre-that promise became inoperative; it promised that it would reduce the price of petrol and instead increased the excise and indexed it so that petrol will go up every six months. There are a whole range of areas where its promises are simply lying on the ground; they have been totally ignored. I hope the lesson which the people of Australia will learn is that the Australian Labor Party pattern now is to promise much to do whatever is needed to get into government and none of it matters once it is elected. The Government promised to keep the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare; that was abolished even though Medicare has not been introduced. It promised to abolish the pharmaceutical declaration form that was worrying pensioners, a form which we introduced and which Labor said was a dreadful thing to have done. Instead, it kept the form and simply amended it. It promised to reduce the charges for private patients in public hospitals to $60 a day; it has not done that. One can go on. Labor's promise with respect to the Darwin railway is another example. It made it quite clear that it was committed to a commitment of the previous Government and, of course, as soon as it came to office it varied that in the mini-Budget by putting an obligation on the Northern Territory to contribute in a way which it knew was impractical, which it knew was impossible and which meant that that promise was effectively nullified. There is no sign in anything that has been said in the Senate, by the Prime Minister or any of his Ministers that they regard the breaking of those promises as in any sense significant. They believe that they are entitled to do whatever they like according to the facts of the moment, and their words are utterly irrelevant. It would be less serious if it were not a standard pattern as to what is occurring around Australia. We have seen a number of Labor governments elected in the last year, and in each case the pattern is the same. I wish in the limited time available to me to make some reference to what was promised in my own State of Western Australia by the Labor Party in January and February when it was running for election in that State. It promised that there would be no increases in government charges during the wages pause. Labor's promises were not made softly; they were not made quietly in the privacy of party councils. No, the Labor Party advertised extensively in the media in Western Australia. It said that it was unfair to have a wage freeze without a price freeze. It said: 'A wage freeze without a price freeze won't work'. Over the photograph of Brian Burke, now the Premier of Western Australia, was listed a series of promises about what Labor would do for the duration of the wage freeze. Labor was going to be fair to the people of Western Australia by ensuring that, while their wages were frozen, there would be no increases in water rates, electricity charges, third party motor insurance, land tax, stamp duty, bus and train fares, rail freight charges, irrigation charges and the State petrol tax. They were the promises of the Burke Opposition in January and February this year. Those promises were made and they were broken one after the other. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Chaney, I hesitate to interrupt you- Senator CHANEY —I wish you would not, Mr Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I do so only because I am bound to. Your motion mentioned the failure of Labor governments to keep their promises to the Australian people. Senator Walters —Labor governments- plural. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If Senator Walters wants to waste the Leader of the Opposition's time, she may do so. Senator Chaney, one of the basic rules in this chamber is that the subject matter of a debate on a matter of urgency or a matter of public importance must be on some subject falling within ministerial responsibility. I ask you to tie your remarks to some ministerial responsibility . Senator CHANEY —Certainly, Mr Acting Deputy President. The fact of the matter is that the Labor governments of the States are tightly tied to the financial arrangements they have with the Commonwealth. One cannot separate the arrangements of the States from the arrangements of the Commonwealth, as you will find at the Premiers Conference and other interstate and Commonwealth-State meetings. Let me finish by pointing out that the whole series of promises made by Western Australian Labor, just as firm as the promises made by Mr Hawke on behalf of Federal Labor, have been absolutely cast aside. In Western Australia, water rates have gone up by 16 per cent; electricity charges are up by 15 per cent; bus and train fares are up by one-third; and petrol taxes are up by 13 1/2 per cent. All this took place during the currency of the wage freeze which was urged successfully upon the State government by the Federal Government, if I may establish yet another connection. During the period when the Labor Party in Western Australia promised there would be a freeze, it pursued increases in charges in almost every area. There was a blatant breaking of those election promises. Country sewerage charges went up by 20 per cent, country drainage charges by 18 per cent and State Housing Commission rents by 10 per cent. All of these increases occurred during the wage freeze which the then Federal Government had promoted and which the Labor Party had, of course, opposed. The Labor Party broke those promises without any backward glance. The relevance of this debate today is the fact that Labor will go on making those promises. It will go on making statements about charges, about taxes and about all the things that it will do. We have had ample evidence, over recent months, at the Federal and the State level, that those promises mean nothing. In Western Australia charges and taxes have gone up, all in clear breach of the undertakings of the Labor Party before the election. The politics of this country will suffer if promises are so glibly cast aside in circumstances in which the Government cannot point to changes being forced upon it. The fact is that the promises are made without any concern as to their reality or substance and without any concern that those promises should be kept. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(2.21) —This afternoon we could be discussing some important legislation. We could be discussing the Sex Discrimination Bill. The reason we are sitting on Fridays is, in fact, to allow us to discuss important legislation such as that and to deal with Budget legislation. However, we know that those opposite do not like to sit on Fridays. They do not consider that they were elected to sit in this Parliament and deal with the sort of legislation that is coming up. So what we are looking at is, in fact, a time wasting exercise. To indulge in that the Opposition had to cast around and look for what it thought would be a useful matter of public importance. One would have thought from the way Senator Chaney advanced to the table and indulged in the sort of bluster in which he indulged that he had the Government on the run and that he had us in some difficulty. One would have thought that the people in this community were dissatisfied with the Government. The first thing I would like to point out to Senator Chaney is that according to the Morgan gallup poll in this week's Bulletin that is not the fact. In fact, in the Morgan gallup poll we have the extraordinary situation where the Prime Minister of this Government, Mr Hawke, has been approved by over 70 per cent of the people of this country. In a competition between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) we find that over 60 per cent of people believe that the Prime Minister would do the best job and only 20 per cent of people believe that the Leader of the Opposition would do a good job. In fact, this Government which Senator Chaney has castigated in the way he has is three points up on the election result in March which was one of the greatest reversals of electoral fortunes in the history of this country. This is one of the greatest time wasting episodes ever indulged in in the Senate. If ever an empty matter was raised by the Opposition this is it. Poor old Senator Chaney had to be the poor bloke who had to stand in this chamber and front the people of this country with something like this. This matter of public importance is, in fact, coming from the very people who led this country to economic chaos and to unemployment on a scale that had not been seen since the Depression of the 1930s. Members of the Opposition have the gall to bleat about our policies and our performance after a mere eight months of government. The policies of this Government are directed at turning around the lack of economic confidence in the business world-indeed, they are doing that-the lack of confidence in the housing industry and, in fact, the lack of confidence of the public which existed when the previous Government was in power . They are policies directed at turning around the shoddy ethos of the conservatives opposite whose policies and inaction allowed tax frauds and cheats to prosper while the burden was pushed on to pay as you earn taxpayers in this country, on to pensioners and most of all-I say most of all particularly in view of Senator Chaney's words-on to the unemployed. The conservatives opposite sought to be the ultimate of the granite-hearted realists that they claimed they were. They had Liberal Party opinion polls done to show who was expendable in vote terms and not what the issues were. It was bad luck for the people who did not show up as being crucial to their votes. Senator Chaney —Why is unemployment going up? Senator GRIMES —Let us deal with that in a moment. The honourable senator will get his in the end. Of course, the Fraser Government did not take too many risks at election time. That is the area where we can really talk about broken promises. The previous Government made promises which it knew it had no intention of keeping. Because it did that consistently we could have a bonfire of the lists of promises which were broken a few months after those promises were voted on in the election in this country. Let us deal with the first and most famous of those promises. One of the most cynical of the promises ever made in this community was the Fraser promise of 1975. Members on the front bench opposite were part of those most reprehensible tactics on 11 November 1975. They were leading the applause during the policy speech in that election campaign when the most cynical and unforgettable line ever was uttered: 'We will maintain Medibank'. The former Government, spent a fortune of taxpayers' money and this community's money dismantling Medibank, beginning six months after it took office. But because it did not know what it was about and because it did not know where to go, it changed the system on a yearly basis, depending on whether the advice was coming from the Prime Minister, the Treasury, the Department of Health, the Liberal Party Secretariat, the voluntary health funds or the medical profession. Nothing was too much trouble for a government hell-bent on destroying the simplest and the most secure health arrangements this country had ever had. Nothing was too much trouble to erase the constructive achievements of the first Labor Government in 23 years. Yet that promise was always in the background: 'We will maintain Medibank'. The only factor that counted with the miserable Government of those seven years was to trade off the Government's liability for the health care of the community against the doctrinaire policy of throwing health care back to the private interests. It was the sink or swim mentality and I cannot think of any time when the Government of which front bench Opposition members were members showed any concern or any understanding for the people who were going under at that time. All that time, as Senator Chaney said, I was the Opposition spokesman on health in this place. All that time, year after year I debated the pathetic attempts to introduce a sensible and sane health care system in this country. All that time we remembered the words 'We will maintain Medibank'. Only for that reason, if for no other reason, the Government that existed from 1975 to 1983 will go down in history as the least respected, the least competent and the least sympathetic government in this country's history. Those Ministers who were not corrupt themselves were preoccupied with protecting the corruption of others. Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The suggestion that Ministers were corrupt is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. Senator Grimes —In answer to that point of order, Mr Deputy President, I point out that it was ruled persistently, when we were in Opposition, that unless one directly referred to an individual one could say what one liked. Senator Sir John Carrick in this place persistently and collectively blackguarded members of the former Opposition and we were told that that was within the Standing Orders, that only when individuals were mentioned was it outside the Standing Orders. I mentioned no individual. Senator Peter Baume —On the point of order, Senator Grimes referred to certain Ministers as corrupt and the rest as protecting them. He therefore included all Ministers. By including all Ministers he transgressed standing order 418. I therefore ask him to withdraw. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw because I do not wish attention to be diverted from this debate. I do not wish to divert attention from the incompetence of those who were previously in government in the way in which they covered their incompetence by blaming what they saw as a series of villains. The former Government, of which Senator Chaney was a member, deliberately created an army of unemployed by its contractionary economic policies and it then blamed the schools for not educating pupils in the right way to get jobs. The former Government blamed the unions, it blamed the media, it blamed the European Economic Community, it blamed the economic recession, it blamed the public for not spending but most obscene of all, it blamed the unemployed for not being able to find work. Not once did the former Government blame itself. Let me remind Senator Chaney of the charming phraseology of his Leader in his election speech of 1975: We will not use the earning of Australia's families to finance Gold Coast holidays for those who don't want to work. That is wonderful, emotive stuff for the wealthy supporters of Fraserism who could never understand that for every unemployed person who lived in that area there were thousands in the western suburbs of Sydney and in Melbourne, Wollongong, Newcastle and country areas who could not find work either. Unemployment was and is endemic because of the wreckage of Fraser policies and will remain so until this Government can generate long term confidence in the business and construction world and retain the trust of the union movement and the public. The trauma of unemployment has not brought Gold Coast holidays to the unemployed. It has brought in its train appalling social consequences. Health problems are greater amongst the unemployed. The risk of family breakdown is considerably higher. An unemployed breadwinner cannot easily cope with his or her failure to find or retain a job. His or her spouse cannot cope with the rage of frustration and helplessness. Young people are driven from home because of the pressures of their parents or because parents cannot understand the failure of their children to get a job. They do not get to the Gold Coast; they are lucky to find the fares to get to work. The miserable Opposition takes exception to them doing as other Australians do, and that is having a bit of time off. With due respect, Senator Chaney and his mean-spirited team believe that the place of the unemployed is in the queue at the soup kitchen, and preferably wearing rags. Senator Chaney —Rubbish! Senator GRIMES —Does Senator Chaney want to be reminded of his discredited leader's promise? It was: We will be generous to those who can't get a job and want to work. The so-called generous attitude was exemplified by the former Minister for Social Security, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, whose first Press release as a Minister for Social Security was a statement entitled 'Move to Stop Dole Cheats' . The first action, statement No. 1 from the then new Minister for Social Security, was: 'Move to Stop Dole Cheats'. That was the way in which members of the former Government started to regard the unemployed and that was the way in which they continued to do so. If they were ever generous, no one in the country detected it. They froze the rate of benefit for the single unemployed in their first Budget after the 1977 election. They never explained it. They never talked about it before the election. They never apologised about it. They not only punished the unemployed financially for not being able to find a job which was never there; they tightened the unemployment benefit guidelines year after year in a way which always hurt unemployed families. Wealthy Liberals who did not give a damn, because there was plenty of work at that time for them and their unemployed children, cheered as unemployed school leavers were deprived of money, as the least literate and the least confident unemployed were faced with bureaucratic hurdles that they could not hope to master. They were generous in their contempt for the unemployed, and that is all that they were generous in. When Mr Fraser was Opposition spokesman on employment in 1974, he promised to take unemployment benefits to the level of the minimum wage if the unemployment level exceeded 250,000. He never intended to do that, just as the present Opposition never intends to carry out the promises that it is making now, even at this early stage in opposition. I suggest that the present floundering Leader of the Opposition, when he attempted the other day to censure this Government for the rate of unemployment today, was treated with contempt by the community and the Press because it was an example of hypocrisy, and everyone knows that it was an example of hypocrisy. Members of the Opposition seem to be having problems with their short term and long term memories. I remind them that when we left Government in November 1975 there were 265,000 unemployed, and we were not at all happy about that, any more than we are happy about the present situation. Senator Chaney —How many were there when you went into government? Senator GRIMES —When the Fraser Government was kicked out, there were 636,000 unemployed. That Government had managed to more than double that number, and members of the Opposition have the gall to come into this place, after we have been in government for eight months, and say that we have not done enough about unemployment. In their rush to be seen to be concerned about the unemployed, after years of pushing them into demoralisation, this Opposition acts as though the whole problem materialised in the last six or eight months. I make the point again: The previous Government's policies added 371,000 more to the official number of unemployed and forced them into humiliation and into debt. In the case of the young unemployed, that benefit stayed at $36 a week while wages, salaries and even pensions rose. Their misery was often compounded by homelessness and brutalisation which made them prey to every social evil in the country. All this from the followers of the man who said in his 1975 policy speech: We have placed jobs first. We have placed Australia first. I suggest that the crocodile tears of the Leader of the Opposition in this place today are a disgrace. I move to another promise that the same Opposition front benchers vigorously applauded in 1975 and then ignored, the promise that the real value of pensions would be preserved. We have two ex-Ministers for Social Security in the chamber this afternoon. When the Whitlam Government took power in 1972 the standard rate of pension was 19 per cent of average weekly earnings. It rose to in excess of 24 per cent of average weekly earnings. At that time, because of the coalition's neglect, we believed it was proper to give major increases to pensioners and beneficiaries, and the increase in the pension rate was in fact almost twice the rate of inflation at that time. Honourable senators opposite clearly do not have that same commitment to the disadvantaged because the pension rate in relation to average weekly earnings had dropped to 22 per cent of average weekly earnings when the electorate rejected the Fraser Government. It is our intention and our promise to take the standard rate of pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, and we promise to do this in the first three years of government. We will do this. It does no good for honourable senators opposite to claim that we promised any more than that because even before we knew of the deception of the previous Prime Minister and the deception of the discredited former Treasurer in respect of the deficit figures, we knew that it would not be easy just to walk in and raise pensions in this way. In our first Budget we have made progress in areas neglected by the previous Government. We have introduced a special zone allowance for pensioners in Zone A , who have been long recognised as being disadvantaged in this country. This allowance will benefit about 10,000 pensioners living in Queensland. We have increased the unemployment benefit and indexed the single unemployment benefit as first steps in getting these benefits back to the standard that applied in 1978. We have promised to revive the economy. Mr Fraser, of course, promised to do that. In November 1975 he said that a growth rate of 6 per cent to 7 per cent would be 'quite feasible in recovering from the slack under Labor' and 'would enable us to halve the deficit'. In fact, gross domestic product growth during the Fraser years was only 2 1/2 per cent per annum. In the last year of that Government GDP took a nose dive, with the June quarter GDP falling 2.3 per cent, to be 3.9 per cent lower than in the June quarter of 1982 and 4.6 per cent below the peak reached in the September quarter of 1981. The worst economic recession in 50 years was not enough to stop Mr Fraser proclaiming on 14 February 1982: Australia's position in relation to economic management is the envy of many other countries. In fact, Australia's inflation, growth and unemployment performance over the Fraser years were significantly worse than the average for all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, despite our rich natural resources and relative immunity from successive oil shocks. We sat in this chamber and listened to the then Leader of the Government, Senator Sir John Carrick, tell us about the wonders that were going to occur from the Rundle scheme, talking up Rundle shares, as we said he was doing all along, talking up a boom. Where is that boom now? Where was the evidence that the boom was ever going to come? When people such as Senator Walsh and I suggested that this was what he was about, we were told that we were hampering the Government's effort for recovery. One could go on all afternoon, as Senator Chaney suggested he could, about the incredible number of promises made by the previous Government in the fields of health, social security, economic development, and minerals and energy. These promises were not carried out. That Government failed. The best example of how that Government failed can be seen in the present numbers in the House of Representatives, in the polls that were published this week, and in the position of some of the leaders who made those promises such as Senator Sir John Carrick and others, who are now sitting on the back bench in the Senate. There they will stay because they are the past masters of broken promises. They are the people who could not retain the faith of the people. We will retain that faith. We will govern this country and lead it back to progress. We will not be stopped by stupid and silly matters of public importance like this. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(2.40) — This afternoon we are discussing a matter of public importance, namely: The failure of Labor governments to keep their promises to the Australian people. In every election, no matter what party is presenting its policies, promises are always made. In the light of day when that party gets into power, I guess there is general recognition that some of those policies cannot be fulfilled. However, in this instance we have seen a complete election manifesto repudiated once the party got into government. The whole manifesto was repudiated, except one promise-of course, that was Medicare, and who needs that. One has only to look at the record that Medibank provided of increased costs to the people of Australia in the three years that the Labor Government was in power from 1972 to 1975 to realise what a disaster it was then, as, of course, Medicare will ultimately be. Never before has a complete manifesto been so easily repudiated in such a short time. As a matter of fact, to misquote a leading world statesman , 'Never in the field of Australian politics has so much been promised to so many who ultimately received so little'. It is quite interesting that at this time there is an election campaign going on in my home State. Senator Jones —You would never know it. Senator COLLARD —No, one would never know it, but it will all be over next week and everything will return to normal. It is quite interesting to read the remarks of the Labor leader before the 5 March Federal election and those of the Queensland Leader of the Opposition before the current State election. I quote Mr Hawke: We offer no miracles. We offer no overnight solutions for the immediate problems we face or the deep-seated problems we must face together. I believe the Australian people have had enough of election promises made only to be broken. I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. Mr Wright has said: I come before you with no grab-bag of campaign promises made only to be broken, no shopping list of uncosted proposals . . . So it goes on, with very similar words from the two Labor leaders. We have just heard the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) speak and it is interesting that not once did he address himself to the matter before the chamber today. He never mentioned it because, of course, he could not. Everybody knows that and the people of Australia are slowly waking up to it. He has mentioned the popularity of the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as shown in the polls. I, like every boy, learnt very early in life that the higher one climbs up a tree the further it is to fall. Of course, that fall will come very shortly and it will be quite calamitous. Let us look now at some of the promises made. With respect to taxation, Mr Hawke said: Labor's tax reform program will have these objectives: to increase the real value of the pay packet and stimulate demand in the economy to restore equity to the tax system to redress the tax burden, on the principle of ability to pay to prevent the erosion of after-tax income by inflation, and so support the prices and incomes policy to end the loss of untold millions of dollars through the tax evasion and avoidance industry. Mr Wright says: Just as the Commonwealth has had wide-ranging reviews of its taxation procedures, a Labor Government will establish a special Commission to review- I understand that it will be one of about 17 commissions we will have if by some mischance Mr Wright gets into government- and report on State Revenue, State Taxes and State Charges. Mr Hawke said: The major points of Labor's tax reform will be: a new six step tax scale to restore the progressive nature of the tax system a lift in the tax threshold to $5,000 which will free tens of thousands of low income earners from all tax a lift in the tax threshold for pensioners of $4650 to $5893 increases in the spouse rebate and sole parent rebate, resulting in additional tax cuts of $2 a week to families increases in zone allowances by 25 per cent for taxpayers in remote areas. Mr Wright says: Labor will revise the present system of electricity tariffs and ease the burden of electricity costs on householders and business. We propose a major review of State taxes and charges but there are three specific areas where a Labor Government will reduce such costs. Labor will abolish payroll tax for all apprentices. Labor will abolish stamp duty and Labor will not introduce a State Income Tax. That is similar rhetoric. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland is going around talking about his costed proposals but he has not costed the so-called reductions that the people might receive if, as I said, by some mischance he gets into power. But how much can we believe? The Prime Minister is in Queensland this day trying to convince Queenslanders that they should vote in the Labor Party because of all the things he has done. What has he done? Certainly he has not done any of the things that he promised. Where is the six-step tax scale? What about the lift in the tax threshold to $5,000; where is that? What about the lift in the tax threshold for pensioners; where is that? What about the increase in the spouse rebate and the sole parent rebate? So it goes on; the list is endless. As I said, the Deputy Leader of the Government in this chamber spoke for twenty minutes and not once did he address himself to the subject before the chamber-the unfilled promises of the Labor Government. Mr Hawke, on the prices and incomes accord, said: The Government will endeavour to reduce the relative incidence of indirect taxation because of its regressive and inflationary nature. What hypocrisy! What has happened since then? Not only have excises not been reduced; indeed, they are now indexed. I call it a Gold Lotto budget-in other words, every six months this Labor Government wins the lottery but it is the taxpayers of Australia who are buying the tickets, with monotonous regularity. What hypocrisy! These excises apply to many and various things that affect the everyday lives of people. That is particularly the case with fuel and the extra sales tax which has to be paid on lubricating oils by some people in rural industry. It has a compounding effect right throughout the community, involving people who rely on every mode of transport just to get to and from work and those who rely on transport for goods and services. It goes right down the line; we have a compounding effect right through this country from a government and a Prime Minister who promised that indirect taxation would be reduced. What about local government? Labor Party policy is to index grants to local government. The coalition Government brought up those grants to 2 per cent of income tax, and the policy of the Labor Party is that it will allocate at least 2 per cent of Federal personal income tax as a general revenue grant to local government, the allocation in any year to be not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation. What happened? In 1982-83 the consumer price index rose by 11.2 per cent and local government's share of personal income tax collections rose by only 8.2 per cent. It is interesting that Mr Wright promised at a local government seminar that there would be an indexed grant of $45m to local government in Queensland-the same words again, the same promises. We can only suppose what the results would be. It is interesting that he said that at a local government seminar and was not quite game to mention it in his speech. I turn to unemployment. When the present Prime Minister hit the election trail he said: 'This election is about jobs, jobs, jobs'. What an abysmal record the Government has. The present Prime Minister said that 500,000 jobs would be created in three years. Further, he said that an estimated 70,000 new full time jobs would be created for an average duration of six months. Where are those jobs now? Senator Grimes mentioned the unemployment record when Labor left office in 1975. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, by way of interjection asked: 'What was it when they got into power?' It is very interesting that Senator Grimes did not reply. The Labor Government invented unemployment in Australia in its time in office from 1972 to 1975. When the Whitlam Government took over the unemployment rate was running at about 2.4 per cent or approximately 136,000 people. When it left office in 1975 the rate has reached 5.6 per cent or, in round figures, 328,000 people. The Labor Government invented unemployment in Australia. We had not seen the likes of that for years. In this chamber we have representatives of the great proletariat, supposedly representing the working people, slowly and surely putting more and more of them out of work. So we have reached the situation we are in today. The latest figures on unemployment indicate that the only ray of hope on the horizon is Queensland. Queensland was the only State in which the level of unemployment had gone down. In every other State it had gone up. People should be aware of the fact that page 135 of Budget Paper No. 1-the Government's own statement, with all the rhetoric gone-indicates an expected increase in unemployment of 139,800 people this year. What a betrayal of the Australian people. What a betrayal of the people, with hopes held so high, who put the Government in office. The Government is a high tax government. Between 1 July 1973 and 30 June 1976, which were basically Labor Budget years, the total income tax take rose by 125 per cent. The total tax take, when one looks at indirect taxation as well as company tax and so on, rose by 99.3 per cent. In that period average weekly earnings rose by only 67 per cent. In the first three years of the Fraser- Anthony Government income tax rose by just 39 per cent, total tax by 38 percent and average weekly earnings by 33 per cent. In other words, the Labor Government lifted taxes three times faster than did the coalition, while lifting earnings only twice as quickly as the coalition. What an horrendous record. Of course, people forgot about it on 5 March, but they are fast being reminded of it. This Government is hypocritical. It stalks around the countryside as if it were the representative of the great proletariat. The Government has betrayed the people abysmally. The record is an indictment against the Government on its mismanagement of this country in such a short time. I suggest that there is a case to answer. I hope that the following speakers in this debate can do better at answering the charges which have been raised by Senator Chaney and me and those which will be raised by Senator Baume, than the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate did. He was not game to address himself to the problem before the Chair. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(2.55) -The matter of public importance that we are discussing this afternoon refers to the failure of Labor governments to keep their promises. One of the Labor governments referred to was the Hawke Labor Government which has been in office since March this year. The Budget brought down in August this year is a sound Budget. Certaily, we would have liked to have done more, but let us remind ourselves of what happened when we were elected in March. The election campaign went through February and early March. We made certain assumptions about what the state of the Department of the Treasury would be when we came to government. When we got here we found that the cupboard was bare. Not only was it bare; it also had a tremendous overdraft. We were facing a deficit of $9.6 billion. When we realised that we had that deficit in front of us we had to tailor our cloth to meet what was there and what we could raise in the first Budget. Let us not forget that when we made those promises we made them for the first Hawke Labor Government. We did not make them for the first Budget; they were made for a full three years. Is the Opposition trying to indicate that its aim is for this Government to have only a one Budget term such as occurred in 1974 and 1975? If that is its aim it will fail. When it looks back at a full record of the Hawke Government after its three year term it will see the promises that have been implemented. It is folly at this stage to list the promises that we said we would fulfil over a full term of government and say that they have not been fulfilled because we have introduced one Budget. It is necessary for me to put Senator Chaney's comments made during his speech on this matter of public importance into perspective. In doing so I will first make some comment about the previous Federal Administration and then, to use Senator Chaney's argument, I will make some comments about a State administration. I came to this place early in 1976 after being elected in the December 1975 election. At that stage I was very concerned about the plight of the unemployed as I have always been. It is not necessary to have experienced the frustrations of unemployment to be concerned about the unemployed. But having had that experience one can never lose a compassion towards those who want work and cannot find work. I do not speak very much of my own family background, but I think it is probably pertinent in this regard. My father was in the building industry. He experienced long periods of unemployment while he was putting me through school. I understood the frustrations of, not only people who were employed, but also of a whole family being unemployed. Later I also experienced periods of unemployment. It was not very nice at the time, but looking back I am glad I did because I understand the frustrations that people have. So it was not unusual for me, when I came to this place, to be concerned about the unemployed then. It was not unusual for me to be concerned during the campaign about what would happen to the unemployed. Thus, when I was elected to this place I waited for the new Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, to fulfil his promise that he would provide jobs for all who wanted to work. Senator Grimes has already spoken about this matter. But let us examine what happened. Year after year from 1975 until now as I sat on the Opposition benches unemployment increased. It increased, despite the promise that there would be jobs for all who wanted to work. When Mr Fraser came into power on 11 November 1975 there were 310,100 people out of work. That represented 5 per cent of the work force. When he left office in March of this year, and the closest figures we can get are for February 1983, that 310,100 had increased to 747,300, which represented 10.7 per cent of the work force. Lest it be suggested that I am comparing months which are not like, November and February, let us have a look at the seasonally adjusted figures. The seasonally adjusted figures indicate that in November 1975 there were 334,800 people out of work, which represented 5.4 per cent of the work force. In February 1983 that figure had increased to 669,500 or 9.6 per cent. In other words, there was an increase from 5.4 per cent to 9.6 per cent. We are faced this afternoon with arguments about Labor not keeping its promises when we have been in office for only eight months. The former Government was in office for seven years. It said it would provide jobs for all and the number of unemployed increased from 5.4 per cent to 9.6 per cent, if we are using seasonally adjusted figures. I should like to make some comments about Medibank, which was mentioned earlier . The previous speaker, Senator Collard, used words to this effect: 'Medibank was a disaster from 1972 to 1975'. Let me remind the Senate that Medibank was introduced in the last half of 1975. It took that amount of time for us to gear up to Medibank. It was not even working for six months when the election came around in 1975. But it was popular, even though it had not been working for six months. It was so popular that the then caretaker Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said: 'We will retain Medibank'. I can remember watching him on television delivering his policy speech. I think one should always watch one's opposition on television. One must know one's enemy. I can remember having watched him on television and he said, 'we will maintain Medibank' and the crowd behind him gave a great big cheer because he knew, and they knew, that Medibank was popular . Maintain Medibank he did, but he retained it in name only. I can remember, as you can remember, Madam Acting Deputy President, I am sure, and as many other people on this side of the chamber can remember, that when we were on the other side of the chamber, year after year after year there was a change to the health insurance system of Australia, and it was not very long before Medibank had gone. Yet the Opposition talks this afternoon about Labor's broken promises. But there were broken promises on that side all throughout that period. I may have made one error. I think that there was one year in those seven when there was not any change and we were most amazed because we kept expecting change year after year because of the pattern that had built up. I am sure that when the three year term of the Hawke Labor Government is concluded and we look back, not on Medibank, as we had at that time, but on Medicare, which we have virtually introduced and which will come into operation on 1 February next year, we will see that it was just as popular or perhaps even more popular than Medibank because it will have been going for so much longer than Medibank was going when the election came around in 1975. It would be a foolish government, a foolish opposition or a foolish party which would say when the next election comes around that it would dismantle Medicare. I am sure that that is the aim of some of the people on the other side. We have heard statements from some of their spokespersons saying that they will dismantle Medicare. But that does not particularly concern me very much, because it will be many years before the Liberal and National Parties get their hands on Medicare. Using Senator Chaney's example of tying State government expenditure in with Federal government expenditure and the revenue that results from doing so, let me mention some of the promises that have been made in Queensland by the current administration, which will lose its place in history tomorrow. I mention a couple of these promises because they are worth mentioning, even though they might appear a little flippant. Senator Chaney —Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order, purely because the previous occupant of the chair pulled me up when I started mentioning similar matters. I have very carefully considered the previous matter raised and looked at the relevant provision in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice. I think that the Chair's ruling was not a good precedent. I believe that it is relevant to a proper matter of public importance to debate the range of governments in Australia. The point made by the Chair is one which I would not wish to be made during this speech or, indeed, during any other. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —There is no point of order. Senator COLSTON —I am not quite sure what Senator Chaney was getting at. I think he was canvassing one of my rulings. That being the case, I am itching to get back into the chair. I would like to mention some of the promises which were made in Queensland. Mr Russ Hinze, the Minister for everything in Queensland, once said: Let me draw Queensland's electoral boundaries. I'll make sure we're never defeated. For the sake of democracy, I am glad that this was one promise that was not carried out in Queensland. Promises were made by Mr Bjelke-Petersen. One of the promises was that Milan Brych would be permitted to set up and would set up a clinic in Queensland. At the same time Dr Edwards called Milan Brych a charlatan and a quack. Despite this promise by Mr Bjelke-Petersen, Milan Brych went to court in Los Angeles and was sent to gaol for six years for fraud and medical malpractice involving cancer patients. The promises by Mr Bjelke-Petersen regarding the hydrogen car turned out to be so much hot air. Mr Bjelke-Petersen made a further promise concerning the $6m oilseed man in Queensland, Dr Oskar, who fled the country before Mr Bjelke-Petersen could give him the $6m, leaving a debt behind him. These are some of the promises that were not carried out. Perhaps we are fortunate that they were not carried out by the Queensland Government. In our Budget which, as I said, was a sound Budget, we provided a tremendous amount of funds for Queensland. Queensland will benefit greatly from the funds which will flow from this Government because of this Government's commitment to Queensland, because of the funds that are already there and those that are still coming. My colleague Senator Jones, who will be speaking later, will mention many of these funds. Perhaps I can mention one area which I think is of great benefit to Queensland. These are the new government buildings that we are providing in many of the regional cities and on Thursday Island. Senator Jones will expand on many of these matters when he speaks. This Labor Government will fulfil its promises during its three-year term. We will be looking forward to a Labor government being elected tomorrow in Queensland, so it can do the same. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.10) —The concern of Australians is with the performance of the Government of the day. They are not concerned with the past, but with what is happening now in Australia. The subject of this matter of public importance is: The failure of Labor governments in Australia to keep their promises. The proposition I will advance and which I will put to the Senate is that we cannot trust Labor. We are out to sheet home the broken promises. I will cite some of the matters where Labor governments-whether or not the promises have cost money-have moved to break solemn undertakings and promises. If a promise has been broken, it has been broken. It is no good for Senator Colston to say that the promises will be redeemed over three years. Some of them have been dishonoured already and nothing can bring back those promises. Perhaps it is in order to set out some of the things which this Government has done in a few short months to set aside solemn undertakings to the Australian people. What were some of the promises? I am indebted to my colleague Senator Lewis for preparing a list of some of those promises. The Labor Government promised immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million people, and that has not been honoured. It promised no change in lump sum superannuation payments. It dishonoured that promise. It promised to maintain the home loan interest rebate. It dishonoured that promise and the rebate was abolished. It promised to keep the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare. It dishonoured that promise and the rebate was abolished. We simply cannot trust Labor. It promised that it would not introduce an assets test. It dishonoured that promise and it has announced its intention to introduce a test, the details of which are now being worked out. It promised to abolish the pharmaceutical declaration form. It dishonoured that promise. It promised to maintain drought relief to help recovery. It dishonoured that promise. It promised adequate compensation for Tasmanians in lieu of their dam. It certainly has not yet honoured that promise. We simply cannot trust the Australian Labor Party in government. It promised to remove the sales tax on retreaded tyres. We heard about that in the Senate recently. That promise has been dishonoured. It promised to reduce the price of petrol by 3c per litre, and that promise has been dishonoured. It promised to reduce charges for private patients in public hospitals by $60 a day , and that has been dishonoured. It promised there would be no more job losses in the steel industry, and that promise has not been kept. We cannot trust Labor Governments. It promised to maintain real funding for local government, and it has dishonoured that promise. It promised to lift the tax threshold for pensioners to $5,000 or $5,893, depending on their circumstances. It has not honoured that promise. It promised-my colleague Senator Messner would know about this-that there would be no tax or excise increase on wines, and it has dishonoured that promise. Many of those promises were not contigent upon the Budget. They were promises which were made to protect people, and they have been callously and systematically broken during the Government's first short period in office. There are 15 broken promises or assurances to the education communities around Australia, ranging from specific promises in schools, colleges of advanced education and universities, and specific promises to students. Those promises have been dishonoured. The Government promised to create 500,000 new jobs during its first period in government. It has delivered in its first seven months a loss of 68,000 jobs. We now have the lowest participation rate in the work force that we have had for 20 years. It has dropped by two per cent in the first eight months of the Labor Government. Those looking for jobs cannot trust the Labor Government. We have lost our income tax rebate for health insurance, when we were promised that it would remain. We have lost the home deposit assistance scheme. We have lost the housing interest rebate scheme. We have lost our $1,000 dividend rebate. Members of the Defence Force Reserve have lost the tax exemption for the pay they receive for their periodic training. We have lost equality in Federal funding for children in non-government schools as compared with the funding given to government schools. From all these broken promises we deduce that one cannot trust the Labour Party . One cannot trust the Labor Party in view of the large number of promises which it made before the election as bait to the electors and which have been broken since that time. Many of those promises were not dependent upon the State of the economy. Many of them were not dependent upon the Government's Budget capacity; they were matters of ideology and they were in direct contrast with what was promised before the election. It is not just the Hawke Government in Canberra which cannot be trusted. In many of the States the governments have the same sorry record. If we look at the complex arrangements which exist between the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government, for the flow of funds, and if we look at the way in which New South Wales comes to the Federal Government for the grants it needs to redeem its promises, what do we find? Before two State elections the New South Wales Government promised to improve education by reducing face to face teaching and by improving library services. Those promises have not been redeemed. We now find the New South Wales Teachers Federation in bitter conflict with the Government of that State. The promise of a second harbour crossing has not been delivered. A ninth lane on Sydney Harbour Bridge to help traffic flow was promised but the promise has not been delivered. A major promise to build a large sports stadium at Homebush that surely would have involved some negotiations with the Commonwealth in order to find the funds-has not been redeemed. A specific promise was given to provide a $15m extension to Sydney Hospital and to retain the hospital. That has not been redeemed. Sydney Hospital has been closed and the $15m was never provided. The finances of the Cain Government in Victoria are entwined with those of the Federal Government also. The Cain Government made promises which required Federal Government funding by way of grants and loans to make them a reality. What did it promise? It promised not to increase State taxes or charges in any area. In fact, taxes have increased by 40 per cent. It promised to reduce gas prices by 4 per cent. They have increased by about a third. It promised that most electricity users would pay no more than they were paying when the last increase was made by the Government it replaced. In fact the charges have increased by a quarter. It promised to scrap the petrol tax increase which it inherited. In fact, it has increased petrol tax even further-petrol tax is up by 1c a litre. The Cain Government promised to reduce public transport fares. They have actually doubled for some people and are up markedly. The Labor Government in Victoria promised to review all health charges and collecting procedures. It has increased hospital charges by about two-thirds. In Victoria people have found under a Labor Government that they cannot trust the Labor Party. They cannot trust Labor in government. Every time Victorians turn on a tap, a light, a stove or a heater and every time they go to the toilet they are paying tax because of the taxes imposed by the authorities which provide all the services. In the same way, the South Australian Government, depending as it does, on many States grants, has its funding entwined with that of the Commonwealth. The Labor Party policy speech in South Australia stated: Unlike the Liberals, we will not allow State charges like transport fares, electricity and hospital charges to be used as a form of back-door taxation. What did Labor deliver? Do people have any reason to trust Labor as a result of their experience in South Australia? Senator Chaney —No. Senator PETER BAUME —No, my colleague Senator Chaney says correctly. There have been substantial increases in over 70 areas of State Government activity. Hospital fees have increased by 20 per cent. Electricity charges and tariffs are up by 12 per cent. The overall average increase in transport costs in South Australia is almost a half. In spite of the pre-election promises of the Labor Party, the facts are that one cannot trust Labor in government in South Australia. One cannot trust Labor in government in Victoria; one cannot trust Labor in government in New South Wales; and one cannot trust Labor in government in Canberra. Senator Chaney —You can trust them to break their promises. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Chaney says that we can trust the Labor Government to break its promises. That is about all that we can trust it to do. I was attracted by what the Speaker who preceded me in this debate, Senator Colston, said when he drew attention to some of the situations that exist in Queensland and to some of the prospects that lie ahead for Queenslanders. I do not wish to canvass those matters. I merely wish to record for the Senate some of the realities about Queensland today. First, Queensland is the State with lower State taxation than any other State in Australia-State taxes are less than $500 a year, compared with higher rates in the other States. It is the State with a growing population. It is the State with less strikes. It is the State with more investment. It is the State with a better record on employment and finding jobs-a record that is in stark contrast with what the Hawke Government has done at the Federal level. It is the State with a better record in job creation. With about one-sixth of the Australian population, Queensland has had only 6 per cent or so of the nation's industrial disputes. It has attracted almost one-fifth of the nation's foreign investment proposals. It has generated about one-fifth of the fixed capital spending and the expected capital spending. It is the national leader in job creation and growth and in fighting unemployment. The first seven months of the Hawke Labor Government give us examples of the most cynical approach to election undertakings seen from any elected government in the memory of any of us. It is quite clear that the Hawke Government had absolutely no intention of honouring the very many vote buying promises which it made to the Australian people. Let me remind you again, Mr Acting Deputy President, that many of the promises which were broken were not promises that cost money; they were promises that were made to protect things which people had , which they valued and which they did not want to lose. But the promises were broken anyhow once the votes had been obtained and once people had put the Government into power. Australians just cannot trust the Labor Party. It is clear that the Australian electorate has been conned. It is clear that the unemployed were conned. It is clear that the average wage earner was conned. It is clear that those who were anticipating tax cuts were conned and it is clear that many other members of the community who had their expectations raised during the election campaign have been conned as well. The truth is that the Labor Party is always prepared, in every election campaign, to promise the world in order to win power. It is so anxious for power that it would even abandon its principles and its party platforms, if necessary, in order to offer the most pragmatic program that this country has ever seen. Already its record in government is clear. The litany of dishonoured promises is lengthening every day; it is on the record. My colleague Senator Chaney has demonstrated-Senator Collard has supported him-that the Hawke Labor Government is not a government that can be trusted. Australians cannot trust Labor. They never could and they will never be able to. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.24) —The Senate is debating the following matter of public importance: The failure of Labor governments to keep their promises to the Australian people. This would truly have become an appropriate matter of public importance if it had simply read: 'The failure of governments to keep their promises to the Australian people'. If ever there were a theme to which the Australian people would warm, it would be that one. I suggest that the matter of public importance brought into this chamber by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, which seeks to restrict the debate to the honesty of Labor governments only, would have been much better received by anybody listening to this debate if it had related to all governments. It is a fact that the Australian people view politicians with the utmost suspicion because of the regularity with which every government tends to make extravagant promises at election time and then finds excuses later not to keep those promises. Trying to assess which promises will be kept and which promises will not be kept has become a national game. Indeed the media have a very pleasant time in trying to assess this from time to time. But it has very little to do with the government of the country. Of course, the basic situation is that any government can be relied upon not to keep its promises when it gets into office. That has been the reason for the tremendous deterioration in respect for the institution of Parliament in the minds of the Australian people, and rightly so. Why then has this matter of public importance been brought into the Senate today? No doubt it has occurred to listeners that the fact that a State election in Queensland and four State by-elections in New South Wales are to be held tomorrow is not wholly unconnected with it. This then is an electioneering debate, or an attempt is being made to make it one. However, I propose to deal mostly with some real issues that have a direct bearing on this matter of the honesty of governments. Firstly, I do not believe that debates of the nature of this one so far cut much ice with the Australian people. Not unnaturally, they would prefer us to get on with the business of government rather than the innuendo and adversary politicking we have heard over the last several hours. I wonder then why these things continue. Are they just a sheer continuation of bad habits on the part of the perpetrators, who must surely know by now that they are highly counterproductive with the electorate? Of course, a government may elect not to keep a promise to the people because it feels in its own conscience that it is well intentioned not to do so, because it believes that circumstances have changed in such a way as to make it no longer wise, prudent or necessary to keep that promise. Whatever they may think when they come to office, governments do not necessarily have a monopoly on wisdom. That applies just as much to the present Labor Government as to any other government. Two classic examples come readily to mind. They are issues on which the present Government has made promises and which are very relevant to this debate. Because of that, I propose to look at those two issues at some length in light of the matter we are now considering. The first issue I wish to discuss is uranium, which was raised earlier in the debate by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Of course, whether or not we should mine and export uranium is a very complex and important issue. It is a fact that the majority of the Australian people are deeply worried about the morality and wisdom of our country continuing to mine and export uranium. Decent Australians do not like to be involved in a traffic which presents such terrible dangers to the world, not only to our generation but also to our children, our grandchildren and to all generations beyond. How could anyone be happy with an industry which, it is already known, will significantly increase the rate of fatal cancers in future and which, it has been proven by experiments on animals, can cause horrendous and unnatural mutations to innocent human beings even before they are born? Those same decent Australians cannot subscribe to the morality of the drug pedlar now being urged on them by the supporters of the uranium industry. These people say: 'You can get money by selling our uranium. Do not worry about the possible bad effects. If the buyers could not get uranium from us they would get it from someone else.' That is what I mean by the morality of the drug pedlar. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —I draw the honourable senator's attention to the subject before the Chair. Senator MASON —I respect your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President. I merely wish to demonstrate that this matter is a matter of some importance in respect of which this Government has not kept its promises to the electorate. The Leader of the Opposition raised this matter at some length earlier in the debate and was permitted to do so. I just bring that point to your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will complete the point I was making, if I may. I worked for a number of years in Thailand and I know, as a result, that we could probably bring to Australia the capital and expertise to establish an industry to grow and export heroin. It would be much more profitable than uranium, and the argument would be: 'Do not worry about the bad effect. If they cannot get this heroin from us they will get it from somebody else'. I suggest that is an analagous situation. In this matter of pubic importance we are talking about the Government keeping its promises. Before the election Labor candidates campaigned regularly on the facts I have just mentioned. Of course, that is why I am raising those points in this debate. It was right and proper for them to raise those points concerning uranium, and they did so repeatedly. But it is not right and proper, and never can be, for the Labor Government, having obtained the trust and confidence of the Australian voters over this issue, then to betray them. It betrayed not only the voters but also the world and the future by allowing this thoroughly discredited uneconomic industry to proceed. Admittedly, the Government has not yet taken that decision but there seems to be all the indications that it may well do so. While the Government is contemplating the promises it made to the electorate it might also face up honestly to the close, growing and immensely dangerous link between the uranium industry and nuclear weapons. That link is now so close that respected commentators have described the nuclear power industry as a means of producing plutonium for bombs with an electric power spin-off. It is a fact that the by-products of nuclear power-houses can be used to produce bombs, and indeed quite recently laser technology has been developed to the point where it can increase the enrichment of ordinary nuclear power-house fuel to make small, dirty A-bombs of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki type. To avoid these unpleasant facts and to try to justify its position on uranium to the Australian people the Government has sought to hide behind another red herring. It told the Australian people that the synroc process being developed by Professor Ringwood at the Australian National University will solve the problems of nuclear waste. I think we must, in the light of honesty of government, take a careful look at that statement. The facts are, of course, that synroc is a mixture of high level radioactive waste and natural materials such as barium and calcium which has been subjected to high temperatures and pressure to produce a simulated rock which is more stable than the glass which is now being used for radioactive waste storage at high temperatures and which requires a shorter cooling time. However, to achieve this stability and to keep the time in which the synroc needs to be kept under refrigeration to under 100 years, which, after all, is a fairly substantial period, the radioactive waste must be reprocessed to remove the most highly radioactive isotopes, uranium 235 and plutonium 239. What the Labor Government said to us and to the people of Australia when it sponsored this idea is: 'It is great to have synroc. We are putting money into synroc. You will have a reprocessing industry in Australia and you will have a plutonium economy in which there will be large amounts of reprocessed uranium 235 and plutonium 239 around the community'. There is no avoiding that. If we are to get those things out of the fuel rods we have to reprocess the material here. If we are to use synroc we have to reprocess first. Let us be absolutely clear about that. Indeed, the Government ought to know this. Before it breaks its promises to the Australian people, I refer it to the eminent American journal, Science, of September 1980-some considerable time ago. Senator Button —It would be a good idea to reprocess it before we put it in synroc, would it not? Senator MASON —We would have to reprocess it before we put it in synroc. That is just what I have been saying. For that reason alone, of course, it makes synroc an unacceptable option for this country, or indeed for any other. We have the reprocessing chain ahead of us. We have to dispose of the nuclear fuel rods through the reprocessing system before we even get near the synroc system of disposal. The article in Science, of course, casts considerable doubt on the ability to use materials which contain alkali metals or alkaline earths at all. This includes glass and synroc. That article, which is completely authoritive, otherwise the journal of the United States Academy of Sciences would not have published it three years ago, points out: Materials containing alkali metals or alkaline earths are sensitized by bombardment with either ions, electrons, or protons to chemical attack by atmospheric moisture. In other words a large series of investigations will have to be carried out in regard to synroc with radioactive material-if we ever use it-to be sure that over a long period it does not deteriorate, as indeed it has already been shown that glass would do under atmospheric conditions. I do not know whether the Government will keep its promises to the Australia people in regard to the uranium issue. I sincerely hope it does. I read with great pleasure today reports in both the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has now modified his previous attitude of support for the nuclear industry and the Roxby Downs project in particular. I can understand the pressures on Mr Hawke over this matter, both at home and internationally, because obviously I have been under very much smaller pressures from the highly organised and wealthy lobby, the uranium producers, who are pushing their barrow with great energy at the moment. I believe the Prime Minister must be praised for the readiness with which he will listen to voices within his own party and in the public telling him the damning facts about the uranium industry. Press innuendoes that Mr Hawke has backed off or backed down over the issue do no more than indicate the gutter mentality of some of the media and the attitude they take towards important public affairs. They seem to see the most important issues simply in terms of a horse race between intervals or as power struggles. These attitudes are wholly irresponsible and mischievous, and are widely perceived as such by the public. Another issue on which the Government is not fronting up to the Australian people and on which it is not displaying the honesty mentioned in Senator Chaney 's matter of public importance is, of course, East Timor. I hope that those people in this and the other place who have urged that we quietly sell out the Timorese people have taken good note of recent statements by the Indonesian authorities in Timor that they now propose to wipe out their opponents by military means. This means that the brutal and bloody imposition of a quite unjustified and illegal act of conquest is to be continued by the simple means of killing more and more of the Timorese people-the classic final solution. Of course, the people must now die of their wounds or from torture without any help from the Red Cross. An article in the Melbourne Age reports that Portugal's President has expressed concern that the Indonesian military has refused to allow the Red Cross to provide urgently needed medical aid in East Timor. While I am on the issue of honesty in government I draw attention to reported comments by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, in an article in the Age in Melbourne on Wednesday, 19 October. The article states: Mr Hayden described the report in yesterday's 'Age' as 'mischievous', ' provocative' and 'inaccurate' and claimed the reporter, Ian Davis, 'can be dangerous when he reports foreign affairs'. On the very next day the statement I have mentioned from the President of Portugal came out. It is a thoroughly respectable situation. He said that the Indonesian people are refusing to allow the Red Cross to provide aid. One of the most disturbing aspects of this has been, first of all, Mr Hayden's comments which I think he should withdraw. Secondly, the Australian Government is apparently conniving at and actively supporting the Indonesian policy of destroying the Timorese people in secrecy. I refer to reports in the Age yesterday that the Australian Federal Police have been used to question a number of officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs about cables which were used by the Age on the East Timor issue earlier this week. I ask here and now whether this is an attempt by our Government to conceal vital facts about the issue and to seek to intimidate people of courage who may feel these facts should be known , as is right and proper, to the Australian people. I repeat that I believe that the comments made by Mr Hayden about Mr Ian Davis, which have been thoroughly justified by later reports, ought to occasion an apology to that journalist. What the public wants-this is coming through loud and clear to those who will listen-is a parliament made up of people who will not merely indulge in politicking, innuendo and back slanging as we have had in this Parliament today- - Senator Button —You mean the Democrats, don't you? Senator MASON —Yes, indeed. I will tell the honourable senator what they are like. I was just about to get to that point, Senator Button. The public wants a parliament made up of people who will study the facts of the issues fearlessly and honestly and make decisions based on those facts and not on some weird, fuzzy and thoroughly old-fashioned ideological hangup of either the Labor or Liberal colour. That is really what people want. Quite a lot of elections are occurring in New South Wales and Queensland tomorrow. I certainly think that as a result of this debate a good many more people will vote Democrat. Indeed, in their own interests I urge them to do so. Senator JONES(Queensland)(3.38) —It is quite amazing that the matter of public importance before the Senate today states: The failure of Labor governments to keep their promises to the Australian people. I think it is worth while saying to the people who are listening to the debate today, particularly in the light of a phone call I have just received, that it seems very irresponsible for Senator Chaney and the Opposition to hold this debate on this issue. The Senate resumed at 2 o'clock this afternoon. Honourable senators will debate the matter of public importance for two hours until 4 o' clock. That is two hours of wasted time. The Senate sits on Friday to get through the legislative program of the Government. I am not denying the right of the Opposition to put this matter forward. I recognise that. It just seems to me an irresponsible waste of time to debate it at this time. All we have heard today is a whole lot of posturing and statements by the Opposition to try to set themselves up as judges and say that the Hawke Labor Government has not kept its promises when it has been in power for only eight months. It is like judging a person before he commits a crime just in case he commits it. The Hawke Labor Government has been in office for eight months and the Opposition has wasted two hours of the Senate's time. The debate will finish at 4 o'clock, the Senate will adjourn at 4.15 and hardly any work will have been carried out in the Senate today. I have just received a phone call from an ABC listener-I was quite surprised to hear from a person who had been listening to the ABC-who expressed his disgust at today's proceedings and the great waste of time perpetrated by the Opposition in raising this issue. Senator Chaney —Who said no one listens to Parliament? Senator JONES —That is right. The Senate has been debating today the promises that the Australian Labor Party allegedly has not kept to this point. We ought to look at the discarded promises of the previous Government, the Fraser Government. If we were to do so we would find very clearly that hardly a promise made by the previous Prime Minister of this country was honoured. I think the result of the election showed that the people of Australia knew that he did not keep any of the promises he made to them. He made promises, those promises were broken, we went to an election, his Government was thrown out and an ALP government was elected. It is quite simple. I have before me a booklet of 37 foolscap pages-I do not intend to go through them all-of promises and broken promises by the previous Administration. If one were to adopt the Opposition's attitude and spend the time that it spent on this matter, one could read through the promises made and the promises broken by the previous Government. The previous Government's record is based on its being in government for a full term . This Government has been in power for only eight months. In contrast to the record of broken promises of the previous Government, one thing that can be said about the approach of the Hawke Labor Government is that it has been honest. The Government found when it came to power that the estimated Budget deficit had been lifted from $6 billion to $9.6 billion and that the money was not available to carry out some of the programs that it said it would carry out. But the Hawke Labor Government did not run away from the problem. It went to the people and explained what was happening in relation to its shortage of revenue and where it had to cut its program. It cut that program . The honesty of the Government and the way in which it has put propositions to the people were clearly shown in the results of the recent gallup poll which were published in the Advertiser in South Australia and in the Bulletin as one of the previous Labor speakers in this debate indicated. These polls were taken after eight months of the Hawke Labor Government. The article in the Advertiser stated: Support for the Hawke Labor Government has stayed at a fairly constant high level since the Federal election in March, says the Gallup Poll. The latest poll, taken on the first two weekends of this month, shows the Government with 52 p.c. of the total vote. This is marginally above its level of support just before the August Budget, and is more than 2 p.c. up on its vote at the March Federal election. If, as the Opposition has been saying today, the Labor Government has not been keeping its promises, and has been falling out of favour with the Australian electorate, why do the polls now show that the Federal Government, the Hawke Labor Government, is growing further in popularity throughout the Commonwealth of Australia? That is not the end of the story. We should not just look at the polls as they relate to the ALP Federal Government; we should look also at the figures in relation to the Liberal-National Party Government and the other parties. In the 1983 Federal election the Australian Labor party polled 49.5 per cent of the vote. In August-the time of the Budget-the Australian Labor Party would have received 51 per cent of the vote. The gallup poll shows that in October 1983 the vote of the Labor Party again reached 52 per cent. The vote of the Liberal-National Party Government at the time of the Federal election in March 1983 was shown to be 43.6 per cent. Today, in October 1983, the Liberal- National Party is shown as receiving 40 per cent of the vote. Its percentage vote has dropped 3.6 per cent since the last Federal election. I turn to the second table. It gives the percentage of people who would support the Labor Party in an election and the percentage of people who would support the Liberal and National parties. Of men, 53 per cent support the Australian Labor Party. Thirty-eight per cent preferred the Liberal-National Party. Of women, 52 per cent would vote for the Labor Party and 41 per cent would vote for the Liberal and National parties. I could go on. I could go through each category of people aged between 18 and 24, 25 and 39, 40 and 54. Even in Tasmania, 55 per cent of people would support the Australian Labor Party and only 42 per cent the Liberal-National Party. If we were to have an election on the basis of promises not being kept, which is the basis of the attack by the Opposition, we would find that the Australian Labor Party would be returned to the Treasury benches with an increased majority. When we talk about discarded promises and about the previous Administration-the Fraser Government-one has to look at the present Opposition and its defeat of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill put before the Senate two nights ago-on Wednesday night. One can go from that point to look at what Prime Minister Hawke said in relation to that defeat in the Senate and what it means for the revenue to be received by the Labor Government. Very clearly, what members of the Opposition are saying today is being said tongue in cheek. They do not really mean what they are saying in relation to the Australian Labor Party. An article appearing in the Australian of 21 October 1983 states: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, yesterday warned of possible increases in personal taxes as a result of the Opposition defeat of amendments to the bottom- of-the-harbor legislation in the Senate on Wednesday. The article continues: The funds lost as a result of the action by this hypocritical Opposition are equivalent to a 1 per cent reduction in income tax on every Australian taxpayer. And for someone whose taxable income is equal to average weekly earnings, the loss would be $43 a year. Further, the article states: Apart from reducing revenue by $60 million in 1983-84, the defeat will mean the loss of $270 million in a full year. That is what happened because of the action of the Opposition in relation to the Labor Government and the proposed legislation put before the Senate by the Hawke Labor Government. When we talk about governments and their broken promises, we ought to look at what is happening in Queensland. I believe that after the 22 October election there will be a Labor government in Queensland with Keith Wright as Premier. We ought to look at the record of the Government in Queensland. When we look at that record we should not take the view of the Government or a politician. Let us take an independent source. Let us look at a survey conducted in September 1983 by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Westpac Banking Corporation. I do not believe they are radical organisations. I do not believe that they would write a report that would suit just the Labor Party. I believe that for the first time in this debate, particularly when one considers the points raised by the Opposition, we can see some reasonable point of view being put forward which would at least give a clearer assessment of the situation in Queensland. It is stated: The survey shows that Queensland is the only State in which the majority of businesses expected a decline in output. And only 13 per cent of businesses in Queensland expected any improvement. This is by far the lowest expectation of any mainland State and is much less than half of the national figure of 31 per cent. Current business expectations with regard to unemployment in Queensland were far more pessimistic than in any other mainland State. The same position applied to expectations of future employment in Queensland. Queensland employers, according to the Westpac-Confederation of Australian Industry survey, are by far the most pessimistic of employers in the mainland States and much more pessimistic than in Australia as a whole. The survey conducted by Australian industry and the Westpac Banking Corporation clearly shows what is happening in Queensland and what has been happening to a situation which has now developed to the point shown in the survey. I think it is a clear indication that the Queensland Government will be defeated on 22 October. Today the Opposition has referred to broken promises. I will refer to what the Federal Government has done in relation to expenditure in my State of Queensland. If Queensland had a government which co-operated with the Federal Government we would find that expenditure of this money would certainly be put to greater benefit for the people of Queensland. In 1982-83, $3.8m was spent on the initial works in connection with the Burdekin Dam. The Commonwealth will meet the full cost of stage 1 of the dam. Some $13m was appropriated in the 1983 budget and $8 .5m is needed to complete the construction village. Some $4.5m is allocated to finance the start of the dam construction and $9.83m has been offered under the national water resources program that I heard some Opposition senators speak about today. Some $4m has been allocated for the Bundaberg irrigation project; $ 2.7m for the Eton irrigation project; $1m for stage 2 of the Leslie Dam; $0.73m for water resources assessment; and $1.4m for the flood plan management scheme. The Australian Labor Party is creating programs in Queensland to increase employment for people within that community. In 1983-84, $6.2m will be spent on more than 20 projects initiated by the community employment program through Commonwealth departments. Some $3.9m is allocated to the projects developed by individual departments and $2.3m on repairs and maintenance of Commonwealth assets in that area. Under the community youth support scheme over $2.35m will be provided in grants from 1 November for 37 projects including six new projects , projects in Brisbane suburban areas, Bundaberg, Townsville, Toowoomba, Gold Coast, Mackay, Bundaberg, Caloundra, Cairns, Gladstone, Gympie, Ipswich, Maroochydore, Mt Isa, Nambour and Rockhampton. Finally, the Dateline News Digest states: Political analyst Malcolm Mackerras today forecast a 10-seat majority in a 21- seat landslide victory to the Australian Labor Party in tomorrow's Queensland election. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.53) — When I was interrupted this morning by Question Time I had looked at the basic spirit and purpose of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and was about to look at its specific provisions. The first object of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 before the Senate is to 'give effect to certain provisions of the Convention'. An obligation of the Convention upon States-Australia is of course a ratifying party-is to adopt appropriate legislation and other measures including sanctions where appropriate prohibiting all discrimination against women. I wish specifically to look at provisions of the Convention because the fears that are being expressed about the Bill which I mentioned this morning, the types of fears concerning breakdown of the traditional family, are seen to have their root in the Convention. These people see the Bill and the Convention as a package and, of course, the two are integrated. What is the discrimination against women that the Convention seeks to outlaw? I quote from the Convention: . . . discrimination against women'' shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. That is Article 1 of the Convention. Again, it is very difficult for a reasonable person to criticise. So the dangers which have led these concerned persons to such dramatic conclusions must be found, I presume, more deeply within the document. I went in search of those dangers, but I did so recognising the broad and somewhat vague terms in which United Nations conventions are couched, and I was prepared to make the necessary allowances therefore. Article 3 of the Convention obliges State parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure full development and advancement of women for the purposes of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of equality with men. This has been condoned by some as in some way pressuring women to abandon the traditional role of home-maker. But really it appears a distorted interpretation. Rather, what it is is a statement that structural obstacles must not be allowed to limit women to no other choice. It is worth remembering that many a once-happy supported housewife has become a widow, deserted wife or divorcee and condemned to a future of low pay with little personal satisfaction and reward, because she, and her family for her, never envisaged a future for her other than as a traditional mother and home- maker. She had been stereotyped from a young age. The other criticism, which is made particularly when Article 3 is read together with Article 4, is that the provision advocates affirmative action. I do not want to dwell upon affirmative action because, unlike the case with the previous Bill in 1981, the present Minister has decided to hasten slowly and has deleted such provisions from this Bill. Instead, we understand that she will issue a green paper for public discussion. However, as one of the arguments promoted against the Bill-and we heard it again this morning- is not what it contains but , rather, what it might lead to, I wish to make a few comments on affirmative action. Affirmative action, as commonly envisaged, would require foreign financial and trading corporations to include in their management plans a strategy to eliminate discrimination against women in all sections of the particular company concerned. The argument for affirmative action was well explained in an article by Margaret Thornton which appeared in the Australian Quarterly of summer last year. She said: Equal treatment assumes that the starting points for all are the same at the point of access, that is, in respect of job appointments, promotion and so on, and it ignores the history of past discrimination suffered by the stigmatised group. (The theory assumes that women applicants would be equally eligible as men for, say, an engineering position even though women are unlikely to apply, for it ignores the lengthy socialisation process which has militated against women pursuing the relevant educational and career path.) Equal treatment theory , then 'is sex blind'. On the other hand, if we espouse the theory that equality of opportunity is directed towards equality of result, that is, the attainment of some ideal end- state, cognisance may be taken of unequal starting points. This theory permits affirmative action measures to be taken in favour of the disadvantaged group in order to make unequal starting points equal without offending the non- discrimination principle. In other words, equality of result is, therefore, sex conscious. Equal treatment , which is as far as the Bill goes, is that the law is applied equally to those who are unequal. That is the principal argument of those advocating affirmative action. It is arguable that it will, therefore, not by itself achieve equality. What sort of affirmative action might be taken? Professor Chipman, in a recent article in the Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, lists: such action as . . . counselling women who might have assumed they would not be seriously considered in application techniques, consciously seeking out promising women when seeking out promising junior staff for grooming for promotion, advertising posts using material which depicts women in positions of responsibility, reviewing the selection and promoting mechanisms to ensure that there are no unintended or hitherto unnoticed in-built biases towards men, and consulting with eligible women who do not apply for promotion to determine whether procedures are perceived, possibly inaccurately, to be sexist. I must say that my reaction to such proposals is positive rather than negative. True, there would be a cost. However, in the longer term it may be that cost benefits would flow from being able to recruit talent from a pool which is doubled in size as a result of female participation. The matter, of course, becomes more contentious with reverse discrimination, which appears to be condoned by Article 4. Article 4 of the Convention states: Adoption by states Parties of temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women shall not be considered discrimination as defined in the present Convention . . . Reverse discrimination could be the permitting or requiring of discrimination in favour of women when qualified candidates for selection or promotion are other wise equal in merit; at a more extreme level, there could be reverse discrimination even if there are better qualified male applicants, provided that the woman appointed or promoted is adequately qualified. An even more extreme example is the giving of such advantage even though the best woman applicant is subqualified. The arguments that are advanced for reverse discrimination very briefly are these: First, the experience shows that other forms of affirmative action take a long time to work. Affirmative action, it is commonly said, does not achieve justice for women now. Secondly-and I see this as somewhat an obscure argument-an organisation which is addressed in its functions to women as well as men should be comparatively staffed. Thirdly, quite often one hears of the role model argument. Again, to quote Professor Chipman: Girls, it is said, will be more likely to see certain careers as possible life paths for them if they see women occupying successful and responsible positions within those careers. Accelerated promotion with reverse discrimination if necessary may be justified on the utilitarian ground of inducing more young women to seek out such careers to which they would subsequently proceed without the need for reverse discrimination. The arguments to the contrary include that what women are being offered is in effect tokenism; therefore it offers no real benefit to women, whilst at the same time it is costly to enterprise. What is better, it is argued by the opponents, is the approach of what one might call evolution-that is, through education, attitudes of parents can be changed; in schools girls will be educated to have the opportunity of choice; education of employers and of society generally will break down ingrained prejudices and stereotypes. I await the Green Paper with interest. I have read both praise and criticism of the American affirmative action progams. I have noted that the 1980 amendments to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act provide for moderate affirmative action. I think further debate on the subject will be worth while. To criticise this Bill on the basis of what might be a next step appears to me to be a very negative and not particularly constructive approach. Article 5 of the Convention provides: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures: (a) to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women . . . The last few words-'stereotyped roles for men and women'-have caused concern because some fear this means pressure towards unisex. I invite the Senate rather to look to the mischief the clause is designed to overcome. There is no doubt that girls have been stereotyped. As we heard from one honourable senator this morning, they are not stereotyped as motor mechanics, electrical engineers and so forth, but rather as secretaries, nurses and similar occupations. Traditionally, women were paid less. Now they are paid equally for the same work, but when stereotyped into occupations of 'women's work' paying less than occupations for men, 'men's work', room for valid criticism remains. To break down stereotyping is not to aim for unisex. It is allowing women equal right to have alternatives open to them. Queen Margrethe II of Denmark put it clearly and succinctly when at the 1980 conference in Copenhagen, the World Conference on the United Nations Decade for Women, she said: . . . to achieve equal rights and opportunities for men and women, we should always stress the personal capacity of the individual. We must become more flexible in our attitudes towards the role of men and women in society and avoid rigid concepts of stereotype roles for either sex. Clause 5 (b) of the Convention provides that state parties should take all appropriate measures: To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases. It has been put to me that it is terrible to talk about maternity as a social function. In some way that is supposed to be derogatory. But I believe it is time that we recognised mothering as a contribution to society to which a value attributes. Attempting to read the Convention within the spirit which underlies its existence, that appears to be the correct interpretation. Kurt Waldheim, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, put it to the Copenhagen Conference in these terms: Women are permanently at work but not permanently employed. They work long hours but are frequently not proportionately rewarded . . . Much of what they produce is not recognised in official statistics. There is no doubt that in our industrialised society value tends to be assessed by payment. Therefore, unpaid domestic services tend to be subordinated. All this provision is saying is that it is time that the true worth of maternity was appreciated. The second part of clause 5 (b) promotes a common responsibility of both parents for the upbringing of children. It has been criticised as contrary to what is promoted as a traditional belief that women should have the primary responsibility for the upbringing of children. I am on record as not holding that view. Too often I have seen the corresponding secondary role of fathers become an abdication of responsibility. I therefore applaud any statement that both parents have the obligation for the upbringing of their children. Regrettably, time will permit me to do no more than skim the balance of the Convention. Article 6 condemns all forms of traffic in women. Article 7 calls on states to eliminate discrimination in the political and public life of the country concerned. Article 8 calls for women to be given the opportunity to represent their governments at the international level. Article 9 calls upon states to grant women equal rights to men in relation to decisions determining their nationality and equal rights with respect to the nationality of their children. Articles 10, 11 and 12 call upon states to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in order to ensure them equal rights with men in the fields of education, employment and health care. Article 13 provides for a similar entitlement in other areas of economic and social life -the rights to family benefits, the same rights to finance and equal rights to participate in recreational activities. Article 14 deals specifically with the particular problems of rural women. Article 15 calls for equality with men before the law. Article 16 states that women should have equality with men in marriage and family relations. The balance of the articles are administrative. I have concentrated on the Convention because, as I have indicated, much of the philosophical criticism of the Bill appears to relate to that Convention. But it appears to me to have been very much based on misinterpretation. I can find little in the Convention that is objectionable. On the contrary, it appears to be filled with ideals that are to be commended. As for the argument that it will destroy the traditional family , if anything, it appears to me to enhance the values on which strong families are based. There are lessons within the Convention which would strengthen some failing families. The second major argument with which I wish to deal is that passing a law is not the way to overcome discrimination against women. A group of theologians expressed it in a paper forwarded to honourable senators in the following terms: Yet the legislator is trying to bring about a society characterised by justice and law, but in doing so fails to understand the limited role of law in the education of attitudes and behaviour. Clearly it is possible to overestimate the role of law in changing attitudes but it is also possible to underestimate that role. The Director of the Office of the Status of Women has argued the need for law in the following terms: a law is an unequivocal declaration of public policy a law gives support to those who do not wish to discriminate but who feel compelled to by social pressure a law gives protection and redress for groups and individuals a law provides for the peaceful and orderly adjustment of grievances and the release of tension a law reduces discrimination by discouraging the behaviour in which discrimination finds expression a law creates an awareness of individual rights and is a source of courage to those who wish to resist discrimination I think that if equality of opportunity and access to goods and benefits is a desired social goal-I think all honourable senators would agree that it is-then the law can contribute to achieving that goal. I do not assert that law in itself is sufficient; many measures are needed. I would not downgrade the need for education programs, the need for adequate child care services to reduce the isolation of the home, the need for more flexible work arrangements and the need for better shared domestic responsibility. I have mentioned the need for tax reform and a more fair assessment of the value of certain jobs vis-a-vis others on other than a men's work-women's work basis. I do not even believe that law is necessary as a precondition for equality but it can make a more significant contribution. The third and last question with which I wish to deal on this general subject of philosophy, the principles of the Bill, is the argument that the Bill is too radical, that the change is too dramatic and that society cannot adapt to changes at this pace. I think that that argument is quite astonishing. What does the Bill seek to do? Apart from giving effect to the Convention, which is really an overview and which reflects the spirit of the Bill, the Bill more specifically seeks the following: to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land , the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs; (c) to eliminate, so far as is possible, sexual harassment in the workplace and in educational institutions; and (d) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women. One would not think that that is particularly radical. Look at the history of this matter in Australia. There has been a National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation and six State committees since 1973. The purpose has been to implement the International Labour Organisation Convention III, a convention seeking to eliminate discrimination on grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin in areas of employment and occupation. So it has been limited to employment and occupation and it has been hindered by not having legislative basis. But these committees have been in existence now for over a decade, basically to eliminate discrimination in the area of sex. Senator Giles —Most people do not even know they exist. Senator HILL —That is true, although I hope more know now. I remind the Senate that in South Australia there has been sex discrimination legislation since 1975 . It is worth mentioning that the first Bill was introduced in 1973 by Dr Tonkin , who later became the Liberal Premier of that State. Debate interrupted. National Women's Advisory Council The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.15) —I want to raise a matter arising from the Government's decision to abolish the National Women's Advisory Council and the subsequently announced decision that there would be a meeting with some 30 women's organisations on 7 November. Which organisations have been invited to the conference? How many delegates will there be from each organisation? Where is the meeting to be held? How many observers will be allowed to attend the conference and from where will they come? Is it to be a representative group of women's organisations? Are women affiliated with political parties to be included? When will the agenda be made public? Will participants who are invited to the conference be able to contribute to the compilation of the agenda? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.16) —Senator Reid gave me some brief notice that she intended to raise this matter in the adjournment debate. All I can say at this stage is that there is to be comprehensive consultation, as it is described, with major women's organisations thoughout Australia. Representatives of some 30 national women's organisations, including representatives of migrant and Aboriginal women, have been invited to Canberra on 9 November to meet with the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, and other Ministers. The meeting will discuss the most effective means of ensuring ongoing consultation between the Government and a diversity of Australian women's groups. On behalf of Senator Ryan, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the participating organisations which will attend that meeting. If there is any further information I can make available to Senator Reid I will see that it is done by way of correspondence. I seek leave to incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS National Council of Women of Australia United Nations Association of Australia Country Women's Association Business and Professional Women's Association YWCA Union of Australian Women Federation of University Women National Association of Community Childcare Women's Electoral Lobby Women's International League of Peace and Freedom ACTU Women's Committee Federation of Aboriginal Women Women and Development Network Australian Women's Education Coalition National Aboriginal Conference Catholic Women's League Australian Council of Churches Commission on the Status of Women Australian Federation of Family Planning Associations Working Women's Centre National Council for Single Mother and her Child National Council of Jewish Women NSW Women's Advisory Council Victorian Women's Advisory Council RAF Women's Association Army Wives Association Australian Pensioners Association War Widows Association Disabled Peoples' International Disability Resource Centre Beryl Women's Refuge National Women's Advisory Council WA Women's Advisory Council Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.18 p.m. until Tuesday, 1 November 1983, at 2 p.m. The following papers were presented: Navigation Act-Marine Orders-1983- No. 13-Part 4-(Marine Qualifications-Masters and Deck Officers). No. 14-Part 5-(Marine Qualifications-Engineer Officers). The following answers to questions were circulated: Senator Button —On 8 September 1983 (Hansard, page 526) Senator Elstob asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning a recent report on national training and employment programs for young people. The honourable senator asked what action was proposed to address the needs of the unemployed who are in the over 25 years age group. I undertook to seek further details from the Minister. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: The report referred to is Research Report No. 2 of the Bureau of Labour Market Research ('Employment and Training Programs for Young People: Analysis of Assistance in 1980-81') released on 31 July 1983. This report covered assistance provided during the 1980-81 financial year. The findings reflected the focus of labour force programs at that time on young people, consistent with the general concern in most Western industrialised countries about the high rates of unemployment sustained by young people. Since then, rates of unemployment for adult workers have increased substantially. The Government has moved rapidly to contain further increases by adopting policies designed to combat unemployment and inflation simultaneously, including in particular our prices and incomes policy. We have also introduced the community employment program which aims to create in a full year up to 70,000 new jobs for unemployed people of all ages on worthwhile community projects of lasting value. To promote employment of long term unemployed adults in the private sector we have also provided substantially increased funds for the adult wage subsidy scheme. This scheme provides subsidies to employers taking on unemployed people over 25 who have been out of work for at least eight out of the last twelve months, additional payments in respect of those aged over 45 with more than 12 months continuous unemployment. The Government will soon announce details of a review of all existing and work experience programs, which will include an appraisal of the labour market requirements of older job seekers. Senator Grimes —On 14 September 1983 (Hansard, page 665) Senator Townley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the importation of botulinum toxin for the treatment of persons who have suffered head injuries resulting in their becoming cross-eyed. As the Acting Minister for Health I now provide the following information: An application to use botulinum toxin in a clinical trial for injection into the extra-ocular muscles of human patients to alter alignment of the eyes was received by the Department of Health from an individual medical practitioner during 1982. Only limited data were presented and the applicant was advised of the departmental requirements for the submission of data to support such an application. No further correspondence has been received on the matter and until such time as the necessary data have been provided and evaluated no approval may be given for the importation of this very potent toxin into Australia. The information currently available to the Department suggests that the use of botulinum toxin for the proposed purpose has not yet been proven and it is still only in investigational status. Further consideration would be given to the application to conduct a clinical trial in Australia should the necessary data be provided.