Wednesday, 19 February 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the export of live animals from Australia for consumption is cruel and unnecessary as the animals suffer considerable stress on the voyage in very cramped conditions and slaughtering conditions overseas are often far less humane than those in Australia. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Request the Government to introduce a bill providing for a total ban on the export of live animals from this country for consumption overseas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 210 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth and in concern for peace support: 1. a move towards unit, co-operation and peaceful co-existence amongst all peoples of the earth. We pledge our agreement to an immediate bilateral FREEZE of the development and deployment of all nuclear weapons and to speed negotiations to dismantle all such weapons of mass destruction under the supervision of a neutral peace-keeping force. 2. the establishment of a Ministry for Peace to focus our energies towards non-violent resolution of world conflicts, encouraging our government to pursue its own independent policies in foreign affairs, non-aligned to any one polarity, with the aim of bringing about lasting and peaceful co-existence worldwide. 3. the establishment of a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to examine and debate all submissions by way of petitions and proposals and to assist in the creation of the Ministry for Peace. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all mankind. by Senator Georges (from 64 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulated the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 49 citizens), Michael Baume (from 1,297 citizens), Boswell (from 27 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 43 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 19 citizens), Reid (from 11 citizens) and Watson (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against: The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 603 citizens) and Sheil (from 285 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 we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will: Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this and any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject a Bill of Rights in this or any other form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 102 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That a Government decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan T.V. stations from this requirement, will place in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. operator. Your petitioners request the Senate to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the Government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 5,214 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibitions Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of wide-spread serious ill health cause by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 224 citizens). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it does not conclude with a prayer and is not in the correct form, from 3,928 petitioners opposing the proposals to transfer Illawarra's television station WIN4 from VHF to UHF transmission: Your local milko supports WIN TV in its effort to remain on the VHF band. WIN TV proposes to move from Channel 4 but stay on VHF which allows for future FM radio stations. The Government's plan to move WIN TV to UHF could cost you money for a new antenna or possibly a new T.V. receiver just to be able to continue to watch your local channel. Help the milkos help WIN TV by signing below-Get your family and friends to sign too and leave out tomorrow for collection. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it does not conclude with a prayer and is not in the correct form, from 711 petitioners opposing any development in the North Lanyon area of the Australian Capital Territory: We the undersigned object to any Development proceeding in the North Lanyon Area. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the following petitioning letter bearing 12 signatures requesting that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 be rejected in the Senate: Senator Mary Walters The Senate Parliament CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Madam, We, the members of the Inverell Concerned Voters Association, know that it is our duty to keep you informed of our will, on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament. It is our will that you take immediate action to prevent the Bill of Rights being passed by The Senate. Petitions received. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes Member of the House of Representatives, Mr Gerry Hand's reported comments in the Canberra Times of 18 February 1986, and agrees with his observations that- (a) poverty and homelessness have continued to grow under the Labor Government; (b) the Government's practice of giving priority to `dry' economic policies at the expense of social justice has eroded the real value of pensions and benefits; (c) the Labor Government has failed to address properly the needs of the disadvantaged; (d) the time for the Government to redistribute the gains of economic growth to the disadvantaged is long overdue; and that accordingly, (e) pensions and benefits should be increased above the level of indexation through the mechanism of a `growth dividend'. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Orders, as contained in Orders Nos MQ14, MQ15 and MQ16 of 1985 and made on 11 November 1985 under section 16J of the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Act 1977 be disallowed. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the continuing inexorable rise in interest rates as a result of the deliberate policies of the Hawke Labor Government; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to take immediate action to reverse its disastrous policies which are causing so much hardship to Australian homeseekers, small businessmen and farmers. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the refusal of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to provide an adequate answer to Senator Michael Baume's Question without Notice asked on 14 February 1986, relating to the rural crisis that has resulted from the Hawke Labor Government's policies; (b) considers that the question which is as follows, merits a proper answer: `Will the Federal Government repudiate the public statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr John Kerin) in Hobart after last week's Australian Agricultural Council meeting that current protests by farmers had more to do with politics than with farm prices, and that their aggravation was not necessarily related to their current financial situation. Was the Minister for Primary Industry reflecting Government policy. Does it indicate a governmental rejection of last week's appeal by the Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Dr Stoeckel, for the Government to change its rural policies because `in the absence of alleviating policy initiatives, the farm sector is confronted by severe financial stress' along with industries supplying it and country towns.'; (c) notes with concern that the Minister for Finance's refusal to repudiate Mr Kerin's remarks appears to indicate Governmental endorsement of them; and (d) requires the Minister for Finance to address himself to the serious matters raised in the question at the earliest proper opportunity so that rural Australians will better understand the extent of the Hawke Labor Government's anti-rural policies. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern a recent announcement that British farmers may begin growing opium poppy crops which can only help to further damage the long term viability of this small industry in which Australia is one of the world leaders; (b) calls on the Federal Government to enter into discussions with the Government of the United Kingdom with a view to ensuring that such an enterprise does not proceed at the cost of employment or well-being to this vital Tasmanian industry; and (c) notes that the Government again demonstrates its lack of regard for the rural sector and that this obvious neglect will further weaken the perilous balance of payments situation and cause an even larger blowout in the deficit. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the decline in tourist and visitor numbers coming to Canberra during 1985; (b) acknowledges that the promotion of tourism in Canberra has been borne by the local industry and applauds their efforts; and (c) condemns the Federal Government for- (i) not recognising the importance of marketing and promoting of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), as a tourist destination, (ii) not proceeding with the establishment of a Tourism Commission, as recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACT, and (iii) its attitude towards the development of tourism in the ACT, as expressed by its failure to have the ACT representation at the International Tourist Borse in March 1986. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern that it is estimated that there will be a shortage of registered nurses of at least 5,110 in the 1986-1988 triennium; (b) believes the shortage is due to high turnover and wastage rates caused by inadequate working conditions, including lack of workplace-based child care, poor management practices, understaffing, inadequate pay and lack of refresher courses; (c) deplores the fact that the cost of educating nurses in Colleges of Advanced Education will be wasted if nurse turnover and wastage rates remain at the current level; (d) considers that dependence on immigration of nurses from overseas is not the answer to the problem; and (e) urges the Federal Government to institute comprehensive and on-going planning for nurse staffing, aimed at the retention of nurses in the workforce. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That Amendment No. 46 of the Telecommunications (Staff) By-laws, made on 9 October 1986 under the Telecommunications Act 1975, be disallowed. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the failure of the Hawke Labor Government to protect National Estate wilderness areas in Tasmania from logging, openly encouraged and conducted by the Gray Government in Tasmania. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has ordered that expenditure cuts of up to 6 per cent will be necessary to allow the promised tax cuts to be made over the next 2 years without causing a blowout of the Budget deficit; (b) notes that 7 Federal Government Ministers have refused to countenance any expenditure cuts, which severely threatens the ability of the Government to fulfil its budget promises; and (c) calls upon the Government to table the Joint Economic Forecasting Group Review. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) notes that Federal Government expenditure has significantly overrun Budget estimates, for instance, the level of public debt interest has risen 38 per cent in the 6 months to December 1985 over the same period last year, which is twice the budgeted increase of 19 per cent for 1985-86; (b) notes that this expenditure blowout, when coupled with the projected fall in revenue from the oil levy indicates that the Government may not keep the deficit within $4.9 billion; and (c) calls upon the Government to table the Joint Economic Forecasting Group Review. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Treaties-(A) Four treaties which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force for Australia; (B) Five treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature; (C) Two treaties which Australia has accepted or which Australia has acceded; and (D) Two treaties to which Australia has become a party by ratification. 2. National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council-Report 1984-85. 3. The Law Reform Commission-Annual Report 1984-85. Pursuant to Section 63M of the Audit Act 1901. 4. Second periodic report submitted by Australia in accordance with Economic and Social Council Resolution 1988 (LX) concerning rights covered by Article 10-12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 5. Australia New Zealand Foundation-Annual Report 1984-85. 6. Commissioner for Employees' Compensation-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to Section 122 (1) of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. 7. Department of Transport-Annual Report 1984-85. 8. Australian Atomic Energy Commission-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to Section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953. 9. Australian War Memorial-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to Section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980. 10. Exchange of letters between the United Kingdom and Australian Governments on follow up to the report of the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia together with the terms of reference for the technical assessment group. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is part of a package of measures designed to provide improved social security assistance to people who move between countries. The package includes provision to enter into a reciprocal social security agreement with each of Australia's major migrant source countries, and indeed any country that is interested in a reciprocal agreement with Australia. The introduction of this package will enable Australia to become part of an international network of such agreements throughout the world. There have been some major developments since the Minister for Social Security made his statement to the House of Representatives on reciprocal social security agreements on 8 May 1985. In that statement the Minister indicated that the Government was preparing to negotiate reciprocal social security agreements with interested countries on the basis of 35 years residence in Australia. It also indicated that the Australian Government was prepared to sign a draft agreement with Italy on this basis. However, before going ahead with legislation to give effect to these decisions and before proceeding further with negotiations with other countries, the Minister initiated detailed consultations with the ethnic communities in Australia to inform them of the Government's plans and to seek their reaction. Mr President these consultations were a most valuable exercise. They showed that the ethnic communities in Australia had some very great concerns about what reciprocal agreements would mean for them and that the Government needed to take these concerns into account. As a result, the Government has made a number of changes to the position announced last May. Before outlining these changes I would like to remind honourable senators about the purposes of reciprocal social security agreements. Reciprocal social security agreements are formal arrangements entered into by countries to ensure that people who move between countries receive social security pensions and benefits on a fair and equitable basis from the countries in which they have lived. They are treaties binding countries under international law and are put into effect under the laws of the countries concerned. Reciprocal agreements allow many people who at present do not meet all the qualifications related to place of residence, citizenship and other territorial requirements for a pension to acquire entitlement. For example: 1. People can fail to qualify because they lived in Australia for less than 10 years. This particularly applies to aged parents of migrants who want to come to Australia to live with their children. 2. Another major group who fail to qualify at present are those who have lived and worked in Australia, but have returned to their country of origin before they have become eligible for an Australian pension. Under present law, they cannot apply for any pension from Australia while they are overseas. 3. Most countries pay pensions only after people have lived and worked there for a certain number of years. If a person has not paid contributions from his or her wages for long enough, or has not lived in the country long enough, then he or she can fail to qualify. 4. For some social security systems, people need to be citizens of that country. For example, if they have become Australian citizens and contributed to some other country's social security system, they might lose their entitlement to the other country's pension. 5. Under some social security systems, people must be living in a country to claim and receive a pension from that country. A person can fail to qualify because he or she has moved to another country. 6. Some countries have currency restrictions. Even if a person is entitled to a payment, he or she may not actually be able to get it while out of the country. Over a million people in Australia and overseas are affected by these problems or will be in the future. Reciprocal social security agreements can overcome them. Agreements are based on shared responsibility. If a person has lived in Australia and some other country (or countries), each country will pay a share of the person's total pension. However as the Minister for Social Security indicated last May the Australian social security system is very different from those overseas. It pays flat rate pensions while most overseas social security systems are based on contributions. For this reason it is necessary to change Australia's arrangements for paying pensions abroad so that they are payable on a proportional basis in line with overseas social security systems. I turn now to the changes the Government has made as a result of the consultations with the ethnic communities: 1. Each reciprocal agreement will be introduced by a separate Bill after it is negotiated. It is possible to introduce them by regulation, however, introducing them by a separate Bill will facilitate more rigorous parliamentary scrutiny and will provide the ethnic communities and indeed the whole community with an assurance that a particular agreement cannot come into effect until it has been debated by both Houses of Parliament. 2. The basis for reciprocal agreements and the calculation of all pension payments outside Australia will be 25 years rather than 35 years as previously announced. Most countries pay their minimum pensions after about 15 years and their maximum pension after about 40 years. In Australia, we have flat rate pensions, or in other words the maxima and minima are the same, and are payable after 10 years. A period of 25 years would put the Australian system for paying full pension overseas at about the mid point of the periods provided under the various contribution based schemes operating overseas. 3. Many people residing in Australia at 8 May 1985 who are close to retirement have a reasonable expectation of taking a full Australian pension overseas. To meet this expectation, the Government has decided to exempt all people residing in Australia at that date from the new rules until 1 January 1996. After that date, only those who go to a country with which Australia has a reciprocal agreement will be affected. This is particularly important for people who go to former refugee source countries or countries where a reciprocal arrangement is not possible. 4. Considerable concern was expressed during the consultations with the communities about people who become widowed or invalided in Australia. The Government has decided that in these cases it is equitable that Australia should accept responsibility for payment of full pensions. Proportionality will apply for people who become invalided or widowed outside Australia. 5. The final change the Government has made is to extend the period allowed for temporary absences from Australia from three months to 12 months. Of course, as previously announced, all existing pensioners whether in Australia or overseas will not be affected by the new rules. I now want to turn to how the new provisions contained in the Bill will operate. Honourable senators will be aware that the Social Security Act provides that certain pensioners in Australia can continue to receive their pensions if they go overseas. The new provisions do not alter these basic provisions. What they do however, is provide a method of paying proportional pensions overseas under reciprocal agreements and the portability rules. The proportion payable will be the length of time a pensioner has spent in Australia during working life divided by 25 years. A full pension is paid to those with 25 or more years residence. In the case of most single pensioners it will be the pensioner's own residence that will be used to calculate the level of pension payable. However, For married pensioners the residence in Australia of the husband and wife, whichever is the longer, will be used. For wives' pensioners the residence in Australia of the spouse will be used. For carer pensioners, the residence in Australia of the age or invalid pensioner being cared for will be used. All those to whom the new law will apply will be able to go overseas for visits of up to 12 months without their pensions being affected. Mr President, as the Minister for Social Security made clear in his statement last May, the existing residence requirements in Australia will continue to apply. For example, the requirement for age pension will continue to be 10 years residence in Australia of which 5 years must be taken during one continuous period. However, the Bill introduces the concept of ``residence during working life''. This is a new concept for Australia and provides a better basis for reciprocity. Working life is the period between age 16 and age pension age-65 for men and 60 for women. There is no requirement that people need to be working during that time-it is assumed that during that period of life a person is a member of the workforce. The provision is that only residence in Australia accumulated during this period of life can be taken into account in meeting the 25 year period for maximum payments. I now want to give the Senate a number of important assurances about the package of measures I have referred to earlier. First, I want to re-affirm that the Australian Government is ready to sign the draft agreement with Italy as soon as an opportunity arises. This is a most important agreement for Australia because it is the first one negotiated on the basis of proportional payments. The Government has been advised that the Italian Government is also prepared to sign this draft agreement and it is hoped that it will be possible to bring this agreement into effect some time during 1986. Secondly, I want to re-affirm that Australia is prepared to negotiate with any interested country. This was the assurance given by the previous Government when it was in office, and this will be honoured by this Government but with one important qualification-that we would not be prepared to commence negotiations with any country unless in the relevant ethnic community in Australia there was broad support to such negotiations taking place. Thirdly, I want to assure the Senate that negotiations towards reciprocal agreements will be accompanied by close consultations with the ethnic communities. The negotiations themselves are a matter for governments and of course must be confidential. But it is essential that those participating in the negotiations understand the problems being experienced by the relevant community and that the communities' views are taken into account in developing the principles being negotiated. For this purpose the Minister for Social Security has invited the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils to assist him in planning a program of consultations with the ethnic communities. Fourthly, no agreement can be implemented until the legislation necessary to give it effect in Australia has been passed by this Parliament. Fifthly, it is clearly not possible to negotiate a large number of agreements simultaneously and the Minister for Social Security hopes to develop a program that will be based on the expectations of the communities and take into account the priorities this Government views as necessary as well as those perceived by our possible agreement partners. Mr President, there is a large number of countries that have been pressing Australia strongly to commence negotiations, in some cases for many years. I want to assure them that Australia is very interested in proceeding with reciprocal arrangements. We recognise it is the way of the future, but because of the very different system we have in this country and because of the importance of working closely with the ethnic communities here, it may not be possible to go as fast as some of these countries may wish. There are many people throughout the world who have spent time in Australia who are experiencing real hardship because they have no pension entitlement from this country and a reduced entitlement from their country of residence. There are also many people in Australia who have contributed to foreign social security systems and now can receive no benefits from their contributions. This Bill provides a basis for us to negotiate reciprocal arrangements on a fair and rational basis so that these people can be assisted. The introduction of this Bill is a major step in a process which has been going on for some 30 years. It will enable us to bring to fruition major improvements in the lot of Australia's migrants-an objective that has proved too much for previous governments. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.15) - I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Section 66 of the Constitution prescribes, subject to the Parliament otherwise providing, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers. Amendments to the Ministers of State Act which sets this sum are from time to time thus required to cover changes to ministerial salaries. Following the Remuneration Tribunal's 1984 review, National Wage Case decisions automatically flow to offices within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including Ministers of State, without the need for the Tribunal to make a separate, special report on the particular increase. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Ministers of State Act to increase the maximum annual sum from $630,000 to $660,000 to cover the effect of the 3.8 per cent National Wage decision handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 4 November 1985. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.16) —I move: That regulation 2 of the Overseas Students Charge Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 352 and made under the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979, be disallowed. The motion for disallowance of regulation 2 refers to the new charges or fees to be paid by overseas students from 1 January this year. The new regulation follows the passage of the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985. The charge levels originally proposed by the Government would have resulted in overseas students already enrolled in tertiary courses paying over $1,000 per annum more in 1986 and over $2,000 more in 1987 than in the first year of their enrolment. The Australian Democrats opposed the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill on a number of grounds. I will refer to two only which I believe are pertinent to this particular regulation. Our original objection was to the charges on those students who had already started a course and who would not have been able to predict the savage rise in charges that the Government has imposed. According to the Government, the charges in the regulation represent approximately 35 per cent of the cost of educating overseas students. The Government has never been able to produce any evidence that $3,500 represents approximately 35 per cent of the costs of a general higher education course. Using Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission data the average cost of providing a university or college of advanced course is $7,000, and 35 per cent of $7,000 is $2,500, not $3,500 that the Government is proposing to charge. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) refused last year at the time of debating the substantive Bill under which this regulation is made to provide any figures. Yesterday's Australian Financial Review quoted the Minister as stating that course fees for overseas students paying full fees under the guidelines introduced last year are likely to start at a minimum of $4,000 going up to a maximum of possibly $15,000, depending on the course involved. If we take the bottom figure, 35 per cent represents $1,500 and not $3,500. On both calculations the Government is overcharging those students. The Minister has said that the overseas student paying full course fees will be paying as low as $4,000. That seems to be extraordinary considering that the Government is going to say that 35 per cent of an average course is $3,500. The Government cannot have it both ways. It would be very interesting to find out which one the Government is actually supporting. What is actually happening here is that, basically, the Government is taking money from overseas students under false pretences. If honourable senators accept that it is fair and reasonable, on the Government's calculations, to charge overseas students 35 per cent of the cost of providing a place in a university or advanced education college, they would have to oppose this particular regulation because it does not do that. Secondly, if the Government allows institutions to offer courses to overseas students at full cost, as calculated by the institution and using the Government's shonky figures for subsidising overseas students, we will be able to find many instances where the subsidised students are paying more than the full paying students, and that seems absolutely extraordinary. The second ground which I proposed in relation to the Bill and which holds good with regard to this particular regulation was outlined rather eloquently by Senator Teague when speaking for the Opposition. He said: . . . in the six years of its operation the average annual increase has been in the range of 6 per cent to 11 per cent. It is also clear that this range of annual increase until now has been no greater than the annual inflation rate in Australia. Senator Teague later said: I must tell the Government that the Opposition regards the 15 per cent rate of increase also as unfair to existing students and we will propose a further amendment. What was that amendment? Senator Teague said: When we in the Liberal-National Party Opposition protested the impact that this would have, especially on students already enrolled, the Government half changed its mind and made the weak and unconvincing response to set the increase for these students at 15 per cent- that was perceived by Senator Teague, speaking for the Opposition, to be a weak and ineffective response- which is not only about twice the rate of inflation but also about twice the rate of increase that overseas students have been led to expect . . . . . . the Opposition acknowledges that the Government should have the ability to increase the charge but we believe that the appropriate rate of increase in respect of existing students should be the rate of inflation. That is, the Opposition believes that the appropriate rate of increase should be the rate of inflation. Senator Teague continued: Accordingly, our amendment at the Committee stage will propose that the Government determined level of 15 per cent not apply but, rather, that it be the maximum under which the actual rate will be determined each year by regulation so as to reflect generally the rate of inflation in Australia. Senator Teague then went on to say that, if the Government brought in such a regulation, it could expect to have it approved. Looking at the regulation brought in, we notice that it does not do anything of the sort. The regulation sets the new fee for previously enrolled students at $3,565 for students enrolled in medicine, dentistry and veterinary science and $2,850 for other courses, which is the maximum 15 per cent increase. It is not the increase for inflation that the Opposition parties said they would support; rather, it is the maximum amount that the Opposition, by its amendment and by voting against the Australian Democrats, allowed the Government to set. I moved this motion for disallowance to allow the Opposition to honour that promise undertaken in the debate, so that the Government will be forced to set an increase at the rate of inflation, not at this maximum 15 per cent that the Liberal and National parties opposed when the Bill was going through and to which the Australian Democrats are opposed also. This is an extremely important matter. When in debates on substantive Bills various propositions are made and various undertakings are given, I think it is extremely important that one should look at the regulations as they come out to make sure that they fall in accordance with those types of undertakings. I moved this motion for disallowance in the hope that the Opposition parties will support the propositions that have been put during the debate and that this rate of increase will be disallowed. Debate (on motion by Senator Colston) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Colston) proposed: That the resumption of the debate be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.26) —I want to put on record the fact that the Australian Democrats are opposed to the delay in the taking of a vote on this matter. It is extremely important, as fees are being determined as from 1 January this year, that this matter be resolved immediately and not left until March. It is extremely difficult for overseas students to make the necessary arrangements in terms of their own financial dealings. I do not believe that they should be placed in the position of not knowing what is going to occur in respect of this regulation. I believe that this matter should be determined now. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.27) —Speaking for the Opposition on this matter, I was unaware that there was to be any adjournment of the debate on this matter. Senator Robertson —Your leader asked for it. For goodness sake, get a bit of cohesion. Senator TEAGUE —I was unaware that debate on this matter was to be adjourned this morning. I look forward to a continuation of this debate when the Government senator who moved for the adjournment sees the Government is ready to speak on this matter. Question put: That the motion (Senator Colston's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Archer, B. R. Hill, R. Aulich, T. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Michael Jones, G. N. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Knowles, S. C. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. McKiernan, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J.Coates, J. Parer, W. R.Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E,Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Crichton-Brown, N. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M.Devlin, R. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Teague, B. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Townley, M.Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E.Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W.Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G.Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Siddons, J. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B.Mason, C. V. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.35) —This morning we commenced the fourth day of debate in the Senate of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and the three associated Bills. The end of the second reading and Committee debate is not yet in sight. So by the time we have finished we will have devoted more time to these Bills than to any others in the memory of most honourable senators. The Opposition has contributed importantly to the length of the debate and we make no apology for that. With these Bills we are considering the future of this nation: Our freedoms, our rights, our traditions, our values - the whole structure of our society. The Liberal and National parties stand for the freedom of the individual, for his or her basic rights to privacy, to own property, to the protection of the law, to the preservation of the role of the democratically elected representatives of the people and to the protection and the nurturing of the family as the basic unit of our society. It is because the Liberal and National parties place these and similar freedoms, rights and values at the pinnacle of importance for our nation and for all Australians that we are bitterly opposed to the Bills before the Senate. These Bills, the details of which have been outlined by many previous speakers and which will be further outlined at the Committee stage of the debate, do not strengthen, preserve or guarantee in any way the rights of individual Australians. On the contrary, they pose many threats to our Australian society which already has one of the most liberal societies on earth and in which our rights and freedoms are already enshrined in our system of law, of government and, most important of all, in our value systems. The human rights legislation contained in the Bills before the Senate does not strengthen our freedoms. Rather it devalues many of the freedoms we already enjoy. Fortunately, the Australian people are awake to this. Members and senators in this Parliament have received more protest letters on these Bills than on virtually any other subject in recent years. Senator Haines —Most of them have not known what they have been writing about. Senator SHORT —Significantly, Senator Haines, these protests are coming from the widest imaginable cross section of the people. They come from people from all walks of life and from virtually all parts of the political spectrum, with the exception perhaps of the powerful socialist left of the Australian Labor Party. The people are telling us loud and clear that they do not want this legislation and that they fear it, and well they might. I have received several hundred letters of opposition to the proposals. I have received only one letter of support and that was from the socialist left dominated Coburg City Council which is in the electorate of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Liberal and National parties are, as I said earlier, violently opposed to the Hawke Government's proposals. The Australian people should be aware that the only way that the socialist Government will get this legislation through will be with the support of the Australian Democrats. What will the Australian Democrats do? We do not know what the Democrats will do. They have not told us yet. They do not like the present Bill because they regard it as too weak, despite the fact that it takes away rather than strengthens our basic rights. Although they regard the Bill as weak they may still vote with the Government and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians. If the Government is prepared to make the Bills even more horrific, more draconian, more Orwellian than they already are, the Australian Democrats will certainly support the legislation. So much for the role of the Australian Democrats in Australian life. With 7 per cent of the vote of the Australian people, a measly 7 per cent, the Australian Democrats hold the freedom of 16 million Australians in their hands. If the Democrats support the Government on this legislation the Australian people will confine the Democrats to the dust-bowl of political history at the first available opportunity, and rightly so. But by then the damage could be done. Nothing could be less democratic-and Senator Haines's performance in the chamber today demonstrates her views of democracy-than that a minor splinter party with no representation whatsoever in the House of Representatives where governments are formed can, nevertheless, be the final arbiter in determining the freedoms and rights of every Australian man, woman and child. This package of so-called human rights legislation-a misnomer, if ever there was one-is in fact an inept, confused and ambiguous ragbag of so-called rights. It is incomplete, contradictory and dangerous. It is dangerous because it presents a highly selective package of rights and pretends that those rights are the totality of those that we require in contemporary Australia. Senator Crichton-Browne —They are what we have already. Senator SHORT —That is correct. As the Returned Services League of Australia said in a submission dated 30 November 1985: To define rights in an Act of Parliament is in itself a limitation of rights. If a right is not included does that right exist? Senator Haines —Of course it does, you silly man. Senator SHORT —Well, if it does, why not put it in the Bill of Rights? The RSL continues: How can the few people who work to draft the list of rights include all rights and freedoms? How can all rights and freedoms be covered within the limitations of the words of our language? . . . Governments should not legislate to tell free people what they can do. Rather they should legislate to tell free people what they cannot do and then let them get on with living their lives. So says the RSL's submission and that is a statement with which I fully agree. We are all aware of the fact that there are societies which have very wide freedoms and rights enshrined in legislation. In many countries these rights exist merely for show; they are found in some of the worst totalitarian societies on earth. The classic example is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union purports to establish very wide rights for its citizens, yet the reality is very different. The Soviet Union is the greatest abuser of civil liberties. It is obvious that the mere stating of rights is no protection. True human rights depend upon something much more profound and solid. They depend upon the tradition of a thousand years of habeas corpus and the respect for the Magna Carta; they depend upon rights established centuries ago; and they depend upon that great body of law known as the common law. I know that comments have been made during this debate that the common law does not sufficiently protect the rights of individuals in our society. I do not necessarily dispute that and I do not say that the common law is the be all and end all of human rights. However, it is certainly a major basis of the rights that we have and are so proud of-rightly so-in this nation. As Sir Robert Menzies once said: To live in a common law country is, in itself, the very best guarantee of the rights of the individual. It is this tradition of respect for property, trial by jury and vigilance against abuse of the royal prerogative which has enabled Australians to enjoy the privileges that few other nations on earth have. The irony of the Hawke Government's proposals is that they extol many of the rights already possessed by Australians, yet the powers to be given to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will violate many of the rights now available. Senator Haines —They will not. Senator SHORT —They will, Senator Haines. Senator Haines —But they are exactly the same as- Senator SHORT —I seek your protection, Mr Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —Senator Haines will refrain from interjecting. Senator SHORT —One of the major dangers in this Bill is that it excludes many rights. There is no guarantee of the right to non-State education. Private property rights are not protected. Why are private property rights not protected? They are not protected because when the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from which the Government's proposals flow, was being drafted that great protector of human rights, the Soviet Union, opposes its inclusion. There is no protection of the right to engage in a lawful trade, profession or occupation. Rights such as these could be interpreted as some limitation perhaps on the octopus-like expansion of trade union power in Australia. Of course, expanding trade union power in Australia is exactly what this Simon Crean, Bill Kelty and Bob Hawke Government is all about. As Professor Mark Cooray pointed out recently, the exclusion of proprietary rights from the Bill is not an oversight. It is a deliberate omission from a document designed to promote the socialist agenda in this country. Again, as Cooray has pointed out, it is often overlooked that the right to private property undergirds all other rights. Senator Haines —We have never had it in this country. Senator SHORT —Senator Haines has had her go. I ask her to let me have mine. In particular, political rights lose much of their effectiveness when the right to private property is denied. There are other serious and deliberate omissions from the proposed Bill. For example, in clause 9 (3) of the Bill of Rights Bill companies and other incorporated associations are specifically excluded. The implication of that restriction for the freedom of expression and the rights of the Press is immense. In this modern age it is almost impossible to establish a communications outlet without forming a company. Senator Zakharov —Without a great deal of money. Senator SHORT —But without establishing a company. Companies are excluded from this Bill. The public should be aware that this Hawke Labour Government refused to accept an Opposition amendment to grant companies and other incorporated associations similar rights when these Bills were debated in another place at the end of 1985. It is a fundamental right in a free society for persons to associate in the corporate form in order to enjoy and exercise their rights. The denial of freedom of expression and of the Press is a dangerous curtailment of that freedom. It is preposterous to believe that the Hawke Government can summarise the rights and freedoms of Australians in one document. The rights that this Bill purports to give us really are the passing preoccupations of an unrepresentative minority. Even the great Bill of Rights of the United States has serious flaws. It is a document that was meant to protect the rights of early Americans against the intrusion of the Government. Its major impetus was memories from the revolutionary days of armed struggle with the British. One of the rights enshrined in the Bill was the right to bear arms. Such a right is quite out of tune with the needs of a modern, highly urbanised society. In fact, it is the major reason for the appallingly high homicide rate in some cities in the United States. The right to bear arms might have been arguable in the 1790s but it is a highly dubious proposition in the 1980s. Similarly, our proposed Bill of Rights has many transitory rights which may well be considered irrelevant in future years. Of course, the Bill can be altered in future years by the government of the day to ensure that it is relevant. But why legislate in the first place if such rights can be taken away in the future? By listing our so-called rights the Government in fact is curtailing those rights. If this legislation is passed the Hawke Government will forever stand condemned for taking rights from Australian citizens. The legislation presages a massive and unprecedented opportunity for and determination to intervene federally in State affairs and for a major centralist shift in the balance of power between the Federal Government and the States. I think it is a not unreasonable proposition to assert that one of the basic reasons for this legislation and why the Australian Democrats are likely to support it, particularly if it is strengthened, is that this legislation is about a get Queensland campaign and about a get other States campaign-a campaign to get the States which do not fall into line with the views of the Federal socialist Labor Government. If we are talking about problems in the States, let us look at what is happening in my own State of Victoria at this very moment. The editorial in yesterday's Melbourne Age states: Labor's Socialist Left is not averse to electoral engineering in contempt of democratic principles. Its malign influence was behind a resolution of the party's state conference last October which, if implemented, would eliminate minority parties . . . from the Legislative Council and disenfranchise more than 200,000 Victorians. That is what is going on in States such as mine. That is the type of thing which needs to be looked at very seriously. This Bill could do fundamental damage to the Federal structure of government. The expanded Human Rights Commission will have the power to inquire into any act or practice not only of the Commonwealth but also of a State or authority of a State. The Commission will have the power to investigate acts of a State Parliament. Additionally, it will have the power to conduct so-called education campaigns to correct perceived abuses. That brings me to the final concern which I wish to express at this second reading stage about the Government's proposals. I refer to the fact that the Bill of Rights would be administered by the expanded Human Rights Commission. I, along with many others, have been concerned for some time now about the activities of the Human Rights Commission. I do not deny that some form of advisory body may be advisable in the area of human rights in Australia, although I believe even that proposition needs much more searching analysis. The Government proposes to expand the existing Human Rights Commission-a Commission set up with bipartisan approval by the Fraser Government in the late 1970's-into a much larger bureaucratic organisation with considerably expanded powers. I believe that several of the recent activities of the existing Commission raise very serious questions about the desirability of giving it expanded and powerful powers over the lives of every Australian. I will give a few examples to illustrate my concern. They include the stupid and wrongful exclusion last year of the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Neil Brown, from the Human Rights Commission's offices; its ridiculous proposal for some form of racial taunts legislation; its absurd claims of torture of demonstrators at Pine Gap; its suppressing of a report on affirmative action which it commissioned from Dr Gabriel Moens because it did not like the results of that report; and, perhaps most serious of all, its infiltration of Australia's education system from the infants school level to the secondary school level with human rights literature and material which it is no exaggeration to describe as subversive and deliberately undermining of many of the basic values of Australian society. I will give the Senate a few examples of this kind of literature. Last year the Human Rights Commission published and distributed what it calls a teaching kit for general use and distribution throughout schools in Australia. The kit comprises a number of pamphlets and a textbook of more than 150 pages entitled Teaching For Human Rights. The book was written by the Commission's Assistant Director for Education, Dr Ralph Pettman. The book is divided into some 10 chapters. One of these chapters is entitled `Life'. The first two paragraphs of that chapter talk about the horrors of World War II and of genocide-a very acceptable introduction. However, the third paragraph states: There has been mass assassination, too, by more covert and indirect means. The construction of a capitalist world economy, predicated upon dishonesty and greed, has slaughtered uncounted millions the world over through the exploitation and the mis-development of global resources. The United States and the other erstwhile `free market' democracies have much to answer for in this regard. Marx and Lenin could not have done a better job of drafting more hard core communist propaganda than that. Is the Human Rights Commission saying that every person engaged in private enterprise and the whole private enterprise system is corrupt and that the system is based on greed and dishonesty? What does that say of the small business person in Australia and his desire and the desire of every Australian to strive as individuals to achieve, to succeed and to be rewarded for that? Senator Parer —How much are they paying the teachers to disseminate this rubbish? Senator SHORT —I shall come to that in a second, it is a very interesting point. Another chapter in the book is called `The Family'. The third paragraph of that chapter says: . . . a liberal, capitalist, multicultural democracy, with social welfare proclivities, a highly stratified class structure, a value system that is secular, racist, sexist, and materialistic-the family reflects and promotes this fact. I do not believe that the values of the average Australian family are racist, sexist and materialistic. I do not believe that too many other Australians would believe that either. Senator Gareth Evans —Quote it in context. Senator SHORT —I will debate that with the honourable senator at any time. It is not a fact either that Australia has a highly stratified class structure. It may be that our society is capitalistic though that too is an overstatement in a mixed economy, but it is certainly not the type of capitalism that is described elsewhere in Dr Pettman's book, where he writes of capitalism: The rich want to keep what they have. They run the governments and the armies- That is possibly true nowadays under the present Government we have in power. Senator Parer —The new rich; the ACTU. Senator SHORT —Yes, the new rich. Dr Pettman continues: They see change as needed only where it means preserving the kind of life they are used to. As conditions get worse the poor overwhelm all but a few pockets of rich resistance. The Commission, in the same document, rejects the notion that education should be neutral and states: Teachers adopting teaching human rights should be aware that the program makes no pretence at all at being value-free. It is value-heavy, has explicit ideological commitments, and eschews the notion of neutrality in education. It certainly does, and it does so in a way that is repugnant and which virtually all freedom-loving Australians would find totally unacceptable and subversive with regard to everything for which this nation so proudly stands. Not only is this subversive material being distributed to schools but also it is being actively promoted to teachers through advertisements in major newspapers. I am sorry I did not seek the Minister's permission beforehand, but I seek leave-- Senator Gareth Evans —I will exercise greater tolerance than you would. Senator SHORT —I seek leave to table the advertisement which appeared on 8 February in most of the major daily newspapers. In summary, it calls on teachers to participate in using the teaching kit to explore human rights issues with the infant, lower primary, upper primary and secondary classes. The advertisement offers grants, which, I understand, are from $500 to $1,000, to teachers who participate. Leave granted. Senator SHORT —The contact point within the Human Rights Commission is listed in this advertisement as none other than Dr Pettman, the author of the book from which I have been quoting. These should be matters of the gravest concern to all Australians. Large amounts of taxpayers' funds are being used to promote values and concepts that totally undermine Australia's basic socio-economic and cultural values. The Hawke Government stands condemned for allowing such a subversive activity to occur in one of its own agencies. In my final comments on the Government's human rights proposals, I can do no better than to quote from last week's editorial in one of the major local newspapers in the electorate of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The paper is the Brunswick Sentinel. The editorial states: The Australian people have fought two world wars and have been involved in others to preserve the freedoms we hold sacred. Now these freedoms are under threat from the Federal Government, the very body entrusted with their protection. If the proposed Bill of rights is passed through the Senate, democracy in Australia will be gravely imperilled. The editorial goes on to say later on: If we allow this Bill to pass we will be rejecting the constitutional legacy we inherited from England, and start down the path taken by the Soviet Union and others who have comprehensive Bills of Rights, but permit bureaucracies to define and limit, as they see fit, the rights and freedoms declared in those bills. The Prime Minister, his Government and the Australian Democrats would do well to heed this warning. To do otherwise would be to condemn this nation and its people to a progressive erosion of those individual freedoms and rights which are the hallmark and the pride of our nation and the envy of most of the rest of the world. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.03) —Mr Acting Deputy President-(Quorum formed) I rise to support the Australian Bill of Rights proposal which is before the chamber not because its passage into law in Australia would mark a revolutionary change in throwing off some oppressive and tyrannical regime and the inauguration of a new social era, in the sense of the Bill of Rights in the United States of America, but simply because I believe it is very useful in a democracy to put as many hurdles as possible between government and the people's enjoyment of their freedoms. As I see it, the proposed Bill of Rights will do no more than reinforce, reaffirm and say to the Australian people: `These are values which on the whole at the moment throughout Australia we greatly prize and value'. It is not enough to leave those values rather vague. It would be a good idea, would it not, to set them down in a form which would act as a bench-mark and guideline for the electors and citizens of Australia so that they can judge our performance as governments and as parliamentarians? The fact is-it must not be forgotten and it needs to be reasserted-that this Bill will have an impact and effect only on governments. It is directed, in the traditional style of Bills of Rights, to curbing those government powers and the exercise of such powers which would modify and have a deleterious effect on the rights and freedoms which ordinary citizens wish to enjoy. It is not directed against ordinary people or even those who associate in companies; it will have an impact only against governments. It would be very good for Australian society to set down in a reasonably concise form those rights and freedoms which we value and, on the whole, want to see continued. Why not reassert and reaffirm them in this form? The fact is that a very vicious, misleading and mischievous campaign is being waged around Australia at the moment which is actually creating real fear amongst large segments of otherwise good, sensible and tolerant people. I have received letters which have talked about civil war, blood on the streets and destruction of the family. These are matters which I will address during the latter part of my remarks. But what I am trying to establish first of all very clearly is that no revolutionary claims are made about this Bill. It is a reaffirmation, a reassertion, a listing, so that it can be used by the electors and citizens as a guide to enable them to assess the performance of governments and parliaments in relation to these matters. What must be asserted from the outset is that we will not be misled by those on the conservative side of politics who keep saying that the Government is intending to confer these rights on people. There is no sense in which it is claimed that this is a bestowal of rights by government on the people. That would be contrary to what is being attempted in this legislation and, indeed, by most Bills of Rights around the world. One is saying that these rights are inherent in the dignity of human beings and in their capacity and status as citizens in a free society. It is up to government to recognise that fact, to draw limits and restrain itself from imposing on those rights which inhere in the people of a democracy such as Australia. So this Bill is no more than a declaration of some of the rights which are so important in preserving the character of our democratic society. Both the words `declaration' and `some' in that sentence are important. It is a declaration, as I say, an affirmation and a recognition. It is not a conferring, it is not a granting by government. It is a recognition of some of the rights. It does not pretend to be exhaustive. It does not prevent either the common law judges or the parliaments of Australia, whether at the Federal, State or territorial level, or even at local government level, from conferring additional rights. It is supplementary. It builds on a tradition already established by the combination of common law and parliamentary action. It supplements, complements and reaffirms, but it in no sense displaces any of our existing rights. It leaves plenty of room for the recognition by the courts and parliament of rights that are not listed in this Bill. To affirm that point, I will read article 2 which is headed `Effect of Bill of Rights on existing rights and freedoms'. A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right of freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. I believe there could be no more clear statement by this Parliament that in no sense does this Bill, in its failure to list particular rights, either extinguish them or displace them if they presently exist, nor does it prevent their later recognition by the courts or by way of parliamentary action. It is very important nevertheless, as I say, to recognise that the common law needs some supplementing. I think it has been pointed out in other speeches that the common law-certainly this was the finding of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which looked at the broad question of the Bill of Rights on behalf of the Senate in the latter part of last year, which Committee, by the way, took public evidence and had the benefit of many written submissions-was defective and needed supplementing and, in fact, historically had not played the great role which is sometimes ascribed to it in the mythology of the conservatives. I do not say that the common law is not a precious part of our inheritance. In fact, in many ways, for example in its insistence on natural justice, in recent years it has shown a certain robust creativity in its application which is to be welcomed. But the fact is that the common law did not give us the right to vote-as most people in Western Australia, Tasmania and the division of Scullin did last weekend-without discrimination on the ground of sex. The common law never recognised what we would surely term in Australia the great and precious right of religious freedom or freedom of conscience. I have in my hand a decision of the South Australian Supreme Court as recently as 6 July 1984 in which the Full Court of the Supreme Court in the case of Grace Bible Church Inc. against Reedman stated quite clearly that the common law does not guarantee freedom of religion. I think it is very important that we try to reaffirm in this Bill of Rights our belief that governments should be judged and brought under the criterion of a respect for that particularly precious freedom. People will know the problems that Jehovah's Witnesses experienced in the Second World War and which many good Christian young men experienced during the Vietnam War when their conscientious objections were not able to gain them exemption from military service which might have involved killing another human being, even though they had a conscientious objection to that conflict. In those situations one would know that it would be very useful to have as a criterion against which this Federal Parliament could be judged, articles 8 and 9, which read: Every person has the right to freedom of thought and conscience, including the right to hold opinions without interference. Every person has the right to have or adopt a religion or belief of that person's choice without coercion of any kind, and to manifest that religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, whether individually or in community with others and whether in public or in private. I would have thought that those articles were extremely valuable. I say to those members of the various churches who have been manipulated in the campaign that is gathering pace at the moment to reflect on the possible worth of those provisions. One of the arguments that is heard-quite often it is put in letters which are based on an anonymous pamphlet which has been circulated around the country-is that this Bill of Rights is based on some sort of international covenant which emanates from some odious ogre of international dimensions and appeals only to Warsaw Pact countries. This has been a constant theme of letters that I have received. The fact is that the mother of the common law tradition, the United Kingdom, has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The fact is that democracies such as Canada, New Zealand, Japan, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Norway, Denmark, Spain and Sweden have all made themselves parties to the International Covenant. It is very largely reflected in the international European arrangements to which, of course, the United Kingdom has acceded. To paint this as a sort of communist conspiracy that appeals only to Warsaw Pact countries, as my short reading of the list of countries demonstrates, is completely false and misleading. In any case, if those countries have acceded to the International Covenant and have not observed it, I fail to see how that is an argument for Australia not observing and adhering to its articles as scrupulously as possible. The fact that some countries act in a hypocritical fashion is certainly no reason for us not to adopt this Bill in the form that is before the Senate today. It would be hard to say that the basis of the Bill, the International Covenant, is part of a general conspiracy against freedom-loving democracies when one knows the history of Australia's participation in it. The Australian Labor Party Government in the 1940s was involved in its drafting. I presume that Dr Evatt played a large part in that process. But the fact is that the then Liberal and Country Party Government under Mr Harold Holt in 1966 directed the Australian delegation to the United Nations to show our desire for it to be adopted and that it be opened for signature. It was signed in 1972 by the ALP Government under Mr Whitlam and ratified in 1980 by Mr Malcolm Fraser on behalf of the Liberal National Party Government. One could hardly say that Mr Fraser was in the vanguard of the socialist revolution. Nevertheless, the fact is that the constant claim is made that it is part of a general conspiracy to undermine our Western democratic values. I think I have demonstrated in a short time that the hysteria engendered on that point is quite ill-founded. Then, of course, one comes to the claim that this is really designed to undermine the federal system. It has to be said very clearly that the Bill in its form before the chamber has an immediate impact only on Commonwealth laws and administrative activities. It is only directed in a way which would enable a court to strike down an inconsistent Commonwealth law. Senator Lewis —Don't mislead the people. Come on, Michael-you are more honest than that. Senator TATE —I do not need a lesson in honesty from the honourable senator. In relation to the States, the question of the operation of the Bill is such that it simply enables the Human Rights Commission-through a very complex process of negotiation and consultation between the relevant State Minister-to produce a report for the consideration of the national parliament. There is nothing in the Bill which purports, as some versions have in previous years, to render invalid, null and void, of no effect whatsoever, State laws which are thought not to comply with any particular article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I think it is very important that that particular point be reaffirmed. In the short time given to me I will not dwell too much on that because there are some more outrageous attacks that I need to deal with. I suppose it is true to say that one of the legitimate fears of many in the community is that if we establish a Bill of Rights on a pattern which people vaguely associated with the United States Bill of Rights we may be importing into Australia some of the history of litigation and the role of the United States Supreme Court justices in relation to this particular Bill. It has to be said very clearly that the Government and, indeed, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs have set their face against incorporating any such Bill in the Constitution. Once that is done we hand over to a non-elected bench of justices a very final, absolute power in relation to the interpretation of the words of the Bill. That is not the intention. The intention is that, as with every piece of legislation passed by this Parliament, there be the usual relationship between the courts and the Parliament whereby we define and set down in the statute the general principles and the courts interpret them and apply those principles to particular actions, activities and events in the community. That role between the parts-- Senator Harradine —But not by overtly political criteria. Senator TATE —That would be a large argument too. The fact is that this Bill does put into the open, overtly as Senator Harradine quite rightly says, the sort of criteria which we would want the courts to use rather than much of the overt, unspoken of criteria which the courts can apply from time to time from the historical background of the judiciary and the personal prejudices of the judges. We want it to be out in the open, but the fact is that the Parliament remains in control of the situation. To say, as Senator Short did in his concluding remarks, that the Human Rights Commission will be defining and limiting our rights is quite incorrect. The Human Rights Commission will not be defining and limiting in our rights, that is a role which is confined to the Parliament in the first instance and the interpretation, which is where the limiting and further refinement in application to particular events and activities would occur, is a matter for the courts. It is very important to say against those who have been misled, I believe, by much of the propaganda in relation to the Human Rights Commission-I do not defend the Commission in respect of every facet of its activities and some of the publications which I have not had a chance to read in their total context, which have been mentioned would be causes for concern-that the Commission cannot enforce anything. It cannot insist that any government body change a particular course of conduct which is found to flout or not to be in harmony with the Bill of Rights. It commences an investigation, it carries out that investigation with certain powers and it needs quite strong powers because, as I have said, it will be acting against governments. Governments must not be allowed to say to their particular officials who need to come in to the situation: `You shall not attend before the Human Rights Commission'. They need to be brought before the Human Rights Commission and they need to answer certain questions because governments will always try to cloak and shield their employees and their officials against the ordinary people who are trying to assert their rights and freedoms in a particular case. The fact is that the Human Rights Commission is not given power to impose penalties. I have been at many a meeting where it has been feared that the Human Rights Commission could impose fines or throw people into prison. That is not the case. Senator Lewis —Well, it can. Senator TATE —Senator Lewis says it can; the fact is that it cannot. The Human Rights Commission has no such power to impose a penalty on people. That can be done only by the courts, and Senator Austin Lewis knows that to be the case. There have been more attacks than that on the Human Rights Bill. Some of them are quite outrageous. I suppose that one that has caused most concern amongst reasonably fair-minded people is the assertion that the Bill amounts to an assault against the family and family values. I was at a public meeting in Devonport a couple of weeks ago on behalf of the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen. A Mr Jim Bowen, a Crown prosecutor from Melbourne, appeared on the platform and I believe misled the crowd by his constant refrain: `There is no protection in this Bill for the family'. One can only think it was deliberate on his part not to quote Article 13 or Article 14 of the Bill. But I am going to do that for the benefit of honourable senators present in the chamber and, more particularly, for those who are listening. Article 13 is headed: `Right to marry and to found a family'. These are important words which will govern the interpretation by the courts of the legislation of this Parliament from the date of the passage of this Bill. It states: Recognising that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State- (a) every man and woman of marriageable age has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and to found a family; and (b) no marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses. There is nothing there, by the way, about homo- sexual marriages on which the people have also been misled. It is quite clear the Article refers to persons of the opposite sex having a right to marry but, more importantly, is that statement of principle which I believe is a very important one and excellent to see the Commonwealth Parliament adopting as a benchmark against which the electorate can judge it. I will repeat it. It states: Recognising that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State- Article 14 speaks about the rights of the child. It states: Recognising that every child has the right to such measures of protection as are required by the child's age- (a) every child is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights to the greatest extent compatible with the age of the individual child; That is clear enough: (b) every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name; (c) every child has the right to acquire a nationality; and Here is the important provision of that Article which has been so deliberately distorted: (d) the liberty of parents and legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions is to be respected. I believe that that particular provision is a bulwark of the family and its integrity against a totalitarian state which would take away children, try to indoctrinate them or try to foist its ideas of what those children should receive by way of religious and moral education. As I see it, the paramount consideration in that particular provision is the child and the first responsibility of the child rests with its parents. This provision recognises that the moral and legal education of children should conform to the convictions of the parents. The fact is that the state is thereby precluded from overriding that first responsibility, the primacy of parents in that regard. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is not true. Senator TATE —I invite the honourable senator to look at it to see whether the argument I am putting forward is not open. There are some real fears about this. I acknowledge the fears, for example, about the indoctrination by teachers of students in their classrooms which could be founded on the Article which deals with freedom of expression. It would take a long time for me to rehearse all the legal arguments, but the fact is, firstly, that the right of a teacher to freedom of expression is not an absolute right. It is curtailed by Article 3 of the Bill of Rights, which states: The rights and freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights are subject only to such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. There is no doubt that a properly constituted education authority would be able, under that provision, to set down the curriculum to be taught in the school and to curtail any teacher who indulged in a program peculiar to that teacher from trying to indoctrinate children in a way which was not within the general curriculum set down by that lawfully constituted authority. If it still came to a battle between the authority and the parents-I have mentioned the article which relates to the moral and religious education of children being the primary responsibility of the parents and being given due observance-the courts, as always, would need to come to a balanced view in relation to these competing rights. The mere fact that the Parliament has specially set out the moral and religious education of children and has said that that is the primary duty and responsibility of parents which must be respected by the Parliament would give very clear guidance to the court as to the balance being tipped in favour of parental decision-making in that area. I do not see this Bill as an attack on the family. On the contrary, I see it as providing a very good foundation for the family in Australian society. Another attack made on the Bill was in respect to the so-called stripping of necessary police power to deal with persons whom they want to arrest and take into custody. The fact is that the Articles are almost unexceptionable. For example, Article 22 reads: Any person detained in custody has the right to remain silent and the right to consult with a lawyer. I would have thought that was a very strong reinforcement of the common law position, which says that if a person is brought to criminal trial, that person does not have to open his mouth. It is up to the prosecution to bring forward the evidence - not from the lips of the person who is being held as a suspect, charged with an offence or put on trial. It is the golden thread that runs through the whole common law tradition, and one that this Senate has been at great pains to always insist on in its various committees by not allowing reversals of the onus of proof. The fact is that it is up to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and nothing at all need fall from the lips of the person concerned. This Article takes that right to remain silent into the custody stage, as at the trial, and that is a very good affirmation of that common law position. Much has been made of Article 21, which states: Any person who is arrested shall be informed at the time of the arrest of the reasons for the arrest, and shall be informed promptly and in detail of any charges in a language which that person understands. It has been said that this will create chaos for a policeman who wants to arrest somebody in the middle of a demonstration and is met with a violent reaction. It needs to be clearly stated that the stages between arrest and charge are quite distinct. What is being asked for is that on arrest the reasons for the arrest be given in general terms. When charges are laid, they have to be spelt out, but that is a subsequent stage and there is no requirement that a person be charged in a language he understands at the time of arrest. We should keep in mind what is at stake. We are trying to create a society where the police of a totalitarian state do not come and knock on the door and take a person away without giving a reason, which is the case in the Warsaw Pact countries and in other countries with Right or Left dictatorships. We want a situation-- Senator Lewis —But that's where they have a Bill of Rights. Senator TATE —But they do not observe it. We are trying to create a situation where, in these democratic traditions of Australia, a person cannot be arrested without being told by the police or by a government official why that person's freedom is being restricted, and that seems to me to be a very good and reasonable thing to do. Finally, it has been said that the provision that a person arrested or detained shall be brought promptly before a judge, magistrate or justice of the peace can impede the process of the police in procuring confessions. I take it to be a very fundamental matter that persons should be properly brought before judges or magistrates on their arrest and should not be allowed to languish in some sort of detention by the police. I think that most Australians would agree with that, as they would with Article 25, which states and reaffirms: Any person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. It has also been said that, if police entered a situation with a warrant to look for stolen property-say, video cassette recorders-and found heroin on the premises, they could not impound the heroin. That is also a quite incorrect assertion. Provisions within the Bill make it very clear that where there is a compelling need for immediate action, as there would be in a situation where heroin would be disposed of if the police had to go and get another warrant, as provided for in Article 12 (2) (d), the police could seize the heroin they found. I am taking up some of the examples which have been put to me in a campaign of letters, with which most honourable senators have been inundated. On the whole this has been a most mischievous and misleading campaign which has created a lot of heartburn and heartache amongst otherwise good, tolerant Australians who have been presented with a picture of a socialist ogre prowling this country, seeking what it may devour and particularly putting their families and the education of their children at the mercy of some doctrinaire, ideologically motivated, totalitarian state. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Bill of Rights is designed to re-assert those democratic values which we prize so highly. It is designed to put more hurdles in the way of governments which attempt to trample on or diminish those rights which we think are so important for all Australians, particularly those citizens who come into conflict with, or under the attention of, those in authority, with all the powers and possibilities of state power which can be exercised against them. I believe that the Bill of Rights deserves the support of the Senate as one of the elements, together with the common law and other parliamentary action, in constructing an edifice and a bastion of freedom for all Australians. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.32) —I make it clear again, as my friend and colleague Senator Janine Haines did so splendidly in her contribution to this debate, that the Australian Democrats have a very strong policy commitment to the enactment of a strong Bill of Rights which gives legislative recognition to basic human rights and freedoms and provides remedies for their enforcement. Given this commitment, I cannot express too strongly our extreme disappointment at the Government's failure to produce a Bill of Rights which matches those requirements. The Australian Bill of Rights Bill is weak and clearly the product of political cowardice. I never thought I would live to see the day when men such as Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Gareth Evans and their kind would bow down to men such as Robin Gray and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. That is precisely what they have done. It is political cowardice of the worst kind. There has been no greater champion for a proper Bill of Rights in this country than Senator Gareth Evans, and I commend him for it. Yet we have this weak, disgusting attempt to satisfy the strong arm boys in the States. The Government has squibbed on a fight with miniature politicians such as Robin Gray and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Even Malcolm Fraser-and this chamber knows that I am not his greatest admirer-did not back away from a fight with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen on the question of mining at Fraser Island. What happened to Malcolm Fraser over that fight? He not only won it, but he won it among the people. He took on a tyrant. He went out and explained what he was doing and he won the fight. I suggest to the Labor Government that when it knows it is in the right, when it knows that woodchipping in Tasmania is evil, fight it. It should put the political cost to one side because people generally have enough common sense and decency to understand what is right if it is explained to them in the proper way. This Bill is weak because it does not apply to the States or to local government. It is in those two areas where massive infringements of civil and human rights occur. One has only to look at the kind of legislation that was proposed in Tasmania in respect of the searching of people suspected of carrying drugs and the legislation being enacted in Queensland to see the massive infringement of civil rights and human rights that is being perpetrated in those States. Most people listening to this debate on radio at the moment are saying: `That is all right, but if you are a decent, law abiding person you will not get into trouble with the police, you will not get into trouble with the bureaucracy'. One would hope that that is always the case. However, we know that that is not so. One hopes that the police or bureaucracy will interfere if the law is broken. Let me give the example of what happened to a Brisbane couple in their late sixties who are very close to me. The husband, who is virtually a teetotaller but has an odd social drink, was advised by his doctor that his heart condition would be assisted and he would be able to sleep better if he had a small touch of brandy in his cup of tea before going to bed at night. This man called into a drive-in bottle shop and purchased a small bottle of brandy. He did not have a drink in the hotel at all; he just went to the bottle shop. About 200 yards from the hotel two young policemen in a car swerved in front of him and forced his car to the kerb. They pulled him bodily from the car-this is a man of 62 or 63 years of age with a heart condition-and, with his wife helplessly looking on, slammed his face on the bonnet of the car, put his arms up on the bonnet, searched him and accused him of being drunk. To my knowledge this man has never broken a law in his life. He is an honest citizen. This is the sort of reason why the Democrats are saying that we need a strong Bill of Rights. The good people in the Australian Labor Party, such as Senator Tate, say that we need a Bill of Rights to protect citizens from that sort of intrusion into human rights. Yet this Bill does not extend any coverage at all to State governments, local governments or their employees. My wife and I have built two houses in the last five years and we know of the massive infringements of human rights and civil liberties that take place when one comes into contact with some local government building inspectors. Unfortunately, local government is not included in this Bill. We are not talking about the protection of criminals; we are not talking about the people who take a sly puff of marihuana or whatever. We are talking about totally and utterly innocent people who may be enveloped by the bureaucracy and police activities. In short, we say that this Bill is pathetic. As we have announced, the Australian Democrats will attempt at the Committee stage to rectify these shortcomings and will put the Government to the test. We will also put the Opposition to the test. Senator Robert Hill, a member of the Opposition, astonished every member of this chamber last evening by giving fierce and enthusiastic support for the Bill and everything that is in it and then announcing that he was going to vote against it. It is pathetic that honourable senators can make speeches like that and then vote against everything that they have just espoused. The Government has responded to our proposals with no more than a useless so-called compromise. Publicly, I pay the highest tribute to Senator Janine Haines, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats, and members of my staff who over the past several months have worked tirelessly on this Bill of Rights, trying to get Labor back benchers and Labor Ministers to give this Bill some teeth and have it applied to the States. However, my disappointment with the Government's attitude in no way matches my absolute disgust with the Opposition, the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia and its fellow travellers. I do not know what has happened to the Liberal Party. I would shiver if I were still a member of the Liberal Party-thank God I am not-and organisations such as the League of Rights, the Festival of Light and the National Civic Council and people such as J. K. Bowen were fellow travellers with me. I would shiver and be ashamed that people knew of that association. Thankfully, I still have many friends in the Liberal Party. However, it passes my comprehension how they can stomach creatures such as that who spread lies and whip innocent people up in a frenzy. That is not the Liberal Party that I used to know, the Liberal Party that was headed by Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt and John Gorton. The Liberal Party of those days would not have stomached those sorts of people for one second. These people have been responsible for whipping up a campaign of frenzy, misrepresentation and lies which has been directed at decent, innocent Australian citizens. Thousands of people have written to me and other members of Parliament on the basis of the deceptive information they have been given. I would like to quote from some of the letters, hopefully to instil some semblance of shame into the minds and hearts of members of the National Party and the Liberal Party, once they know what they have done and the sorts of crimes that they have committed in the name of political expediency. I have received a frightening number of letters. I have not counted them but each day they have to be brought into my office in a box. I would say that I have received between 10,000 and 20,000 letters and telegrams from mostly decent, honourable, innocent people who have been whipped up by this campaign of frenzy. During the whole of the Vietnam war or any other national catastrophe. I did not get anywhere near the number of letters or representations that I am getting on this matter. One must ask oneself why this campaign has been whipped up. I invite Senator Gareth Evans, who will respond on behalf of the Government and who perhaps knows more about what a Bill of Rights should contain than any other member of his Government, to answer the genuine question I am posing of why these fanatics have whipped up this campaign of frenzy. This is one of the most innocent pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. Not one aspect of it offends or worries me. I do not think even my harshest critics could ever accuse me-and they could accuse me of a lot of things-of having totalitarian tendencies. I cannot see one part of this proposed Act which frightens me. I would like to sum up my feelings about this letter writing campaign-not about the people who have written the letters but about the members of parliament and their fellow travellers who have whipped up the campaign. A parliamentary member of the National Party, whom I respect and admire as a human being, recently asked me to visit his constituency to debate the Bill of Rights legislation with Lady Bjelke- Petersen. As much as I admire the lady and would appreciate a night out with her in some remote country town, I decided that I could not accept. I say categorically to this gentleman that, whether I am free or not on any date, under no circumstances will I visit any constituency that has been whipped up to a frenzy by mischievous people on any issue on which the level of misrepresentation has now reached that of a national disgrace. I accuse the National Party of Australia of responsibility in this matter. I list below, for example, some extracts from some of the thousands of letters I have received from people after they have been addressed by National Party members and some other persons. I will come to those in a moment. I went on to say in my letter to this National Party member: As much as I admire you personally I cannot understand how a person of your integrity can belong to a political party which in Queensland has engineered the most outrageous gerrymander in all Western democracies, whereas a political party can be returned to power with a mere 35% of the primary vote. Yet the National Party is opposing this Bill of Rights. Where does the Liberal Party fit into this? It has been massacred, devastated, by the National Party in Queensland for years by a gerrymander. One way of fixing the gerrymander would be to have a Bill of Rights including a one vote one value article and have it apply to the States. That would allow the Liberal Party to be returned in Queensland at the next election. Yet, what does the Liberal Party do? It votes against the Bill of Rights. It will vote against a referendum for one vote one value. I say again with some sadness, particularly to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it is not the Liberal Party that I once belonged to. It does not have the calibre of people in it who would not have stood for these sorts of standover tactics by a Bjelke-Petersen for five minutes. Can anybody listening understand Sir Robert Menzies being stood over by a Bjelke-Petersen? Can anybody see a Harold Holt copping that for five minutes? Can anybody see my friend John Gorton standing for it at all? What has the Liberal Party come to? In this place it is following the National Party by destroying the one chance it has of having electoral sanity in Queensland. Worse still, the National Party is proposing legislation which forces a court of law to impose a mandatory sentence-that means minimum life sentence-on a kid on the mere presumption of a policeman that he is carrying four marihuana cigarettes. This is a proposal by a government that is elected by 35 per cent of the people, and the Liberals are supporting it and opposing a Bill of Rights which would stop this occurring. I am not talking about a kid who is perpetually smoking marihuana or who trades in it, or whatever-I have views about those kids, but I am not canvassing those now. I am talking about an innocent kid of 16, 17 or 18 years of age who is arrested by a policeman in Queensland because the policeman suspects that the kid is carrying four marihuana cigarettes-he presumes it. This could be anybody's child. It could be a child who belongs to a God-fearing family who goes to church every week. But a policeman presumes that that kid has four marihuana cigarettes-he does not even have to search him-he can arrest him, and on the basis of that presumption, a jury can find that kid guilty of an offence. Guess what the mandatory sentence for that kid is? It is life imprisonment for a 17 year-old kid who has never carried a marihuana cigarette in his life, but a policeman presumes he has. This is supported by the Liberal Party because it will not support a Bill of Rights that can extend to State governments. There is worse still in this proposed legislation. The parents of a child under 18 years of age can automatically face charges of child neglect if the child is convicted of a drug offence. The onus of proof is on the parents to prove that they were not neglectful. I am not talking about Soviet Russia, I am not talking about an Iron Curtain country, I am talking about Australia. The parents of a child in Queensland can be convicted and gaoled simply because a policeman has suspected that their child was carrying four marihuana cigarettes. I get worried about that. A lady who lives in Queensland spoke to me this week. She has an 18-year-old child who has just concluded a course in Sydney. The child has decided not to go back to Queensland. This mother loves her child, but she said: `I thank God that he made that decision because Queensland is no longer a safe place in which children can be brought up'. That person is not a Labor Party voter; she is a Liberal Party voter. This is the sort of thing that people like Senator Walters and others are supporting. This kind of legislation is a blight on democracy. In my view the most shameful institution in Australia is the National Party of Australia to which, frankly, I am surprised that decent people can still belong. This campaign which has been whipped up by people such as Senator Walters is one of the most shameful campaigns. Senator Lewis —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I take strong exception to Senator Chipp speaking on air-he only put his name on the list today because he knew we were on air-and maligning Senator Walters outrageously by accusing her of whipping up a campaign. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Walters has the right of saying that she takes exception to it. Senator CHIPP —Senator Walters might be impressed by Senator Lewis's chivalry, but I am not. I am sure the honourable senator is. Senator Walters —On a point of order: I challenge Senator Chipp to say that any letter refers to my name, or where and when I have whipped up any sort of reaction at all in my State or anywhere else. I challenge Senator Chipp to verify what he has been saying. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! There is no point of order. Senator CHIPP —I reply by referring Senator Walters to her own speech which by itself has been responsible for dozens more telegrams to my office today. The honourable senator should read her own speech. I have a letter here which says: I do not like the sound of the Bill of Rights. I do not like the powers that are given to the Human Rights Commission. I object because of Article 21: Any person who is arrested shall be informed of the reason of the arrest. This person is objecting to that. But it does not remain there. Someone else objects to it, none other than Senator Walters's colleague Senator Archer. Senator Walters —Do not accuse me. Senator CHIPP —Senator Archer is the honourable senator's colleague. On page 557 of last night's Hansard Senator Archer said: If a policeman sees an armed robber fleeing the bank, the existing law does not require the policeman to explain the reason for the arrest, but under this proposal he has got to be able to give the person the exact and correct reason for the arrest, or it can be held to be an improper arrest. Senator Archer thinks that it is awful for a person who is arrested to be told the reason for his arrest. Senator Haines, in shock, interjects: Don't you think someone ought to know why he is being picked up by some policeman? Senator Archer did not. He said: If one is on the side of the criminals, yes I do. This indicates the kind of moronic level to which some members of the Liberal Party and the National Party have descended to score a few cheap political points. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. If Senator Chipp is going to make these accusations he had better include the Law Council of Australia which has made the same accusations. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think Senator Chipp is entitled to make his speech in due silence. If the honourable senator has any comments I am sure she will have another opportunity during this debate to make her reply. Senator CHIPP —I have another letter from a Mr George Oughton from Homebush West. He says: It is noteworthy that the vast majority of the subversives who are the main energisers of this Bill and the ID Card lead unsatisfying sexual lives and show it in unsatisfying married lives, if any of them get around to that formality. These are the kind of people who are fellow travellers of the Liberal Party and the National Party. It passes my comprehension. I read another one: The Hon. D.L. Chipp, It will be of no concern of us farmers if the law should find a few extra bodies lying around if the Bill of Rights is passed. The following letter came from Glen Edwards of Tasmania: The social engineering proposed is alarming. As a christian parent, a teacher- God help us; this man is a teacher- and Australian citizen I urge upon you to look closely at the many wrongs in the Bill, such as legalising homo- sexual marriage and adoption, abortion on demand and the reduction of police powers. This man is a teacher. Senator Haines —He has not read the Bill, that's for sure. Senator CHIPP —He has not read the Bill. This man whom we have unleashed on the children to teach has said that this Bill has `many wrongs such as legalising homosexual marriage'. He wrote the letter because he has been told lies. Senator Lewis —No, they weren't lies. Senator CHIPP —Senator Lewis is defending the position of this teacher who says: the many wrongs in the Bill, such as legalising homosexual marriage and adoption . . . That is nonsense. I use this opportunity to quote from Article 13 to expose how wicked has been the technique of lies and distortion being put around by members of this Parliament and their fellow travellers-the Australian League of Rights, the Festival of Light, the National Civic Council and so on. Article 13, under the heading `Right to marry and to found a family', states: Recognising that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State- (a) every man and woman of marriageable age has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and to found a family; and (b) no marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses. I cannot think of any form of words in the English language that could more clearly express that marriages would only be between men and women. Yet these people, the Senator Walterses of this world, are allowing the distortion and the untruths to be perpetuated. Senator Boswell, who is attempting to interject, is indicating that it is not a distortion. Senator Boswell —I am pleased to associate my name with anything against the Bill of Rights. Please broadcast it. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge that interjection. If it was not unparliamentary, I can only distinguish it as being absolutely and totally moronic. But I acknowledge the interjection, so that it will go into Hansard, that he will support any tactic to outlaw the Bill of Rights. Senator Boswell —That's right; mention my name too. Senator CHIPP —I do not even know how to spell it! I cannot spell his name. There are many other such letters that show the sort of campaign that has been whipped up. Apart from the extraordinary gerrymanders which exist in Queensland and Western Australia, the twisted thinking of the Queensland Government has led to extraordinary legislation that could be directed against innocent people in the next few years. Maybe then it will be too late. Perhaps ordinary decent parents who respect God, religion, the family, will find their child being arrested, convicted, serving a life imprisonment in gaol and will say: `Why did we not have legislation to protect our children from this kind of thing?' What sorts of dreadful things does the Bill of Rights do? It says: Every person has the right without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. The Liberal Party opposes this. It wants the Bill of Rights to be destroyed. Article 5 states: Persons who belong to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority have the right, in community with other members of their own group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their language. the Liberal Party opposes that. Under the heading `Right of participation in public life' the Bill states: Every Australian citizen has the right and shall have the opportunity- (a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;- the Liberal Party is opposed to that- (b) to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections- The National Party will be opposed to that, for sure- (c) to have access on general terms of equality to public employment. Senator Haines —They are almost all opposed to that. Senator CHIPP —They are all opposed to that. Under the heading `Freedom of expression' the Bill states: Every person has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press and other media of communication, and the freedom to seek, receive and impart ideas or information of any kind in any form, without interference and regardless of frontiers. What a dreadful thing to do. Senator Walters —Do not leave out slavery and torture. Senator CHIPP —Members of the Opposition are always on to torture, flagellation or some other matter. Why do they not get their minds above those sorts of things? It would not do them any harm. Under the heading `Freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief' the Bill states: Every person has the right to have or adopt a religion or belief of that person's choice without coercion of any kind, and to manifest that religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, whether individually or in community with others and whether in public or in private. What a shocking thing to allow people the freedom to believe in any god they please! The Liberal and National parties want to stop that. The Bill states that every person has the right of peaceful assembly. What a terrible thing it is to give people the right of peaceful assembly. This is a sad day for the country because a worthless Bill is before us. The Government has announced that it will not accept the meaningful amendments that the Democrats have proposed. The National and Liberal parties, with their fellow travellers-the League of Rights, the Festival of Light and the National Civic Council-have conducted a nation-wide campaign of fear which, in my political experience, is unparalleled. I name it as being shameful and wonder how any self-respecting member of the Liberal Party could associate himself with such a campaign. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.02) —There are some matters which the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, has raised which unfortunately I will have to respond to in this debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. I had hoped to be able to limit my time on my feet to about 15 minutes but Senator Chipp has raised some matters which undoubtedly require some sort of a response. Regarding his allegations as to what various policemen have done to various suspects, may I say to him that I have the greatest empathy and compassion for people who are so maltreated. I can relate to him stories of which I am also aware of such mistreatment, but there is no way that a legislature can protect people from other people. There is no way that a legislature can protect people from the activities of policemen who become power crazy. Unfortunately, circumstances occur when arrests are made which are obviously outrageous to the people who are arrested. Like Senator Chipp, I could give many examples. Senator Chipp gave two examples and said that for some reason or other the Liberal Party supports these actions by policemen. That is an absolute nonsense. What we do say is that this Bill of Rights will not protect people from people. In fact, it ignores violations of human rights by individuals or organisations outside government, and that is vividly demonstrated by the problems at Mudginberri. Senator Chipp has maligned people who were concerned that the Bill of Rights would allow homosexual marriages. The truth of that explanation is that the Bill as originally proposed by Senator Gareth Evans, in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, would have allowed such marriages. When the present Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, took control of this legislation from Senator Evans he looked at that matter. It concerned him so much that in this Bill of Rights he has made alterations in the way indicated by Senator Chipp so that clearly the Bill will not allow such a marriage to take place. Nevertheless, I think it is grossly unfair of Senator Chipp to come into this Parliament and, under parliamentary privilege, name some person who has clearly been misled and call him moronic and all sorts of things because he did not understand that the new Bill as presented in this Parliament, in the House of Representatives, late last year had been changed by the new Attorney-General from the Bill as presented by Senator Gareth Evans. That is a lovely hypocritical way for Senator Chipp to behave. He stands up here- Senator Boswell —In cowards' castle. Senator LEWIS —He stands up here in cowards' castle, says Senator Boswell-and I can spell his name, B-o-s-w-e-l-l-and purports to speak on behalf of people and in favour of the protection of their rights, yet he names some fellow who has obviously been misled through looking at the Bill as it was originally presented by Senator Gareth Evans. Senator Chipp also maligned all sorts of people who had written to him-I think he said he had received tens of thousands of letters-by claiming that they were moronic because of some of their arguments against the proposed Bill of Rights. However, he did not mention the national council of lawyers-the Law Council of Australia-which, on 22 November, wrote to all of us setting out its objections to the Bill of Rights. Interestingly enough that body also criticised Article 21, the article criticised by one of the authors of a letter to Senator Chipp, as it criticises many of the Articles in the Bill of Rights. Let me quote one section of this letter of 22 November 1985. This letter was addressed to me and I presume that copies went to all other senators. It said: Some of the important matters raised in the Law Council's report- and this was attached to the letter- are: (a) The Council's concern that the Australian Bill of Rights permits `reverse discrimination' in favour of disadvantaged races and groups; (b) The Council's concern at the wide range of powers given to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and of the secret nature of its investigations; (c) The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has the potential to be used as a lever to put pressure on State Governments to change their laws; (d) That the right to refuse to answer questions or provide information on the grounds of self-incrimination have been removed from persons who are summoned before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In response to Senator Tate, I say that this Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, as it will be extended under this Bill, really has vast powers. Let me quote clause 28 (1): The Commission has power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions under this Act. It has the power to do anything it wants to do in order to carry out its functions under this Act. Clause 29 (1) says: For the purpose of the performance of its functions under this Act, the Commission may make an examination or hold an inquiry in such manner as it thinks fit and, in informing itself in the course of an examination or inquiry, is not bound by the rules of evidence. What an enormously powerful clause that is. Just think of the power that that gives to this body. I ask the Government, particularly Senator Gareth Evans, who is in the chamber, why in clause 29 (1) this body is just given the power to conduct an inquiry or an examination in such manner as it thinks fit? Why has the Government not said `by regulation'? Then at least Parliament would have an opportunity to examine and consider the means whereby there should be an inquiry. Of course, as Senator Tate was saying, the penalties resulting from any alleged criminal offences will have to be imposed as a result of prosecution. I do not deny that but I draw attention to the vast power contained in clause 29 (1) of the Bill. I was surprised to hear Senator Tate say that this Federal Government had no intention of interfering with the States. Let me quote from the third last paragraph of the second reading speech of Senator Button in this place when he introduced the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985. He said: . . . the Commonwealth expects the States and the Northern Territory to take action to amend or repeal legislation which offends human rights . . . The Government wishes to make it clear that if such action on the part of the States in not forthcoming, the Commonwealth reserves the right to enact specific overriding Commonwealth legislation. Senator Button has made it perfectly clear what the Government intends to do with regard to the Senate. Senator Durack —What about the deal that has been done with Caucus? Senator LEWIS —Senator Durack mentions Caucus where the members are split asunder. What has happened here is that not only is the Australian Labor Party split asunder over this Bill, but so are the Australian Democrats. That is why Senator Chipp put his name on the speaking list today-a broadcast day. He has not been on the list to speak on this Bill since the Bill came into this chamber, yet today-a broadcast day-he puts his name on the list and comes in here to speak. Why? Because we know that the Democrats are split asunder. Two of their number want to oppose this Bill on the ground that it does not go far enough and the other five want to go along with the Government, or part of the Government's proposed arrangements, whereby it allegedly will fix up Queensland at a later date. Senator Walters —What deal have they done? Senator LEWIS —We do not know what deal they have done. We do not know what sort of deal has been done between the Government and the Democrats but my suspicion is that they will split-- Senator Gareth Evans —There is no good dealing with you, you deal with Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He breaches a confidence; he is a liar and a cheat. Senator Crichton-Browne —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Senator Gareth Evans referred to the Premier of Queensland as a liar and a cheat. I ask you to ask him to withdraw that comment. He knows that he is required to do so under Standing Orders. Senator Gareth Evans —On the basis of its being unparliamentary, but not inaccurate, I will of course withdraw the statement. Senator Crichton-Browne —I ask that the withdrawal be given in an unqualified way. Senator Gareth Evans —You are looking at me, Mr Acting Deputy President, in a way that is not benign, so I will make an unqualified withdrawal. Senator LEWIS —This misnamed Bill of Rights-and it is misnamed because it talks about people having rights, but the truth of the matter is that anyone who appears before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has no rights at all-is not needed. This misnamed Bill of Rights will lead to legal confusion and ambiguity on a grand scale. This misnamed Bill of Rights confers on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission the role of enforcement by inquisition, contrary to basic notions of justice. This misnamed Bill of Rights ignores violation of human rights by individuals. This misnamed Bill of Rights overlooks or ignores what many people in Australia believe are their basic rights. This misnamed Bill of Rights raises the basis for deliberate, massive and unprecedented Federal intrusion into the affairs of State governments, instrumentalities and local governments. Finally, this misnamed Bill of Rights will add greatly to costs and delays in the courts. Let me deal first with the first point I mentioned in that list-that this misnamed Bill of Rights is not needed. In common law countries we have been blessed with freedoms which have been won from governments over many centuries, starting at the time of the Magna Carta. I emphasise that the freedoms are won from governments, not bestowed by governments. Indeed, in most democratic countries it is only the Parliament which protects the freedom of the people, not the Government. I say to the people of Australia that it is this Senate which will protect them from the imposition of this Bill of Rights; only this Senate will be able to protect the people from this Bill of Rights. When one looks at the freedoms that Western democratic countries have won over many centuries, one sees that these are the freedoms which the academics in the United Nations in the 1940s tried to put together when they were looking at a Bill of Rights. They came up with a minimum Bill of Rights-I stress that it was a minimum Bill of Rights because it included only what the Soviet Union was prepared to sign at that time-which was signed by countries where, as Senator Tate acknowledged, the rights are not being enforced. This minimum Bill of Rights will be reimposed on the people of Australia. So we will have the freedom to marry! I do not know whether Senator Gareth Evans thinks that is in jeopardy in Australia at present, but I do not think it is. We will have the freedom to take part in public affairs, the freedom to associate with other people, the freedom to assemble and the freedom to enjoy our own culture and not to be held in slavery. Mr Acting Deputy President, you may think that these freedoms are important, as I think that they are important. However, who would seriously suggest that they are in any way in jeopardy in this country at the moment? Senator Crichton-Browne —All the slaves will now go free. Senator LEWIS —Senator Crichton-Browne had indicated that all the slaves in Australia will now be allowed to go free. Similarly, if one is charged with a criminal offence, this Bill will give one the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence. Of course that is a most important right in Australia. However, is anyone suggesting that that right is in jeopardy? In fact, the truth is that in Australia if one endeavours to avoid being present during one's trial the authorities will issue a warrant of arrest to make one be present at one's trial. On the other hand, in Australia there are certain rights and freedoms which we have won but which do not get a mention in a dictatorship. Therefore, they do not rate a guernsey in this Bill. There is nothing in this Bill which guarantees the right to own property and not to have it confiscated, such as the Wran Government did in 1981 when it took over people's right to mine on their own land without paying adequate compensation at all. That is not covered in any way in this Bill. There is no covenant to protect people from being forced to join trade union movements. There is no covenant to give any clear guarantee that parents have the right to educate their children in the school of their choice. However, all children in Australia will be delighted to know that after this Bill of Rights is passed they will have the right to have a name. I am sure that will be of enormous value to the children of Australia. The Bill does not guarantee, as does the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the rights of children both before and after birth. That is one of the things which really upset me about this debate. The Bill will do nothing to look at the major problems which this Parliament and the people of Australia are concerned about in regard to any future debates on rights of freedom. I ask Senator Evans to tell me when he speaks following me in what way this Bill will assist the people of Australia who have to deal with the problem of euthanasia. That is a major matter which we need to be inquiring into to determine which path we will be taking this country down. How will this Bill help such people? How will it help the people concerned about abortions in this country? There are honourable senators opposite who want free abortions and there are those of us on this side of the Parliament who are concerned about abortion and the enormous use of abortion at present as a contraceptive device. Many hundreds of thousands of potential children have been destroyed in Australia by abortion. I ask Senator Evans to tell me how this so-called Bill of rights in any way assists us to come to some sort of conclusion in regard to those difficult problems. They are the sorts of areas on the frontiers of the rights of people which this Parliament ought to be considering, not going back and trying to protect the people of Australia from slavery. There are other things to which we need to be applying our minds, such as the protection of the people of Australia from the rapacity of governments and the desire of governments to rape the pockets and the purses of the people of this nation. It may be that there ought to be a provision in this Bill that no government is allowed to bring in a Budget for more than a certain amount of the gross national product. That is the sort of right which might get the support of people on my side of the Parliament, but not the sort of nonsense which guarantees each child in this country the right to a name. That is absolute nonsense. Let me come last of all to a matter which I really consider to be of major importance. I refer to Article 3 of the Bill of Rights, which states: 1. The rights and freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights are subject only to such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. They are good-sounding and high-sounding words which, when we put them together, are very difficult to interpret. I looked at this Article and wondered what its meaning was. It seems to me that ultimately this Article, which, as I said, is vague of interpretation at the present, must mean that a Federal Court judge in due course will be able to determine that an Act of Parliament is invalid, not because it is outside the Constitution or outside the powers of the Parliament, but because it is unreasonable. That means that that judge will be applying his views and his mind to something as vague as whether limitations are reasonable. What on earth will that mean? What I ask Senator Evans and the Parliament to do in regard to this Article is to think of the power that this Article would give to some future government, especially some future government controlled by a dictator type. We have in the world at the moment a person who is showing the world how one can become a dictator over a long period in government and not be prepared to hand over the reins of government. I ask honourable senators to consider how a Prime Minister of this country would be able to misuse such a power. All that he would need to do would be to appoint Federal Court judges who are of the same political persuasion and who, perhaps, would be dependent on him for their appointment and allow them to go around this countryside determining that legislation validly passed by Parliament was invalid because it was unreasonable. I say to Senator Evans that a future dictator of the Right or the Left could misuse this power abominably. I cannot understand why he should bring in legislation which will allow this to happen when the whole point of our Parliament is to protect people in future from such a result. I am not the only one who believes this. Senator Michael Tate, who sits on the other side of the chamber, believes it too. Senator Tate wrote an article which was published in the Australian of 2 January this year and which I find quite incredible. Talking about the Bill of Rights being entrenched in the Constitution, Senator Tate said that he does not want it entrenched. His reasons for saying that were: Entrenchment would give to the judiciary the final word on many social issues and could encourage members of the judiciary to take an active role, imposing their own values and policies on governments and society, and over-riding policy decisions of elected parliaments. Senator Tate recognises that and criticises it. Senator Boswell —He does not want the Bill of Rights. Senator LEWIS —I agree with Senator Boswell. It is clear that Senator Tate does not want the Bill of Rights. Senator Tate continued: A bench of non-elected judges- I totally agree with him that the judges would be non-elected; they would be appointed by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's nominee - politically answerable to no one should have no conclusive dominance over the elected representatives. Having made this massive attack on the Bill of Rights, Senator Tate said: These kinds of concerns lead me to the view that a Bill of Rights should, at least for a trial period, be contained in an ordinary Commonwealth stature. What he is saying is: `The power contained in Article 3 is so horrendous that we could not possibly put it in the Constitution. So what we will do is put it in a Commonwealth statute'. In other words, he has found some way of convoluting an argument to enable him to vote in favour of this Bill. Of course, that is because of his political ambitions and the political electorate to which he is responsible. However, the truth of the matter is clear from his article: He is totally opposed to the Bill of Rights. Senator Tate also quotes the Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, as stating: If society is tolerant and rational, it does not need a Bill of Rights; if it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. Clearly, Senator Tate is showing his way. What he now says is: `We will not put it in the Constitution. What we will do instead is have it in a statute'. Once it is in the statute books, how will we ever override it? How will we be able to pass legislation in the Senate at some stage which says: `This Act is contrary to the Bill of Rights, but nevertheless it stands'? Could honourable senators imagine getting the numbers in the Senate to do that? I say to the people who may be listening to the broadcast of proceedings that we would like to revoke this Bill of Rights which it appears the Government, with the assistance of, say, five out of seven members of the Australian Democrats, will be able to carry. But the only way we can revoke it is if the people of Australia give us the numbers in the Senate. We would have to have a majority in the Senate to be able to revoke the legislation at some stage in the future. So I make a plea to all those who may be listening and who are opposed to this Bill of Rights, as I am opposed to it: If you want this Bill of Rights thrown out, the only way to do it will be to return the Liberal-National Party at the next election with the numbers in the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives so that we can revoke this nonsense and revoke this tragedy. I say finally to the Senate and to the people of Australia that this Bill of Rights is at best an unnecessary addition to our system of jurisprudence. It will do nothing to protect our rights but, at worst, it could be a real threat to the existing rights which have been well developed and best preserved by our traditional democratic institutions and our highly respected system of justice as it stands at present. If there are problems in the country which need to be dealt with-if there are some rights that need to be overcome-the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and of the States will be able to enact pieces of legislation which will deal with those rights and which will overcome the problems which may be confronting the people of a State or the Commonwealth. To bring down some general Bill of Rights such as this will in no way protect those people in this country who feel that they have a right that needs to be protected. Those people who have been assaulted by a policeman, for example, will get no protection from this legislation. Those public servants who believe that they want to be free and upright will get no protection from this Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights is a nonsense and fails to protect those fundamental freedoms for which so many of us in this country have worked and will continue to work, certainly throughout the life of the Liberal and National parties. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.28) —When one strips away so much of the over-heated rhetoric that has characterised this debate and when one looks calmly and objectively at what this Australian Bill of Rights is about and what it is actually seeking to do, it is really quite extraordinary that it should have generated the hysterical reaction and opposition that it undoubtedly has both inside and, in some quarters, outside this Parliament. The Opposition, some of it, to put it at its most kindly, has been misguided. Some of it, a great deal of it, has been quite mindless. Some of it, indeed a considerable amount of it, has been quite cynical and malicious in its character, designed to secure political ends other than those inherently involved in the objections to the legislation itself. Senator Boswell let the cat out of the bag in this respect this morning when he said that he would favour any tactic, any distortion, any lie however outrageous, if it served his end of denying the passage of this legislation. Because there has been that kind of opposition, I think it is important, as a result, that at the conclusion of this very long second reading debate we go back to basics and I indicate very briefly at the outset just what this Bill of Rights is trying to do. It is trying to do four quite simple things: First, it is trying to enshrine in our law, served by effective remedies, standards of behaviour which have been agreed to be fundamental by the international community of nations and, incidentally, agreed at a time when Western democratic cultural values were undoubtedly the prevailing values in that international community that produced the document in question. The second thing the Bill is trying to do is seek to formalise and reinforce such rights and freedoms as we already possess, to recognise the formally and to enshrine them in legal and enforceable terms in language of Commonwealth statutes. The third thing that the Bill is trying to do is to provide a firm legal basis to fight for those standards and values that are not presently effectively protected by law, not just to provide a formal recognition of things that might arguably be protected effectively already but to provide a peg on which to hang endeavours to seek protection in practice of rights which are not presently enjoyed and not presently protected by statute or common law. The final thing the Bill undoubtedly does, and not just seeks to do, is that it acknowledges quite frankly and quite openly that there are rights other than those which are listed in the Bill which do exist and do deserve protection. The Bill says quite explicitly in relation to those other rights which may not be canvassed in the list in the Bill itself that those rights are to go on being protected and recognised to the extent that they already exist. Article 2 of the Australian Bill of Rights, under the heading `Effect of Bill of Rights on existing rights and freedoms' makes that absolutely clear when it says: A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law shall not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right of freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights. So that, in very short compass, is what this Bill is seeking to do. It is the case that a Bill of Rights of this kind, expressing rights and freedoms in a succinct and generalised way, is an innovation in the Australian legal system. Traditionally, we have not gone in for this sort of thing. Traditionally, we have relied first on the self-restraint of legislators around the country in making laws and, secondly, on the self-restraint of judges making common law themselves and interpreting the statute law that has been made by legislators. Thirdly, we have relied on the self-restraint of officials-the police officers-administering government powers in circumstances where the law is silent as to the manner and nature of the exercise of those powers, as the law so often is. While that has been the tradition of the past and while it is the case that a Bill of Rights of this kind is innovative in seeking to add another whole layer to that tradition, it ought to be recognised also at the outset that this Bill of Rights approach is not innovative at all in the context of Western democratic jurisprudence with which we are-most of us anyway-so familiar. It is, of course, an enormously long-standing tradition in the United States of America, which, some 200 years ago, was the first country to enact a Bill of Rights which at least in its modern form as endorsed by the United States Supreme Court over the last couple of generations reflects exactly the sorts of values and approaches to the protection of those values which are enshrined in the document now before us. Senator Puplick —Do you think that is true about gun control laws? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not want to be diverted by that question. I will be happy to deal with it in the Committee stage. The right to bear arms is not and has not been construed by any American court for over a century as guaranteeing the untrammelled and unrestricted right of individuals to acquire hand-guns, rifles or anything else. It has been acknowledged over and over again by the courts to have historical reference and application only to the rights of citizen militias in the context of the social conditions prevailing 200 years ago. The fact that the national rifle association chooses to flaunt that particular language and misconstrue it in a way that would never now be acknowledged by the courts is not something that I think should pervert us from an understanding of the proper interpretation of those provisions. (Quorum formed) Let me continue by saying that the Bill of Rights tradition is by now a very familiar one in the Western democratic context, not only in the United States, which we have just been talking about, but in Europe, where the European convention, reflecting all of these values, was put together some 10 years before the International Covenant on which the present Bill is based. In Canada a Bill of Rights has been part of national legislation since 1959 and has been more recently incorporated in the Constitution of that country. In the United Kingdom an active debate has been proceeding for some years and a Bill of Rights is now before the Westminster Parliament. In New Zealand an active debate has also been running for some time. A Bill of Rights has been introduced and is presently before a committee in that country. The concepts, which do have, and have had in the past, an unfamiliar ring to Anglo-Saxon juristic ears over the last decade or so, have now become very familiar. We are talking about legal guarantees for individuals against governments-guarantees which have a long and honourable history in countries squarely within our own legal and cultural tradition. This is perhaps the occasion to make the point, in answer to such a recurring theme of this debate, that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on which this Bill of Rights is squarely based, was drafted in the 1950s and early 1960s at a time when Western nations unquestionably dominated the United Nations. In Australia it was the Menzies Government-according to Senator Sir John Carrick, in his contribution, it was especially the Menzies Government-which fought to introduce the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into international affairs. It was the Fraser Government, of course, which ratified that Covenant in 1980. It was former Attorney-General Durack, who is present in this chamber, who chose to define the very concept of human rights in his Human Rights Commission Act, primarily through reference to those rights in the form in which they were defined and enshrined in that International Covenant. The International Covenant, as Senator Tate said earlier, has been ratified by the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, France, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan-in just about all of the Western industrialised countries. Senator Missen said in his contribution that it was colossally stupid to suggest, as have some speakers in this debate, that the United Kingdom and the United States of America had rejected the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They have not rejected it in the past and they do not now. It is true that there are parties to that Covenant who do not in practice respect the rights it contains. But to say that because those countries we do not like are parties to it-they are in some instances, hypocritically party to it-we should refuse to implement the Covenant is to be guilty of the most blatant irrationality. It is true that many countries other than those I have mentioned have domestic documents which they choose to call Bills of Rights. Some of them deserve the name; in many other cases that is not the case. But it trivialises and tarnishes this debate to focus attention on so-called Bills of Rights that have been erected for purely cosmetic reasons in countries which have no intention of honouring them and to ignore the reality that the Bill of Rights concept is, as I have argued, very well and honourably established in very many countries that we would unequivocally respect and admire. Let me deal with that other familiar chestnut that has recurred, predictably, throughout this debate. It is, of course, true that the existence of a Bill of Rights in a country is no guarantee in itself that rights will be respected. In a country that is inherently unstable or authoritarian, where the conditions for liberal democracy simply do not exist, the most elaborately and tightly drawn Bill of Rights cannot possibly prevent the emergence or continuance of dictatorships, any more than any other institutional arrangement can. What a Bill of Rights can do in a society like our own in which, by and large, the pre-conditions of liberal democracy do exist is make a good society better. It can make a significant contribution to removing those injustices which do exist and to override, remove and overcome those abuses of power against citizens which even the best run governments in the best run countries sometimes engage in through error, inattention or, in some cases, through individual or collective malice. The significance of the Bill of Rights is not that it can solve problems in itself but it can make a basically democratic society better. In response to the much quoted sally of Chief Justice Gibbs in this respect, I acknowledge that if a society is not tolerant and rational, it is the case that no Bill of Rights will preserve it. But I simply cannot acknowledge, and do not accept the force of his corollary argument, that if a society is by and large tolerant and rational a Bill of Rights is unnecessary. I will come to that point in a moment. Let me first quickly mention the point in the same context that was made by Senator Lewis, the claim that advocates of the Bill of Rights argue that it is a universal panacea; that once one has a Bill of Rights it will be the answer to the resolution of all the difficult and delicate civil liberties problems such as abortion, euthanasia and all of these other problems that can and do arise. But it is, of course, the case that no such claim has ever been made for any Bill of Rights, nor this Bill of Rights in particular. One needs not just a single set of overriding standards, binding on legislatures and enforceable through the courts though they may be but rather a whole network of guarantees and protections. We do need separate, piecemeal race discrimination and sex discrimination laws. We do need separate privacy protection laws. We do need separate electoral laws guaranteeing in detail free, fair, equal and universal suffrage. We do need separate laws governing the protection of property in the way in which the compulsory acquisition laws of this country traditionally have. We do need separate and detailed criminal investigation laws. Notwithstanding the need for supporting structures and legislation of that kind, it is tremendously important and tremendously useful to have a Bill of Rights as well, not only for its legal touchstone role but also its standard-setting role, its moral and educative force, and for the commitment it also represents to the upholding of basic rights and freedoms with which we would all agree. Let me now turn to what in substance, I guess, the opponents of this legislation are saying. It can probably be reduced to two basic themes. On the one hand, notwithstanding the kind of generalised points I have just made, a Bill of Rights is unnecessary. It is simply not needed to do the kind of job that I have said this Bill and Bills of Rights elsewhere are trying to do. The other theme that one constantly comes up against, particularly in terms of the Opposition in the course of this debate, is that the Bill is not only unnecessary but undesirable; indeed, bordering on the dangerous in terms of its effect and implications. First, as to the claim that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary, the main argument that one constantly comes up against is that the common law is our best guarantor; that this is the only guarantee of the rights and liberties we need; that all we have to do is leave it to the courts and to the judges to honour and continue that great Anglo-Saxon common law tradition. But the essential emptiness of that proposition has been amply and, indeed, extremely well demonstrated by a number of Opposition speakers. The argument was succinctly and very effectively put, not only by Senator Haines for the Australian Democrats, but also in particular by Senator Missen and, more particularly still by Senator Puplick who in his contribution to this debate on 14 February reported at page 392 of Hansard-and it is worth reading-said that he was singularly unimpresseed as a non-lawyer by the argument that the common law protects the rights of all citizens. Clearly, he said, it does not. He instanced as examples the failure of the common law to protect the principle of equality of voting. He instanced the failure of the common law to offer the right of protection of private property-a common and recurring theme in this debate. He instanced the failure of the common law to respect and protect jury trial, to respect freedom of religion and the right to privacy-and he gave other examples as well. It was a compelling demonstration of the inadequacy of this argument that is so often heard. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In light of the Westpac Bank decision to increase interest rates to record levels on Bankcard, Mastercard and personal loans, a decision which is attributed by the bank to Government policy, and given the likely flow on to other lenders, how much longer does this Government intend to maintain its policy of jacking up interest rates to protect the currency? I ask the Minister: Will the Government now concede that the head of the Federal Treasury, Mr Bernie Fraser, was correct last week when he said that, as an instrument of economic policy interest rates had had their day? Senator BUTTON —All sorts of thing can be said to have had their day, even Senator Chaney and myself. Senator Chaney —You are generous with your inclusion. Senator BUTTON —I was being very charitable about that, Mr President. I need not have included myself; it was only out of charity that I did so in the sense that we are all terminal politicians in a long term sense. The first part of the question relates to how long the Government-to use Senator Chaney's inelegant expression-will pursue a policy to jack up interest rates to protect the dollar. The answer is that the Government will go on doing that so long as it thinks it is necessary, having regard to a number of factors which the Government, of course, has to take into account, including the current level of interest rates. Senator Chaney —That is a circuitous answer. Senator Durack —That is a roundabout-- Senator BUTTON —It is not really, if I can explain to the two troglodytic interjectors, what I meant by that is that the Government has to be concerned about the current level of interest rates. We are. Senator Durack —That is cool comfort though. Senator BUTTON —Of course it is. We understand that. We have expressed our concern about that and at an appropriate time the Government will make a decision about these matters which will be communicated to senators in this chamber and everybody else. I think what Mr Bernie Fraser had to say about this matter is not inconsistent with the Government's view, but again in time a decision will be made about that. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's reply. In light of his response that the Government will go on jacking up interest rates as long as it is necessary, I ask him: Does he agree that it will be necessary until other policies of the Government are changed, including its fiscal and wages policy. Senator BUTTON —I do not agree with all that. First of all, I did not say that in the terms in which Senator Chaney purports. A whole range of policy issues have to be taken into account in considering any of these matters. They cannot be singled out in isolation from general economic management issues. At the appropriate time we will take all those matters into account. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I refer to comments made on radio today by Mr Ian Cameron, the National Party member for Maranoa, that the Government should run public relations programs to encourage women to stay at home and look after their household chores. I refer also to this same person's comment that he wished women would stay at home and make their kitchens look tidier. Is the Minister aware whether this appalling attitude is held by all National Party members in this Parliament and the women whom they represent? Would the Minister agree that outrageous comments such as these confirm the need for the Government's affirmative action legislation? Senator RYAN —I do not know how many kitchens of Australian women Mr Cameron has had the opportunity to inspect but, speaking on behalf of all Australian women and being an owner of a kitchen myself, I rather resent his implication that we cannot manage to do jobs and look after our kitchens as well. Perhaps Senator Colston's question really should have been directed to the female representative of the National Party in this place, Senator Bjelke-Petersen. She is not here. I hesitate to suggest that she might be at home tidying up her kitchen. Of course she may not need to do that because she has a partner and I am sure in an enlightened household where both partners engage in full time employment, such as the Bjelke- Petersen household, there are properly shared responsibilities for the kitchen. It is really very unfortunate that certain spokespeople for the National Party continue to adopt this demeaning and insulting attitude towards Australian women. Senator Walsh —It's probably a plot to keep her home. Senator RYAN —My colleague Senator Walsh has interjected that perhaps it is a plot to ensure Senator Bjelke-Petersen's return to her kitchen, but I will not make any comment on that. It is unfortunate that the National Party shows itself so out of step with the attitudes of contemporary Australian women. Senator Walters —I bet you can't make the pumpkin scones that she can. Senator RYAN —Perhaps Senator Walters will find herself more at home in the National Party with its attitudes. I would not be so provocative as to inquire into the state of Senator Walters's kitchen. But the National Party is clearly out of step in its pronouncements about Australian women. It is quite clear that contemporary Australian women, while not resiling from their domestic responsibilities, are prepared to, in many cases are qualified to, and wish to participate fully in the economy, in the work force and in community organisations. In order to enable contemporary Australian women to fulfil these aspirations our Government has instituted a number of programs and has introduced legislation, the most recent of which will be introduced very shortly in the other place by the Prime Minister to ensure that Australian women can take their place in our society and in our work force on a completely equal basis to men. The sooner the National Party realises that this is what Australian women want, the sooner it will be more than a tiny rump in parliaments around this country. Senator JESSOP —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the Age this week headed: `Interest Rates Curbing Investment'. This article referred to a survey by the National Australia Bank and the Australian Chamber of Commerce which showed a big drop in expected new capital investment and new employment by big business during this year compared with last year. Does the Minister accept that continuing high interest rates are now seriously jeopardising the prospects of long term economic recovery and will inevitably lead to higher unemployment? Senator BUTTON —I certainly accept the proposition that a continuance of high interest rates for a long period would jeopardise the economy very seriously and jeopardise investment in particular. As I understand it that is not the question with which I have to be concerned. It is more relevant to Senator Chaney's question. I have not seen the survey in the Age article to which Senator Jessop referred. All I can say is that up to the December quarter investment figures were standing up very well. Honourable senators will appreciate that there is always a lag in these matters. Investment in manufacturing in particular was very encouraging this quarter compared with the similar quarter last year. I appreciate that the longer high interest rates continue the more that performance is likely to be affected. I would hazard a guess at what is happening though; that is that large companies in particular having enjoyed record profits are making substantial investments out of profits. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Before the investment allowance is withdrawn. Senator BUTTON —No. I was not referring to the period of the withdrawal of the investment allowance which of course terminated for these purposes on 30 June last year, Senator; I was referring to the performance of the quarter since. It is quite clear that the investment patterns are not a cause of great satisfaction, but they are quite reasonable in all the circumstances. The record profitability of many companies has enabled them to invest out of profits and they are continuing to do so. The effect of interest rates is more likely to be borne unequally between large companies and smaller companies in the event of a long term continuance of high interest rates. Senator JESSOP —I have a supplementary question. I ask whether the Minister believes that this could lead to unemployment. Senator BUTTON —A lot of things can lead to unemployment. It is difficult to weigh the respective factors which may influence that. As Senator Jessop knows, employment is holding up very well. Last month's figures show that this is the fourth month in which unemployment has been below 8 per cent, at 7.8 per cent. The figures show an historically high participation rate and, in spite of that, unemployment has been reduced over a steady period. One of the basic factors which would lead to unemployment is a substantial reduction in the growth rate which this Government has sustained over its period in office. It is undoubted that at some point interest rates would affect that, but that is the fundamental thing that has sustained the increase in employment. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has Mr Harkins prepared a report on Aboriginal legal aid services? If so, has that report been delivered to the Minister? If so, when was it so delivered? If a report has been prepared and delivered, is it proposed that any, and if so what, action be taken on the contents of the report? If so, when? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, has provided me with the following information regarding the Harkins report. Mr Harkins reported to the Minister on the Inquiry into Aboriginal Legal Aid in October 1985, following over two years of investigations. The report is a massive document of over 1,300 pages. Mr Holding is at present considering his recommendations before making a decision on the future of the report, but in view of the substantial printing costs that would be involved, Mr Holding does not propose to table the report. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that changes to the National Health Act in May 1985, requiring the registration of health benefit organisations, have disadvantaged friendly societies offering ancillary benefits only? Does the Minister recall my raising the matter-he probably does not because he was not in the chair at the time-during the second reading debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill on 30 May 1985? I am still awaiting a satisfactory reply to the question of the effect on friendly societies of that change in legislation. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government is prepared to return to friendly societies their previous capacity to offer ancillary benefits without operating a basic private hospital table, provided they give an undertaking to adhere to the community rating principle which was behind the change made to that section of the Act in 1985? Senator GRIMES —Senator Haines is right, in that I do remember that matter being raised as I was not here at the time. I certainly agree with her that she should have had an answer-whether or not it is a satisfactory one is a matter for her to judge-by now. I will seek that information from the Minister for Health. I find it difficult, thinking on my feet, to understand how any organisation can provide insurance for ancillary benefits and still apply the community rating to its benefits, but I dare say that is something which Dr Blewett and his colleagues will work out for me and perhaps will enlighten both of us. I will seek that information from the Minister for Health as soon as possible. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Community Services aware that some privately-owned child care centres have raised their fees this year by as much as 50 per cent and have claimed that this rise was made necessary by changes to Federal Government guidelines? Is there any truth in such a claim? Senator GRIMES —The short answer is no. In New South Wales several private for profit child care centres have raised their fees by in excess of 50 per cent and have informed people sending children to those centres that this was the result of actions taken by the Government and by me. In Victoria there have been some increases of up to 50 per cent. Unfortunately some subsidised child care centres also have put up their fees and have said that it was due to the actions of the Government and me as the Minister. The facts are that the Federal Government has no control in any way over private for profit child care centres in this country. Most States have licensing regulations which ensure that certain standards are maintained in these child care centres. I know of no State in which any change has been made in recent times to the regulations that are necessary. Therefore, as far as I know, no actions by State governments should have resulted in such an increase in fees. Undoubtedly what has happened in this area is that people operating private for profit child care centres have decided that they want to increase those profits and have decided, during the time of the present controversy over small changes to funded child care centres, that they will cash in on this and blame the Government for their actions. I can only assure people who send their children to such centres that the Government has done nothing which would countenance an increase of 50 per cent, or even 25 per cent or 20 per cent, in the fees of private for profit child care centres. Anyone who claims to the parents who send their children to these centres, that this is so, is lying and should be exposed as such. I might add also that the Government has done nothing in regard to subsidised child care centres and that no changes will be made until 1 April. So any subsidised child care centres, such as the well known one in Hobart, Tasmania, which has put up its fees and blamed the Federal Minister, are also indulging in lies and misrepresentations and they ought to be exposed for that also. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Minister agree with the Minister for Primary Industry, who said yesterday that the biggest problem facing Australian farmers is high interest rates? What hope can the Government offer the farmers-the sorts of people whom the Prime Minister met in his public relations visit to the bush for the Sunday television program-that relief is in sight from the crippling impact of this Government's high interest rate policy? Senator BUTTON —I did not see any statement attributed to Mr Kerin that the main problem facing farmers was high interest rates, although I concede that that may well be an accurate description of the problem. Senator Michael Baume —The BAE says it is. Senator BUTTON —I am talking about Mr Kerin; I do not need any help from the honourable senator. I concede that that may be the main problem. Certainly it is an immensely important problem for farmers although there are a number of others which the Government will be addressing in the very near future. Apart from that, I have nothing to add to what I have said in answer to previous questions-that the Government is concerned about high interest rates. We have to be concerned, and as soon as we can do something about it, we will. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Given the recent attacks by the Opposition on the Commonwealth Government's administration of the Australian Capital Territory, I ask the Minister: Firstly, what is the position of the Australian Capital Territory economy in 1986? Secondly, has there been a deterioration or improvement in the Australian Capital Territory economy since the election of the Hawke Labor Government: Senator GIETZELT —Many statements have been made about the economy in the Australian Capital Territory, most of which are obviously ill-informed and inadequate as well as inaccurate. I thank the honourable senator for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government and the Minister for Territories. There is no doubt that, as a result of the positive economic policies being pursued by the Government, there has been a remarkable turnaround in the economy of the Australian Capital Territory. For example, when we came to office, the level of unemployment in Canberra and the immediate environs was nearly 7 per cent. It is now down to less than 5 per cent, which is less than the national average. During the last 12 months of the Fraser Government's administration the provision of serviced land was deliberately curtailed. The consequence of that, of course, was an inflationary spiral in regard to accommodation and the cost of land generally rose rather significantly in that period. Our Government recognised the need to do something about this as an important priority and took steps to make available sufficient serviced land. We hope that this will have the effect of improving the general problem of accommodation in the Australian Capital Territory. Prior to March 1983 private sector investment in Canberra was stagnant. Under this Government private sector investment has risen fourfold to nearly $90m. I am surprised by some of the statements that have been made by Senator Lewis. It seems to me that in his desire to make an impact-the Leader of the Opposition requires all shadow Ministers to perform-he has taken the stage on more than one occasion and made statements which, I am sure, will be shown when properly analysed to be completely inaccurate. The honourable senator said that sufficient attention has not been paid to the problems associated with the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade. This may have been a throwaway line. However, it would be very interesting to see any policy that the Opposition came up with for privatising the fire brigade in the Australian Capital Territory. How would this service be paid for? Would the Opposition pay the wages of firemen by charging the people who use the services of the fire brigade? I conclude by saying that the Government aims to achieve a more even spread in Canberra, which has always been recognised as being a public sector city. To that extent, we have achieved a more even spread of the economy. I am advised currently that the public and private sector breakup for the Australian Capital Territory is 57 per cent public and 43 per cent private. I think that speaks volumes for the policies being pursued by the Government. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Does the Minister agree that the most recent level of oil prices now indicates that Australian motorists should receive a price reduction of 11c a litre if the import parity pricing formula is fully applied from 1 March? Senator GARETH EVANS —A lot depends on how precisely one calculates what an appropriate reflection of the former marker of Arab light is now that that crude is no longer being traded. If it is the case that the United States dollar price for Arab light is down to, I suppose, below $17, that particular inference could be drawn as to the price at the pump. What precisely is the appropriate price of Arab light is something that is still a matter for argument. I do not think it is appropriate at this stage to identify any particular price drop as flowing from any particular United States dollar price. We are monitoring the situation closely. We are still wrestling with different aspects of an appropriate formula to reflect the world price in Australian comparable terms. We will be making a decision on all these matters early next week. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Trade seen reports of the Japanese Government's decision to reduce to one per cent tariffs on imports of aluminium ingots? What benefits, if any, will accrue to Australia from this decision? Senator BUTTON —I have a very detailed answer on this matter which temporarily eludes me. For some time the Japanese Government has been looking at the question of reducing tariffs and other protective devices. There is no need for Senator Watson to look concerned about that. That has been going on since Prime Minister Nakasone visited Australia and the United States of America last year. The fact of the matter is that in some areas important to Australia adjustments have been made to the Japanese tariff system. The most important long term adjustment that we have seen to date relates to tariffs on aluminium and aluminium products. That tariff reduction is broadly from a level of 9 per cent to one per cent. Australia is an important producer of aluminium and that decision will assist Australian companies in the longer term in the Japanese market. I think the decision by the Japanese Government also reflects a restructuring of the Japanese economy away from highly energy intensive smokestack industries and towards more high technology industries and intellectually related industries, which is a positive shift that the Japanese economy is undergoing. Australia will benefit in respect of raw materials and processed raw materials from some of that shift. I think definite opportunities will be available to Australia as a result of the Japanese Government's decision. I have no doubt that aluminium producers in Australia which have been operating in world markets for a number of years and which are very competitive in world terms will take advantage of the change which has been made by the Japanese Government. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to the 60 per cent increase in oil exports to $1.8 billion in the 7 months to January and the fall in imports to $1.3 billion, so producing Australia's first ever net oil surplus of $500m so far this financial year. I ask the Minister: How many export cargoes of oil has he approved so far in 1986 and how many does he expect to approve during the remaining months of this financial year? How many of his approvals have not resulted in cargoes being shipped because of a lack of buyers, resulting in applications to him for deferments to later months? If the Minister takes the national interest into account in approving such exports, is it in the national interest for Australia to be a net exporter at current low spot prices while our imports are largely at higher contract prices? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is true that there has, in recent times, been a substantial increase in crude oil exports from Australia, reflecting higher production rates and the introduction by Senator Walsh, when Minister, of a partial allocation system enabling crude to be sold, after certain conditions were satisfied, both on the domestic free market and externally. I do not have immediately to hand the number of export cargoes that have been approved both by myself and, more specifically, by the Minister for Trade, whose formal responsibility this is. However, it is the case that export shipments have been maintained at a reasonable level up, I think, until just about right now. Now it is the case that some of those shipments are being called into question. A difficult policy issue with which we as a government have to contend is whether shipments should be allowed, in effect, at any price and sold on a net back basis in the same way as the Saudis are selling so much oil around the world today, that being one of the few bases on which refiner-distributors are interested in buying oil. The implications of the net back pricing system are, of course, that there would be a significant drop in the return that one could otherwise expect. The implications of that have to be taken into account-implications for balance of payments and everything else, including the rate at which Bass Strait oil reserves are depleted, which is another difficult interrelated policy issue. The position the Government has basically taken on this is one that is deregulatory and implies a standing back from the market-place and allowing the participants in the market-place to make their own commercial decisions. There is a disincentive to Bass Strait sellers selling oil on the export market to the extent that they have to pay high fixed crude oil excise on it and cannot guarantee a profit return. The situation, as with everything else in the oil market, is delicately balanced at the moment. It all depends on what happens to world oil prices. They in turn are in a volatile condition. I do not think that as a result it is appropriate to draw any longer term conclusions from this present scenario until it has settled down more and we can get a better idea right across the board of what the implications are of further developments. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that very full answer. Even though he cannot quantify the number of approvals and the number of deferments, I wonder whether he is prepared to give some indication of his expectations about the volume of oil exports for the remainder of this financial year. Senator GARETH EVANS —Quite frankly, it is premature to make a judgment about what the flow of further exports is going to be. It depends on so many contingencies that are jumping about at the moment that I do not think anyone can make a confident prediction. I certainly expect some export sales will be made, but whether they are at the same volume and at anything like the same price, as they have been recently, is a proper matter for conjecture. Senator FOREMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. What provisions under legislation already exist to deal with instances in which pilots and air crew are intoxicated whilst on duty? Has the possibility of random breath testing of crew prior to flight, or any other measures of a similar kind, been considered? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware, as Senator Foreman has suggested, that some statements have been made that the Department of Aviation will shortly introduce widespread random breath testing of pilots allegedly to overcome the extensive problem of pilots flying whilst under the influence of alcohol. I am advised that the Department has no knowledge of any extensive problem in this area and the statistics of the Bureau of Air Safety show that the vast majority of pilots in this country approach the task of flying in a very professional and mature manner, and that the number of alcohol related incidents that may from time to time occur, is very small. However, the air navigation regulation 247 is able to be applied when circumstances warrant it. In the majority of these cases, which are very rare, the courts have not been able to admit the blood alcohol content as evidence because the existing legislation makes no mention of it. However, as there have been some allegations made in this area the Department has taken on to its work schedule a review of the air navigation regulations which relates to the consumption of alcohol by flight crew, cabin attendants, passengers and air traffic services staff. It has not yet been able to complete its investigation of the matter. In view of the very small number of complaints that have been lodged they are not recorded as anything other than a routine priority. Specifically, it is not planned to introduce either random or pre-flight breath testing for pilots. However, the matter is under review and if it is essential at any stage to take action in this area, the Department will approach it with a judicious, reasonable and mature approach. We do not believe the matter is one of any major public concern. Senator MESSNER —I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer and the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the guidelines for superannuation schemes announced by the Government on 16 December last which, inter alia, suggested that public sector superannuation schemes could be enhanced by applying the 3 per cent productivity claim to improved vesting conditions for fund members. Does the Minister agree that it is likely that these improvements will lead to considerably increased membership of public sector schemes by attracting many of the close to one million employees who are currently not members of such schemes? Has the Federal Government considered the potential cost to it, State governments and their statutory authorities, and thus ultimately the taxpayer, of a sudden increase in membership? Does the Minister agree that this could amount to several hundred million dollars in extra contributions by public sector employers? Senator WALSH —Within the Commonwealth Public Service, permanent employees must be members of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, as I am sure Senator Messner knows. On the other matters, I have actually been involved in that quite directly because of my responsibility with the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. No decisions have yet been made on the precise details of the way in which the CSS, and statutory authority employees who are members of the CSS, will be dealt with in the context of the productivity case under the guidelines announced by Mr Keating and Mr Willis last December. A number of propositions are under consideration. If the policy decisions that are finally made increase the cost, including the emerging cost, to the Budget of the people covered by the CSS, I would expect a commensurate change in the contributions made by statutory authorities. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Just so that the Minister understands the point of my question, I am also speaking of State government employees and their statutory authorities which will, of course, have contributions made by their employers to the superannuation funds and I am applying the same principle to them. How would the Minister cope with that problem? Senator WALSH —I have not been involved in that. I do not regard that as part of my responsibility or of the Federal Government's responsibility. That is something for the States to sort out. Senator BLACK —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In view of comments made in a recent report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs can the Minister inform the Senate what procedures the Government intends to follow to ensure that all Australians have equal voting rights? Senator Missen —I raise a point of order, Mr President. There are no recommendations in that report whatsoever. I ask you to rule the question out of order. There are no recommendations in the Senate exposure report, none whatsoever. Senator BLACK —On the point of order: I refer to comments rather than recommendations. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator referred to the Constitutional Committee. I am wondering whether he meant the Constitutional Committee or the Electoral Reform Committee. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! If I am assured by the honourable senator that certain comments in respect of that report were made, I will allow the question. I call the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have taken Senator Black to be referring to the exposure report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which exposes itself to the extent of indicating that on balance it had a preference for an approach to human rights. Honourable senators interjecting- Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate the delicacy and sensitivity of this from Senator Missen, Senator Puplick and Senator Hill who have been engaged in the most spectacular frenetic gymnastics this chamber has witnessed for some years in explaining why it is they are opposed to the Bill of Rights, although they are prepared to sign their name to an exposure report, the balance of argument in which pointed overwhelmingly in the direction of a particular approach. Be that as it may. Let me take the opportunity of this question to indicate formally for the record, on behalf of the Attorney-General, what his and the Government's response is to what people have construed as the conclusions of the Senate Standing Committee report so far as the application of a Bill of Rights to the States is concerned and in particular so far as the desirability of guarantees of fair electoral practice being incorporated in such overriding Commonwealth legislation is concerned. The short point is this: The Government's position is that it will not revise its present attitude as to the appropriate content of a Commonwealth Bill of Rights in the light of that report-however Senator Missen likes to describe it-although it would be acknowledged in some quarters, including opposite, that there are a number of attractive features of that report. Apart from some minor Government amendment, the Government position is that the Bill should be passed in substantially the form in which it was passed by the House of Representatives in November Last year. The main point of Senator Black's question was: What would we be prepared to do so far as Queensland electoral laws are concerned? Senator Jessop —I take a point of order. This is dealing with a matter that is before the Senate. I would have thought it would have been more appropriate for the Minister to answer these matters in the course of his reply in the debate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I agree that it is getting very close to a matter that is before the Senate. The honourable senator has been asked a question in relation to comments appearing in a Senate Committee report and to that extent the question is in order. How the Minister so chooses to answer it is a matter for him. I call the Minister. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Attorney-General has made it clear that the Commonwealth does not accept undemocratic State electoral laws, in whichever State they appear, and this matter will be the subject of an early reference to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which will replace, when the legislation is passed by this Parliament, the present part time, and to that extent perhaps less effective than it might have been, Human Rights Commission appointed by the Fraser Government. Depending upon the report of that new Commission finding State laws to be in conflict with the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, which may not be a totally unlikely outcome, the Commonwealth will give the States an opportunity to bring their laws into compliance. If such legislative action is not forthcoming the Commonwealth will then enact overriding legislation to ensure electoral justice. Such legislation will be separate to and additional to the Bill of Rights under a provisional timetable drawn up by the Attorney-General. The expected time for the introduction of this legislation would be in the Budget sittings. With this undertaking from the Attorney-General and the Government we would, of course, expect that the Bill of Rights and associated legislation will be speedily passed by the Senate as it is imperative that the new Commission be set up as soon as possible. Senator TEAGUE —Will the Minister representing the Treasurer confirm that the Treasurer is proposing a 6.5c a litre reduction in the price of petrol? How has this amount been calculated? Why does it appear to be based on an arbitrary one percentage point cut to the general inflation rate rather than the much greater reduction in the underlying cost of oil which would imply, as we noted earlier in Question Time, an 11c a litre cut in the price of petrol? Also I ask: Does the Treasurer's proposal mean a $700m increase in the deficit and, in this light, how does the Government explain its repeated commitment to the promised tax cuts? Senator WALSH —The answer to the first part of the question is no, and all the other parts are therefore redundant. Senator McINTOSH —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen the statement in today's Age newspaper that the Government of the Republic of Korea, which is implacably opposed to constitutional amendment, has responded to moves calling for reform by threatening to gaol all signatories of petitions for constitutional reform for terms of up to seven years and the detention of leading Opposition figures? Does this statement represent the views of the Republic of Korea? If so, what is the attitude of our Government to such views? Senator GARETH EVANS —The brief I have from the Minister for Foreign Affairs is in the following terms: The Australian Government is aware of the difference of opinion between the Government and Opposition in the Republic of Korea on this subject. The Opposition wishes to have the current electoral college presidential system replaced by a direct election. This view is not supported by the ROK Government. The Australian Government has made representations to the ROK Government expressing regret at the measures adopted last week against the Opposition's signatory campaign. We regret the arrests of members of the Opposition and hope that they will be speedily released. Mr Hayden said in his statement of 26 November last year that he hoped the political liberalisation to which the Republic of Korea was committed would be achieved by 1988. The Australian Government hopes that the ROK Government will restate its political liberalisation program that has been interrupted in recent months by measures taken against students, journalists and Opposition politicians. Senator McINTOSH —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Government intend to make any overtures to the South Korean Government regarding the arrest of these leaders? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have indicated that we have already made representations last week expressing regret at the measures taken against the Opposition signatory campaign. I have now indicated publicly on behalf of the Government that we regret the arrests of members of the Opposition. I will refer Senator McIntosh's question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see whether he thinks any further action of the kind the honourable senator suggests is appropriate. Senator MACKLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the report of the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications, which was tabled in October 1984 and which recognised the desperate need for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to control radio and television, and to the Government's response in November 1985 endorsing the urgency of that framework. I ask: Why was the meeting with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister for Communications and senior representatives of the Island Co-ordinating Council planned for this Friday cancelled? Secondly, why were the Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islanders on the islands in the north of Queensland not given the opportunity to involve themselves in the inquiries into the commercial television licence issue, as were the Aboriginal people in Alice Springs? Senator RYAN —I will have to refer that question to the Minister and get a reply for Senator Macklin as soon as possible. Senator CROWLEY —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health comment on the recently released list of charges issued by the Australian Association of Surgeons? Can he say whether the claim by Dr Aroney that the fees of general surgeons in Australia are much lower than in any other Western country is true? To what extent will these proposed increased charges be passed on to patients? What is the Government's response to the list of increased charges as recommended by the surgeons? Senator GRIMES —I did see the suggested list by the Australian Association of Surgeons, which obviously Senator Crowley has, too. The first matter I saw raised was the matter that Dr Aroney raised when he claimed that Australian surgeons were paid less than surgeons in equivalent Western countries. That is clearly not true. In fact, the proportion of surgeons in full time employment who receive less remuneration than Australian surgeons is in general higher in most other comparable countries. Certainly, in some sections of the United States surgeons receive considerably higher incomes than they do in Australia, but they are gross incomes. If one takes into account the costs that they have to pay there, particularly insurance costs, one sees that their incomes are comparable. Obviously any increase in fees of this type will be passed on to the patients. Fees of some of the levels suggested would not be covered by any private medical insurance in this country; therefore the fees would be passed on. That would not affect those on high incomes but would have a considerable effect on low income people. I must say that surgeons have contacted me declaring that they think the action of the Australian Association of Surgeons is irresponsible, appalling and does nothing to assist the debate on health insurance and delivery in this country. If this sort of activity increases, if some surgeons-and only some surgeons-are to charge the sorts of fees that they are charging and if they are likely to take the actions that the orthopaedic surgeons in the Australian Capital Territory are threatening to take, whereby they will not treat any public patients at all, both the Federal and State governments will need to consider the actions they will take. In the case of the orthopaedic surgeons in this country, they are not only in a monopoly in their own profession but also have a monopoly over the training of those who come into that profession. In fact, they severely limit the number of people they will allow to enter the profession of orthopaedic surgery and I might add that they are very vicious about any woman who might want to enter it. I think it is time that we did what other Western countries do-and apparently Dr Aroney wants us to copy other Western countries-and take the training and, effectively, the accreditation of orthopaedic surgeons out of the hands of that small group of orthopaedic surgeons who are taking advantage of their position and creating the biggest and strictest closed shop in this community. In fact they have created a situation in which patients, governments, medical administrators and everyone else have no say in the delivery of their services. I believe that the time is coming when we will have to take action if some surgeons, particularly orthopaedic surgeons, continue to act in this irresponsible way. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Whilst acknowledging the Government's support of the building industry in the Australian Capital Territory and elsewhere in resisting the unlawful pursuit of the 3.8 per cent national wage case flow-on by the Builders Labourers Federation, I ask the Minister about statements made by the Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council suggesting violence, and the President of the Trades and Labour Council and Secretary of the BLF, Mr O'Dea, who was reported in today's Canberra Times, when he quoted Henry Lawson saying: They needn't say the fault is ours, if blood should stain the wattle. In the light of House statements, what action is the Government taking to protect the community and individual union members from violence and property from vandalism? Senator BUTTON —I do not know about the Opposition-it seems to want to have it all ways. We were being urged to deal with the Builders Labourers Federation last year-that was the flavour of the month with the Opposition. It was often alleged that we were not dealing with the union strongly enough. Now that the Government and the respective State governments have taken very firm action, including action which is discriminatory in a sense against contractors who do deals with the BLF, Senator Reid asks me what we are going to do about the consequences of that action, as if those consequences had not been foreseen. I make it quite clear that right from the beginning it was envisaged that there would be difficulties in dealing with the BLF's position, particularly on building sites in New South Wales and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in the Australian Capital Territory. I am not knowledgable of or, indeed, particularly interested in what the two people said who were quoted in the Canberra Times this morning. These things are inevitable and it was likely that they would say those sorts of things. Having said all that, I am sure that appropriate action has been taken to prevent as far as possible violence from occurring on building sites arising from the decisions which have been taken. Finally, I should point out that Senator Reid's question is appropriately a matter for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, not me-but my answer is all right, of course! Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer him to suggestions, often vague and imprecise, made by the privatisation freaks of the Liberal Party and floated from time to time by right wing think tanks, that there should be provisions that allow for opting out of the existing industrial relations system. Can the Minister say whether these opting out proposals would achieve the objectives their advocates claim? Is there any further information on what effects an opting out provision would have on the economy and on industrial relations, given the Australian political, economic and institutional setting? Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: That is an extremely broad question asking the Minister simply to canvass policies which are quite imprecisely defined. I suggest that there is no way in which the Minister could address that, other than to debate very broad issues of policy. I suggest that the question is out of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is entitled to give a response as far as his responsibilities as a Minister in this direction are concerned. However, I advise him of the consequences of stepping outside standing order 100 as far as debate is concerned. Senator WALSH —I am, of course, aware, as I expect everyone would be aware, that the possibility of a radical new industrial relations policy under which anybody who wanted to could opt out of the prices and incomes accord has been pushed with some zeal for a very considerable time, in particular by the Leader of the Opposition. However, I notice that in what I believe is his most recent comment on the subject-it was published in the Australian Financial Review last Monday-as part of an interview with Greg Hywood, Mr Howard was asked a question about the opting out proposal. He said: A lot of them would want it so that they can make sensible arrangements on hours, holiday loadings and penalties and that kind of thing and just adjust it. I mean, I have given the example of the firm in Marrickville, whose work force of almost all married women and who have young children at school, and they petitioned to the management to start half an hour earlier and have half an hour for lunch so they can pick their children up from school. So we have now progressed from a radical alternative wage fixing policy which was to apply across the board to anybody who wanted to completely opt out of the centralised wage fixing system to one which apparently leaves the centralised wage fixing system in place. What started out as a revolutionary wages policy has degenerated to the point where it becomes a policy about changing the lunch hour. That is typical of the attitude which the Opposition has adopted on this question and indeed, on a number of other questions. It is also typical of the policy direction-principally of back-tracking-which the Opposition has followed in the five months that it has had its present Leader. In other words, the Liberal Party elected, perhaps by accident, to its leadership an ideologue who very quickly went to water. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is now clearly getting into the realms of debate. I ask him to return to a definite response to the question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I guess this explains why the wets, the dries and the pragmatists are all fed up with the Leader of the Opposition because-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is clearly ignoring my directive. Senator ARCHER —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Following the answer given to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle yesterday relating to the productivity claim currently before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, does the Government's support take account of industries, such as farming, where there is no productivity increase and where in fact there has been a considerable profitability decline? What will the Government's attitude to the Commission be in these cases? Senator BUTTON —I do not understand the question. Senator Archer alleges that there has been no productivity increase in the farm sector. I would doubt that. Senator Puplick —He said `profitability'. Senator BUTTON —I beg your pardon: He said `productivity' and, in the last part of the questions, he said `profitability'. I agree with that. But he began by saying `productivity'. He said that there had been no increase in productivity in the farm sector. I do not think that is correct. But, for the sake of a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question based on falsehood, let me say that I believe consideration has been taken in respect of small employers, who have announced their intention of advancing a collective position to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the course of the productivity case. If my recollection is correct, they were specifically placed in a different category from large employers. I will have the question directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, whose responsibility it is, and provide an answer as soon as possible. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Senator Ryan, in answering a question today, noted that I was out of the chamber when she was making rather disparaging remarks about me and my husband. The remarks were untrue, for it was suggested that I might have been in the kitchen. I was not there, but if I had been there today doing some cooking it could have been to the advantage of all honourable senators as there is another strike in the parliamentary dining room today. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Vanstone proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The Government's obsession with its public image which has led to a cynical betrayal of Australia's youth and a policy failure in Priority One. 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 VANSTONE(South Australia)(3.03) —It is with some pleasure but some regret that I propose the following matter as a matter of public importance for discussion today: The Government's obsession with its public image which has led to a cynical betrayal of Australia's youth and a policy failure in Priority One. The coalition is gravely concerned for the future of young Australians. It is appalled at the Australian Labor Party's brutal determination to sell the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and to ensure its own re-election rather than to assist young Australians constructively with their problems. In August 1985 the Prime Minister announced that Australia's youth were the Government's No. 1 priority. He launched the Priority One: Young Australia scheme and, symbolically, promised that in the coming year 10,000 traineeships would be made available. The reality is that the Prime Minister, having spent over $1.4m on a phone-in alone and over $2m across the board advertising himself and his Government, has yet again left the youth of Australia in the lurch. Investigations I have made have revealed that, despite the number of agreements for traineeships which this Government talks about, there are fewer than 600 trainees in place today, half way through the year. We are half way through the year and we were promised that there would be 10,000 traineeships. A 6 per cent achievement rate is lousy. It is a total failure. I am well aware that Priority One is a scheme that involves much more than traineeships. However, all Australians have been invited by the publicity and by the Prime Minister's symbolic promise to concentrate on the traineeships. They are the main plank of the Priority One program. In implementing the main plank of that program the Government has failed. The Opposition is very concerned about that. To be sure there is a political point to be made. It is a delight for an opposition when a government fails in implementing a policy. At the same time, it is very depressing to make the point that young Australians yet again have been left in the lurch. I take it from comments in Hansard that the Australian Democrats agree with us that Priority One is a failure. In October, Senator Siddons said in this chamber: There has been a lot of talk. There has been virtually no action and there is still, as far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, no positive solution to this problem. Let no one think that it is just the Opposition beating up a drama. The facts are there; the Government has failed. We say the Government has failed. I take it from Hansard that the Democrats agree that the Government has failed. As an opposition and as individuals we care because we represent the full spectrum of people in Australia. We have friends, sons and daughters, nieces and nephews in the dole queue. Their desperation, disillusionment and frustration is our desperation, disillusionment and frustration. It should be the Government's. We hope that we will hear in this debate acknowledgment of the problems with Priority One. We hope we will hear constructive comments indicating that the Government is taking steps to remedy the problems and taking steps to remedy this public relations disaster. We hope that we will hear real details of actual achievements for young unemployed people, either being in on the job training or being in off the job training. We have raised this matter today because we care about young Australians and we hope to see some improvement. Regrettably, we expect to hear, as we did the last time we raised this matter for debate, a tired litany about what was wrong with the Fraser Government and we will hear a tired litany of employment statistics for that period. The Government will go back to the past. We will also be presented with statistics which the Government would have us believe show that the unemployment situation has drastically improved. These statistics will not show us that Priority One is a success. We expect to hear a tired litany of the past. What we want to hear is what the Government is going to do today about today's problems. Honourable senators opposite are in government. They hold the reins. They are going the wrong way. We do not expect to hear in the statistics, which hopefully the Government will provide, that there suddenly has been a flourish of private sector traineeships. We do not expect to hear the Government still clinging vainly to its target of 10,000 traineeships in 1985-86. Nor, of course, do we expect to hear the current facts about youth unemployment or employment in general. The Government, of course, will not tell us that the average duration of unemployment has increased from 39.9 weeks when it first came to government to almost 52 weeks in July 1985. The Government will not tell us about that. Nor, I suppose, will the Government tell us about the latest unemployment figures for the youth of Australia, which have increased from 20.8 per cent to 21.4 per cent. No doubt the Government will not tell us that there are 1,800 more women looking for work this year than were looking for work last year. No doubt the Government also will not tell us that there are 8,400 more Australians looking for part time work this year than were looking for part time work last year. I include some of these figures because I have a vain hope that in this debate the Government will resist the opportunity which it took last time to refer to the period of the Fraser Government and cite statistics from that time. I cited those statistics previously to show the Government that it is not doing as well as it believes. We can also cite statistics, but that will get us nowhere. We are hoping that the Government will address the problem. The announcement of Priority One was made with enormous fanfare. The Prime Minister took television time. I say it was to advertise himself; he says it was to advertise Priority One. An enormous amount of money was spent on the announcement of that program. Senator Michael Baume —He is priority one. Senator VANSTONE —As my colleague said, the Prime Minister considers himself a No. 1 priority, but not the youth of Australia, and how right he is when he says that. The Government has spent an enormous amount on publicity. In addition to the television program which was developed and which was then shown in the cinemas around Australia so that young Australians could watch it when they went to the movies during their holidays, the Prime Minister has spoken to the Press and he has spoken on radio. He has been in Sydney, he has been in Melbourne and he has been in Adelaide, but he has not been in the dole queue where the young people are. If my colleagues and I have our way, that is exactly where he will end up. I understand from another of my colleagues that the Government is now investing in painting big signs on the walls of delicatessens and newsagencies saying: `Priority One-what a terrific scheme'. None of these signs have a contact number for a young unemployed person to find out where that person can participate in this Priority One scheme. Senator Cook said in the last debate on this subject that this was a positive, aggressive and inspired campaign. It is a positive, aggressive and inspired campaign to advertise the Prime Minister. The very few traineeships that have developed lack a diversified base. They are mostly in the clerical area. Senator Cook said that they would be in the retail, finance, tourism and hospitality areas. I do not think that he has spoken to the Australian Bankers Association or to a very wide group of business people, who say that they will not go along with these schemes and that they will not work. The honourable member for Canberra, Mrs Ros Kelly, said that the Priority One program was a three-pronged attack on the problems of youth in Australia. I say that it is a very blunt prong. It is a recycling of programs rather than the initiating of innovative solutions. It is an absolute disaster. To indicate that, we should note some of the skills that young Australians are going to acquire if they take up a traineeship in the Public Service. They are going to acquire transferable skills such as communication, numeracy and literacy, and practical and manual skills. I would have thought that they learned all those things at school and would be well under way in that regard. As I have endeavoured to point out, the Prime Minister is very much concerned with himself as a No. 1 priority. A couple of weeks ago, he went along to a Youth Affairs Council of Australia conference. Having promised the conference to stay for the morning, he stayed for 50 minutes. He spoke at them. He delivered a preprepared speech and then he left. The youth present were so annoyed that they had a little meeting on the following day to express their dissatisfaction to the people who organised the conference that the Prime Minister had been allowed to use the youth affairs conference and to use the youth of Australia to push his own position. At no stage when he was there did he ask for questions or invite comments. I understand that he spoke to one young person and, roughly, what he said was: `Would you like to turn around and have your picture taken with me at this conference?'. That is a disgrace. I refer honourable senators to the newspaper headlines such as: `Hawke on the hot-line; outside a few heated words'. What do the young people of Australia say? This is what one of them said: He's really arrogant, giving the whole image thing to the media, but nothing to us . . . When he just drove off it reflected his whole attitude to the young. That is where the Prime Minister stands and that is where this Government stands. We could also ask ourselves what has happened to the results of the phone-in? Is it true, as some sources say, that one-third of the people who phoned in made complaints? Will we be told that or will it all be hidden from us? Why, when the Youth Affairs Council offered to monitor the phone-in, did the Government refuse the offer? I say that the Government refused because it wanted to keep the results to itself. They would be too embarrassing for it. Some of us may wonder why the Government proceeded with this program when there were many doubts about it in the very beginning, and those doubts have not been put to rest. One needs only to flip through the newspapers-Mr Hawke does not even have to leave his office-to read of the doubts in the community. I refer to headlines such as: `Call for agreement on youth policy' and `Youth scheme's planner now doubts its success'-that must have been pleasant reading for Mr Hawke. What about other headlines entitled: `TAFE now ``dumping ground'' for jobless'; `Doubts over youth training scheme'; `TAFE warns on job scheme'; and `Youth training collapse denied'. I ask you, Mr Deputy President, with a promise of 10,000 traineeships and the delivery of under 600, how can one possibly say that this scheme has not collapsed? Another headline is entitled `Bungling will destroy youth plan, says union'. That leads me to the next point I want to make. The Government has said all along that it believes in consensus. It believes in tripartite negotiations. Mr Hawke would say: `Only that way can we go forward as a unified Australia'. He wants consultation between the Government, unions and big business. The trouble in the case of Australia's No. 1 priority is that the unions were left out. The Government thought it had the Australian Council of Trade Unions under control. The Prime Minister advertised the scheme as a goer, without having the unions' consent. That was just disgraceful. When someone in my office made an off the cuff inquiry as to how things were going with respect to one plank of the traineeships, a member of the Public Service said: `Things are looking like we are getting ready to roll'. Six months after the Government has spent all that money and six months after the Prime Minister said that the trainee scheme was the Government's No.1 priority, we were told that things were looking like they were getting ready to roll. The Government would not want to tell me that it is getting on with the unions now because it has brought the Federated Clerks Union on side. All it would be met with is a long list of unions that it has not brought on side. That was a fatal mistake for the Government to make in a scheme that is meant to have at its heart and as its major concern the youth of Australia. Let me give honourable senators some more examples of what the Prime Minister could read in the papers. If he is not prepared to consult with the unions, let him look at the headlines in the paper such as: `Bungling will destroy youth plan, says union'; `Discord threatens ACT traineeships'; and `Unions reject ``cock-eyed'' youth job scheme'. How clearly do we have to spell it out to this man that he does not have the unions on side? He does not have consensus and that is why the real No. 1 priority is not working. I refer to another headline: `Union concern on traineeship plans', and on they go. As I indicated, Mr Hawke promised in this year-we may as well use the scale that he has given us as the scale to judge him by-10,000 traineeships. I estimate that 600, perhaps 700 at the most, have been taken on as trainees. To be generous I will give the Government 1,000 and say that there are some positions available in the pipeline of which the Canberra Public Service is not yet aware. That estimate makes the Prime Minister's promise worth 10c in the dollar. That is a very bad bankruptcy. Young Australians through the polls have invested in Mr Hawke. They have invested their confidence and their hopes and they have been very badly let down. Let us go into a bit more detail. We were told in a debate in this chamber in August last year that 20 per cent of these schemes would be taken up by the private sector. Yet we find that nearly all the traineeships that are now on the go have been taken up by the public sector-not 20 per cent, but nearly all of them. Where is the private sector involvement? I can tell honourable senators what we have been able to find with regard to the private sector involvement. a joint private sector-State involvement with 19 trainees is in place in Western Australia. Nineteen of the nearly 600 traineeships are in the private sector. The rest are desperate attempts to suck the unemployed in Australia into the Public Service to make this scheme look good. It is an absolute disgrace. Some comment has been made that Mr Hawke conceded that his program would not make the grade and that may be the number of traineeships would not get to 10,000. I can assure honourable senators that when he spoke to the YACA conference-I have to say that the speech that he was going to give has the words `check against delivery' on it so I do not know whether he said exactly what he was planning to say-he said: I am glad to say, we have already made a solid start. Six hundred lousy traineeships are in place out of 10,000, and he says it is a solid start. He is absolutely kidding himself. He went on to say: At the same time, the Government accepts that it may have set an over-ambitious target for itself in aiming to create 10,000 traineeships by July of this year. But did he plan to back off? No. Ever confident, he intended to go on. He stated: However, we remain optimistic that both this target and the long term goal of 75,000 traineeships by 1988-89 can be achieved. I cannot see how a man who must know that the program had only achieved 600 out of the 10,000 could possibly say he is optimistic about reaching the figure of 10,000 by July. Senator Michael Baume —It is deception. Senator VANSTONE —It is absolute deception. The Government has given in a little. It appointed a task force to oversee the implementation of this program. It has brought in from the cold the critics, put them on the task force and made them responsible for advising the government about what it should do. The ironic thing is that it was told in the report of the Kirby Committee into Labour Market Programs that it should have set up this task force, but it did not want to take that advice. I said earlier that I accept that the traineeships are only part of the Priority One program, that there are other elements. There is a rationalisation of welfare payments to young people. But the Government should turn its mind to the gap it has created in welfare payments to young people since it came to office. It has more than doubled the difference between the unemployment benefit and the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance since it came to office. It has widened the gap and them-big deal-in Priority One it promised to close the gap. But it does not say anything about a change in means testing those benefits. So while it says `We will close the gap and have an equality of benefits', it leaves the means testing as it is. That does not provide a true equality of benefit. I have tried today, as simply and as clearly as I can, to spell out to the Government that the Opposition does not regard it as acceptable for it to tell the nation that the youth of Australia are its number one priority when the Prime Minister and its re-election is its number one priority. We do not regard 6c in the dollar as a fair return on promises. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(3.22) —The Opposition has labelled Priority One as a cynical exercise. I wonder how it defines `cynical'. I have sat in this chamber and have seen the Liberal Party reverse its position on a constitutional matter on two occasions. I do not refer to when I first came here, but in 1974 the Government proposed a referendum on the same principle, and the Liberals opposed it. In 1977 when they were in government the same proposal was put forward, but it was beaten. In 1984 they were back in opposition and, lo and behold, they were opposing the same proposal. That may be a good definition of `cynical' for us to begin with. I am always reminded of the great Labor politician of the 1920s and 1930s, Frank Anstey, who described the old conservative Prime Minister Bruce in these terms: He promised the masses everything and then delighted the bosses by giving them nothing. Nothing better sums up the Liberal Party's attitude than that great saying by Frank Anstey. Senator Vanstone has lectured us and anticipated the debate today by saying that she bets that all the Government speakers will talk about the Fraser years. I would hate to disappoint her. The disgraceful attitude of members of the Liberal Party, the things that they did during that period, have been catalogued in this place time and again. We have lifted our voices time and again to criticise them and to point out what they have done in regard to youth unemployment. We do not have to catalogue those criticisms today. The record speaks for itself. One catalogues them only for one reason. If people who are critical today are to have any credibility, surely one of the measures of credibility is past record. Where was Senator Vanstone during the Fraser years? Did she get up at meetings of the State Council of the Liberal Party and attack the Fraser Government over youth unemployment? Of course, she did not. She did not say anything. She is an establishment person and that is why she is here today. She never once opened her mouth to attack the Fraser Government or any other Liberal government. She accuses us of cynicism. The previous Government in particular contributed grossly to youth unemployment in this country. What did the previous Government do about it? It introduced the community youth support scheme and then, through Mr Brown, it tried to renege on it. It did absolutely nothing. The interesting thing about the debate today is that we have heard 20 minutes of criticism. I accept that that is the role of the Opposition. But it would have been interesting just once to hear one policy suggestion from the Opposition. It did not put forward one policy suggestion as to how it would deal with youth unemployment. All it can do is nitpick at the scheme we have developed. Let me turn to another point. I imagine that if Senator Vanstone had been in charge of the United States space program in the late 1950s and one or two little problems had occurred, she would have cancelled it. The program would not have sent a rocket to the moon 10 years later. If one rocket had blown up she would have cancelled the program on the spot because she could not have taken one little setback. That is her approach to this scheme. We promised in 1983 to create 500,000 jobs. Honourable senators opposite scoffed at our aim of creating 500,000 jobs. They said it cannot be done and that we were misleading the public. We have already created over 600,000 jobs and we have not even been in government for three years. The Opposition has not mentioned that point. Of course, it will not mention it. We do place a high priority on the youth of this country. It is interesting that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has addressed the nation once. Fraser used to do so every few months, but the Prime Minister has done so once. The one issue about which he was so concerned that he addressed the country was youth unemployment. That was the one question that was raised. Priority One, of course, is not just about traineeships. If one listened to Senator Vanstone, one would think it was just about traineeships. She has never taken the time to look at the totality of the program. She just criticises the aspect of traineeships. But it is a long term approach. The Opposition expects miracle results in six months when it had seven years of failure. It is an absolutely hypocritical approach to expect miracle results. The program was announced in August, but the Opposition expects miracle results by February, even though every time it approached the economy it bungled it. We have put in place clear macro-economic policies that highlight the fact that what this country needs is economic growth and improved employment prospects. We know that unemployment is down. We know that 600,000 jobs have been created. We know that the participation rate has been rising. The one weak area, according to any statistics, is youth unemployment. I point out that it is not necessarily only a problem that Australia faces. Every other country in the world has had a similar problem. We are aiming to put in place a total package-not just traineeships-so that every person in the youth area will have some function, some particular role to play. There is a whole range of elements. As I have said before, we will introduce a new traineeship system for the young. We will introduce a new integrated wage subsidy program called Job Start. We are providing additional student places in higher education. We are reviewing the Commonwealth's role in technical and further education. We are rationalising income arrangements for young people. I would like to refer to some of the current achievements of this government in this area. The most recent figures I have, for December 1985, show that, in regard to the 540,000 jobs that have been created since we came to office, 100,000 have been taken up by young people. I do not even need to contrast what happened in the previous two years of the Liberal Government. The unemployment rate for 15-to-19-year-olds had fallen, at that stage, from 22.7 per cent to 20.7 per cent. Senator Vanstone says that it has gone up slightly since then. Obviously, she has never heard of school leavers. That shows how she is in contact with youth. Senator Knowles —It has gone up and you know it. Senator ROBERT RAY —The honourable senator should return to pre-season training. They will be missing her. In addition, substantial progress has been made towards achieving other elements of the Priority One strategy. Let us look at one of the key measures-retention rates in schools. In 1982 retention rates were at 36.3 per cent. Currently the figure is 45 per cent, a massive increase over the figures that the previous Government was able to achieve. As well, there has been an 11 per cent increase in the last two years in post-compulsory education. The Opposition tried to be critical of our trying to find out the needs of youth. I imagine the Liberal policy in this area would be to make up a policy and implement it. We sought, very clearly, to go out and survey the needs of youth. One of the ways we did that was though the phone in; another was through the youth assembly scheme. A lot of different factors emerged and a lot of analysis was useful. But clearly the first priority of youth today is the search for work and the dignity associated with that particular area. The second concern which emerged was, primarily, with the role, definition and processes of the education system, whether the youth thought they got a satisfactory education and whether they thought they could relate to that educational process. There are naturally other issues such as the concern for the environment; worry about nuclear war and the use and abuse of drugs. These all came through as major issues. I think it was a very valuable process to go through to attempt to find out the needs of the youth. I will now turn to the traineeship scheme. Whilst I said it is not the only element of Priority One, it is clearly the centrepiece. We set ourselves an enormous task-75,000 traineeships between 1987 and 1988. That is twice the annual intake of apprentices. It is an enormous task for any reforming government to undertake. I pointed out before that when we undertook to create 500,000 jobs all those opposite took a very cynical attitude to it. The moment we achieved that target and exceeded it by 100,000, there was not one bleat, not one mention of that target from the Opposition. Why not? Because, as we all know, oppositions like economic doom because that is related to their own political success. While talking about political success, we have just seen how successful the Liberal Party has been in South Australia, where another Labor Government has been endorsed. The system of traineeships is, principally, directed to school leavers and involves a minimum of one year's training, including 13 weeks off the job. The Commonwealth is providing $1,000 to employers and $2,000 to disadvantaged trainees. We have already had talks in the small business area, but for traineeships to succeed it is clear that we need co-operation among unions, employers, and the States. No one can walk into this chamber and say that it is easy to get co-operation, not even a Labor politician. The height of the success story would be to come in here and say it is easy to get co-operation among trade unions, employers and the States with all their conflicting interests. It does take time to develop these particular schemes to make them successful. If we are not on track in the first few months, what should we do? We have not heard the Liberal Party say what we should do; it has said what we should not do. What should we do? Senator Vanstone —Admit failure. Senator ROBERT RAY —Admit failure for what, Senator Vanstone? Senator Vanstone —You promised 10,000. You are not going to get it. Senator ROBERT RAY —When the time comes, Senator Vanstone, we will assess that and see how far on track we are. When we look at the credibility of those opposite and ask them to develop policies in almost any area, at the moment they say: `Oh, well, we will produce them later just before the election, but we don't want to know about the previous Government'. Those opposite have suffered political amnesia. They know nothing. They do not know that those years exist. It is like a missing six years or eight years that never occurred. It is a bit like me remembering Collingwood Football Club defeats. I do not remember them any more, they just disappear because it is too painful. Those opposite are in exactly the same position. It does affect their credibility to enter debates today and say: `You are not good enough'. We are entitled to question their credentials. Their political credentials in this country are that they have reduced this country to its knees. Unemployment and inflation have skyrocketed. We had a negative rate of economic growth in this country under the previous Government. Our macroeconomic policies are working and that has got those opposite scared. They are already talking about the next election because they are scared of what will happen at the next election, and with due cause and reason. In the two major States recently, where there have not been that many local issues where the Liberals have been put to the test and have tried to run on Federal issues, they have been annihilated, and so they should. Senator Peter Baume —Bring it on. Bring on an election. We would love it. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Peter Baume invites us to bring on an election and take the two Houses out of kilter again-typical Menzies response from Senator Peter Baume. However, I have no doubt the honourable senator will make the offer any time. We will check with No. 3 and No. 4 on his ticket and see how happy they are. The honourable senator has so much ability that he is bound to be No. 1 or No. 2 and he will not have to worry. We might try the weaker links in the Liberal Party in New South Wales and see if they want a double dissolution and an election right now. If they do, the drycleaners would do a great business, that is all I can say. Returning to the traineeship scheme, Senator Vanstone has asked whether there are any problems. Yes, there have been administrative problems associated with this particular scheme. I notice that Senator Puplick has revived from his faint about an early election and is contributing again. We admit there have been some problems in implementing this scheme, but we had problems in implementing the Medibank and Medicare scheme. No scheme comes in without some bureaucratic bungles. Senator Puplick —It is the bureaucrats' fault, is it? Senator ROBERT RAY —No, it is not the bureaucrats' fault. What I am saying is that any scheme introduced by any government can run into bureaucratic problems. It is inevitable that it will run into problems. The scheme has been off and running for five or six months and those opposite are trying to cut its throat. They do not really want it to work. We know that, for political reasons. Those opposite are trying to cut its throat. What I am saying is that a lot of those problems are being ironed out at present. We have had a history and this particular Government, unlike the previous Government, is meeting these particular targets. In conclusion, if we are to have successful debates in this chamber it would be very nice to have two sides and two policies. I know it is the role of an Opposition to be critical. I went through this myself for 18 to 20 months. Anything the Government did we got up and knocked. I understand that; that is the role of the Opposition. If those opposite are not doing that, they should not pick up their pay packet. But at the same time I remember going to interminable committee meetings and interminable policy launches where we put forward an alternative as to what we would do. What have we heard today? We have not heard one alternative. How would those opposite deal with youth unemployment? The only thing I have ever heard from the Liberal Party in the last three years is that we should cut the wages, slash the wages in half. They think that suddenly the problem of youth unemployment will go away. Senator Vanstone —The debate is not on our policies, mate. Senator ROBERT RAY —But to have the slightest shred of credibility, surely an alternative has got to be put forward; or is the honourable senator so pessimistic and such a sad case that she knows she is condemned to that side of the House for the next 15 years? Is the honourable senator telling us that if those opposite put a major effort into developing a policy it will become outdated in three years time and they only have to go and do the whole thing again? Of course not. I am sure somewhere, maybe not in the Senate, maybe in the deeper recesses of the House of Representatives, someone will be working on solutions to youth unemployment. Surely when honourable senators opposite go on the interminable trips that leave this Parliament and tour around the countryside into Europe and elsewhere they are looking at youth guarantee schemes and how they are working. Surely someone opposite, even Senator Peter Baume, who is a very humanitarian person, is thinking about youth unemployment and coming up with a solution. Those opposite have not come up with a solution today. They have contributed absolutely nothing to the debate but have been merely nitpicking. The Priority One scheme is a scheme of great vision; it is a scheme that has had a degree of difficulties. Senator Vanstone goes off on a great diatribe about the Prime Minister. I know what that is like. We used to feel the same about Menzies. We used to admire him and we used to hate him-both things at the one time. I suspect that has happened to Senator Vanstone and that came through in the bile of her remarks today. All I can say in ending about the Prime Minister is: `Eat your heart out'. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.40) —I begin by thanking Senator Vanstone for the advertisement she gave the Australian Democrats at the beginning of this debate. Her perception is accurate-the Australian Democrats believe that the Priority One: Young Australia employment scheme is a failure, for reasons which I will describe later in this speech. The failure of the program is a classic demonstration of the fact that pious hopes and a smooth public relations operation which ignore the real issues of unemployment are not good enough. With all respect to the gentlemen concerned, I doubt whether the high level task force which has been appointed this month to try to bail it out will be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. A major Democrats' concern with Priority One is that it makes the same mistake the Government has perpetuated for some years; it provides for training but not permanent jobs. I have discussed this point with many social workers and others concerned with young people and there is no doubt at all to my mind that the experience of having a job for a short time, then not having a job, is probably more shattering to a young person than never having had one at all. The Government is not doing its duty by the unemployed, especially the young unemployed, by allowing that situation to continue. It ought to address that situation directly, but it is not doing so. The ideal corollary to Priority One-one might even say a necessary corollary-would be an economic situation where jobs were available for the young people trained under the scheme. If that does not happen, the scheme has no point. One could say that if Priority One has any good point at all, it is the intention to provide 15 per cent of the scholarships available to Aborigines and other disadvantaged people, such as people with disabilities and non-English speaking migrants. It could be argued that that figure of 15 per cent in the category is too low, but at least it is a good start for one of the most serious unemployment problems. In the strong competition for available jobs it is the disadvantaged and the weak who suffer most. The points I made about the necessity for follow-on employment for trainees have a special force in that area. Even if one assumes that some of the trainees in the general scheme will get work at the end of their period of subsidised employment-and there is no guarantee whatsoever of that-this is not likely to extend to disadvantaged groups. The next point that needs to be raised is that most of the traineeships under Priority One, as Senator Vanstone said, are in the Federal or State Public Services. Simply increasing the size of the Public Service will not solve the problem. One of the most unfortunate aspects of Priority One is that it has been perceived by the Government as solving the problem, when it simply cannot do so. The Melbourne Age noted last month than only one non-Public Service trainee scheme had been announced so far, and that is for 300 jobs with Ansett Airlines of Australia over the next two years. I understand that there are some schemes in the travel industry and elsewhere in Western Australia, although these are only in very small numbers. The same article in the Melbourne Age noted that about 700 clerical traineeships in the Public Service are offered nation-wide and another 100 are being prepared in the Public Service. The fact that the traineeships offered are for clerical work is something to which I will return later, because it is an appalling development. The Democrats want a closer tying of unemployment schemes to the community and to business. It is now a year since the Democrats' community services initiative scheme was submitted to the Government. We put that up in February last year and we have had no response of any kind as far as action is concerned, yet the scheme would have been a very useful one and still could be. Basically we asked the Government to allow an increase in the permissible income of unemployed people and pensioners, from the present $20 to $60 a week, so that there can be an incentive for them to help meet the mounting need for human services in our local communities. These services could include minor home and garden maintenance; shopping, reading, transport, et cetera, for elderly or disabled people; respite services, where a family is caring for a sick or disabled person; assistance to voluntary organisations or self-help groups; child care centres; and things of that kind. There is a widely perceived need in the community for this sort of work to be done and I would have thought that there would be an incentive and a desire for many unemployed people to do the work if they were not debarred from it financially by this ridiculous situation of limitation which the Government has continued to impose. Current low levels of additional permissible income for unemployed people-only $20 a week- severely limit the amount of service fee which could be paid and make it virtually not worthwhile to try to get that sort of scheme off the ground. A further point, which the Government seems never to have taken into account, is that this limitation also hits very hard at the business sector generally, particularly small business, because it savagely reduces the spending power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of people who would go to the local shop and buy more things if they had the extra money; but the Government prevents them from doing that. Nothing is achieved by that harsh limitation on additional income. From time to time I seek the views of my electorate in New South Wales by sending out survey forms to voters taken at random from the electoral rolls. I find that most valuable. My electorate gives me a very high response rate in every case, although I do not give them stamped, addressed envelopes, and I am delighted at the degree of response I get to these surveys. I would have thought that it would be a good thing if more of us consulted the electorate on what it thinks. Senator Puplick —That is unsolicited junk mail and they have to pay for it. Senator MASON —You said then that that was unsolicited junk mail and they have to pay for it. That is your view as a senator in this place. Senator Puplick —That is right. Senator MASON —That is your view of whether or not you should consult the electorate. All I can say, Senator Puplick, is that as you get a little older you may become a little less arrogant and that would benefit both this place and yourself. In any case, the current survey concerns unemployment. Although at this stage only 100 responses have come in, they are already showing a very interesting indication of community attitudes. I mention them at this early stage of this debate because I think they are relevant. There is special interest in the idea that there should be some form of work alternative to the dole. The figures are so high in support of that as to be highly significant. To the question `Should the dole be paid only to those prepared to carry out work on behalf of the community?' 85 per cent answered yes and 12 per cent answered no, the rest having not made up their minds. The response was almost identical to a similar question: `Should there be a work alternative to the dole which will offer a higher payment than the dole but still not as high as award wages?' Eighty-four per cent said yes to that question and 16 per cent said no. I am one of those who believe that this issue of a work alternative must be faced, although I can see the problems it has for a Labor Government. It would argue-I suppose it is a respectable argument-that this would serve only to create a sort of sub-class of workers who are not entitled to the wages and conditions which have been won by the unions through the years. With this in mind, I put in the survey the additional question: `Should the work alternative provide jobs only in fields of work which would not otherwise be done by unionists?' The community was more divided on that proposition, but 62 per cent said yes and 38 per cent said no. The survey sought to cover a wide sector of views, so we asked the general question: `Should the dole be abolished?' This was supported, interestingly enough, by only 17 per cent, with 83 per cent of respondents feeling that unemployment benefits should be maintained. There was a close vote on whether the present dole payment was high enough; 54 per cent felt that it was and 46 per cent felt that it was not. I return to the question of a work alternative, because I believe that it is one of the major issues in the minds of the public and it should not be ignored. It is conventional wisdom that paying an unemployment benefit free of any obligation to work for it is an enlightened and useful course of action and the one offering the most dignity, personal freedom and assistance to the recipient, especially in conditions of long term unemployment. That is the conventional wisdom. I believe that the time has come for that conventional wisdom to be questioned. In my experience, many young people see the dole system as dismissive and rejective and as a put down of their position by society. This is especially the case with young people who have never worked. They see the dole, which is provided to them without any real chance of work, as virtually a statement by society along these lines: `We have nothing for you. You are basically of no value to us, but because it would be less than decent to allow you to starve or go unclothed, here is an amount of money just sufficient to avoid those indecencies'. While there are without doubt a few people who are happy enough to go on living on the dole-so-called dole bludgers-my experience, from having been in many drop-in centres and unemployment centres and talked with young people over the past eight years, is that the vast majority of unemployed people want work. They would take work if they could get it, not only for economic reasons but also because their self-respect and level of prestige in our society are dependent on it. They perceive that as one of their major problems. Senator Peter Baume —How far do you think your proposals would go towards alleviating the problem? Senator MASON —I think they would alleviate it considerably. Let me put it this way: I have asked this question of all the young people in drop-in centres. I have described the scheme to them. It has been a deeply traumatic experience for me. Some 90 per cent said that they would jump at such a scheme if it were offered. They have said to me something which really goes to my heart. They ask: `Senator, how quickly can you introduce it?' Of course, I cannot introduce it. Only the Government can do that. The fact is that the Government has ideological hang-ups which prevent it from doing so. In the course of that it is damaging the children of its supporters-the children of unionists. Because of this situation, I think we should start looking now at having a two-tier system of unemployment benefits, with a higher benefit being paid to the unemployed who are prepared to undertake some form of useful work, who are in the majority, and a lesser benefit being paid to those who are not prepared to do that. I resist strongly the idea that work should be compulsory for unemployed people to be given at least the minimal means of support. To take that step would be virtually to introduce a form of slavery-a compulsion on people to work in areas which they may, for some reason, find repugnant. I know there are many people who take a contrary view and who say that all the unemployed should do work to qualify for the dole. However, I believe we are not justified in taking that step now. The saying has it that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Compelling people to work in certain areas is not going to achieve any useful result. The second point is that when work programs are organised which would permit all those who wished to work to do so, such programs ought to offer a wide variety of choice of occupation and should have a strong training element. There is no doubt in my mind that the work alternative is the necessary next step in dealing with unemployment, and it must be a continuing policy while unemployment is long term. There are, of course, obstacles to this. I repeat that the basic one is the trade union movement, which says that such a move would create a sub-class of workers on lower pay scales than awards provide. The fallacy of this union thinking is, of course, that the only alternative must be for people to rot away mentally and physically on the dole; often enough the unionists' own children. Of course there are answers to that union objection. These could include guarantees that work undertaken as part of the work alternative would not be work which would otherwise be done by unionists, the provision of a strong training or educational element, and strong influence, if not virtual control of the program, by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. To proceed as we are doing now is cruel and inhuman in that it permits the continuance of thousands of personal tragedies which could otherwise be avoided. The evidence is steadily mounting that suicides, ill-health, drug addiction and criminal activity are strongly associated with long periods of unemployment. If the trade union movement opposes the introduction of effective work alternative programs for those who want them, it is contributing to those problems and must bear the guilt for them directly. I cannot believe that most trade unionists would want that. I think the real need now is for the union movement to think carefully about this whole area and it ought to be possible for a Labor government to enter into some dialogue about it. It is evident to me that the Priority One scheme is a sort of faint attempt by the Government to meet community feelings over unemployment. However, it is woefully inadequate because of the Government's ideological hang-ups. These hang-ups extend to another area of concern. A very important change which must take place is that governments, unions and employers must accept the concepts of permanent part time work, job sharing and voluntary early retirement. In answer to a question I asked in September 1983, nearly three years ago, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, said that the introduction of more flexible methods of work organisation was part of Australian Labor Party policy and would be implemented following discussions with the parties concerned. One small part of the answer he gave nearly three years ago reads: There is little doubt that greater sharing of employment opportunities through job splitting, greater facilitation of part time work, and other measures, could expand the number of people engaged in employment. Indeed, in a number of countries, government programs have been introduced to encourage the development of such alternative work arrangements. There is, however, some uncertainty about the long term effects of such programs, and considerable discussion as to whether part time work is an acceptable alternative to full time employment. It is just not good enough that almost three years later the Government still has not come to grips with this obvious and necessary area of action. Plainly, it has been put in the too hard basket, and that is bad news for the unemployed. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.55) —The Senate has before it today the following matter of public importance that was introduced and cogently argued for by my colleague Senator Vanstone from South Australia: The Government's obsession with its public image which has led to a cynical betrayal of Australia's youth and a policy failure in Priority One. Under any circumstances the betrayal of the nation's youth-for that is what this Government has done-would be a tragedy. However, what makes it a scandal is that in this case Australia's youth is being sacrificed for no better reason than to save the face of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and polish his ever more tarnished public image. The whole Priority One: Young Australia fiasco was conceived to help Mr Hawke save face and to soothe his battered pride and ego. Richard Farmer, one of the better known Labor apologists who writes in the media, discussed this in an article in the Bulletin on 27 August 1985. When writing about the results of the last Federal election, he said: . . . Hawke had not expected the desertion of the young voters . . . Within days of the blow to his pride that young voters had helped deliver, Hawke had decided to put youth matters under his own control. The responsibility for this failure is to be sheeted home directly to the Prime Minister because since that day Mr Hawke's face saving efforts have continued unabated and unrewarded. His, indeed, is truly the face that launched 10,000 hopes and which has shattered and betrayed every one of them along the way. I want to turn my attention to a number of matters, particularly those regarding the tertiary and further education sector. I am glad that Senator Ryan is in the chamber at the moment. She is, I might add, the only member of the Australian Labor Party in the chamber at the moment. This is presumably because she is the Minister on duty, not because she has any particular concern about young Australians. Quite clearly, none of her political colleagues has any concern about young Australians. Before I deal with TAFE, let me deal with a couple of matters referred to by the distinguished Senator Robert Ray. Senator Ray, in attempting to defend the Government's record in this matter, had a number of things to say, most of which were drawn from the past. He gave anecdotes about the Constitution and anecdotes about Prime Minister Bruce. His obsession with the past is quite clear because, in terms of Priority One and in terms of youth policy, he is ashamed to face the present and, indeed, afraid to think about the future. However, Senator Ray is a well known political operator. In the Australian newspaper of 21 December 1985 there appeared a fairly lengthy article under the heading `Robert Ray: the ``big fella'' who guards Hawke'. Indeed, we have heard from the Prime Minister's heavyweight minder in the course of this debate. One of the things that interested me was Senator Ray's comment in the article when he said: The right wing of the Labour Party are great fang men. . . . Indeed, nobody could more illustrate the virtue of being a great fang man than Senator Robert Ray. The great tragedy is that at the moment the Australian Labor Party has got its fangs into the kids of Australia, and it is not about to get them out and it is not about to do anything for them. All Senator Robert Ray could do was moan about the bureaucrats who were responsible for the scheme's not working and to reflect upon the multitude of defeats suffered by the Collingwood football team. It is no wonder he is obsessed with Collingwood's successive defeats because that is what is being imposed on young Australians at the moment. If one goes back to the Hansard report of the valedictory speeches that were given on 12 June 1981 one will find that Senator Grimes, speaking in relation to former Senator Jean Melzer, said that it was an absolute tragedy that a senator who was really concerned about human beings should be replaced in this chamber by a senator such as Robert Ray. I commend Senator Grimes's words to honourable senators who want to look them up in Hansard. Nothing illustrates more clearly the failure of the Government in relation to young people than its failure to address the issues arising in the technical and further education sector in this country. Most honourable senators will have received representations during last year in regard to the continued cutbacks being made, particularly in capital expenditure in the TAFE sector, by Senator Ryan and the Australian Labor Party. Their action has prompted a number of comments, even from the Technical and Further Education Teachers Association, which wrote to honourable senators indicating that it is `concerned that this decision'-that is, the capital works cutback imposed by Senator Ryan in pursuit of her own ideological prejudices against excellence, achievement and young Australia-`will reduce TAFE's capacity to respond to Australia's vocational needs and, in particular, to provide new training opportunities for young people'. The Association goes on to say that it believes: . . . the Government's decision to reduce TAFE capital works funding was short-sighted, especially given the Government's youth policy objectives. Senator Vanstone has rightly quoted from Press reports of Mr Trevor Prescott, the National Training Council Deputy Chairman who laments that TAFE is being used by the Government as a dumping ground for the jobless; and of the South Australian Director of Technical and Further Education, Mr Fricker, who says that the Australian traineeship scheme could reverse the current trend of young people staying at school for a longer period. The scheme could be seen as a quick fix training exercise, lacking the care needed to transform experience into genuine vocational education. If one looks at the report entitled `Tertiary Education Report' published by the Higher Education Round Table one will see there criticisms of the Government that in 1984, 60,000 applicants were not able to be offered places in TAFE colleges in Australia. The reason they are not able to get those places can be sheeted home directly to the policies pursued by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and all those who go along with her. The Government has tried to say that one of the ways in which it was going to address this matter was to look at the gap that existed between the unemployment benefit level and the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance. What is the record that Senator Ryan proudly presides over? The unemployment benefit prior to November 1983 was $68.65; the TEAS living at home allowance was $38.55; and the living away from home allowance was calculated at $59.46. In other words, the gap under the Fraser Government between the unemployment benefit and the TEAS away from home allowance was $30.10. Senator Ryan has managed to increase it to $43.69. The gap between the unemployment benefit and the living away from home TEAS allowance was $9.19. Senator Ryan has worked as hard as she possibly can to increase that gap to $19.53 to make it doubly more unattractive to be in technical and further education than to be on the dole. Once again, the Higher Education Round Table has indicated in its report that the TEAS allowance under the Labor Government is, in its words, `unacceptably low and acts as a positive disincentive to study, especially for the disadvantaged'. The Government has, in fact, doubled that positive disincentive in its period of office. It is, therefore, no wonder that Don Smart and his colleagues in their paper `The Hawke Government and Education' given to the Australasian Political Studies Association in August last year, concluded with these words: As a result, the legacy of the Hawke Government may well be a set of educational policies which are destined on balance to increase rather than reduce inequalities in our society. We have sought to address-Senator Robert Ray was concerned about alternatives-one of the particular issues with which I will deal briefly, namely, the level of junior wage rates. The Westpac Banking Corporation in its review in September 1985 drew attention to the fact that countries which have been more successful in providing youth employment are countries which have more flexible wage fixing procedures and in which youth-adult wage relativities have not been compressed as in Australia. In those countries they have been more successful in reducing or containing youth unemployment. Stanley Siebert of the University of Birmingham writing in the journal Economic Affairs in the middle of last year, again pointed to precisely that. Mr Hawke, in his address to the nation dealing with this matter, said: We're not going to achieve this-- that is more employment for young people- by taking the backward step of cutting youth wages. He would rather have Australian kids without jobs than upset his bosses in the trade union movement by providing them with the opportunity to have jobs at more realistic wage levels. That is why the record of the Hawke Government, in terms of the employment of young people, is such that if one looks at the rate of unemployment among young people one will see that in the last month alone it increased from 20.8 per cent to 21.4 per cent, and that it has increased since the Fraser period when it was 16.6 per cent to 18.2 per cent. In other words there has been a significant rise in the level of youth unemployment under the stewardship of the Hawke Government. One can even look at its attempt to use the Public Service in this regard and one will see in the Public Service Board annual report for 1984-85 that the percentage of young people being taken into the Public Service has declined from 35.8 per cent in the period of the Fraser Administration to 29.1 per cent under the Labor Party. Even where it has its own ability to control the intake of jobs available to young people it has miserably and disastrously failed. We know the reason it failed is that it has not been prepared to take on its bosses in the unions. It has not been able to take on the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the Federated Clerks Union of Australia and the Australian Public Service Association. John Macbean and his mates in the Australian Bank Employees Union have all indicated that they will not co-operate with the Government in attempts to provide jobs for young people at more realistic rates. Senator Robert Ray talked about the wonderful phone-in and said that one of the things that had been identified as a problem of young people was their attention to and their worry about the drug problem. I refer Senator Ray, Senator Reynolds and Senator Giles who are going to take part in this debate to the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of 2 April 1985 which commented on the Labor Government's failure to address the drug problem. It said: If Mr Hawke wants to be taken seriously, then, he must point out to Mr Wran that the institutional corruption that exists in New South Wales is a cornerstone of the illegal drug industry. How dare Mr Hawke come into this Parliament and say that he has a concern for young Australians when the person he ought to be talking to about it is none other than the Federal President of the Labor Party itself. Senator Vanstone has drawn attention to the extent to which Mr Peter Kirby, who suggested that scheme in the first place, has condemned it as a failure, and has demonstrated the way in which the Labor Party has walked away from its responsibilities in this area. We know that the Government is not prepared to do the sorts of things that are important like taking on the unions in order to provide jobs for kids. One sees that only at the end of last year in Western Australia the Trades and Labor Council Assistant Secretary, Mr Rob Meecham, said: Sabotaging McDonald's efforts to provide extra jobs at below award rates was as important to the trade union movement as the Mudginberri dispute. In other words, the deliberate attempt to sabotage the provision of jobs for kids in an establishment that kids want to work in was as important to the Labor Party and to Mr Hawke as getting Mudginberri off the hook. I conclude by saying once again what an abject failure the Government has been in relation to young people. Its policy and promises to young Australians have been a farrago of falsehoods and a litany of lies. It has lied to young Australians about what it would do for them. It has lied to young Australians about how it cares for them. It has lied to young Australians about what its real priority is because its priority is not young Australians. Its priority is the face and the public image of the Prime Minister-nothing more than that, nothing less than that. It has sufficient an obsession with its public relations exercises that it is prepared to sacrifice anybody, anything and any group in society in order to achieve the personal promotion of the most disastrous Prime Minister ever to be visited upon young Australians. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(4.10) —I can see that members of the Opposition are really stirred up this afternoon. A few more have come back into the chamber and they are determined to make as much noise as they can. They are trying to cover up for something that has come across my desk today which I find very interesting. They are trying to cover up for the latest Morgan gallup poll which says that there has been a dramatic 22 per cent decline in support for Federal Opposition Leader, John Howard. Honourable senators opposite do not like to hear about it. Senator Knowles —You don't want to talk about Priority One. Senator REYNOLDS —It is very relevant to Priority One: Young Australia. I will be turning my attention to Priority One. The very reason that members of the Opposition cannot talk about their policies is that they do not have a leader who has support out there in the community. So how can they talk about policies and priorities for Australia's young people? This afternoon's matter of public importance is a sham. It is like so many shams that occur in this place because the Opposition is trying to distract attention away from the failure within its own Party. As has been pointed out very clearly earlier by my colleague Senator Ray, the Opposition has no policies; it has no alternatives. Senator Vanstone —You are a failure. Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Vanstone has nothing to do but to gripe and misrepresent the policies of the Australian Government. She is not prepared to look back to the Fraser years-frankly I do not blame her-because there was so little commitment during the Fraser years. She cannot look forward because she has nothing to look forward to in terms of a leader who has the support of even his party, let alone his normal party supporters. So members of the Opposition are in a position of just being constant, carping knockers. Senator Puplick might notice that my last statement-`constant, carping knockers'-is almost as alliterative as some of his comments. He obviously knows more about alliteration than he knows about developing youth policies and programs in this country. Let us look at what Senator Vanstone had to say. She whinged on and on for the entire period of her speech about the problems that have been experienced with traineeships. I argue that it is far better to have something in place and to keep aiming for a goal that we have been prepared to set. The Opposition is not prepared to set any goals in terms of youth unemployment; unemployed youth are to sit around being negative and constantly critical. I suggest that Senator Vanstone get out there in the real world. Does she visit community youth support schemes like I have done over the last three years and before? Does she go and talk on university campuses? Does she visit schools? She should get out there among the young people. I wonder how many young people visit her office each week. Does she get a steady flow of young people and their parents coming into her office to collect the kind of information that we have in our office giving all the details of Priority One? No, she is not even acting as a good resource person because she would rather be continually negative. I would now like to talk about what Senator Mason said. I must say that on occasions I do agree with Senator Mason, but I cannot let his remark that there was no future in traineeships pass. If there is no future in traineeships there is no future in the education system and, therefore, we all might as well forget about developing skills in our young people. It is quite ridiculous to say that there is no future in traineeships. The future in developing skills is obvious from the success of the community employment program. Senator Vanstone probably does not know that 46 per cent of people who have been employed under the community employment program are still employed in permanent work six months after their community employment program period finishes. That indicates to Senator Mason and to others around this chamber that there is benefit in short term employment schemes and the traineeships which we propose. I will now come to some of the facts about traineeships as outlined in the Government's Priority One program. I am afraid that one can rely only on the Australian Government to talk about facts in this place. One cannot rely on the Opposition because it is too busy covering up for the failure of its present Leader. Traineeships will combine formal off the job training with work experience in a related occupation. The Government accepts that it may have set an ambitious target for itself in aiming to create 10,000 traineeships. We are ambitious. We do not apologise for that. Senator Vanstone —But you should apologise for your failure. Senator REYNOLDS —We have not failed. If Senator Vanstone listens she will gain some wisdom in this area. The Government will be looking at outcomes of current negotiations and at early take-up rates following them to make a judgment about the target. We continue to remain optimistic, unlike the poor Opposition-I can understand why it is so pessimistic; I would be if I were in its position- that both this target and the long term goal of 75,000 traineeships by 1988-89 can be achieved. To achieve our long term target we are determined to establish sound ground rules and a high quality training system and then introduce the system progressively. A national task force has been established to promote, co-ordinate and advise the Federal Government on the development of the Australian traineeship scheme. The task force is chaired by George Polites with Mr Cliff Dolan as deputy chair. Talks between the Government and small businesses over the Australian traineeship scheme-- Senator Puplick —That will make sure that nothing happens with the unions nobbling it. Senator REYNOLDS —Opposition senators do not like the facts. The Federal President of the Australian Small Business Association Ltd, Mr Peter Boyle, has indicated that small businesses are now willing to help with the Australian traineeship scheme. The feasibility of the scheme and its emphasis on skills acquisition have helped overcome initial small business reluctance to participate. Senator Archer —Why not just have your speech incorporated. Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Archer would like me to have my speech incorporated. He is concerned that there is no policy, that it is a failure; yet as soon as I come forward with the facts he does not want to hear them. The traineeship scheme is only one element of the Government's Priority One strategy for young people. However, despite the criticism that has come forward this afternoon, over 2,000 traineeships have already been announced and 284 trainees are presently in employment. I know that the Opposition will jump up and down and say that that is not good enough, but surely to have even one person in a training program is better than what it had to offer during its seven years in government when it did so little for young people and so little for people in terms of employment in this country. Other elements in the Priority One strategy include: The introduction of a new integrated wage subsidy program; provision of additional student places in higher education; reviewing the Commonwealth's role in tertiary and further education; rationalising income support arrangements for young people, including a move to an age related system of allowances from 1987 and, over the next three years, equating corresponding rates of education allowances and unemployment benefit for people under 21; establishment of a youth services development program; upgrading Commonwealth Employment Service services for young people; improving the community youth support scheme; and establishing a group volunteer community service scheme for young people. Remember which government it was that talked of dismantling the community youth support scheme. I will say no more about that at the moment. In the few minutes remaining I move on to comments that have been made about the phone-in of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We have here today a matter of public importance that says that the Government has some sort of obsession with its public image. I wish to read from the 1979-80 annual report of the former Department of Employment and Youth Affairs when the then Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs announced on 13 June 1980 an upgrading of his office to do a number of things. One of the things he wanted to do, would you believe, was to improve its image and effectiveness. Yet we have Senator Vanstone coming into this place and suggesting that anything to do with image is somehow a negative factor. Let us move on to action taken during the Fraser years. I know that Opposition senators do not like to look back or forward, but I am afraid that they will have to listen to some of this in the few minutes that remain to me. The national youth conference which was opened by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, was held in Canberra from 3 to 5 October 1979-here is a little bit of positive work that Mr Fraser actually did-to provide a national forum for 133 participants to discuss issues of concern to young people. There were about 80 participants who were nominated by youth organisations and organisations representing particular interests in Australian society. The remainder of the participants were selected through a national youth line phone-in, held on 15 September 1979 with the co-operation of 40 commercial radio stations and the ABC Radio regional network. At that time when a national phone-in was conducted, I do not remember there being any criticism of the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. There was no criticism then of the Prime Minister, who wanted to consult young people and who contacted them by phone. He might have even got their names and addresses-shock, horror! He might even have used that information in a future election campaign. After all, how could he possibly have had a phone-in to get young people to participate in this conference, which in its own small way was a start, I suppose? So let us not have any of this rubbish that has come across this chamber this afternoon about our Prime Minister's phone-in when it was an idea that had already been floated in the Fraser years. The difference is that although Mr Fraser had a national youth conference, he did nothing about the resolutions. The resolutions are here in the annual report, but very little came from his conference. On the other hand, I will speak very quickly of some of the commitments made by the Prime Minister in a recent address describing exactly the kind of follow-up from his phone-in. Senator Vanstone —From when? Senator REYNOLDS —Oh, here we go. Senator Vanstone asks from when. The Prime Minister has said that from early analysis of the phone calls some major themes are already apparent. Opposition senators seem to be interested in the phone-in now. They have done another about turn. I quote the Prime Minister's remarks. He said: Some specific proposals for policy development and implementation are emerging. I wish to talk about some of these themes now, although the overall report on the phone-in by the Office of Youth Affairs within my Department is still being finalised. We take these views of young people seriously. We do not ignore them, as Malcolm Fraser did. We are taking them seriously. The findings are being analysed in a full report which will be available for senators to read just as soon as it is tabled in Parliament. In perhaps the most basic terms those who called in to the phone-in were saying something about their identity and their search for a place in our nation. This theme manifested itself in so many of the issues that they raised, from the search for work and dignity, which remains the central concern of young Australians, to the desire to give and be given more information about the responsibility for all facets of local and national life to allow young people to better take their part in our community. The vexing problems of age related rights and privileges, the content and purpose of education, the protection of the environment, relationships with other nations, income support and the use and abuse of drugs were all matters of concern. The Prime Minister was prepared to talk with young people of this country and that was very much appreciated by more than 25,000 young people. Mr Hawke himself spoke to a large number of young people and wherever I have travelled since the phone-in, I have heard nothing but praise for it. I just feel sorry for Opposition senators. They are so negative; they have nothing to look back on and apparently they have nothing to put forward for the future. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(4.26) —What we have heard from the Government this afternoon-or more particularly what we have not heard-is amazing. Two Government senators have stood up and said absolutely nothing; in fact, for most of the time while the first three speakers were speaking in this debate there was only Senator Ryan in the chamber. Is that not incredible on such an important issue as Priority One? The last 15 minutes of Senator Reynolds's speech were difficult to follow, but she did say that the Government remained optimistic about the future of Priority One. All I can say is that the Government will jolly well need to remain optimistic about Priority One because it is an absolute disaster and optimism is about all that it has got going for it at the moment. Senator Reynolds has absolutely amazed everyone in this chamber this afternoon by making accusations about not being able to distribute information on Priority One or on youth programs. I will let the people of Australia know that the Government does not make adequate information available to Opposition senators and it is very rare that we get information from the Government. At the time of the Budget a brief issue of Priority One information was granted to Opposition senators in the form of two kits. Opposition senators then had to go back and beg and plead for more in order to try to get information about this fraud. If Senator Reynolds thinks that Opposition senators are not doing a good job, perhaps that is because the Government's distribution needs to be looked at. That distribution in itself is appalling. Clearly the Priority One scheme was hastily organised and over-inflated for political reasons. It is not so much a case of socialist `bread and circuses', but of one big circus and very little bread for the unemployed. As early as November the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Ralph Willis, began to admit that there were problems. Yet Government senators are saying today that there are no problems and that we can remain optimistic. On 31 January Peter Kirby called on the Government to abandon its 10,000 target and concentrate on making the scheme work. But no, the Government will not concentrate on making the scheme work. It knows that the scheme is a disaster; it knows that six months down the track it is facing the biggest problem with youth unemployment that it could possibly face. At the same time in January it was reported that the Minister and his Department wanted a more realistic target of 5,000 traineeships for 1985-86, but that he had been overridden by the Prime Minister for political reasons. The Prime Minister had already indulged in the most massive campaign to promote himself, so how could he back off then? Of course Peter Steedman, former Labor member of the House of Representatives, certainly ensured that Priority One received maximum publicity. I might add that it failed to get him the pre-selection for Scullin, but he had a wonderful time doing all the advertising for Priority One and for the Prime Minister. How many times day after day did we pick up the news- paper and see the Prime Minister's photograph splashed around with stories about Priority One. However, these stories did not give the young people of Australia any more information. According to Senator Reynolds-and I am glad that she was at least honest about this because she cited the figure-about 284 traineeships were in place. That is, in place, and that was what Senator Reynolds cited, not the flimsy agreements which may or may not be kept. Government senators can talk about agreements and we can all talk about the traineeships that are actually in place, but there is a vast difference. I might add that most of those traineeships that are in place happen to be in the public sector, when originally it was aimed that only 20 per cent would be in that sector. A total of $1m has been spent on this advertising campaign and the promotion of the Prime Minister who, I guess, we could all say is the new era rock concert host because he indulged in a little of that as well, but the expenditure of $1.4m on the phone-in is the biggest fraud that we could wish to imagine. The Government will not say what it achieved because it does not know. But there are a lot of people who do know what it achieved for the Government and that is not the nicest part of the whole story. The Government benefitted in that it got 22,552 names of people, their addresses, ages and telephone numbers. As was written in the Sydney Morning Herald, that is a very handy list to have in the lead-up to an election; it enables the Government to mail out more and more propaganda to young people around Australia. If this Priority One program is not a snow job of blizzard proportions, what is? It is a snow job of the young people of Australia. In December there was still 20 per cent unemployment among 15 to 19-year-olds. That equated to 114,000 people. Youth unemployment in 1980 was running at 16.6 per cent. The Government which today believes that it has done such a wonderful job had a level of youth unemployment in 1985 of 18.2 per cent. Youth unemployment still is running at 3 1/2 times the unemployment rate of those 20 years and older. We have also seen trade union objection to the Priority One scheme. We know that with this Government, big business and big unions leapt into bed together, but the strongest critic of the scheme has been Jim Maher of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. On 7 November he described the scheme as totally impractical and ill-conceived. He said it copied the United Kingdom scheme that was an abject failure and will be a failure here. At the same time John Maynes of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia warned that gimmickry and bureaucratic bungling would destroy Priority One, a comment that stands despite recent claims of FCU agreement to the scheme. Apart from outright hostility to the scheme, unions appear to be making it unworkable by imposing conditions which employers cannot meet. John Hogg, Secretary of the SDA in Queensland, on 10 December last year insisted that trainees must be additional workers, must get permanent jobs, must be paid the award and must be unionised. How much more regulation has to be put in place? In particular, the last two conditions that trainees must be paid the award and must be unionised would be unacceptable to employers. Phil Naylor of the Queensland Retailers Association noted that these conditions could not be met. Demands for compulsory unionism of trainees by unions in the hospitality industry ruled out participation by employers. This also represents a heavying of the trainees themselves. I do not think anyone should be encouraging that. It is a case of big brother looking over one's shoulder yet again. Mr Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions expressed reservations about any lowering of the trainee wage below junior employee rates. On 13 November, Senator Button admitted in the Senate that the unions had misgivings in regard to Priority One. In Canberra, Bob Allen of the Australian Capital Territory Further Education Office admitted that a target of 120 local traineeships could not be met. Of course, what we have here is the Government not wanting to back off, not wanting to admit that the scheme is a disaster, and the unions pushing and pushing that they have their case to answer to their union members. Who are the victims of the scheme which has gone wrong? The young people of Australia are suffering. We owe more to the young people of Australia than this fraud. I ask honourable senators to instance the employer reaction. The Committee for the Development of Youth Employment noted on 30 January the need for wage flexibility, the essence of the problem of youth unemployment. David Nolan of the Confederation of Australian Industry noted on 2 February this year the inflexibility of the unions. He said that the refusal to agree to trainees being paid lower hourly rates than full time junior workers was a denial of economic facts. Ian Spicer of the CAI noted in November that there had been a failure to negotiate a wage for trainees that was acceptable to employer and employee and that the scheme could simply result in a redistribution of jobs for 16 and 17-year-olds. In practical terms, trainees working a limited number of hours and needing supervision are not going to be of great benefit to employers. We have seen this fraud go on for a little too long. When we have looked at the issues which have been raised by Opposition speakers we can then start to look at more specific situations, for example, the situation in Western Australia. On 16 October 1985 Senator Giles said: By 25 September agreement had already been reached with Western Australia for a proposal involving 500 trainees. That has not been so in the delivery. Ads placed in the second last week of November for traineeships involving Public Service clerical work, computer information and conservation management resulted in 280 trainees being placed. Ads placed over the Christmas-New Year period for traineeships for the joint private sector-State Tourist Bureau project resulted in 500 to 600 applicants. Surprise, surprise! Some 19 trainees were placed. I guess Senator Giles really has a problem with her figures. The same situation applies right across Australia. Senator Giles also said that by 16 October there were already 36 group proposals before the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. We are just waiting to see the delivery of the goods. The goods are not being delivered. We are concerned. It is about time that this Government realised that there is major concern from many people. The majority of the traineeships established, as I mentioned before, were in the Public Service. They were youth traineeships in the Public Service of a clerical nature. The pamphlet distributed regarding Priority One says that a typical Public Service trainee will be required to keep records on the movement of files and cheques, sort, open and deliver mail and answer inquiries about records and documents. I put it to honourable senators that there is no shortage of unemployed Australians already equipped to do such simple clerical work. Records and file management is, in any case, rapidly becoming computerised. The need for employees to do such work is declining rather than growing. Yet here we have a government saying that this is the most wonderful scheme it has ever come up with. Senator Vanstone —It is disgraceful. Senator KNOWLES —I cannot agree more with Senator Vanstone. This is the pin on which the Government is placing its whole program. It is nothing short of a disaster. I shall finish by mentioning again some of those reasons why the scheme has been such an abject failure. The ambitious target set in the first place to make the scheme and this Government look so good has made the scheme a failure. Consultations were not adequately undertaken prior to the announcement. Lack of prior consultation led to unions not being on side. The scheme was not sufficiently canvassed with private employers and, therefore, not suited to employers' needs. An administrative nightmare makes it difficult to implement and unattractive to employers. Being unattractive to private employers means that most trainee agreements are with the Public Service. I remind honourable senators again that only 20 per cent of the traineeships were planned to be with the Public Service. However, we are seeing virtually the whole lot, nearly 100 per cent of the traineeships, in the Public Service. If this Government is not prepared to address the problems of youth unemployment in a far more serious manner, by the time the coalition is returned to government there will be a massive backlog. I think that this is a responsibility of this Government. Honourable senators on the Government side have asked us what we would do and why we have not done something. I remind them that they are in government. It is their responsibility. It is not our responsibility. We have clear policy directions. Time does not permit me to go into those policy directions. The next speaker, Senator Giles, probably will say: `Senator Knowles said that they have no policies'. I state quite clearly that our policies are available to the people of Australia and that they will be better than the fraud we have seen in Priority One. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(3.40) —This afternoon, the Senate is debating the following matter of public importance proposed by the Opposition in the name of Senator Vanstone: The Government's obsession with its public image which has led to a cynical betrayal of Australia's youth and a policy failure in Priority One. I find some quite remarkable features in the wording of the matter of public importance. I shall deal with the first part of it, namely, the Government's obsession with its public image, before going to what is intended to be the substance of a very flimsy claim. The repugnance that flows through that statement leaves me completely amazed. I grew up in South Australia in the years when we had a conservative Federal Government and a conservative State Government. I was part of a generation which was actively discouraged from any sort of community awareness and from any knowledge of the political system. There was no intelligent public discussion of politics. There was no education in the school on civics or anything remotely resembling any sort of political science. My political education as a schoolgirl was confined entirely to a visit to Parliament House in South Australia, as a result of which visit I managed to win a prize for writing an essay. I believe that was the beginning and end of my `schooling' in politics, as a result of those years of conservatism and, as I said, active discouragement of any intelligent interest in political systems. The effects of those years on that generation have been very clearly demonstrated in this chamber over the last few days while we have been debating the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. It is abundantly clear that very many people in this nation-I am not referring to honourable senators, of course-can be very easily misled. Politically, they are naive and uneducated and easily manipulated. Senator Knowles —Just because they have a contrary view to you, they are misled? Senator GILES —On the contrary, I have every sympathy for those people who, simply because of their lack of knowledge, lack of understanding and lack of access to information over all those years, are not in a position to be able to see a progressive measure when it is offered to them. On this occasion we have used modern media. We have made effective and reasonable use of communications in a real attempt to consult the electorate. That was quite unheard of with past conservative governments, although I was glad to be reminded this afternoon that it was a very reasonable tactic used by the Fraser Government, but, unfortunately not followed through. We are not making the mistake of believing that young people are a homogeneous group all amenable to the same formula. The phone-ins have given us an opportunity for that diversity of needs and objectives to be articulated, recorded, recognised and accommodated. Traineeships, even at their most ambitious, cater for a relatively small proportion of that age group, but a relatively large proportion of that age group that is in need of extra assistance. The immediate concerns of young people are not only for training and employment, and we have been able to discover this quite clearly as a result of our having the intelligence actually to consult these people. It is something quite scandalous, if we were to believe what we have been hearing from honourable senators on the other side of the chamber, actually to consult young adults about their aspirations, objectives, disappointments, desires and needs. We have discovered very clearly that in addition to training and employment they need housing designed for their needs. Their health needs in adolescence are clearly unique. Their legal needs so far have been largely unaddressed and so have their education needs, as more and more of them look towards completing a secondary education and going on to tertiary education in a way that is really quite new in this community. I take honourable senators back again to those conservative years during which the retention rate of young people in Australia was at the same level as that in Portugal and in Spain-countries with a far lower gross national product than that of this wealthy nation. We know that the young people in Australia are desperately in need of income support and our system of age-related allowances that will be introduced at the beginning of next year will remove the differences between unemployment and education allowances and will eliminate those disincentives and distortions which have made it more appealing, superficially at least, for young people to qualify for unemployment benefit rather than continue with their education. Previous speakers in this debate have enumerated the measures that are being put in place. We believe that it is perfectly justifiable to take a little time in order to get things right. I say to Senator Knowles that we are concentrating on making the scheme work, unlike previous schemes in Australia over the last 10 years, which, at enormous cost, trained nobody at all. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into the special youth unemployment training program scheme over the last years and nobody was trained except perhaps by accident. We do not despair of early difficulties in negotiating with the trade union movement. There are difficulties and they are being overcome. But award conditions and wages are worth fighting for. I am amongst those people in this House and all over the nation who believe that if one is doing a job one should be paid a proper rate for it and that a job that is being done by a young person is not necessarily inferior to a job that is being done by a person twice or three times that young person's age. Some doubts have been cast on the possibility of this scheme actually getting into gear and showing what can be done. I do not believe it is illogical for public services to take up initially the scheme and show the private sector how it can be done. This is not particularly novel. It has happened before. On this occasion I am delighted to report that the Western Australian Government is well ahead. I believe that the number of jobs that has been quoted on several occasions this afternoon should be updated. Three hundred and sixty-nine traineeships have now been introduced and our target of 500, to which I referred in November, will shortly be met. Four projects have been funded already, and they were the first to be announced in the country. Senator Archer —It has been a good day. It was 260 a moment ago. Senator Knowles —Oh, really? If we have another 10 speakers it will go up to 10,000. Senator GILES —If Senator Knowles is interested in unemployment, I suggest she listen. These projects have been targeted in areas where unemployment is highest. There is a scheme in Albany, there is one in Fremantle, there is one in Rockingham and there is another in the south-west metropolitan area of Perth-all in Senator Knowles's electorate. Senator Knowles —The Department did not give us those figures yesterday. Senator GILES —Senator Knowles may not know which department to ask. These are today's figures. Income support has been in place from 1 January and $115,000 has already been spent on the program. The State Government is co-operating in pilot programs under the youth services development program. Five youth access centres are being developed as part of the Commonwealth Employment Service involvement with young people. In the training and employment area an attempt is being made to amalgamate all community-based training schemes. If some criticism were to be aimed at the training of youth in Australia, surely it should be directed to the plethora of schemes that have been introduced over the last 10 years on an extremely ad hoc basis. Those schemes have eaten up enormous sums of money-I referred before to the SYETP scheme-with very little in the way of carefully planned education and training and very little in the way of future prospects for the people who went through those schemes. Amongst those already employed in the Western Australian scheme, there are 100 trainees in the Department of Computing and Information Technology; 100 in the Department of Conservation and Land Management; 135 with the Public Service Board; and, in the private sector, which is coming along in the background but will be catching up soon I am sure, 19 have been employed in the tourist industry and 15 in credit unions. The very interesting thing about the little list of positions that I have just read to honourable senators is that on my reckoning those positions would be covered by at least five different trade unions. Agreement has obviously been reached in Western Australia in order to safeguard the working conditions of the people involved. Senator Knowles —That is all absolute rubbish. Senator GILES —I suggest that if Senator Knowles believes it is such rubbish she should talk to one or two of those 369 people who are already employed under this traineeship scheme and see whether they think it is absolute rubbish. That is a very easy thing for her to say. But I think 16- or 17-year-olds who have been offered a safety net would be quite delighted to be guaranteed 12 months' training and education. Another point I would like to make is that it is, of course, only the beginning of the academic year. We are very dependent on technical and further education for training for these individuals who are to be employed and trained under these schemes. It is rather ridiculous to believe that training schemes could be set up without the benefit of the TAFE colleges even functioning. To put together the sorts of courses that will be of value-be they courses developed by TAFE colleges or courses that have been developed by individual employers-takes a little time. There has been an enormous degree of impatience from the Opposition. I can understand that members of the Opposition are getting a little tired of being in opposition but they will have to get used to it. It will not improve their image in the community for them to jump up and down and make a lot of noise about what they believe to be a ridiculous scheme simply because their Party never thought of anything half so productive. I offer some gratuitous advice-that is that the public image of the Opposition could do with a little constructive thought, a little positive thinking and a little compassion for these 16- and 17-year-olds whom we have targeted in this scheme and for whom we have every intention of providing what is known as a safety net. These are the people who are most in need of some sort of assistance at this time, to tide them over that period in their adolescence, when they have left school or are seriously considering leaving school, when they are completely unequipped with skills for the labour market, and when they are extremely vulnerable. We do not apologise-and its bizarre to suggest that we should-for having consulted those people who are most in need of assistance at this age and stage in their lives. It seems to me, my colleagues, and, I believe, to most people in the Australian community, perfectly sensible to consult young people to find out what it is they need, and to find out how they want to be involved. I conclude by returning to the point on which I commenced-that of involvement. Unlike the people who grew up during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s or 1960s, young people of the 1980s want to be involved in the decisions that will affect their life chances. They do have an interest-we discovered this as a result of our phone-in-in matters that are outside their immediate concern. They want to know what policies are being made in a whole range of areas in regard to issues that do not immediately affect their well being. I, for one, am absolutely delighted that we have taken this action. We have taken the trouble to consult them. We have found out the ways in which they want to be involved in community and political decisions. We have made it possible for them at this stage to make that contribution towards the decision-making of this Government. Once again I emphasise that there is no reason on earth why we should apologise, or why we should be expected to apologise, for taking this totally democratic, sensible and efficient way of consulting the young people of Australia, putting together a scheme which, given time, will be an effective scheme, one that is not cobbled together, one which has the co-operation of the unions, the co-operation of private employers and the co-operation and whole-hearted support of education authorities and the Australian community. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.54) —I did not intend to intervene in this debate but I have been encouraged to do so because of the comments made, including that made by Senator Puplick about youth wages being the root cause of youth unemployment. Before anyone goes down that track, and before anyone establishes and creates expectations which cannot be fulfilled, one should analyse the situation in regard to youth wages. First, let me briefly state that it is ironic for that claim to be made, particularly in regard to the retail industry in which a worker under 17 years of age receives a net take-home pay of about $120 a week. If one adds the cost of health insurance, travel to and from work, clothing, lunches and so on, the worker's pay is reduced to about $80 a week, particularly if he or she lives in a large city like Sydney or Melbourne. Whether this is the real problem can be tested by looking at the Public Service Board figures which Senator Puplick mentioned. It is clear from those figures that youth employment in the Public Service has fallen to an all-time low. Whereas in 1966 youth represented 22.2 per cent of workers in the Commonwealth Public Service, that figure has now fallen to an all-time low of 6.3 per cent. The Public Service Board figures project that it will fall below 6 per cent. That is a direct reflection, of course, upon the Government which says that youth is its priority one. If youth is its priority one why does it not give them employment in the Public Service? Why does it not give them their fair share of jobs in the Public Service? Senator Robert Ray —That is what Senator Mason opposes, though. Senator HARRADINE —I am not saying that more jobs should be created. I am saying that they should be given their fair chance. It is clear from an analysis of the Public Service Board figures that they have been denied that fair chance by the recruitment policies of the Board. Youth and their parents in Australia are entitled to ask: Why does the Government not practise what it has preached in the area that it controls, namely, the Commonwealth Public Service? Wages have not been the problem in the Commonwealth Public Service because the ratio of youth wages to adult wages in the Commonwealth Public Service has not changed in the last 20 years. So people ought to be very careful about using that argument about youth wages. The missing factor in this debate, of course, is that with all the training schemes, with all the encouragement for youth to stay at school, will they find jobs at the end of it? That is the question. What is the real problem facing Australia when it comes to unemployment? The simple problem is that there are more people seeking paid work than there are jobs available. At the same time new jobs, in the old sense, are being slashed by the introduction-sometimes a haphazard introduction-of automation and technological change. So the youth unemployment problem has a social as well as an economic character. Of course, it is important to try to get the economy right, but there is a social aspect as well. Faced with that, if one were part of a sensible government, would one force people who had a better reason to be out of the paid work force to stay there in order to make ends meet? Of course one would not. One would encourage people who decide to leave the paid work force to leave it and leave the way open for youth. But that is not being done. That question is not even being addressed. It is about time that it was addressed. Thousands upon thousands of persons in a certain age bracket would dearly love to retire-they desire to retire-but cannot do so because it would cause a substantial fall in their standard of living. Many thousands of families are forced to have both mother and father working to the detriment of their own health. This places increasing burdens on the family. Why is that so? Because of the actions of successive governments in failing to give taxation justice to the one income family and thus forcing many hundreds of thousands of people into the paid work force many of whom desire to retire. The figures in the recent Budget and the proposed tax budget will further exacerbate the problem faced by one-income families in Australia today. Since 1976 the one-income family on average weekly earnings has had imposed upon it a massive 435.7 per cent increase in taxation. At the same time average weekly earnings have risen by only 135.4 per cent. The worker whose family is existing on one income and who is receiving the weighted average weekly award has had imposed upon him even a greater percentage increase in taxation. The Government's taxation package will further exacerbate the problem of the one-income family compared with the two-income family. On present tax scales the one-income family on average weekly earnings is paying $785 more in direct taxation than the two income family. After 1986 this will go up to $809. In addition, the 1985 Budget of this Government failed to restore the value of family allowances which have been eroded by almost 50 per cent in 1976. This means that a mother with four children is now $55.35 a month worse off in real terms than she was in 1976 on that issue alone. Add to that the failure of the spouse rebate to be increased and an enormous pressure is brought to bear on families who cannot make ends meet and are forced to have two people out in the work force. This, of course, places emphasis on youth unemployment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.03) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. It has not been possible for me to peruse the particular treaties, but I rise because of the importance of the treaty-making power in terms of the Commonwealth Constitution. During the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill it has been made clear that the external affairs power of the Commonwealth Constitution as determined by our founding fathers has now been interpreted, not only to embrace the making of treaties but also to use those treaties and the nature of those treaties as the head of power for the implementation of legislation. The effect has been far reaching. The High Court of Australia held, by a majority of 4:3, that we could use a treaty to reach into a State in terms of its ability, or otherwise, to construct a dam. A former Labor Senate leader in this place looked towards a treaty on migratory birds to see whether industrial exploitation on Taren Point of Botany Bay could be prevented because swallows that come from Russia or Japan migrate and land on Taren Point. This is a significant development in terms of treaty-making powers. No one would have thought in the making of treaties that such an extension could exist. I say this not in any sense of exaggeration but to point out where this country is going if we persist in a belief that a treaty can be made overseas of whatever nature and generalisation and then used and construed as a head of power to reach into law making not only in the Commonwealth but interstate and in local government. I rise on this matter for the specific reason that recently a quaint body has been set up, a constitutional commission, to look at reforms of the Constitution. It seems to me fundamental that this is setting about the problem in the wrong way. Surely we need to look at 1986 and beyond and at what ought to be the compact between the Commonwealth and States. We should look at what ought to be the nature of institutionalised federalism so that we are not constantly playing a game of trying to pierce the ceiling of the Commonwealth Constitution to find more powers for this Parliament and, therefore, weakening the fabric of the Federation. I believe fervently in federalism, but am not a States-righter in that sense at all. I believe we should achieve a balance between the Commonwealth and the States and I believe that there ought to be a modern and clear definition of where the power should lie. Indeed, it is necessary now to make sure that any re-writing of the Commonwealth Constitution does, in fact, put it in the situation of being fixed and limited and that the States have residual powers. Whilst we rest on this treaty-making we no longer have a situation of a fixed, rigid and written Commonwealth Constitution. We have an open-ended Constitution and no person can decide which way the decisions will go. I make a plea that this country in the future should look at some kind of a study to give a compact between the Commonwealth and the States to redefine and, above all, to make sure that we do not have this open-ended action that the treaty-making power and the present decisions allow. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.06) —Twelve treaties have been presented to parliament in this package-12 in one lump. Senators are given five minutes to deal with them all. This ludicrous situation was actually surpassed last session when over 50 treaties were presented to Parliament on one particular day to be discussed together. Treaties such as these are made by the Executive. They are then dumped in a bundle on the table here as a fait accompli. Yet some of them have profound implications. The agreements covering the so-called joint facilities, the United States of America bases, were struck in this way. Those bases have grave implications for national and global security. That all such agreements are beyond the reach of Parliament is a perversion of democracy. One of the treaties before us provides for scientific and technical co-operation between the United States and Australia. Underlying this agreement is a plethora of implementing arrangements and memoranda of understanding relating to specific projects. We have no opportunity to scrutinise these specific arrangements, none whatsoever in this Parliament. One such project is the electromagnetic railgun research program being undertaken at Maribyrnong Materials Research Laboratory. By sharing our pioneering work on the railgun with the United States, we have given a key boost to Star Wars research. The railgun is one of the most promising space weapons being researched for that lunatic project which the Government is supposed to oppose. The Government has said this co-operation will end in 1987. This is only due to pressure put on it after the co-operation was revealed in papers written by Australian scientists, and not by the Government. Of course, if the Government goes against its word and renews the memoranda of understanding, Parliament does not need to be told. This Parliament has no power in this area. As for the scientists themselves innocently spilling the beans, there is a sinister amendment to the treaty, renewed in October last year for five years which could be used to prevent this from happening again. This amendment to Article 8 allows procedures for reporting inventions to be determined for specific agreements. Such procedures would override the requirement in Article 6 to make information available to the world's scientific community. In the case of the railgun project, scientific comment could be silenced, which may well suit the Government and would especially suit the United States. Another promising project which is ripe for similar secrecy is a sensitive ultraviolet detector being developed at the Australian National University. In the Canberra Times of 7 July 1985 the project director, Dr Ted Stapinski, is quoted as saying that the detector could be used for warhead tracking in Star Wars. Dr Stapinski believes that we should sell the project to the Americans. If an agreement is made to co-operate on this project, we will again have no right to know. It is essential that treaties with the significance of this one, and the specific agreements struck under them, come directly under the control of Parliament. One of the worst instances of this is the agreement about the bases. My first promise when I arrived in Parliament was to bring in legislation which would rid Australia once and for all of the United States bases on our soil. I found that this Parliament has no control over these bases. The bases are controlled under agreements written by the Executive-the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Governor-General. It is high time that this Senate demanded the right to control treaties which affect the lives of everyone in Australia. I hope, furthermore, that the next time we get a package of treaties we get them one by one so that we can study them and debate them as they deserve to be debated. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.12) —These treaties are before the chamber because the Federal Parliament has the duty through its Ministers to look after the external affairs of this country. That is sometimes forgotten. As Senator Sir John Carrick pointed out quite correctly, the Constitution makes provision for Parliament to have certain powers. One of the powers with which this Federal Parliament deals is that of external affairs. It is sometimes argued these days that in some way or other that power allows laws to be made surreptitiously. The Franklin Dam case is the classic instance of that. The reality is that this Constitution, which was written by the founding fathers and in which so much respect lies, has set up the situation in which that happens. It is strange for people to argue, therefore, that in some way the very terms of the Constitution violate the Constitution itself. That is not so. The external affairs power has been there since the Constitution was written and the High Court of Australia, which has the duty of interpreting the Constitution, is the body which can decide, according to the Constitution, what should happen under it. It is well to remember in a debate such as this that the Federal Parliament, in acting in the way it does-in passing laws which may affect States and to which the States may object-is acting within the Constitution, as the High Court has said that it is. Senator Sanders has said that very important things arise under treaties, and that is so. As Senator Messner suggested to him, perhaps he ought to make debate on treaties an order of the day so that further and more lengthy debate can take place. If one looks at the treaties in this package, one sees the wide variety of subjects that are dealt with and the wide range of countries involved. The countries which appear as parties to these treaties with Australia include Italy, the People's Republic of China, Singapore, United States of America and Thailand. The treaties deal with all sorts of matters, including telecommunications, torture, cruel and inhuman punishment and double taxation. They are illustrations of how closely Australia is related to the rest of the world. It is strange that one sees in that list the questions of torture and cruel and inhuman punishment. Fortunately those questions are not as applicable to Australia as they are elsewhere, but Australia, as a member of the international community, has an obligation to enter into treaties and to help other countries which are parties to the treaties. In other words, Australia cannot simply stand apart from the rest of the world and enjoy treaties that give it benefits without conferring benefits on others. In the context of what has been said both in letters and in the debate on the Bill of Rights it is well to remember, when things are introduced on the basis of international covenants, that Australia's interests are not the only ones that should be considered, but that the interests of other countries that Australia may help are also relevant. Australia has an obligation to contribute as well as a right to gain from these treaties. It is important to look at this bundle of treaties to see how true that statement is. The number of countries with which Australia has made treaties and the sorts of objects in the treaties are illustrations of that. In order to improve our own quality of life, to expand and develop our own culture and to enhance our own spiritual values, as well as advancing our own economic interests, we must have proper relations with other countries. Those proper relations include an obligation to help them, whether or not they are as well off as Australia, in terms of the human rights they may or may not have. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.17) —I too express some air of caution and concern about the way the treaty business seems to have changed in the last few years. Treaties used to be treaties, and we used to be not too concerned about the spin-offs that came from signing treaties, but I regret very much that this no longer appears to be so. Governments are now in a position, as a result of court decisions, to push all sorts of aspects, depending on the area in which we may have a treaty of some sort. We can use the sorts of treaties we have with various countries in all sorts of areas of Australian life. These can be controlled in almost any way by the various treaties and the interpretations that governments and/or the courts may place upon them. I would never have believed it possible that we could use these external affairs powers as such as ready vehicle for achieving the sorts of things that Parliament does not provide or that the government never has the opportunity of discussing. No longer can we rely on a government of any colour not to use the treaty mechanism to obtain its ends in one way or another. In the past, established practice was accepted by the courts, so that the Constitution meant exactly what it said, but this is no longer the case. It is now being used to attack the powers and Constitutions of the States and clearly this is totally contrary to any intention that ever existed. I object very much to any prospect of treaty powers being used as a constitutional bypass. I would like to see us adopt a different mechanism so that we may have greater opportunity to see what is involved in the treaties and to see that we take some action to ensure that the treaty mechanism is not used for purposes other than the actual treaties themselves. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.19) —I draw the attention of the Senate to page 4474 of the Notice Paper on which I have a notice of motion relating to treaties. I do not want to transgress Standing Orders by referring to a likely debate. If I refer to that particular notice of motion, I am sure that honourable senators will agree with me that I am not referring to something that is likely to come on for debate, because it has been on the Notice Paper since 21 February 1985 and probably will stay on the Notice Paper until 21 February 2005. Senator Robert Ray —It is the first leg of the cups double. Senator HARRADINE —That is right. I am sure that I am not transgressing Standing Orders. After the Koowarta case and after the dams case I became increasingly concerned about the fact that broadly drawn international treaties were being used by the Government as the bases for legislation invoking the head of power, namely, section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution-the external affairs power-and thus, of course, enforcing those provisions on the States without consultation with the States or with the States House, namely, the Senate. Senator Townley —Non-elected people can then make a decision which is binding upon the States, as happened in the dams case. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly. I acknowledge the interjection by Senator Townley. I propose to move the following motion: (1) (a) That a Standing Committee of the Senate, to be known as the Standing Committee on Treaties, be appointed to consider all treaties laid before the Senate, and any other treaties to which the Committee may have access, and to report in respect of each such treaty: (i) whether Australia should undertake to be bound by that treaty if that treaty is not already binding upon Australia, and (ii) the effect which Australia's being bound by that treaty has or would have upon the legislative powers and responsibilities of the Australian States. I think that is an eminently reasonable proposal given the facts as I have described them. One of the problems with international treaties which deal with social issues and social questions, many of which are broad in their terms, is knowing precisely the meaning the Government gives to the terms or clauses of a treaty. Senator Cooney —It is up to the High Court, isn't it? Senator HARRADINE —That is the point. Senator Cooney says that it is up to the High Court. I do not agree that we should pass all of our powers and responsibilities over to the High Court and bring down unspecific legislation. Senator Cooney —That is what the Constitution says. Do you want to change the Constitution? Senator HARRADINE —No, I do not want to change the Constitution. Before ratifying any treaty governments must know the precise meanings of the terms of that treaty. Senator Elstob —They do. Senator HARRADINE —But they do not. It is very difficult in the Committee stage of a Bill which relies for its power on section 51 (xxix) to get a Minister to state precisely what the Government thinks it means. I will be asking that question when we deal with particular articles of the Bill of Rights. I do not necessarily want this Senate to act as the United States Senate does. As honourable senators know, the United States Senate has quite dramatic powers over external affairs involving that country. Senator Elstob —They don't have Ministers, either. Senator HARRADINE —I understand that the position is slightly different. However, I think we ought to have a look at some stage at my proposal to establish such a committee. Perhaps we will debate it at some future time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report of the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council covers 15 months of activity up to June 1985. The Advisory Council's Budgetary allocation for that period was roughly $106,000 plus salaries. The Council has a secretariat of four people and access to consultants. I believe that more of the funds should be spent on getting specialist advice from these consultants rather than just for travel. The members of the Council are drawn from the consumer movement, retailers, various corporations and trade unions and they have adopted the practice of meeting in different capital cities roughly once every two months. This practice probably suits someone, but it is costly. What concerns me about this report is the number of times the Consumer Affairs Advisory Council has had to remind governments, State and Federal, of the long delays in doing things. For instance, uniform model food legislation was agreed upon by State and Territory governments in 1980. The costs to consumers and manufacturers alike of different regulations in different parts of the country are staggering. It took until late last year for the States to get legislation through their parliaments. Most still had to proclaim the legislation and regulations to give effect to the new codes. I think we really have major problems in this area because of the unco-ordinated way in which State consumer affairs bodies operate. Time after time we have a Minister in one State banning a dangerous product and months or years elapsing before there is a follow-up in some others. Meanwhile, the public is at risk. What we need is a national consumer protection authority and legislation to prohibit the merchandising or transport of hazardous products within Australia. This would bring together the fragmented resources of bodies such as the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council, the report of which we are discussing today, the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers, the Federal Office of Consumer Affairs, the relevant parts of the Department of Health, the trade practices officials who deal with these areas and also the various product safety advisory committees which are scattered throughout Australia. We could then be certain, for instance, that the whole of the Public Service was aware of the expertise of the Department of Health in devising its program of monitoring and distributing various goods, flagging injuries to people and arranging for the withdrawal of dangerous goods from the market. We could meet our obligations not to allow the importation or export of dangerous goods by developing proper databanks and Customs procedures. We could then get some real action on a child injury surveillance system in Australia and thereby prevent a lot of the horrendous suffering that is inflicted upon children because we do not take proper precautions. Childproof containers are an obvious thing to handle at the Federal level. I would also like to draw the attention of the Senate to a variety of outstanding matters raised by the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council. The Council was highly critical of the lack of accountability of airlines to consumers. There is still no formal complaints handling system within the airports and airlines. The lack of competition and the absence of consumer representatives on the boards of Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd preserve this unsatisfactory status quo. Not enough information is available to the public about various industry self-regulation codes. This would be provided if consumer representatives were on those bodies. We are still waiting for class action legislation which would enable individuals to pool resources instead of being picked off one by one because of the astronomical cost of legal action. It is shameful that Australian women harmed by the Dalkon shield have to seek class action remedies in the United States of America because there is no such remedy in Australia. I shall certainly be prodding this lame Government on such consumer matters until it acts in the interests of the Australian people. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I suggest to the number of people today who have asked the question why we need an Australian Bill of Rights Bill that they have a look at the Law Reform Commission annual report for 1984-85. If they look at the number of references that this Commission has had, at the number of completed projects that are listed, and at the current projects that are under way, they will be aware of the very grave deficiencies that there are in both statute and common law in this country which need redress. It is a redress which is best brought forward, of course, by providing those rights within a Bill of Rights. If honourable senators run their eyes down the list at the beginning of the report they will see that under `3. Completed Projects' is complaints against the police, which raises the question of why some people are objecting, for example, to Article 21 in the Australian Bill of Rights, since there are quite clear concerns about the treatment in the community of individuals by the police. The lands acquisition and compensation project that was brought down by the Australian Law Reform Commission report No. 14 has some fairly stringent things to say about the problems facing people whose rights to own property are in essence certainly not protected in this country at State level, and are only provided with limited protection at Federal Government level in that section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution ensures that when the Commonwealth acquires an individual's land just compensation must be paid. But as the Law Reform Commission points out that does not apply at the State level, and even including a property rights provision in the Australian Bill of Rights is not going to sort that problem out totally, although we would certainly support the inclusion of that right to own property. Child welfare was the subject of the Australian Law Reform Commission report No. 18 which again indicates that something like an expression of the rights of the child under Article 14 in the Australian Bill of Rights is long overdue. Privacy, the subject of Article 12 of the Australian Bill of Rights, was the subject of a very long Australian Law Reform Commission report. Under current projects we see that the Commission is looking at evidence, at matrimonial property, and at domestic violence. Senator Walters, who waxes hysterical at the very thought that Australia should have any Bill of Rights that includes things like Article 20 and Article 32 on slavery and torture, ought to have a look at the sorts of conditions that apply to some women who are caught up in a domestic and violent situation. Since I am shortly to run out of time, I refer honourable senators to pages 2 and 3 of this report. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The time for the consideration of papers has expired. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, requesting a change in the membership of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That Senator Sir John Carrick be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and that Senator Withers, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36a, be appointed a member of the Committee. I do that somewhat reluctantly, certainly on the basis that it is better the devil you know on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee than the one you do not. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.35) —It is with some disappointment that I hear that Senator John Carrick is leaving the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. He has been quite a tower of strength. On behalf of the Committee and myself I would like to thank him for the great contribution he has made. I am sure my disappointment of Senator Sir John Carrick leaving will be somewhat assuaged by the new arrival. I relate, again, the Committee's and my thanks for the service he has given. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.38) —As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform I support the Chairman, Senator Robert Ray, in moving the adoption of the report. The basis of this report arises from a reference to the Committee last year. The reference is in these terms: The establishment of fixed formulae for determining the number of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to which the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and other Territories are entitled. This arose basically because when the Select Committee in an earlier Parliament brought in a very wide-ranging report of its references in 1983, Mr Ian Wilson of another place moved an amendment to seek to incorporate provisions regarding the representation of Territories. The Government then indicated that, whilst it would not accept that amendment then, it would make that reference. The reference itself is a most interesting one. It points to the fact that a number of High Court of Australia judgments have shown that the Commonwealth Constitution in its present form leaves wide open the capacity of a Parliament to make representation for Territories. Until the High Court decisions in 1973, and particularly the decision in the McKellar case, nobody in this place or elsewhere fully realised the nature of that open window. The Senate will surely know that the Constitution is very explicit regarding the nature of the Senate. It makes it clear that there must be an equal representation of the originating States. The Senate has itself made the method of election by proportional representation. In another place in section 24 of the Constitution it provides: The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators. I repeat that when the number of senators is fixed, based on equal representation in the States, there will be a formula that the House of Representatives numbers are fixed as being as nearly as practicable twice the number of senators. It will be noted from the Constitution that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth. It was not realised at the time that the decision of the High Court in relation to section 122 of the Commonwealth Consti- tution created some very interesting situations. For example, under that decision it became clear that members of the lower House or the Senate from the Territories need not be elected directly by the people. In other words, there need not be a popular franchise. I think that we are out of time in 1986 to envisage that the people of Australia would accept any kind of formula other than direct franchise. It became necessary to point to that fact and to recommend that something be done about it. It became equally patently clear that not only could the Parliament determine a formula for indirect representation but also any individual member could have as many votes as the Parliament decided. Those of us who espouse the idea of one man, one vote would not, of course, have conceived the idea that a parliament would have given to a representative of the Territories, senator or lower House member, more than one vote. Yet that is possible. It goes further. No relationship at all is prescribed by the Constitution at this moment to link the number of senators in terms of the number of lower House members. In fact, section 122 of the Constitution would allow a parliament to make as many representatives as the parliament so determined for the representation of the Territory in either the lower place or the Senate. Quite clearly, that is a worrying situation. One does not look with grave alarm at this because, in the ordinary sense of things, good and sensible things would be done. But it is possible for a parliament, a government, with a majority in the two places to so make alterations by way of legislation and not by way of referendum which could stack the Territories. I make no reflection on governments of either colour in this regard. It is quite possible to do what was known to be done in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in other countries; that is, to simply stack it and, therefore, give a massive representation to a particular party of the day. It became very desirable for this Parliament to have before it recommendations as to how Territories should be represented and then to consider how to go about some entrenchment of that representation. The Committee itself has worked out a formula based on, but not totally in parallel with, the Constitution. The Constitution says that we must first determine the number of senators and then double it for the number of people in the lower House. In effect, the Committee has said: First determine the population of a Territory, find out how many lower House people it is entitled to have and then have one senator to every two seats in the lower House, consistent with the guarantee of the minimum representations that now apply to the two Territories-that is, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The Committee has said it would desire that this be put to the people in a referendum, but there were some difficulties in timing referenda and indeed in succeeding in a referendum. It would be a desirable thing, in the mind of the Committee, that this be put into legislative form and, therefore, passed as an Act in this Parliament so that the desirable formula is before the government of the day. It is likely, therefore, that the government of the day would not move away from it and, in due course, at a suitable time, by way of a referendum, entrench it. The Committee so recommended. The Committee also looked at the question of new States. The question of new States may be one which will emerge in the future as perhaps the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory, in larger form, could move away, as the Northern Territory is now, from a community to a full State. The Committee has brought down a recommendation in a similar way. What has happened is that the recommendations have come following upon submissions by the major political parties and particularly by Mr Ian Wilson. I believe I am right in saying that the recommendations of the Committee are in parallel not only with Mr Wilson's formula but also with the submissions brought to the Committee by both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia. So there is a wide consensus of view. I believe I am right in saying that the National Party of Australia supports this principle. I think that it is a worthwhile development. I think that it is a common-sense situation. This Parliament and this Committee have done good work in trying to develop more and more a basic consensus in electoral reform. I believe this is a contribution to it and I commend it to the Senate. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.46) —I note the words of wisdom of Senator Ray, the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, and Senator Sir John Carrick, the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, regarding the findings of the Committee. I commend the Committee for the work that it has done. The Committee's report refers to the various Territories. I will speak briefly on the Northern Territory, as I see it now. The report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which was tabled in this chamber on Monday, has far-reaching implications for the people of the Northern Territory. The report, which deals with the entitlement of Federal Territories and new States to representation in the Commonwealth Parliament, is particularly relevant at this time, when the Territory is moving towards statehood. Before I address myself specifically to the electoral reforms proposed and how they relate to statehood, I take a few moments to give some details on the reasons for the statehood movement, which is gaining momentum in the Territory. The Territory has been self-governing for over seven years. Until last March the financial arrangement between the Territory and the Commonwealth had worked very well for the Territory. The present Northern Territory Government has, as a priority, provided much needed infrastructure to allow a formerly neglected Territory to commence the long march to economic self-sufficiency. As a result, over the last seven years much of the Territory Budget has been devoted to capital works such as roads, bridges, schools, houses, wharves and other necessities. The Territory's growth rate is nearly four times the national average and 80 per cent of the Territory's people are less than 40 years of age. It is a young and dynamic region. Annual production increases in key areas since self-government have been impressive. The increases are: Mining, 25 per cent per annum; primary production, 30 per cent per annum, manufacturing, 25 per cent per annum; retailing, 25 per cent per annum; construction, 8 per cent per annum; and tourism expenditure, 10 per cent per annum. Those are very envious statistics. Employment has increased by 7 per cent per annum since self-government compared with the Australian average of 1.5 per cent. However, the economy remains narrow in base and dependent on the public sector, in spite of its excellent record so far. The private sector continues to show confidence in the future of the top end, and last year private sector employment grew by a staggering 18 per cent. In the southern part of the Territory-the Alice Springs area-I would have thought that the figure would be at least that, with the developments taking place there. The Territory has great plans, and realistic plans, for the future. The railway from Alice Springs to Darwin will be an essential element in the land bridge linking Australia to the huge markets immediately to our north. Darwin will be Australia's front door to the region. It is now, but it needs much more of a boost. The Territory's agricultural and fishing industries, now in their infancies, will be contributing to its economy in a major way. However, in spite of these optimistic forecasts, a cloud has recently appeared on the horizon. I referred earlier to the fact that until March last year our financial relationship with the Commonwealth had worked well for the Territory. That is no longer the case. The Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) has foreshadowed that from 1988 the Territory would be treated as a State financially. From 1988 the Territory will no longer receive special funding as compensation for its lack of power in the areas of uranium mining, national parks, Aboriginal land rights and off-shore royalties. Yet these are powers that rest with the States everywhere else in the Commonwealth except in the Territory. So the Territory will be asked to stand on its own two feet financially, just as if it were a State with full revenue raising power, yet it will remain deprived of that power. The expectation by the Commonwealth that the Territory pay its way as a State, but be deprived of State-like revenue raising means, has been a catalyst for getting the statehood debate back on the boil. Many Territorians are seeing only one option-to go for statehood-statehood which returns control to Territorians over their own land, mining and off-shore royalties, statehood which puts the new State of the Northern Territory on an equal administrative footing to the other States. There is a recognition in the Territory that the constitutional consideration of the whole statehood question will need to be debated extensively and there is no doubt that the Territory may hold differing views on the level of Federal representation which should be provided for the new State. That is where this report becomes very relevant. This report basically comes down in favour of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory retaining the levels of Federal representation-in both chambers-that they presently enjoy. It further adds that the Electoral Act, and eventually the Australian Constitution should be amended to enshrine a formula to provide for levels of Territory and new State representation based on population considerations. The report states specifically that the Committee was unimpressed by the Terri- tory's arguments in favour of greater House of Representatives representation than its population warrants. The Committee was also concerned by suggestions that that Territory should obtain equal Senate representation with the original States and could see no justification whatsoever for a proposal which would result in a gross over-representation of the Northern Territory. I think that we are able to glean from these comments what the Federal Government's likely reaction to a Territory stance of requiring equal Senate representation will be-the Federal Government will say that 12 senators is just not on. But before we dismiss this possibility out of hand I think that we should look at the fundamental role of the Senate when it was originally set up at Federation-as a States House, to ensure the equality of the States. It will be a serious step to take the setting up of a second class State-one which is less equal than its partners. I am not advocating 12 senators outright for any new State. I am merely making the point that this is going to be one of the arguments which will arise in the context of the debate on statehood for the Northern Territory and I think that this report should not necessarily dictate the conditions-at present at any rate-under which the Northern Territory achieves statehood. I am not entirely sure that to enshrine in the Constitution the sort of changes which are proposed by the Committee's recommendations is the proper course at a time when the debate over statehood in what I believe will become Australia's seventh State, and the only State to join the Commonwealth since Federation, is only just beginning in earnest. I believe that at this crucial time, for the sake of the Commonwealth and future States, we should consider very carefully any constitutional change which will bind us in a manner which we could come to regret later. There are a number of ways in which the whole issue of Senate and lower House representation for a new State might be approached, and one of these would be to develop a formula which allows for an immediate increase in the present level of Federal representation accorded to the Territory, with further increases to be determined until parity is reached. Perhaps this is close to the view of the Committee. This is only one of a number of options but it should not be excluded at this very early stage in a critical constitutional debate. I look forward to the debate that will take place in the near future. It is of considerable importance that the Northern Territory become a State. I believe that the development of the north can take place only through the Northern Territory becoming a State and achieving its adulthood. I believe also that in this early stage of the debate it will be of tremendous interest to have the various views put forward, in the way that Senator Ray and Senator Sir John Carrick have both put forward their views in this report. I would like to see a very full debate take place, not only in this Parliament but also in other parliaments and throughout the nation. The debate, which should be full and free and without any restrictions, should be permitted before any premature move is made which might limit discussions. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(5.55) —As the Government senator for the Northern Territory, I welcome the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. It will be appreciated that we in the Northern Territory have more than a passing interest in this topic, particularly when we see that the title of the report is `Determining the Entitlement of Federal Territories and New States to Representation in the Commonwealth Parliament'. First, let me congratulate Senator Robert Ray, the members of his Committee and the secretariat on the report. It seems to me that the report gives a good background of the total situation, of the legislative provisions that have been made in the Constitution and of matters leading up to that, and it has made available to the general public the sort of material that will enable people to understand the background to the report. It represents a resume of the various submissions that have been put to the Committee and I think it is fair to say that it has put forward a balanced presentation so that people throughout Australia, when they read the document, will know that there are differing views about representation for the Northern Territory. The report provides the thinking behind the proposals which have been put forward by the Committee and how these proposals were arrived at. Then, on that basis, it presents its recommendations clearly and in a form which, I believe, will be easy for people in the street to understand. I do not intend to debate the proposals because I do not think that this is either the time or the place to do so. Later, when the Government has brought down its response to the report and after much more debate in the community, will be the time to discuss the propositions that are put forward as recommendations. I agree with my colleague from the Northern Territory, Senator Kilgariff, that there must be wide-ranging debate, particularly in the Northern Territory, which obviously is the part of Australia that is most interested at this stage, before any decision is made. I commend the report to all interested people, particularly those who live in the Northern Territory. I hope that many people will obtain a copy of the report and study it carefully, particularly those people in the Territory and elsewhere who have been making and will in future make public comment. I do not want to be too critical but it must be said that there has been a good deal of ill-informed comment at the present time and that that comment could have been avoided if people had waited for the report and studied it before making their statements. I recommend it to all who are interested for their careful study. However, I think we must remember-and obviously some people have not remembered this-that the report contains recommendations of the Committee and nothing more. These are propositions which have been put forward for consideration by others-by the public, the Government and the Parliament as a whole. The composition of the Committee means that its proposals will be studied very carefully because quite clearly some distinguished people served on it. The Committee Chairman, Senator Ray, has a great background in this area and the senior member from the Opposition, Senator Sir John Carrick, has spent a lifetime studying these subjects and brings a good deal of material to the discussions. Then of course we have across the board contributions both from independents and the Australian Democrats. I believe that it is most unfortunate that members of the Committee, as well as the Committee report itself, should have been attacked. I should like to quote two cases which have caused particular embarrassment to me because they both emanated from the Northern Territory. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) made a statement along the lines that the report totally undermined the main benefit of statehood and demonstrated the total arrogance of southern Federal politicians. This is a particularly unfortunate statement, particularly as Mr Everingham is a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. As a former Minister of the Crown, and now as a member of the other place, he should know that the committee structure is quite straightforward. Committees hear submissions, listen to the evidence put in front of them and then consider that evidence. They bring to their consideration of the total project their own expertise, their own backgrounds and their own knowledge of the area being discussed. The committees then produce recommendations for the Government to consider and the Parliament to debate. All Mr Everingham had in front of him was the report when he came out and criticised his own colleagues and members of the other party in the coalition who gave of their best in this Committee's deliberations. They went into the project attempting to satisfy the demands of the reference which they had been given and to come up with proposals that satisfied the broad view of the majority of people who appeared before them and also represented their own contributions for which they had sought professional advice from fairly senior legal people. The second matter I have to refer to is that of the action of the Northern Territory Minister responsible for statehood, who indicated that he would fight tooth and nail the recommendations of the report. This is fair enough. He is quite entitled to do so if the views put forward in the report do not happen to coincide with his own views. Surely the place to do this criticising and fighting tooth and nail is in public debates-in debates in the Assembly which no doubt will take place-and later when he hears what the people of the Northern Territory have to say. I do not want to spend any more time on this matter. However, I make the point that I believe we have to understand what the recommendations of the report are, how they were arrived at and the purpose for which they were put forward and then we have to commend strongly to the people involved and the people outside both parliaments that they study the document and consider the recommendations put forward so that they can take part in some sort of meaningful debate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.03) —Preparation by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform of the report entitled `Determining the Entitlement of Federal Territories and New States to Representation in the Commonwealth Parliament', to which I have appended a dissenting report, involved the Committee in a very useful exercise. It was very useful for the Committee to look at a subject that has been floating around in the background of debate about the Territories and the possibility of the creation of new States for quite some time now. It is a subject which has appeared at least three times on the agenda of Constitutional Conventions which have been held in Australia periodically over the past few years. The particular item that I disagreed with is one that I disagreed with because I did not see in any of the material which came before us or hear in any of the debate among members of the committee a basis on which to make the type of judgment that was made. Paragraph 4.1 of the Committee's report states that the Committee: . . . is strongly of the view that the principles we have determined as appropriate to apply to the representation of territories in the Parliament should also apply upon the admission of new States to the Federation. I agreed with the majority of the Committee members with regard to the recommendations relating to Territories. They seemed to me to follow the types of developments that had already taken place in Australia and there did not seem to me to be good reasons advanced by anybody as to why those developments should be altered in any way. They seem to have fulfilled the task they were set. They have had a fairly chequered history. Indeed, they were part of the historic double dissolution. I think the results have shown that the representation of the Territories in this chamber and in the other chamber has worked well and seems appropriate for the constitutional development of Australia into the foreseeable future. The part of the report with which I disagree relates to new States. As honourable senators who have been here for some time would know, I have been a champion for the development of new States in Australia. It has always been my firm belief that federalism in Australia has been blighted by the fact that we got to the point of developing only the few States we have instead of developing along the lines of the United States whereby States have covered smaller areas and there has been closer identification with the State governments and a more harmonious and homogeneous development of that vast continent. I believe Australia would be a much better developed country and a much more decentralised country now if there had been the development of more States. Hence, in my own State of Queensland I have been, probably sole amongst senators in this place, a strong supporter of the notion of a new State for North Queensland. It seems to me that if we are ever to use the section in our Constitution concerning the development of new States we would have to do one of two things. Either we would have to accept what the Committee has recommended in the report-that is, the majority of the Committee members-or we would have to accept the proposition I have put. I do not think there are any other viable political solutions to the problem of the admission of new States to the Federation. The majority of the Committee members came down on the side of looking at the population in a State to determine the number of representatives in the Senate. I rejected that in my dissenting report. I believe that the representation of any new State should be on an identical basis to that of existing States. The reason I gave is that, as I understand the constitutional operation, the House of Representatives is meant to have an equality of representation of the people. That representation is based on population. That is rightly so. It is the House in which traditionally, although it is not in the Constitution, our Prime Minister resides. It is the House from which the majority of members of the Cabinet come. It is seen to be the premier House in that sense. For example, it introduces the Budget. The Senate has been seen-I use here the words of Sir Isaac Isaacs-as representing an equality of statehood. Therefore, Tasmania and New South Wales have identical numbers of representatives in this place while there is an enormous disparity in population between those two States. There may have been many other ways in which one could organise the representation in this place or not even have the Senate at all. However, it so happens that the federal system has been organised on the basis of equality of representation in the House of Representatives and an equality of statehood in the Senate. I believe that is the only principle on which we have to go. I believe that has to be maintained if we are to admit new States to the Federation. My argument is that if we admit new States-there is no compulsion to do so-we should admit those new States on identical terms to the original States. Looking down the track, I do not believe it would do Australia's constitutional development any good if we had two sets of States-the original States, with certain types of representation, and the new States with other types of representation. I think that would be the situation that we would find down the track. After all, we have to look ahead. This is a far-sighted report, as are the Committee and its Chairman. In looking down the track we have to look at that type of subsequent development. Senator Harradine —Every new State means more politicians. Senator MACKLIN —I think Senator Harradine has made a point. That was a point raised constantly with the Committee, as Senator Harradine knows. I do not believe that with regard to the representation in the Senate of new States there is any principle which can operate other than that of equality of statehood. It may be an argument to say that we should not have the Northern Territory as a State. However, if we do, I think the subsequent logic of the operation ought to be to admit such a State on terms identical to those of the original States. Such a new State would have 12 senators. If that is of great concern to the Senate, I am quite happy to go on record as saying that I do not think the Senate's numbers should have been increased. Indeed, I voted against that increase of 10 senators to 12 senators. In fact, I would be quite happy if we went back to our constitutional base of six senators for each State. As the new States are introduced we should reduce the number of senators from each State. Basically, that would keep the number of senators the same and it would not require any development in terms of the House of Representatives. I am happy enough for us to do that. It seems to me that, whatever principle is used, there could be an argument for that type of operation. It will not happen, of course, because no party in government would be able to get sufficient senators on side to organise that type of thing. Senator Robert Ray —Nor could you. Senator MACKLIN —I admit that; that is probably a valid interjection. On the same point, we have to be careful not to instil into any subsequent constitutional development-after all, that is what this report was talking about-anything other than a principle of proper representation. I go back to the words of Sir Isaac Isaacs, who said that the Senate represents equality of statehood. No other principle seems to me to come into the matter. As I said in my dissenting report to the Committee, I cannot see in any of the material that has been presented to us and in any of the discussions that we have had any other firm principle upon which we could stand. This chamber is not the House of Representatives. It has a different function. It has a different constitutional base. While we have that-I do not want to bring in the argument as to whether or not we should-it seems to me that it needs to retain that principal base of equality of statehood. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.12) —I will take only a few moments to speak on the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform on Determining the Entitlements of Federal Territories and New States to Representation in the Commonwealth Parliament, because I believe that quite a large number of honourable senators wish to speak on other reports. First of all, I acknowledge the work that has been done by the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Robert Ray and the Deputy Chairman, Senator Sir John Carrick. I also thank my colleagues, including Senator Macklin, who have worked quite hard on this Committee. I believe that too few people understand the workings of the Senate and its committees and the enormous amount of time that needs to go into studying the submissions that are made to each of the committees. I know that on the five or six committees of which I am a member, the amount of time spent studying for them is about double the time needed by me to study what comes before this chamber. To put it into perspective and to refer to what Senator Robertson said, I believe it is important for people to note that members of committees do give due consideration and weight to the evidence that is put forward and do spend a great deal of time considering that evidence before making certain recommendations. Of course, members of this committee are supported very ably by Mr Donald Nairn and his staff, as members are supported by the committee staff on other committees on which I work. I notice that Miss Anne Lynch is a clerk at the table. She is head of the committee system, and I acknowledge her work in this regard. Very briefly I point out that we were faced with the possibility that some government in the future would use the opportunity of stacking the Parliament unless some recommendation were made by the Committee and ultimately incorporated in legislation. We believe that such a recommendation ought ultimately be incorporated in the Constitution. If our recommendation is contained in legislation, that will make it more difficult for a future government to act at will. The point that was made by Senator Macklin is fair. If there are to be new States, why will they not have equality of representation in this chamber with existing States? I suppose the counter-argument is both historical and practical. The original States hammered out an agreement which took the shape of the Australian Constitution. Laid down clearly in the Constitution is the requirement for equality of representation for the original States. Like Senator Macklin, I believe that there are too many politicians. Like him, I voted against the move by the government-- Senator Macklin —Did you say you voted against politicians like me? Senator HARRADINE —Did I say that? I voted with Senator Macklin and with the Liberal Party of Australia against the increase in the size of the Parliament. Unfortunately, the Labor Government, supported by the National Party of Australia, voted for an increase in the number of members of parliament. Senator Brownhill —Better representation for country people is what we are about. Senator HARRADINE —I will acknowledge that remark if the honourable senator wants it to go into the Hansard. I understand the legitimacy of his point of view, but let us look at the practical situation. If we are to have the same number of senators for each new State as we have for existing States, we would have 12 new senators, which in turn, because of the operation of section 24 of the Constitution, would mean that we would have another 24 new members of the House of Representatives. So, with every new State we would be ensuring that there would be another 36 new Federal politicians. Frankly, once that possibility is explained in the Northern Territory, I do not think it would go down too well. Senator Robert Ray —Unless they do not get any. Senator HARRADINE —Especially if they do not get any. Senator Macklin —We could take them back to ten. Senator HARRADINE —I agree with that, but to be quite frank, I think we could take the number back to six. As has been stated here, if we cut the number of State representatives in the Senate back to six, what will be done with the House of Representatives? I do not mind that happening, but I do not think we will get too many starters for that proposition amongst the members of the House of Representatives. In closing, I must say that we had to consider all of these questions. We had to come to a balanced decision. I think that in all of the circumstances the recommendation is a balanced one. As Senator Robertson said, and as I think Senator Kilgariff mentioned, it is only a recommendation, but it is a recommendation made after evidence has been considered and one which, no doubt, will be considered throughout the length and breadth of this country and, in particular, in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.18) —in reply-In closing the debate on the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform on Determining the Entitlement of Federal Territories and New States to Representation in the Commonwealth Parliament, I thank all senators who have spoken in the debate for their contribution. It has been a very rational debate, and I thank them for that. Of course, there has not been much reaction to this report. It is fairly esoteric in the extreme. There was one reaction, from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) in the other place. He put out a fairly inflammatory Press release attacking the Committee and accusing some of the Committee members of his own political persuasion of being traitors. I am a little disappointed in Mr Everingham's actions because I note that when the report was tabled in the House of Representatives he did not even bother to debate it there in the chamber, where matters are normally open to response and there is the to and fro of debate. Instead, he sent a Press release back to the Northern Territory. So extravagant are his claims that I really doubt whether he has ever read the report. I would have thought with his being reduced to the back bench from the front bench by Mr Howard that he would have a lot more time on his hands. I suppose, if one represents the Northern Territory and lives in Brisbane one would be pretty busy, and he probably has not had time to read this report. But such inflammatory remarks do this debate no good. I suggest to Mr Everingham that he should follow the example of his colleague Senator Kilgariff, who made a very constructive contribution this afternoon. It will come as no surprise to the Senate that I do not support Senator Macklin's minority report. His claim that quality of representation in some way derives from the Constitution is, in my view, baseless. Section 121, which deals with this matter, provides that: The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and . . . make and impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit. It is quite clear from the Convention debates that the founding fathers had the absolute view that new States, new territories or whatever else, was negotiable. Otherwise they would have entrenched it in the Constitution at the time. I am backed up in this view by one of the best sources on the Constitution by Quick and Garran, which states: Under the Constitution of the Commonwealth the Federal Parliament has a free hand in deciding the terms and conditions under which a new member may be admitted into the Federal family system. It will be at liberty to impose such stipulations as it thinks fit, unhampered by considerations of equality of Original States. I think the Northern Territory is far more likely to become a State if 12 senators are not admitted. If that is the condition of their admission, I think senators from other States would be very much opposed to its being granted statehood. Senator Lewis —I think they recognise that. Senator ROBERT RAY —I think many do. What we have said has entrenched this in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. When we come to negotiate a compact on admitting a new State, there is nothing to stop a change to its having two senators. That is negotiable and that can be entrenched in the Constitution. What we are worried about are the very points that Senator Sir John Carrick stressed. This Constitution is wide open to stacking and rorting by a malevolent government. There is no sign in the past or the future that that government will emerge but, if it does, let us protect ourselves. I suggest to those who argue for 12 senators in the Northern Territory that I know population is not really a consideration, but common sense is. Having one senator for every 5,000 electors seems to me to be ridiculous in the extreme. New South Wales has one senator for every 250,000 electors. I am, of course, very cross with Senator Harradine. He has let the cat out of the bag. I was not going to mention it today, but he rightly pointed out that if 12 new senators and statehood are awarded to the Northern Territory, there will be 24 new members of the House of Representatives. My good friend Senator Boswell smiles because both he and I have been strong supporters of the expansion of the Parliament. But I doubt whether he or I at this moment want another 24 members of the House of Representatives. But I am cross with Senator Harradine because when a few of the members representing marginal seats who are my friends hear of this, they will scuttle to my office, asking for statehood for the Northern Territory, a redistribution, a safe seat for them and a pension. So Senator Harradine has done us a disservice today. This will bring a big conflict for the Australian Democrats' philosophical position. It is not good enough to say that we will go back to the position of old, prior to 1949, of having six senators. The tide will not turn. That is not politically realistic. Therefore, any increase in the size of the Senate caused by the creation of a new State would really involve 24 new House of Representatives politicians which, I am sure, the Democrats oppose and we at this stage regard as unnecessary. I conclude by saying that if there were 12 senators for the Northern Territory-six elected every three years-that would reduce the quota to 14.28. That may have the embarrassing effect on this Parliament of allowing more Democrats to enter it. But I am sure-and I mean this sincerely-that this was not anywhere in Senator Macklin's thoughts when he issued his dissenting report. I thank everyone for their contributions. Obviously, this matter now goes to government. In most cases there is not a case for haste to act on any of these matters. It needs to be discussed by those who have an interest in it in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. When legislation is put before the Senate, we will lock horns again on the issue. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Senator Zakharov: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(6.25) —I managed to speak for three minutes last week and it looks as though I will get the same amount of time today. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator, you will have a full 10 minutes tonight. Senator ZAKHAROV —Good. I will try not to take up the entire time because I know that others wish to speak. When the debate was adjourned last week I was explaining that my tabling speech had already been incorporated in Hansard in the last week of the previous session. Today I will not be attempting an overview of the Committee's report, but want to concentrate on a few aspects which might not otherwise get attention. First, I would like to thank the Committee staff, particularly those who worked on the final report, Peter Roberts, Judy Ryan and Jane Fallick. The report was unanimous and this result was achieved only after a great deal of discussion and redrafting, which meant a lot of extra work for those staff members. I also thank those members of the Committee who participated in that final process, for their willingness to discuss and to listen was in the best tradition of Senate committees. I also thank past members of the Committee and particularly two past chairmen, Senator Robertson and Senator Primmer. I stress that this was a unanimous report, a report which does not put an ambit claim in any direction or area, but seeks to ensure that Australia's interests and the interests of the world community are served, while preserving a unique environment. At the same time the Committee recognised the realities of the Antarctic Treaty and its limitations-indeed, the limitations inherent in the implementation and enforcement of any agreement in such a remote area. The inquiry was prolonged because we reached a point in 1984 when we believed that at least some members of the Committee should have direct knowledge of conditions at Antarctic stations, to verify what we had been told by witnesses and to try to sort out some of the conflicting evidence. Accordingly, Senator Crichton-Browne and I, together with the Committee secretary, visited Casey station in the Australian Antarctic Territory in the summer of 1984-85. We travelled on the Icebird then on its maiden voyage under charter to the Australian Government, spending one week at Casey and two weeks at sea. Thus we were able to get some insight into conditions and work at Antarctic stations through observations, numerous discussions with expeditioners and other division staff at the station and during the voyage. I believe we were the first Australian parliamentarians to spend that length of time at an Antarctic station and to take some active part in its work, such as unloading supplies and collecting rubbish for return to Australia. The charter of the Icebird, now extended for a further five years, has made significant differences to the pace and volume of work possible in the Australian Antarctic Territory, even given the appalling weather conditions of this summer. That charter has expanded available space for passengers and cargo, thus spending the rebuilding program; it has lengthened the time of access to the Territory through its ice navigation capacity; and has enabled the backloading of rubbish accumulated at our stations since the beginning of our involvement in Antarctica. Speaking of rubbish, the Committee has noted with approval the plans for future disposal in ways which will not affect the environment, including the return to Australia of non-disposable wastes, such as fuel drums. But recent reports in newspapers about the prevalence of rubbish at Casey make me wonder whether a special effort was made for us last summer. The reports certainly require follow-up. I have had an interest in Antarctica since school days and have read widely on Antarctic expeditions and research. Even so, I found that my perceptions of the Antarctic continent and its surrounding ocean were a very pale image of reality. I am very pleased that Australians, thanks mainly to television programs, are now beginning to understand more about our Australian Antarctic Territory and appreciate its value in environmental terms. For example, few Australians are aware that Australia's claim covers over 40 per cent of the Antarctic continent, equivalent in area to 78 per cent of Australia. Antarctica is the world's driest continent. The precipitation rate in the Casey area is about two inches per annum. Thus the snow melts in summer to reveal dust underneath. The vegetation is confined to mosses and lichens; the wild life on shore to seals and birds. The result is a very fragile environment indeed which means that environmental damage even if not irreversible takes years to regenerate. Yet it is only recently that the same sort of environmental safeguards have been instituted there as are enforced in most states of Australia, such as environmental management plans at the stations. I draw attention to recommendations 22 and 23 of the report which call for the incorporation of further environmental control measures in the Antarctic treaty system. In recommendation 15 we seek the protection of the Antarctic environment, at the same level as is afforded to its flora and fauna. It is no good protecting flora and fauna if they have no habitat. As a psychologist as well as a senator, I draw attention to recommendation 26, which reads: the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee should as soon as possible determine priority areas for Australia's Antarctic science program including the need for research in the social sciences. Similarly, I draw attention to recommendation 28 which states: an external agency review the adequacy of the Antarctic Division's expeditioner selection and training procedures. Selection procedures, I believe, need to be oriented to seeking those who are able to adapt to life in Antarctica rather than the emphasis given in the past to technical competence alone. People in Antarctica work and live under conditions of great physical stress, particularly in winter, and that has been investigated by medical science; but they also work in a very small community almost totally isolated from the rest of the world and in constant, inescapable contact with others whom they did not choose. Until the rebuilding program is finished, the people at Casey will continue to sleep in small areas separated only by curtains, the only alternative areas in winter being work rooms and a small recreational area. These pressures had, on some, obvious psychological and behavioural effects which make life difficult for that individual and for his or her companions and also lessens efficiency. On the question of training I will quote briefly from our report. It states: From the observations of the Committee members who travelled to Casey on the Icebird during the 1984-85 summer, it was obvious that in a number of important areas training is inadequate. These areas are: - small boat and cargo handling (including Army LARCs) there have been reports again this summer of that deficiency- - adherence to safety procedures - environmental protection measures. I repeat that these inadequacies were directly observed. The other recommendation to which I want to draw attention is the one concerning icebergs as a freshwater source. On the surface this may seem fanciful, but there has been a lot of international research on the feasibility of harvesting icebergs with no damage to the environment. I believe it may be the future answer to the freshwater needs of a city such as Adelaide. Obviously I have commented on only a few of the 28 recommendations in this report. I have not addressed in the brief time available the more complex questions, for example, of Australia's sovereignty. I hope honourable senators and all Australians interested in the future of Antarctica will read the full report. I look forward to an early response from the Government. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(6.34) —I would like to congratulate the Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources on its report. It shows an awareness of the Antarctic which I hope will be shared by the Government. Recommendation 2 states: the Australian Government continue to support the Antarctic treaty. It also recommends that Australia encourage the adaptation of the Antarctic Treaty system to meet changing circumstances, such as the increasing emphasis on environmental protection and the need for greater participation in Antarctic decision-making processes, without prejudice to Australia's sovereignty claim. At the moment the Antarctic is seen in two lights-some see it as the last great wilderness on earth and some see it as the last great open pit mine. In fact, I lean to the former view-it is the last great wilderness. In the late twentieth century we should realise that we have an obligation to preserve this wilderness. We have reduced the others to mere scraps, mere remnants of what they once were and the Antarctic is our chance to show that we, as human beings, have the recognition, the education and the foresight to preserve an area which is still relatively unaffected. I say `relatively unaffected' because Australia is rapidly polluting the Antarctic environment. I bring to the Senate's attention an article which appeared in the Hobart Mercury of 12 February 1986. I normally do not give much credence to what appears in the Mercury, or the Mockery as we call it in Hobart, but this does appear to have an imprint of truth. I will bring it to the Senate's attention. The article deals with the mess which surrounds our Antarctic bases. The headline reads `Antarctic bases a mess: scientist'. The article states: A leading British Antarctic scientist has called on Australia to carry out a massive clean-up of Casey and Wilkes stations, in Antarctica, after witnessing a string of examples of `appalling' environmental neglect there during the summer. In a stinging attack, Dr Ron Lewis-Smith cites the neglect as evidence that Australia is not abiding by the Antarctic Treaty and is more concerned with securing its territorial claims with `grandiose' station developments than with scientific research. He backs this up with his own observations. The article continues: He notes that Australia is doing little science at Casey (only one scientist will spend the 1986 winter there) and no program has been considered which would justify the major rebuilding program-and its attendant environmental desecration-going on there. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated in the sessional order for consideration of committee reports has now expired. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Tate, I present the second report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning Aboriginal Land Rights Northern Territory Amendment Bill No. 2 1985, Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1985 and Nuclear Weapons Research and Testing Prohibition Bill 1985. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2 dated 19 February 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.48) —Before this debate was interrupted I had identified the two basic themes which seemed to have run through the opposition to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill at least so far as the contributions in this chamber are concerned. The first theme was that the Bill is unnecessary and, secondly, that it is undesirable, indeed undesirable in some people's minds to the point of being dangerous. As to the first point, the alleged lack of necessity in this legislation, I had begun by dealing with the argument that the common law was the great protector of individual rights and was, indeed, a sufficient protector of rights beyond which we needed no support of the kind embodied in this Bill. I called in aid an admirable contribution to the debate from Senator Puplick in which he demonstrated comprehensively and precisely just how that argument could not be sustained. The reality of the matter is that there are a number of rights and freedoms matters where there is a vacuum in the law and which the common law has at the moment absolutely nothing to say. The reality also is that there are a number of other areas where reality also is that there are a number of other areas where the legislatures have filled the vacuums, but in an unacceptable way, again leaving in a different fashion the courts with nothing to say-nothing to say because there is no hook on which they, the judges, or the litigants before them, can hand an argument advanced for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. The reality is that rights and freedoms cannot be left to be secured by default; they do require active care and attention by legislatures around the country. They require active care and attention both in the form of individual measures in specific areas such as race and sex discrimination legislation; property protection legislation; criminal investigation; law protection legislation and all the other piecemeal areas with which we have become familiar. They also need protection by the kinds of overarching, overriding, standard setting, guarantee-producing legislation of the kind involved in this Bill of Rights. It is necessary that our human rights performance in this country be better than it has been in the past, whatever the standards of comparison that might properly be made between us and many other countries in the world with worse human rights records. We have done well in the past but we can do a lot better. The judges and courts could do with the extra reinforcement and weaponry in the interests of rights and liberties which this Bill will give them. Let me turn to the group of arguments which says that this Bill of Rights is positively undesirable and dangerous. So many statements which have been made here and outside the Parliament have been so wildly and grotesquely astray that they have been difficult to take seriously. Let me at least try to deal quickly with some of the more extravagant claims that have been made. A lot of more detailed points, I guess, can be made during the Committee stage of this debate, which I do not think will be short. Firstly, we have had the constantly reiterated and dogmatically asserted argument that this is a Bill which takes away rights, that fewer rights will be enjoyed in the community than before the Bill of Rights was ever dreamed of. The basic argument which seems to prevail when people run this line is that a number of rights around the place which are recognised as important or in some cases fundamental are not specifically addressed in this Bill. The right to own property and not to have it acquired unjustly or compulsorily is often repeated as being in this category. As I said earlier in this speech, and no doubt will be saying again a dozen times before this debate is out, this Bill of Rights contains a very central and important Article which protects absolutely, unequivocally and clearly those rights which may exist but which are not set out in the list in this Bill. I am referring to Article 2 of the Bill of Rights, which makes it absolutely clear that any right which is not set out in the Bill of Rights, but which may otherwise exist, is not to be regarded as diminished in any way by not appearing in this otherwise fairly comprehensive list. A second claim that is made about the alleged dangers of the Bill goes to the suggestion that it gives protection to certain alleged rights around the place, or claims of right, which, if protected, would undermine the fabric of society. Thus, it is suggested that the Bill would operate to legalise abortion, to encourage and legalise homosexual adoption, to authorise the confiscation of private property, and half a dozen extravagant claims of this kind. I can assert absolutely, without fear of rational contradiction, that claims of this kind are absolutely false and without foundation. I give just one example of a claim which has been made and which featured as recently as Senator Lewis's contribution to this debate late this afternoon; that is, the extravagant claim that this Bill, at least in its original form, would have operated so as to legalise homosexual marriage. How on earth could anyone read into any of the provisions of this Bill that it could legalise homosexual marriage? A lot of people have chosen to read that in because of the language of the first draft of this Bill of Rights, which simply said: All persons have the right to marry. Every man and woman of marriageable age shall have the right to marry. So we had the lunatic argument that `all persons' meant, construed literally, that men could marry men and women could marry women. All I say in relation to that is that I do not think it is seriously advanced by any of the people around this place that the Pope is in favour of homosexual marriage. Yet we have a document, the Charter of the Rights of the Family, presented a little while ago by the Holy See, in which we find in Article 1, as the pre-eminent right of the family, the proposition, not qualified in any way by reference to `opposite sex' or language of this kind, which states: All persons have the right . . . to marry . . . every man and every woman, having reached marriage age . . . has the right to marry . . . That is the kind of distortion we get. Nobody would remotely think that language of that kind could be construed as an invitation to, encouragement of or justification for homosexual marriage, yet such is the perverse, twisted and distorted-sometimes deliberately so-mentality that people have taken to the Bill of Rights that they have asserted that language like this, which appears in a document from the Holy See, is capable of that construction when it appears in the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. It is a nonsensical chain of argument, one which we have heard ad nauseum and about which we have been driven to distraction. Then we have the alleged dangers involved in leaving the interpretation of rights to unelected judges, as distinct from distinguished parliamentarians and self-restrained legislators of the kind who have acted in civil liberties matters in the past. There are several answers to that claim. This is a theme which again can be picked up in more detail at the Committee stage. The first is that it underestimates dramatically the extent to which judges are already involved in determining sensitive issues in their administration of the common law; in particular, in a system such as ours with a written Constitution, in adjudicating on disputes that arise under that Constitution. Judges have a sensitive and delicate task already involving the exercise of judgment, which they exercise very well, and it is nonsense to suggest that they will be exercising some fundamentally new role in any potentially dangerous way as a result of this legislation being passed. I quote from one of the most distinguished law lords in British judicial history, Lord Scarman, who, in a lecture in 1980, said: We can, therefore, dismiss as completely unsound such objections as those which, frequently heard in the United Kingdom, are variations on the theme that judges must not be brought into the political arena. They are there already-as umpires, not gladiators or competitors. They have always been there: and there they will remain. There is nothing inappropriate in requiring judges to decide justiciable issues arising in a political struggle: and no reason for judges not to be trusted to act judicially and according to law, though the case raises political as well as legal questions. There is a comprehensive and very effective rebuttal of that particular line of argument. One can expect Australian judges to find the interpretation of the Bill of Rights an unfamiliar task, but we can reasonably expect them to cope very well with that task, just as their brethren in Canada have. I had the pleasure of talking about just this issue with the Canadian Chief Justice, Sir Brian Dickson, very recently. He made just that point; that a Bill of Rights, although initially unfamiliar, had become part of the judicial landscape and the courts are responding to it constructively and effectively. Finally, the answer to the concern about the role of an unelected judiciary is that under this kind of legislation, and designedly so, Parliament has the last word. If the judgment of the courts goes astray, in the opinion of this Parliament, we will retain the capacity to legislate an appropriate amendment accordingly. Among this litany of complaints about the dangers associated with the Bill of Rights, a number of suggestions are made about the dangerous powers being vested in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is extraordinary that so much should be made of this and so little regard should be had to the character of this institution that is being created, or very largely recreated out of the existing Human Rights Commission, because it is an institution which exercises investigative, conciliatory and reporting functions in exactly the same way as scores of other similar institutions now enshrined in statute law at both Commonwealth and State levels with powers that are not in any significant way different from the powers exercised by dozens of other similar institutions. The Government is prepared and willing to listen carefully to arguments that may be made in the Committee stage on this question. It may be that different views can reasonably be held on the scale of penalties or the need for self-incrimination provisions of the kind that appear in some 90 other statutes. The argument may be made, which we will listen to, about the need for compulsory conferences and so on, but I simply do not accept the validity of the root and branch attack that has been made. I particularly do not accept it when I have regard, as I hope other honourable senators will, to the very clear precedent which exists in the Human Rights Commission, which now exists as a result of legislation enacted by the Fraser Government. The element of hypocrisy and humbug in the attack on the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission model, when one compares what is involved in the proposal here with what exists at the moment, is really quite breathtaking. Let me finish by saying this: None of the criticism that has been made of the Bill has in any way destroyed its credibility as the most far-reaching and far-sighted attempt in our history to secure the protection of fundamental rights and liberties. As such, this Bill deserves the support of every fair-minded Australian. I think it would be a tragedy if the vagaries of party politics and the feeling in some quarters, which I understand, that the Bill does not go far enough in its application should result in this Bill being relegated to the scrapheap of history where so many other proposals to increase and improve the condition of human rights and liberties in Australia have ended before it. I commend this Bill to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The question is: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.51) —Pursuant to standing order 152, I move: That this question be not now put. I do not want to delay for long the putting of the question. I have moved this motion in the hope that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, will be given an opportunity to deal with one very important issue amongst the many issues that I raised when I spoke during the second reading debate on Friday of last week. I do not wish to go into the other questions, which I believe are very important and which the Minister has not dealt with in his response. I admit that the Minister had only half an hour in which to respond. However, I believe the Minister should, for the benefit of his own back bench colleagues, give a response to the very important question I asked about whether the Bill of Rights is likely to operate to strike down some 379 union preference clauses. I pointed out that Article 11 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill provides for the right to join a trade union and therefore opens the way for a direct or indirect push or an equivalent right not to join a union. I also pointed out that both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats will seek to amend the Bill by inserting a right not to join a trade union. We know the numbers situation in this place. We know that at the end of the day there will be some provision in this Bill which will undermine and be used to attack preference clauses in 379 awards. I raise this point because the right to join a trade union is already enshrined in section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is just not necessary to have Article 11 in the Bill of Rights because it is already enshrined in section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Finally, I just want to make the point-and probably the Minister can answer me by speaking to this motion-that it is important for the Minister and his back bench colleagues to understand that what the Government is doing in this legislation is paving the way for the striking down of 379 union preference awards and placing the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on a collision course with the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which has painstakingly developed and adjudicated on those preference clauses over many years. I have moved the motion to give the Minister the opportunity to address that point and to give his back bench colleagues the opportunity to consider it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.55) —The Opposition will not support Senator Harradine's motion, which, as far as I can see, was moved simply as a device to enable Senator Gareth Evans to answer Senator Harradine's points at length. Some 20 or 30 senators have spoken on this legislation. Senator Harradine's points may have been of great significance and importance to him and the people that he represents but they are not necessarily deserving of any greater weight or attention than any of the other points raised by the other honourable senators. Therefore, it would be quite inappropriate for the Standing Orders to be misused in the way in which Senator Harradine is seeking to use them. No doubt Senator Evans would be gratified if he were allowed to speak again on the legislation. If he is allowed to do that he ought to speak on the other points which were raised by other honourable senators and which he has not answered. The point raised by Senator Harradine about the right of freedom of association will be debated very vigorously in the course of the Committee stage debate. The Opposition has no objection whatever to the provision that there should be a freedom of association. However, the point at issue is whether there should be a right not to join a union. The Opposition will certainly be strongly advocating such a provision, as will the Australian Democrats, who have foreshadowed amendments. No doubt the issue about which Senator Harradine is so concerned will be the subject of very extensive debate during the Committee stage. There is absolutely no reason why the extensive second reading debate that we have had should be prolonged any further. The point raised by Senator Harradine can be dealt with at the Committee stage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.56) —If only in order to forestall Senator Harradine exercising his right of reply, I might indicate that, firstly, I admire his ingenuity and, secondly, I agree with Senator Durack that it is ingenuity better directed towards a debate at the Committee stage. However, let me respond in three points to the substantive point that Senator Harradine has made. Firstly, we in the Labor movement believe that it is very important, as no doubt the honourable senator does himself, that this Bill enshrine the principle of the right to join trade unions and we would not want to see it come out, quite apart from the constitutional implications of doing so in terms of not reflecting the terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The second point is that it is a corollary, we would argue and acknowledge, of the right to join a trade union that there be a right not to join a trade union recognised in circumstances where someone has a genuine conscientious objection to doing so. The right of conscientious objection in this respect is embodied in the present law and we do not think, as a result, that there is any risk in acknowledging a right not to join a trade union to that extent. The third and final point that I would make is that I do not accept that it is a corollary of the right either to join or not to join a trade union that preference clauses which do not themselves amount to compulsion to join-they are not cast in those terms-would be in any way at risk as a result of the application of the law as expressed in this legislation. I am very happy to expand on those points but I think a more appropriate time to do so is the Committee stage. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.58) —in reply-I want to take up 30 seconds to answer the question raised by Senator Durack. I think he would agree that in my speech I made a number of points which related to what effectively will be done by this Bill. If the individualism and privatisation inherent in this Bill are taken to excess it will have the potential to undermine the values on which our society is founded and which provide the cohesive force of the law. I said that I was going to vote against the Bill and I raised a number of matters. However, I thought it was important for a particular matter to be aired at this time before a vote on the second reading motion was taken. I do not necessarily agree with what Senator Durack has said. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is: That the question be not now put. Question resolved in the negative. Question put: That the Bills be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Siddons, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The PRESIDENT —Order! Under Sessional Order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(7.07) —Now that the noise has died down I point out to the Senate that I am the first of three to speak in the adjournment debate and the longer honourable senators prolong the agony the longer it is going to be. I draw to the attention of the Senate and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, who is on duty, a comment that was made in the House of Representatives on 28 November 1985 in which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had this to say: The Labor Government takes the view that women are entitled to have a say on all subjects, in all decision-making forums of Government, and not just decisions on so-called `womens issues'. He went on to say: We are determined to improve our already substantial record in the numbers of women appointed to government boards and authorities . . . One would have thought that that was a reasonably definite statement from the man who, in fact, heads this Government with regard to his attitude and the Australian Labor Party's attitude to the role women should play in the community and in particular the role they should play in and on bodies and authorities which help governments formulate policies and put them into effect, as well as those sorts of organisations that make recommendations to governments, and in doing so one would hope influence their thinking. Today we had a piece of legislation brought down which aims also to improve the role of women in the community, to encourage them, and to encourage employers in the community to regard merit as the primary criterion for employment and not somebody's marital status, age, or sex. This requires, of course, some encouragement for people to change long-held attitudes. This is to be commended, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation contains no enforcement provisions and no sanctions against any of the organisations that are to be covered by the legislation if they choose not to comply. Having made those statements and drawn the attention of honourable senators and in particular Ministers, to those alleged initiatives of the Labor Party, I turn to the terms of reference of the new Constitutional Commission that was brought forward by the Prime Minister on 31 January this year. They state: To inquire into and report on or before 30 June 1988, on the revision of the Australian Constitution to: (a) adequately reflect Australia's status as an independent nation and a Federal Parliamentary democracy; (b) provide the most suitable framework for the economic, social and political development of Australia as a federation; (c) recognise an appropriate division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth, the States, self-governing Territories and local government; and (d) ensure that democratic rights are guaranteed. The important one of those for the purposes of my comments tonight is the second term of reference; namely, the one in which the people on the Commission are to inquire into a revision of the Australian Constitution in order to provide the most suitable framework for the economic, social and political development of Australia as a Federation. In his speech bringing down the details of the Commission, the Prime Minister said: The wide range of community interests and talent that is represented in the Commission and its advisory committees should ensure that proposals are examined from a variety of perspectives that are of concern to Australians. He continued: In this way the efforts of this group of active and articulate Australians may serve to demystify the constitutional processes and encourage thoughtful consideration by ordinary Australians of the shape of our Constitution. I do not know whether by that he meant that one member of the Commission, namely Peter Garrett, was going to set the Constitution to music or turn some of the clauses into song form. Anyway, the aim is to demystify the constitutional processes and encourage thoughtful consideration by ordinary Australians of the shape of our Constitution. Nobody in this chamber, I would have thought, would have questioned that, particularly given the fact that in the recent debate on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Australian Bill of Rights Bill there has been a clear indication that very few people indeed know what is in our Constitution and how the various levels of constitutional processes work. Mr Hawke went on to say: The Government has consciously sought to set up the Commission and advisory committees on a non-partisan basis and is hopeful that this will contribute to the fostering of an agreed view among those in Australian politics who give leadership on such matters to the Australian people. Finally, he said: We owe it to ourselves and to future Australians to do our very best to ensure that our constitutional framework is effective and well adapted to modern needs and circumstances. He then announced the membership of the Commission and of its advisory committees. It is that list of people, eminent though they may be, that throws up the inherent contradiction between what the Australian Labor Party in government, and its Prime Minister in particular, says and what it does in effect, because this Constitutional Commission-the Commission which has as one of its main terms of reference to provide the most suitable framework for the economic, social and political development of Australia as a Federation-has two women on it. I do not have any doubt at all that a large number of the people who are on the Constitutional Commission are eminent jurists and eminent people in other fields. Who could indeed quibble at the presence of Sir Zelman Cowen on that advisory committee and who could argue with the presence of a number of the other people on the Commission, including the Chairman, Sir Maurice Byers, Q.C? I was amused, however, to note that in the list that was issued officially of people on the committees one of the only two women on the Constitutional Commission as a whole is Philippa Smith who appears on this list as Phillip Smith, which gives some indication of the fact that governments are all too unused to having women on committees and cannot get their names right when they do. This has prompted considerable concern among groups in the community which believe that the Constitution certainly does need updating, that perhaps one of the best ways of doing it is to take it outside of the political arena where the old constitutional conventions belonged, and to give it to eminent people. One of the organisations that keeps a weather-eye on governments, bureaucracies and organisations with regard to protecting the interests of women-that is, the Women's Electoral Lobby-said: How does the Government justify appointing only two women to the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees when its stated policy as per the National Agenda for Women is to provide fair representation for women on government boards and authorities? While not in any way questioning the capacity of most-I am by no means enthusiastic about all-of the members of the Commission, I wonder whether the Government can tell us whether it considered in any way at all some of the extremely eminent and capable women who are both jurists and employed in other areas in the community whose talents, experience and expertise would no doubt have contributed greatly to the Commission and the advisory committees. I refer to people such as Justice Elizabeth Evatt; Mary Gaudron; Wendy McCarthy; Mary Owen, now that she has time on her hands; Professor Bettina Cass; Kath Walker-if one is looking to combining two spheres of interest perhaps and getting value for money in doing so-Professor Dame Leonie Kramer, whose expertise and capabilities are well known around the country; Susan Armstrong, who I have known for many years and is currently Sub-Dean of the New South Wales Law Faculty; Dr Jocelyn Scutt, who is well known for her research work and is currently Deputy Chair of the Victorian Law Reform Commission; Regina Greycar; and Pat O'Shane. Perhaps-although not now that she is so free of the New South Wales Parliament, as I understand that she is heading overseas-the Government could have considered somebody of the calibre of Rosemary Foot. Perhaps the Government could have considered women such as Eve Mahlab, a lawyer and businesswoman who is outspoken, capable and aware of what is going on and what is needed in the community; Anne Deveson; Carol Baker; Pam O'Neil; indeed, Dame Roma Mitchell; Marcia Neave, who is currently responsible for a number of inquiries into various things to do with women; and Quentin Bryce from Queensland, a lawyer, who was involved with the National Women's Advisory Council and is extremely competent, articulate and intelligent. The list goes on. Yet apparently either the Government did not consider any of these women or for some reason that we do not know about approached all of them and, for all I know many others, and was turned down. I think that it is incumbent on the Government, in view of the comments that it has made on the national agenda for women and its assertions about the need for affirmative action, sex discrimination legislation and so on, to give us some answers to a few questions. I am not the only one who requires this information. Nor is it just an issue for groups such as the Women's Electoral Lobby to get concerned about. Senator Peter Baume, to his very great credit, put out some Press releases some days ago again condemning the Government along the same lines that I have done this evening. I think that the Government needs to answer the sorts of questions that Senator Baume, the Women's Electoral Lobby and other groups in the community have raised with regard to the membership of the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees. We could start by asking the Minister why only two women were appointed to the 39-member Commission and its advisory committees. We could go on to ask whether the appointment of only two women reflects the Government's opinion that none of the names of the women I have mentioned, or any others for example, are suitable for appointment. We could ask the Minister whether he could explain how the Government reconciles this gross under-representation of women on the Constitutional Commission with its stated commitment to the fair representation of women in all decision-making forms of government in the National Agenda for Women. We could finish by asking the Minister to consider the fact that women comprise more than 50 per cent of the population of this country and in doing so to consider giving an assurance that the Government will review the composition of the Constitutional Commission to ensure equal representation for women. It will not be sufficient for him to say `Ah, but the people on the Commission will consider the views, needs and concerns of women'. Too often in history it has been shown that often with the best will in the world men are not in a position to understand the concerns of women-either those in the home or those in the work force. Indeed, they do not consider women who live alone or women who have children whom they have to support. These are women who have needs which must be met and which, perhaps, the men have not experienced. There is not necessarily malice involved, but people like Senator Walters, Senator Vanstone and me are in this chamber only because women realised that women had a role to play in this place. They agitated at the turn of the century and before in many countries throughout the world to give us the right not only to vote but also to be elected to this Parliament and other parliaments in order to put the views of women. There is no requirement that we should all agree on everything. Nor should there be. Similarly there should not be a requirement that all men should agree on everything. While Senator Walters and I agree on some things, we disagree violently on others; and I am sure that applies to us all. Nevertheless, we have a perspective and a set of experiences which differ from those of our male colleagues, however much in sympathy with us they may be. Therefore, I put the proposition seriously this evening that the Prime Minister and the Government should consider how disparate are their comments about the need to take account of the views and concerns of women and their actions in establishing bodies like the new Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(7.23) —I begin by congratulating Senator Haines on her comments. I am entirely in agreement with them, as are many of my colleagues. Because she has raised these matters, she has saved other people raising them. We should all pursue Senator Ryan and the Government for an answer to the questions that Senator Haines so properly raised this evening. Regrettably I have a less palatable matter to raise. It centres on an article that appeared in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. The article carried the headline `Equality bill sparks a war cry'. It was written by one Mary-Louise O'Callahan. The first comment I wish to make about this article and the journalist concerned is how deeply I regret that she has, in my view, done an enormous disservice to the cause of equal opportunity for women in this country. She has done that in a number of ways. First, she has done it by printing what I regard to be an irresponsible article that represents one particular point of view. I do not think it is a balanced article at all and in that sense I say it is biased and irresponsible. Secondly, I think that she has done the cause of equal opportunity for women in Australia a disservice because as a journalist she has behaved in an unprofessional manner. While it may be acceptable for male journalists to behave in an unprofessional manner, and that may be regretted by some, it is deeply regrettable by women when some female journalist behaves in that way. I believe that she has let her profession down in the level of application that she put into acquiring the information for this article. She has also let her profession down in lacking common courtesy, and that will become clear as I continue. I shall make a number of more detailed points in relation to Ms O'Callahan's conduct of this matter. I am speaking tonight as the convenor of the Opposition's back bench sub-committee on women's affairs. Ms O'Callahan sought an appointment with me yesterday morning at 8.30. She failed to attend that appointment. She left a message that she would get back to me but she failed to do so. I deeply regret that the printed article gave approximately three-quarters of its space to the views of two people who are not even on the women's affairs sub-committee and who, as I understand it, could not possibly at the time of interview have had the opportunity to read the Government's proposed legislation which has now been introduced. The article neglected to give expression to the Opposition shadow Minister for the Status of Women, Senator Peter Baume, and it equally neglected to give the views of the Opposition's front bench spokesman on this proposed legislation in the House of Representatives, Mr David Connolly. In my opinion, the article does not fairly represent the coalition's policy position in this matter, nor do I believe that it reflects the true state of mind within the Opposition with respect to women's affairs. Ms O'Callahan appears to have a predilection for the male point of view as mostly males were quoted in the article. I point out to the Senate that she did not seek an interview or opinions from the male members of the women's affairs sub-committee, namely, Mr Ian Wilson, Mr Warwick Smith, Mr Alasdair Webster or Mr Steele Hall. These people are actively participating members of the women's affairs sub-committee and are well informed on these matters. It is equally regrettable that the Sydney Morning Herald chose to print this article on the day that the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill was to be introduced into the House of Representatives. By carrying that headline-`Equality bill sparks a war cry'-on this particular day there is a clear implication that the various comments in the article are about that specific piece of legislation. Senator Knowles, one of the senators quoted in the article, informs me that the first and frequently repeated statement that she made to the journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald was that she had not seen the proposed Bill. I have noticed no mention of Senator Knowles's statement featured in that article. I trust that the Senate will understand my regret at that article having been printed as it has. I think it fuels opposition to equal opportunities for women and in that sense the journalist has done her own sex a disservice. It will be to her undying and eternal shame that she has done nothing to assist the advancement of her sex or the reputation of her profession. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.28) —Now that the election is over in my State, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, is reneging on an agreement undertaken between him and the Premier of my State, Mr Robin Gray, on the woodchipping industry. That is of great concern to me. Honourable senators will remember the dreadful fuss last November when the radical conservatives and the Australian Democrats in this Senate attempted to stop woodchipping throughout the whole of Tasmania. Honourable senators will remember the matter of public importance that was raised in this place and the accusations that were flying back and forth. They will also remember that eventual agreement between Mr Kerin and the Premier was reached; and I believe that that agreement was amicable. That agreement covered the following things: The duration of the licences-and that was for 15 years-and the quantities of timber involved; the environmental procedures to be adopted on forest operations from which pulp wood for woodchip exports was to be obtained, and I stress that that was for woodchip exports over which the Commonwealth Government has power; research work related to the forest management of these operations; the process for reporting progress of these operations to the Commonwealth; and procedures for dealing with operations in the areas listed on the register of the National Estate wherein the State would take into account the views of the Commonwealth. Those were all the matters raised by Mr Kerin. Mr Gray and Mr Kerin came to an agreement. That agreement was signed by Mr Gray on 9 January this year. It was forwarded to the Government for Mr Kerin's signature. While we in Tasmania were waiting patiently for that signature we were completely unsuspecting of the fact that the Minister would go back on his agreement. It is of great concern that we hear now that Mr Kerin is claiming that the Federal Government now requires control over timber taken for domestic use from those areas registered in the National Estate and mentioned in the agreement. I will explain first what is happening in our State in regard to woodchipping. We have just had an election in which Bob Brown and Dr Bates have been elected-one for Denison and the other for Franklin-purely on the conservation issue. I believe this matter has been handled in a most dishonest fashion. What we have mentioned, and very glibly mentioned, are the words `National Estate' and `World Heritage areas'. Nobody in Tasmania really understands the difference. The World Heritage areas are areas which already have been set aside by Tasmania as wilderness areas. There are national parks and there are wilderness areas. The World Heritage areas are areas in which the State does not conduct any woodchipping or forestry at all. The National Estate areas can be nominated by anyone. Any honourable senator opposite could nominate such an area, just as I could. The World Heritage Commission can put that area on the register. Mr Brown talks glibly about the National Estate areas. He talks about them as though they are World Heritage areas. The people get confused and really believe that we are conducting forestry operations in the World Heritage areas, which we are not doing at all. We are conducting, as we always have conducted, forestry operations in National Estate areas. Indeed, forestry was operating in these areas long before they were National Estate areas. They were declared National Estate areas after they had already been granted to many of our companies to use in most responsible and appropriate manner for forestry operations in our State. Part of those operations involved woodchipping. As we all know, the Federal Government has complete control over forestry exports. However, it does not have control over the domestic use of the timber taken from those areas. The agreement signed by Mr Gray and spoken of by Mr Kerin and, indeed, the report put out by the Commonwealth made it very clear that the Commonwealth had powers only over the export side of the industry-that is, the woodchip side because that is the area of export. I would like to quote from the statement which the Premier made at a media conference. He said: I met with Mr Kerin in Canberra on 20 November 1985 and indicated that the State would be prepared to agree to certain matters. On 9 January 1986 I signed an agreement covering these matters and forwarded it to Mr Kerin for his signature. These were the matters which I spoke of and listed a little earlier. Mr Gray continued: These were all matters which Mr Kerin raised with me on 20 November. In fact at that meeting he made it quite clear that neither he nor the Commonwealth wished to become involved in domestic operations. He stated that he had no power to do so. It is clear from the document which the Commonwealth brought out on the woodchip licence decision entitled `A balance of values', that the intention was simply to cover operations from which pulpwood for export would be taken and I quote: `An important part of the agreement will be a Commonwealth-State consultation process to address, through forward planning protection of heritage values of areas listed on the register of the National Estate- the National Estate, not the World Heritage area- which may be subject to export logging operations.' That is logging not for domestic use but for export. Mr Gray continued: Subsequent to the Commonwealth's woodchip export licence decision on 16 December 1985 Mr Kerin has sought to extend the matters dealt with in the agreement to cover domestic operations. Commonwealth involvement in this additional area of producing wood for purely domestic requirements is outside Federal constitutional powers, and is outside the matters discussed at officer level and on which general agreement was arrived at before 16 December. The fact that these matters were proceeding satisfactorily is indicated in Mr Kerin's telex to me of 18 December. By refusing to finalise the agreement, which I forwarded to him signed by me and awaiting his signature, on 9 January, Mr Kerin has placed in jeopardy the important negotiations between the companies and their Japanese customers. This is referring to the fact that Mr Kerin will not sign the agreement on the woodchips. Mr Gray is saying that it is placing in jeopardy the important negotiations between those companies and their Japanese customers. Mr Gray continued: The signing of the agreement is important to trade relationships between the companies and their customers, and the fact that it is not signed has placed them in an embarrassing and disadvantaged position in negotiations. But the key point of principle is that the Federal Government is once again seeking to intrude in a domestic matter of State jurisdiction. We have acted very responsibly to establish procedures and consultative mechanisms so that Commonwealth views can be taken into account with respect to logging operations in National Estate areas for the production of pulpwood for export as woodchips. It is totally at odds with the Commonwealth's constitutional powers and all that has been understood and agreed between me and Mr Kerin and our officers, that the Commonwealth should now seek to interfere in domestic forestry operations in Tasmania. That is what it boils down to; who controls domestic forestry operations in Tasmania. We are resolved that the State Government and the Forestry Commission should control Tasmania's forests. It is now up to Mr Kerin to sign the memorandum which he has had since 9 January. We are all waiting on him . . . companies, Japanese customers and all the people whose jobs depend on a secure future for the industry. He should sign that agreement, in accord with his previously expressed views, not to intrude into domestic forestry operations. And he should sign it as soon as possible. That is what the Premier said. I could not agree with him more. If Mr Kerin has looked at the voting in Tasmania and feels that the Labor Party there lost the conservation vote to Dr Brown and Dr Bates and for that reason is now going back on his agreement, and if Mr Kerin thinks that that is the way to get the vote in Tasmania, he has got another think coming. It is a disgraceful way to operate. It will destroy his credibility. No one in Tasmania will ever be able to trust a Minister's word again. If the Minister does not stick to his original agreement, I believe the Labor Party in Tasmania will live to regret this ridiculous decision. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(7.40) —I rise to support the comments of my colleague Senator Walters. I am disturbed by the heading stating that a battle over constitutional rights is brewing in Tasmania because the Federal Government wants to have a say in the harvesting of timber. I believe that it is a State responsibility and each State should have control over the domestic use of its timber resources and timber harvesting. It is not the province of the Federal Government to intrude on State rights. We acknowledge that the Commonwealth has a responsibility in respect of exports. I want to take a few minutes to indicate to the Senate the interest of the people of Tasmania in forestry and conservation issues, because I think this is often not understood by people on the mainland. We Tasmanians have long been aware of the value of our fine hardwood forests as an industrial resource and, given the present economic climate, the importance of encouraging the development of our local industries. Regeneration and reafforestation are essential if forest-based industries are to continue in the future to represent a significant sector of the economy. I wish to point out a number of topical issues that are of concern to both the Government and interested people within our State. We are concerned that small saw-mills are going out of business simply because there are not enough logs to go around. We are aware that the royalty income covers the recurrent costs of managing the forests. We are concerned that the Forestry Commission never has been a commercially orientated and commercially managed organisation. We are also aware that over 40 per cent of our forests are not touched as such. The State Government is concerned and is examining the volume of timber used in woodchipping. It is concerned about the manner in which and the intensity with which it is taken. It is concerned about those areas in which the woodchip companies are allowed to operate. We now have a very highly capitalised woodchip industry which consumes most of the timber which is felled in the State. As I mentioned, we acknowledge that we have problems with an ailing saw-mill industry and we are trying to lift some of the job opportunities in forestry. A sizable number of people within the State have concerns about and interests in the environmental consequences of current forestry management. Things are being done by the State Government. Inquiries are being held. For example, the State Government does recognise the need for a balance to be established between the demands of environmental control and economic viability. The Legislative Council inquiry into forest management advocated a revamping, for example, of the concessions system and the exercise of tighter environmental controls by the State Government, but not by the Federal Government, because the State Government is adequately equipped to handle these issues. Another area of concern is the future and the fate of the Tasmanian rainforest stands. I must point out to the Senate that at present there is a moratorium on the logging of pure rainforests in Tasmania which will operate until 1988. The State Government recently announced that there will be an inter-departmental study to examine the question of conservation of rainforests. So the State Government-the Parliament-is taking steps to preserve the forests and to make sure that there is a proper balance between environmental concerns and the need to exploit them on the basis of a long term sustainable yield. Therefore, we will be looking to the immediate months ahead because important decisions must be made by the State and not by the Commonwealth. Decisions may be made by the Commonwealth only in relation to export industries. I am concerned about this subtle intrusion into the domestic use of timber. I am concerned about harvesting levels, conservation measures and the maintenance and expansion of employment opportunities within the industry in order that both the harvesting and the regeneration of forests will continue to accrue greater environmental and economic benefits for all Tasmanians. The new forest practices legislation that was passed last year will assure the community that excesses of irresponsible forest operators will be curbed. Beneficial management on that scale demands close co-operation between the State and Federal governments, but not dictatorial determinations by the Federal Government. It also requires co-operation with conservation groups, the forest-based industries and the public to ensure that harvesting of our forest resources is attuned to the economic, environmental and social needs for the future of our forests. Senator Lewis —Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the chamber. A quorum not being present and the bells having been rung- The PRESIDENT —Order! The bells having been rung for three minutes and there not being a quorum present, the Senate stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. The names of those present will be recorded by the Clerk. Senate adjourned at 7.49 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence and a Statement relating to a further extension of a specified period of time for presentation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Annual Report 1984-85 Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal No. 1 of 1986-Survey of environmental issues and usage of National Parks. Health Insurance Act-Determination under sub-section 19b (8) (a), dated 26 November 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 765) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: Has the Joint Intelligence Organisation, either on its own initiative or under ministerial directive, analysed the events surrounding the bombing of the `Rainbow Warrior' with a view to further lessening the risk of a similar outrage befalling Australian military installations or equipment. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The sort of analysis proposed by the honourable Senator for the purposes of protecting Australian military installations or equipment against sabotage would not be the responsibility of the Joint Intelligence Organisation which does not have a protective security function. Analysis of the kind proposed would be the responsibility of the Special Minister of State and of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, which is within the portfolio of the Attorney-General. (Question No. 776) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What research is currently being undertaken for the biological control and/or eradication of the European Wasp. (2) Have funds specifically been allocated to the project. (3) How many and which institution and/or agencies under the Minister for Science's jurisdiction are actively engaged in the matter. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Victorian Government has established a research program on biological control of the wasp, employing a parasitic wasp know to attack European wasps in Europe. Studies of this parasitic wasp have been in progress in New Zealand for several years, but difficulties have been encountered in mass-rearing the insect in sufficient numbers for field releases. Dr J. P. Spradbery of the CSIRO Division of Entomology is preparing a review of the history of the European wasp in Australia. Dr Spradbery, until recently in charge of the Division's screw-worm fly project in Papua New Guinea, is a wasp expert, and carried out extensive studies of the biology and distribution of the wasp in Tasmania in the mid-1970's. (2) No funds have been specifically allocated to European wasp research in CSIRO. Control of the wasp in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria is the responsibility of local government bodies. (3) None. (Question No. 785) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 9 December 1985: (1) What proportion of the Bureau of Meteorology's budget was allocated to Queensland in the years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. (2) What amount of this was spent on repairs and maintenance of weather forecasting equipment in each of the 5 years referred to above. (3) How much of the amount spent on repairs and maintenance was spent on equipment used in cyclone detection and tracking in the North, North-East and North-West in 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. (4) What is the location of the equipment used in cyclone detection and tracking which received repair and maintenance work during the above period of time. (5) What was the permanent full-time manpower of the Bureau in Australia and in Queensland in 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. (6) How many of the Bureau's staff were assigned on a full-time basis to duties associated with the Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres (TCWC's) in the Brisbane, Perth, and Darwin Regional Forecast Centres (RFC's) in the above period. (7) What is the total number, age and location of the automatic weather stations used in cyclone detection and tracking by the Bureau. (8) What is the total number, age and location of the weather watch radars used in cyclone detection and tracking. (9) Has a new radar recently been installed at Gove in the Northern Territory; if so, what is its function and capability in relation to the existing weather watch radar network. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The table below shows estimates of the proportion of the Bureau of Meteorology's annual budget that has been allocated to Queensland since 1980-81. These estimates do not include the cost component of centralised program management, research and development, computing and engineering support, administrative and scientific services that are provided to Queensland from the Bureau's Head Office. Also it does not include any part of the cost of the Bureau's National Meteorological Centre (Melbourne) and the Tropical Centre (Darwin) which provide analyses, prognostic (forecast) charts and other information for the Southern Hemisphere, the Australian region and the tropics. Cost accounting for these activities is done on a national basis only and hence a State dissection is not available. Budget year Total Bureau expenditure Expenditure estimated for Queensland Proportion of budget allocated to Queensland ($'000) ($'000) per cent1980-81... 45,218.1 6,726.9 14.8 1981-82... 52,970.4 7,918.2 14.9 1982-83... 63,.809.6 9,027.4 14.1 1983-84... 64,334.0 9,403.9 14.6 1984-85... 71,653.7 10,105.7 14.1 1985-86... 78,749.0 (est.) 10,387.9 (est.) 13.2 (est.) (2) Estimated expenditure on repairs and maintenance of weather forecasting equipment in Queensland is: 1980-81, not obtainable. 1981-82, $654,000. 1982-83, $736,000. 1983-84, $725,000. 1984-85, $838,000. 1985-86, not yet available. (3) The Bureau of Meteorology is not able to provide a break-up of data for the specific areas nominated. Most of the equipment used for cyclone detection and tracking is also used throughout the year for detecting and tracking other types of weather phenomena such as thunderstorms, large rain depressions, and winter disturbances that generate strong winds. (4) All items of equipment used in tropical cyclone detection and tracking received maintenance during the period and repairs were carried out as required. The locations of most of the major items of equipment used are given in the answers to Question 7 and 8. Other major items are the meteorological satellite receiving stations at Melbourne, Brisbane, Darwin and Perth. These received maintenance and repairs as necessary, as did simple items of equipment such as barometers and anemometers used at the many observing stations which provide reports to the Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres. (5) The number of permanent full time staff as at 31 December each year were: Total Bureau Queensland At 31.12.80... 1,678 232 At 31.12.81... 1,643 219 At 31.12.82... 1,703 216 At 31.12.83... 1,692 213 At 31.12.84... 1,732 217 At 31.12.85... 1,756 217 (6) One staff member in each of the three cyclone-affected Regions (Queensland, Northern Territory, Western Australia) is assigned full-time to cyclone warning system duties throughout the year. These officers perform a continuous coordination, liaison and technical support role in the planning, operation and review of the Bureau's cyclone warning system. The Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre (TCWC) itself is only activated when a cyclone occurs. When cyclones threaten the coast the TCWC is staffed around-the-clock by re-deployment of personnel engaged in lower priority activities and by the introduction of emergency overtime rosters. The non-cyclone work normally performed by these personnel is either deferred or temporarily abandoned. A higher standard of cyclone warning services could be provided if resources permitted the allocation of two meteorologists in each of the TCWCs on a full-time basis. These meteorologists could form the nucleus of operational teams during cyclones and could be engaged in development work (e.g. improvement of forecasting techniques, facilities, etc.) at other times. (7) There are 19 automatic weather stations used for cyclone detection and tracking. Their ages range from 19 years to one year. Their locations, with age in years in brackets, are shown below: Rowley Shoals (15), Adele Island (13), Scott Reef (15), Browse Island (16), Port Keats (16), Bathurst Island (14), Millingimbi (1), Cape Wessel (17), North East Island (14), Heron Island (5), Holmes Reef (13), Flinders Reef (15), Lucinda (5), Lihou Reef (15), Marion Reef (16), Creal Reef (13), Frederick Reef (17), Gannet Cay (13), Cato Island (19). (8) Fourteen weather watch radars are used in cyclone detection and tracking. The age of the radars ranges from 23 years to new (installed in 1985). Locations, with age in years in brackets, are shown below: Carnarvon (2), Learmonth (7), Dampier (New), Port Hedland (18), Broome (10), Darwin (17), Gove (New), Cairns (23), Townsville-Mt Stuart (14), Townsville-Airport (New), Mackay (14), Gladstone (13), Mt Kanighan (11), Brisbane (17). (9) A new radar was commissioned at Gove in late 1985. Its function is to provide to the Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre and Regional Forecasting Centre, Darwin, information concerning the location, movement and intensity of tropical cyclones, storms and rain bearing systems within the area of coverage of the radar (about 350 km radius). This information is used in the preparation of warnings and forecasts for the Gulf of Carpentaria/East Arnhem Land region particularly for the rapidly expanding and highly weather sensitive industries such as mining and fishing, and the shipping and aviation services which support them. The Gove radar partly fills the large gap which formerly existed in the Bureau's tropical coast radar network between Darwin and Cairns. The gap will be further reduced by the installation of the weather radar planned for Weipa in 1986-87. The installation of another radar to cover the southern part of the Gulf of Carpentaria is being considered for the period beyond 1987. (Question No. 902) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 February 1986: (1) What actions with respect to the Senate Chamber in the new Parliament House, if any, have been taken before or since the debates in the Senate, on 4 and 6 December 1985, to prepare or complete contracts for the interior finishes which were the subject of those debates. (2) Will the Minister for Territories have a reply provided to this question as soon as possible, and certainly before the next meeting of the Joint Committee on the new Parliament House, to be held on Friday, 21 February, 1986. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Joint Standing Committee on the new Parliament House endorsed the interior design approach for the major spaces and noted the proposed materials on 6 April 1984. A further detailed presentation on the interior design for the Senate chamber and other major spaces was made on 8 May 1985 and approved by the Committee. The major contract package relating to the interior finishes for the Senate Chamber in the new Parliament House is the Senate Chamber co-ordinated finishes package. Tenders for this work were invited on 24 August 1985 and closed on 8 October 1985. Evaluation and analysis of the various tenders submitted was then undertaken by the Authority's Construction Manager in the usual manner, and a recommendation regarding the successful tenderer was made to the Authority on 21 November. This was considered formally by the Authority at its meeting on 12 December 1985. The Authority approved in principle the letting of the contract to the nominated tenderer, subject to further savings being achieved so that the cost of the work would be contained within the cost plan allowance. As a result of this decision, discussions were undertaken by the Construction Manager with the nominated tenderer in an effort to achieve savings on the tendered price. The Construction Manager subsequently advised the Authority on 17 January, 1986 that the achievement of requested savings had not been possible. The nominated tenderer subsequently advised the Authority that the validity period for the tender applied until 13 February 1986. The Chief Executive of the Authority wrote to the nominated tenderer on 13 February 1986 advising that the Authority accepted the tender. The formal signing of contract documentation would not be required to take place for several weeks. It has been necessary for programming reasons to proceed with tender and contract developments following approval by the Joint Standing Committee of the interior design for the Senate Chamber. The expiration of the validity period would have resulted in the need for re-tendering which in addition to the programming implications, was likely to have resulted in significantly increased tender prices. The carpet for the Senate Chamber is part of a separate tender package of hand tufted carpets for the Chambers and part of the Executive area of the building. Tenders for these items closed on 19 November 1985 and evaluation and analysis is continuing. (2) Yes.