Thursday, 12 June 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Upon evidence from within Australia and overseas, the introduction of Plant Variety Rights legislation would not be in Australia's best interests because: 1. Plant genetic resources should remain a public resource; 2. Australia's public plant breeding programmes could be undermined; 3. Such legislation may lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of commercial varieties; 4. There is reason to fear that choices of seed and other plant propagation materials may be restricted due to the controls placed on their use; 5. Plant Varietal Rights legislation could lead to higher costs for the grower, the consumer, the plant-breeder and the tax-payer; 6. Plant Variety Rights will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australia's plant genetic resources; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament ensure that it recognises the widespread public opposition to PVR and promote alternative means of royalty collection for plant breeders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 46 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 the Australian Bill of Rights is a harmful, dangerous, divisive and unnecessary proposal, the provisions of which are dictatorial, harmful and against the true interest of the people of Australia. Your petitioners pray: That the Senate reject the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (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 the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employee's Association and Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Sex Discrimination Act, passed by Parliament in 1984, will automatically make unenforceable from 1st August, 1986 the weight lifting limits applicable to women employees and contained in State laws, regulations and awards. 2. These weight lifting limits have applied throughout Australia for many years and have acted to prevent many injuries at the workplace, thereby avoiding much suffering and loss of working time. 3. The removal of this protective legislation will increase the rate of injury among women employees and lead to greater Workers' Compensation costs for employers. 4. The weight lifting limits do not in any way hamper the achievement of equality and equal opportunity in employment for women employees in the workforce. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to enable the weight lifting limits for women employees to continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 451 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 circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any suggestion that family allowances be paid at a flat rate and instead should ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Reid (from 258 citizens) and Walsh (from 300 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap terminates on 19 October 1986. 2. In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. 3. Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. 4. The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should decide that- 1. The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap not be extended beyond October 1986. 2. Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. 3. Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 293 citizens). To the Parliament of Australia. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: the abhorrent, racist system of Apartheid prevents non-white children and youth in South Africa and Namibia from equal participation in education (official statistics given in the South African Parliament for 1980-81 showed the annual expenditure on education to be 1,000 rand per capita for whites as against less than 200 rand per capita for blacks); education inside South Africa and Namibia is so imbued with the ideology of apartheid that non-white students have rebelled against the `Bantu' Education system, leading to many students being imprisoned, beaten and harassed by police; many children and youths have fled apartheid South Africa and Namibia to refugee camps run by the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO) of Namibia. In these refugee camps international aid provides primary and secondary education, but tertiary education in such circumstances is impractical; the Australian Parliament has a bipartisan policy of opposition to Apartheid; the provision of scholarships for tertiary study in Australia for students from these refugee camps is one of the most positive steps Australia can take towards a non-racist future for South Africa; community contributions to the Jim Gale Memorial African Scholarship Fund have reached over $13,000 in eight months, demonstrating the strong concern among Australians about this issue. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the Parliament of Australia to provide one hundred scholarships annually for South African students to be selected from ANC refugee camps, to enable them to undertake tertiary studies in Australia provide one hundred scholarships annually for Namibian students to be selected from SWAPO refugee camps, to enable them to undertake tertiary studies in Australia join with the Jim Gale Memorial African Scholarship Fund to provide at least one scholarship each year in memory of Jim Gale waive any visa charges which might otherwise attach to these students as overseas students. Your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 149 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are concerned that the proposed increases in postal charges will impose a crippling burden on private individuals (particularly pensioners and unemployed), on small businesses, and on voluntary and/or charitable organisations which are compelled to circulate newspapers, bulletins and also appeals for financial support. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, will call upon the Government to use its good offices to prevent any postal increase in the coming financial year and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 390 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: Your petitioners as in duty bound will humbly pray, that a public inquiry be conducted in my allegations of prosecutions, harassment, and destruction of my property because of my refusal to become part of a heroin ring. And that the rights of Mehmed Skrijel and family be recognised in Victoria and South Australia. by Senator Georges (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will re-voke the blasphemy, indecency, and obscenity proscription into the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, by adding those proscriptions to the present Section 4a, sub-regulations 1a (b) (i), for the following reasons: because these is a flood of obscene publications into the country, because such publications depict the abnormal as normal because such publications degrade men and women because such publications create new, offensive demands on women, with which they do not willingly comply (Eyeenck and Nias) because this causes marriage breakdown because children easily obtain such publications because children copy what they see because the child found in possession of such publications is at risk, facing rejection, and carrying the burden of having altered the relationships in his home for the worse, between parents, and between parent and child because such a child faces, alone, the loss of trust because I am a reasonable adult person and I am offended by the obscene books which you have legislated into this community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 168 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 Prohibition Bill'' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of wide-spread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 90 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 548 citizens). Petitions received. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an authority to undertake reinsurance business, and for purposes connected therewith. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has completed any of its Reports, the Committee may send the Reports to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Reports shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate. (b) the publication of the Reports is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Reports; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Reports upon the table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade: Certain aspects of Australia's Manufacturing Industry Revitalisation. Senator MORRIS(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with regret the decision of the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran QC, M.P., to resign from that office; (b) records its admiration for Mr Wran as the greatest Premier in our nation's history; and- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator MORRIS —Mr President, it is all right for the people on the other side to interject-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator give his notice of motion. Senator MORRIS —Thank you very much, Mr President. My notice continues: (c) congratulates Mr Wran for the respect he has earned nationally for his many achievements for the people of NSW, particularly: (i) the reform of the NSW electoral system by providing for the democratic election of the Legislative Council by the people of the State, the elimination of unequal quotas for Lower House seats and the introduction of the 4-year term; (ii) the attack made on the political corruption of the Askin era by the introduction of public funding for election campaigns; (iii) the development of tighter and more efficient financial controls for the Public Service which gave NSW citizens more value for their tax dollar, (iv) the establishment of NSW as the pioneer State in developing strong and sensitive policies on the environment, our heritage, Aboriginal land rights and the arts, (v) the strenuous and successful efforts to establish new industries and provide jobs, (vi) setting a model for consultation by encouraging tripartite negotiations on all issues involving government, trade unions and employers, (vii) boosting the State and national economy by undertaking the largest capital works program of any government in our nation's history; and (viii) transforming the NSW public transport system from the worst in Australia to the best. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.07) —Pursuant to standing order 448, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Senate proceeding with the Notice of Motion given by Senator Morris forthwith. Senator Morris has invited the Senate to debate a motion expressing the Senate's disappointment and regret at the retirement-- Senator Morris —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I said quite clearly in my notice of motion `on the next day of sitting'. I suggest that Senator Puplick should be ruled out of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Puplick has moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator PUPLICK —The Senate is invited by Senator Morris's notice of motion to express some degree of regret or disappointment at the retirement of Neville Wran from the position of Premier of New South Wales. If anything, the Senate should have before it a motion noting the retirement of the Premier of New South Wales as being the best thing that could possibly happen for the restoration of decency and democracy in that State. Senator Grimes —On a point of order, Mr President: Senator Puplick knows as well as anyone else that under the Standing Orders he should confine his remarks to why we should suspend Standing Orders, and not debate the substantive issue. I suggest that you ask him to do so. The PRESIDENT —I suggest that Senator Puplick confine his remarks to the reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, it is important to suspend Standing Orders because the issue Senator Morris has raised-the issue of decency, probity and honesty in public life-is a matter which ought to be brought before the Senate for debate at the earliest possible opportunity. In terms of probity, decency and honesty in public life, nobody has traduced those virtues and those values more thoroughly than the Premier of New South Wales. It ought to be, therefore, in the competence of the Senate to debate that matter. Senator Grimes —Mr President, on a point of order: I draw your attention to another standing order which prevents people such as Senator Puplick from making remarks of that type about the Premier of a State. I remind you that Mr Wran has not yet resigned. He resigns on 4 July. The PRESIDENT —I have listened to Senator Puplick's remarks. As yet he has not offended that standing order, but I draw his attention to it and remind him of the remarks of Senator Grimes. Senator PUPLICK —There is also a substantive motion before the Senate. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Senate will come to order. We are not in a bear pit; I ask honourable senators to remember that this is the Senate of Australia. Senator PUPLICK —The reason for the suspension of Standing Orders-- Senator Morris —Tell us about your duty free shops. Senator PUPLICK —I can appreciate Senator Morris's enormous discomfiture if he thinks that-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Puplick-- Senator Morris —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The PRESIDENT —Senator Morris, will you please resume your seat? Senator Morris —Mr President, I am raising a point of order. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Morris to resume his seat. I remind Senator Puplick that he is speaking to his motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and I ask him to confine his remarks to that matter. Senator Morris, do you wish to take a point of order? Senator Morris —Mr President, you have now fixed the situation. Senator PUPLICK —As I was saying, the suspension of Standing Orders will allow the Senate to debate a matter of considerable importance. It is important to the people of New South Wales that the truth be put on the record because the truth can be put on the record in this place whereas it cannot be put on the record in the Parliament of New South Wales where the jack-boot activities of certain politicians in the Australian Labor Party Government in that State have consistently prevented the truth about the corruption of the Wran Government from being put on the public record. If we suspend Standing Orders-- Senator Morris —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Puplick is now debating the issue. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator PUPLICK —As I was saying, important matters arise from the motion which Senator Morris has put forward. It is only by suspending Standing Orders in order to bring on the debate in the chamber forthwith that we allow honourable senators to debate the very substantive issues which are raised in the motion. There is nothing more important than integrity and honesty in public life and nothing which will more allow the Senate to debate and expose the corruption both of members of the Australian Labor Party and their Government in New South Wales and which will allow the complete exposure of the corruption not only of the democratic and parliamentary system in New South Wales but also of the police force in New South Wales aided, abetted and encouraged by the Labor Government in that State-the attacks upon the judiciary and the magistracy in New South Wales-- Senator Morris —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Should not the question be put without debate? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator PUPLICK —Fortunately the Rafferty's rules of the liquor and allied trades union do not apply in this place at the moment. We will have the opportunity, on the basis of this substantive motion, to deal with a whole series of issues which ought to be brought before the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We have been presented with Senator Morris's motion, which I take in good faith was an attempt to bring before the Senate the opportunity of discussing the State of New South Wales and the record of the Premier of New South Wales. I am inviting Senator Morris, if he is a great believer in discussing these virtues, to rise in this place today and debate them. We on this side of the chamber are perfectly prepared to debate them and want to give Senator Morris the opportunity right here and now to bring on his motion for debate. I have no doubt that he has his speech ready, that he has his eulogy ready, and that he has his next preselection speech; and I want him to be able to give his speech. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Puplick to confine his remarks to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Otherwise I will ask him to resume his seat. Senator PUPLICK —It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that this motion can be brought forward. Because of the very significant issues which are raised in the motion, I believe that Standing Orders ought to be suspended. It is only by the use of this device that the significant issues which are encompassed in Senator Morris's proposed notice of motion can be debated in the Senate. As I have said and as you, Mr President, and honourable senators would be aware, there is a great deal to be said about New South Wales, about the Premier of New South Wales and about his 10-year record. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we can have the advantage of bringing that debate before the Senate today. That debate will be a useful debate. It will allow us to discuss a number of issues, and only by the suspension of Standing Orders can we really discuss the attacks upon the integrity of a man like Clarrie Briese. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we can discuss issues such as the promotion of Bill Allen. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we can raise the whole issue of the way in which the Premier of New South Wales has treated the Parliament of New South Wales-the sort of legislation that has been passed, the sort of taking away of the rights of individual citizens and the seizure of private property in New South Wales. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that one can get to the issue of ministerial propriety, whether it happens to be in relation to former Ministers for Corrective Services or any number of royal commissions which have occurred in New South Wales. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we can get to the way in which the whole Botany Municipal Council has had its pervasive influence on New South Wales. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that one can look at the rort of the electoral system in New South Wales, which was raised in Senator Morris's notice of motion. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we can have before the chamber for debate the whole question of whether the administration of New South Wales has been honest and efficient. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we can look at the destruction of the New South Wales economy over the course of the last 10 years and the sell-out to various industrial interests in that State. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we can deal with the way in which the State Government has ridden roughshod over the rights of the citizens of Sydney in terms of development, the monorail and all of those other things the citizens happen to be interested in. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we will be able to get before the Parliament the way in which the Premier's resignation has been brought forward at this particular stage for the purposes of guaranteeing certain people a succession in the leadership of the Labor Party, and to expose the way in which the whole manipulation of the Labor Party machine in New South Wales is now being seen for the first time. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we can talk about the Enmore case, about Tom Domican, about the relationships of these people with the Premier of New South Wales-- Senator Peter Baume —The Baldwin bashing. Senator PUPLICK —And we can talk about the Baldwin affair. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders in order to debate the substantive motion which Senator Morris wants to put forward that we can deal with the whole 10 years of corruption, crime, mismanagement of the economy, the rorting of the Parliament and the perversion of the electoral system which has gone on throughout the whole of New South Wales. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we can allow Senator Morris to come forward to try to justify the unjustifiable-the record of the Wran Government over the course of the last 10 years, which has brought an absolute public scandal upon New South Wales in terms of the way in which the Labor Party, the Government and the whole of the administration of the State has been brought into disrepute, the judiciary traduced, the magistracy threatened, the police force corrupted, the economy ruined, the unions put on top of the citizens of New South Wales, planning and environment decisions cast to nought, brown paper bags being passed backwards and forwards to ensure development applications and the Botany Council scandal. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that all of these things, which are of enormous significance to the citizens of New South Wales, can be brought forward and debated in this place today. Senator Colston —I raise a point of order. Standing order 448 reads: In cases of urgent necessity, any Standing or Sessional Order or Orders of the Senate may be suspended on Motion without Notice. Mr President, I put to you that what should be being debated is whether there is an urgent necessity rather than debating the substantive issue at this stage. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no debate on the substantive issue. I have pointed out to Senator Puplick that he has to confine his remarks to reasons why the Standing Orders should be suspended. That is the purport of his remarks to date, and there is no point of order. Senator PUPLICK —It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that the Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss such matters as the administration of the State of New South Wales. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we will be able to look at Morgan Ryan, at Murray Farquhar, at Rex Jackson, at Bill Allen, at Donald Mackay, at the Age tapes, at the Trimbole question, at the whole Kevin Humphreys question. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we will be able to find out why it is that when the son of a murdered man goes to the Premier of New South Wales to ask for an investigation into the murder of his father, the Premier of New South Wales abuses him, calls him a thick-headed South African and transduces the memory of his father because the Premier is not prepared to have that sort of investigation. It is only by the suspension of Standing Orders that we will be able to look at exactly who is whose little mate in the State of New South Wales. Given the level of corruption in New South Wales at the moment, I believe that we ought to suspend Standing Orders and deal with this matter forthwith. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(10.22) —The Senate will be surprised to know that the Government opposes the motion. Senator Puplick obviously thinks, by the schoolboy look on his face, that he has done something new in this place. He has done something which has been done so often before. He has demonstrated his thespian skills and his capacity as a schoolboy debater. But, as he often does, he has overdone it a little. In normal times I, of all people in this place, would enjoy such a debate because not only would we discuss the matters raised by Senator Puplick, but also we would discuss the matters raised in a little book called The Prince and the Premier. We would discuss the associations of members of this Senate now with that Premier, and would discuss the stories of what happened then. I do not think that this is the time to do that, but I would be happy to do it at some time. I am also interested in Senator Puplick's concern that of all the notices of motion that have been brought up in this place-the many notices of motion by Senator Michael Baume about the state of economy, about the state of the world-Senator Puplick has never thought it necessary to bring on those motions. It is only at this time that he has put on this little turn. We have all been impressed, but we are not impressed enough to vote with him on the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator Walters —Too scared. Senator GRIMES —The day I am too scared to debate with you, ma'am, is the day I will give it away. For that reason we will not be supporting the motion to suspend Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.24) —The motion moved by Senator Puplick will have the Opposition's support and I shall explain why. I might have hoped that Neville Wran would be politically interred without reference being made to him in this place, because any reference to Neville Wran would be certain to require from this side expressions which are totally contrary to those which have been put forward by Senator Morris. The reason that there is some urgency in disposing of this matter from the Notice Paper, where it has just been put by Senator Morris, is that if one looks at the first three paragraphs of the motion, one finds three things that would be utterly repugnant to senators on this side of the House, and I believe to Senator Chipp. We find that the Senate: Notes with regret the decision of the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran, to resign from that office. I can only say, as I said publicly, that that was one of the best bits of news for Australia I have heard for some time. Paragraph (b) of the motion reads: records its admiration for Mr Wran as the greatest Premier in our nation's history- I will say a little bit more about that in a moment. Worst of all, the motion congratulates Neville Wran for the respect he has earned nationally. I cannot think of anything which is further from the truth and which this Senate would less want to see on its Notice Paper as a possible expression of the opinion of the Senate. My reason for saying that and why I think there is some urgency in this matter is that the departure of Neville Wran has, as usual, led to the sorts of expressions which Senator Withers is so fond of describing-- Senator Withers —Vote early and vote often. Senator CHANEY —No, that is not it. He has forgotten his own expression. The sort of unctuous remarks about Mr Wran which are repeated in this motion are far from the truth. For example, it is said of him that he showed grace under pressure, when in fact we all have recollections of the Premier of New South Wales and his response to anyone who opposed him, which was to use the expression `apply the blowtorch to the belly'. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now tending to debate the substantive motion. I ask him to return to the reason for the suspension of the Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY —Of course I must address the question of the suspension of Standing Orders. The point is that unless we suspend Standing Orders this ridiculous expression of opinion which has been put forward by Senator Morris will presumably sit here on the Notice Paper for months as a possible expression of opinion of this Senate. I want to make it clear that on this side of the House we would regard those expressions of opinion as totally contrary to the truth. Neville Wran's treatment of people such as Temby and Briese is a simple illustration of why we have such contempt for the Premier. I believe that we should put this motion and dispose of it very quickly. By disposing of Senator Morris's motion we should express our absolute disregard for the Premier of New South Wales and for the dreadful way in which he has debased politics in this country. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.22) —I oppose the suspension of Standing Orders for two reasons. The first is that there will be an opportunity to debate the substantive motion at some later time, and I think that this question, as it relies on standing order 448, does not have the necessary quality or urgency. It can be dealt with at a later stage without denying to any honourable senator the opportunity of having a say on this matter. Also, this matter is not in the nature of a piece of legislation which must be debated today. It is not as if we will not be able to have another bite at it some other time. My second reason for opposing the suspension of Standing Orders is that I believe that we in this Senate, this States House, owe to the people of New South Wales a chance to look forward rather than backward. We owe them the chance to look forward to a firm, fresh and fearless administration under the leadership of a new Premier, Barrie Unsworth. Question put: That the motion (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. Jessop, D. S. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R. Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Harradine, B. 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. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Gietzelt, A. T. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Sheil, G. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bills be referred to the following Standing Committees for report on the first day of sitting in August 1986- Standing Committee on Education and the Arts: Australian National Maritime Museum Bill 1986 Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986; Standing Committee on Industry and Trade: Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1986 Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment: Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986 Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill 1986. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for examination: The procedures of the Commissioner of Taxation and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with particular reference to- (a) raising and amending assessments; (b) the imposition of penalties and interest; (c) systems of dealing with objections and appeals against them; and to recommend changes to present systems in order to streamline and simplify them and to safeguard the rights of taxpayers. 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 Prime Minister's (Mr Hawke's) warning in his Address to the Nation on 11 June 1986 that Australia's economic crisis means we have to accept reduced standards of living and increased standards of effort, that the Federal Government will make the decisions necessary to meet this challenge and that it will not shirk from these hard decisions; (b) requests Mr Hawke to stop just talking and actually do something to fix up the serious problems that his misdirected economic policies, particularly his big government spending, record high interest rates and the worst relative inflation rate for 25 years, have got us into; (c) calls on Mr Hawke to admit he has made a `mess of things' and hand the economic reins back to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to enable Mr Keating to adopt as a matter of urgency the Opposition's rescue plan to: (i) introduce a mini-Budget immediately to make major cuts in Government spending, to operate from the beginning of the new financial year in 3 weeks time, so that the present high interest rate policy can be abandoned, (ii) defer the current wage case to September 1986, apply full discounting for devaluation and abandon the present productivity/superannuation claims, and (iii) abandon the anti-business taxes that have damaged Australian business investment; and (d) calls on Mr Hawke not to make any similar reports to the nation in the future in view of the disastrous impact on Australia's international standing and the Australian dollar, of his performance on 11 June 1986. Motion (by Senator Cooney)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for this day for the disallowance of the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, be postponed till 4 sitting days after today. Motion (by Senator Cooney)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for this day for the disallowance of Defence Determination No. 14 of 1986, be postponed till the next day of sitting. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for disallowance of the Defence Determination No. 14. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —I have postponed Notice of Motion No. 1 because the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances is awaiting a reply from the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) concerning the Motor Traffic Ordinance on the question of whether its provisions take away rights retrospectively. I will withdraw Notice of Motion No. 2 tomorrow. The Committee this morning considered a letter from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) which assured it that the determination concerning Defence Force uniform allowances did not discriminate against any member on the grounds of sex. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letters for the information of honourable senators. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- 16 April 1986 The Hon. Kim Beazley, M.P. Minister for Defence Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 10 April 1986, the Committee considered Defence Determination no. 14 of 1986, being Determination 0602, Outfit Allowance, tabled in the Senate on 9 April 1986. The Committee also considered the letter of 19 march 1986 signed on your behalf by The Hon. John Brown, the Minister Assisting, concerning the need for retrospectivity in this Determination. The accompanying Explanatory Statement indicated that the Determination provides for the payment of allowances to male and female officers and sailors of the Permanent Naval Forces ``for the initial purchase of a uniform, the purchase of additional uniform items or to have necessary alterations made to the uniform''. The Committee accepted as reasonable explanations given by the Minister Assisting regarding the need for certain paragraphs of the Determination to be made retrospective to 15 July 1985. However, the Committee has a further concern about the differing rates of outfit allowance that are paid under the Determination to officers of equal rank and position depending on whether the officers are males or females. Obviously the uniforms of male and female officers, while presumably being of equal quality and propriety, will nevertheless differ in aspects which can affect their price. Where the supply of complete uniforms and additions, etc., is the responsibility of the employer these discrepancies in respective costs of items may not give rise even to the appearance of disparate treatment on the grounds of gender. On the other hand the payment of differing levels of allowance for the private purchase of necessary items, may in practice result in discriminatory treatment. Certain male or female officers of a particular rank or position may thus enjoy a monetary advantage over their fellow officers of a different gender as a consequence of that gender difference. The Committee recognises that you have no intention whatsoever to treat officers in an unfairly discriminatory way in this matter. Indeed the Committee noted that in the letter from the Minister Assisting, he explained that the quantum of outfit allowance is reviewed annually based on an annually revised Naval Clothing Price List. The Committee noted the Minister's comment that the task of assessing the relevant clothing price changes is a particularly detailed one involving consideration of price movements and changes in scales of entitlement. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, assuming equal quality and propriety in the uniforms worn by Naval Officers of both sexes, the payment of different monetary allowances for individuals who are otherwise treated equally, may be a matter of concern to the Committee under its Principles. There appear to be some quite significant differences in the levels of allowances to be paid to male and female officers who appear to be of equal rank and position. It may be that, notwithstanding similar rank, male and female officers perform widely different duties which tend to necessitate the acquisition of more expensive uniforms by male officers. The Committee would be grateful to have your comments and advice on all of these questions. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman 26 May 1986 Senator Barney Cooney Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Cooney I refer to your letter of April 1986 regarding Defence Determination No. 14 of 1986 in which you expressed concern about the differing rates of Outfit Allowance that are paid to RAN officers of equal rank and position depending on whether the officers are males or females. In general, the differences in the amounts of the allowance paid to male and female officers of the RAN reflect the obvious gender difference which is the main reason for uniforms of different value being required, but also reflect to some extent the different range of duties imposed upon members of each group. No monetary advantage ensues because the amount paid is fully expended on the range of uniform items or alterations considered necessary for each group to maintain a uniform of the required scale. The scales of uniform for the various categories and ranks of the RAN are compiled in the knowledge of the requirements of the duties to be carried out by the member, with due consideration having been given to rank, gender and branch category. Amounts of the allowance are then based on the appropriate scale of uniform and the cost of individual items. The difference in the amounts of allowance paid to members on entry, which favours female members, takes into account those members being provided with such items as a handbag and gloves, which are not provided to male members, and the more expensive female foot-wear. The difference in the amounts of allowance on promotion, which favours the male members, takes into account the cost of upgrading gold lace rank insignia on a mess jacket, which is not worn by female members. The larger difference on promotion to Commander is due to the provision of two new caps with gold oak leaves on the peak to male officers; the female Commander has no requirement to change hats. Moreover, all female officers, other than University Undergraduates and female other ranks on promotion, are issued gratuitously with all or most items of uniform on appointment and promotion, and this explains some of the more significant differences in Schedule 2 of the determination. I trust that these comments on the questions of apparent discrimination which you raised will prove helpful. Yours sincerely Kim G. Beazley Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Life Insurance Commissioner-Annual Report 1985-Pursuant to section 11 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-together with a half yearly financial and statistical bulletin. 2. Cocos (Keeling) Islands-Annual Report 1984-85. 3. Towards a cashless society-ASTEC Report-pursuant to sub-section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 4. Official Establishments Trust-Annual Report 1984-85. 5. Federal Water Assistance Program-Document relating to the provision of financial assistance to South Australia for the Adelaide Northern Towns Water Filtration Program and the Country Towns Water Supply Improvement Program-pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978. 6. The recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law-Law Reform Commission Report-Volumes 1 and 2-pursuant to Section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —by leave-The purpose of this statement is to provide, through the Parliament, the opportunity for those involved in the community and in the Parliament to look at the Government's intention with regard to new disability legislation between now and the Budget session. With that in mind, I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The purpose of this statement is to inform the Senate of the Government's plans for introducing new Disability Services legislation which will replace the present Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, and contain legislative provision for the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Program and the Program of Aids for Disabled People. Among the first initiatives of this Government were decisions to fund the Australian chapter of Disabled Peoples' International and to establish the Disability Advisory Council of Australia to provide direct advice to the Government from people with disabilities themselves. These two initiatives in 1983 resulted in increased exposure and discussion of the issue facing people with disabilities. It became clear that there was a need for fundamental change in the way the community provides for the needs of people with disabilities and that a truly comprehensive review of all Commonwealth policies and programs was required. Accordingly, in late 1983 we set up the Handicapped Programs Review to examine all Commonwealth programs and services directed at assisting people with disabilities. This Review was the first of its kind in Australia, being based both on submissions and on extensive community consultation, especially with people with disabilities. During the course of the Review over 65 towns and cities across Australia were visited and more than 5,000 people were involved in meetings, seminars and personal interviews. Pending publication of the Review Report, the Prime Minister announced in December 1984 the establishment of the Office of Disability whose responsibilities include providing advice to the Government on the quality and effectiveness of services at a national level. One of its roles is to carry forward initiatives contained in the report of the Handicapped Programs Review entitled ``New Directions'' which I tabled on 30 May 1985. The Report found broad community support for the Commonwealth's policies of meeting needs through mainstream community programs as far as possible, and of ensuring that the least restrictive alternative principle is followed where specific services are required for people with disabilities. It concluded that substantial improvements were required in the accountability of subsidised organisations for service content and quality, and that major changes were needed in the programs themselves. A restructuring of services, funding and other resources was also required. The Review believed that these changes could be effected only through new legislation to replace the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, based on the principle that positive consumer outcomes should be the rationale for program development, delivery and review. The Government at the time endorsed the thrust of the report and I foreshadowed new legislation under the Community Services portfolio to provide for the range of Commonwealth support programs for people with disabilities to replace the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. The Government will be introducing such new legislation in the Budget Session. One of the major thrusts of the new legislation will be to establish a clear linkage between a commitment and action by organisations in achieving desirable outcomes for individual people with disabilities and organisations' receipt of financial assistance from the Commonwealth. For some time, and within the constraints of the present legislation, my Department has been working closely with organisations conducting subsidised services to encourage them to provide programs on the ``least restrictive alternative'' model and more recently to adopt the principles underlying the New Directions report. The substantive work of re-shaping existing methods of service delivery is, however, still largely ahead of us and, with this in mind, the Government has adopted a two-fold strategy to achieve a complete re-structuring of services for people with disabilities subsidised under current legislation. The first component in our strategy is a program of demonstration projects to illustrate to service providers and to people with disabilities who are the consumers of those services, the types of services and the principles and operating practices underlying them which the Government wishes to promote in the context of ``New Directions''. This demonstration program commenced this year and will run for two years, costing some $20 million in total. Examples in two key areas will make it clear how different, even radical, some of these new types of services may be when seen against the traditional service pattern. In the area of vocational services, where the principal choice for disabled people in the past has generally been limited to sheltered employment, services to be developed include long-term supported employment models such as: work enclaves in open industry where small groups of disabled workers are given special training, supervision, and adjusted work targets; work crews where a group of disabled people are an integral part of an independent commercial business; and individual work-stations where a disabled person works alongside non-disabled workers, but support is provided through extra training and supervision on site. There will also be competitive employment and placement programs which will train disabled people in work skills and work-related behaviours and locate individual jobs for the program graduates in open employment. Examples of this might be where a cafeteria teaches food service tasks and finds people jobs in regular restaurants. In these instances, any subsidy provided would be for the training and personal support components only, not towards the commercial activity as such. From these examples, it is clear how we are opening up vocational opportunities which will greatly enhance the dignity and better match the aspirations of people with disabilities, compared with the limiting, isolating, and often stigmatising options traditionally available. The other key area where I would like to give examples of new types of services is that of supported residential accommodation for people with disabilities. We are all familiar to varying degrees with the traditional residential institutions where dozens, but at times even hundreds, of people with disabilities are accommodated in the one large complex. More community integrated models of residential support have already begun to be introduced, but the demonstration program will broaden the range of options available by including approaches such as: co-tenancy arrangements where a non-disabled person offers support to a disabled flat-mate in return for concessional costs of living; tenant support programs where disabled people occupying a number of flats in a single development are given support from staff living staff living in a separate flat both at set time periods (such as meal preparation) and on-call if necessary; group homes in ordinary community settings with live-in or on-call staffing appropriate to the needs of a small group of multiply-disabled adults; model or demonstration de-institutionalising projects which support an existing organisation in the transition from a large institutional facility to a more appropriate range of housing options in the community for its existing residents; and respite programs. All told, under the demonstration program, we have so far funded 68 projects, comprising-14 long-term supported employment projects; 13 competitive employment projects; 14 projects exploring options in residential living; and 27 projects providing advocacy and information services and individual personal development planning for people with disabilities. I regard these as significant achievements. The second component of the Government's strategy for restructuring of the system is the introduction of the new legislation. Our original intention was to introduce the new legislation in this present Autumn session but this will not now be achievable because of pressures on Parliamentary Counsel. As I said earlier, the Bill will be introduced in the Budget session 1986. However, I am able to indicate now the scope of the new Bill. It will draw together existing programs for people with disabilities within the Community Services portfolio and provide a new coherent framework for these programs to facilitate the pursuit of the Government's objectives for people with disabilities. The new Bill will contain an explicit statement of its goals and objectives. These may be summarised as: to achieve for people with disabilities positive outcomes such as long-term increases in independence, participation in paid employment, integration into the community, and the promotion of a positive image; to provide financial assistance to eligible organisations conducting approved services directed at achieving such outcomes in an integrated fashion; to enable service performance in achieving the desired outcomes to be taken into account in making funding decisions; and to encourage innovation in service development and delivery. There will also be specific objectives relating to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Program and the Program of Aids for Disabled People both of which will be incorporated into the Bill. I will refer to these programs again later. First and foremost, the Bill will provide for the funding of a range of services many of which are outside the provisions of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, which will be repealed. Some of these categories will be: Accommodation Support; Selected Respite Services; Supported Employment; Competitive Employment Training and Placement; Independent Living Training; Advocacy and Information; Recreation; Individual Assessment and Program Planning; and Services for Persons with a Print Disability. The Government recognises that non-government bodies play an essential role in providing services for people with disabilities and will retain the concept of assisting eligible organisations as service providers. The Bill will include a clear definition of the eligible target group to be assisted by organisations receiving financial support. The proposal is that the target group be comprised of people who: have an intellectual impairment or a sensory or physical impairment, being a sensory or physical impairment which has become manifest before the person has reached the age of 50 years; are likely to have that impairment indefinitely; and as a result of that impairment have a long term incapacity for independent living and have a substantive functional limitation in relation to communication, learning or mobility. There will be a discretion to include in the target group categories not specifically mentioned in the Bill, if this promotes the purposes of the legislation. The range of services provided by the Commonwealth and the States in the disability area varies from State to State and the situation is complex. I intend that the new Bill will provide a mechanism whereby inter-governmental and agency co-operation can be enhanced. Local government will continue to qualify for the funding of approved services under the new legislation. The new legislation will also encourage partnership arrangements with State Governments. One of the biggest problems with the current Act is that there is no recognition of the different funding requirements of different service types. There needs to be flexibility to recognise the widely differing needs of people assisted under the program and the differing needs of individual service types. Rather than a set funding formula, I propose that the Bill provide for funding formulae to be set out in regulations. These funding formulae will change the ad hoc arrangements which exist at present and will reflect the desired outcomes anticipated for individuals. To assist in developing detailed funding formulae, my Department is sponsoring a consultancy to identify the actual costs of conducting the various types of services, and to make recommendations on the formulae to be adopted. This task will obviously require a great deal of careful analysis and take some time to complete. When developed and approved by Parliament, these funding formulae will be applied to services which meet the objectives of the new legislation. In the meantime, in order to provide for funding continuity, transitional funding arrangements will apply to currently funded organisations. As I mentioned earlier, the new Bill will also provide a new legislative basis for rehabilitation services administered within the community services portfolio thus removing them from Part VIII of the Social Security Act. This will involve transfer of the enabling provisions from that Act to the new Disability Services Act, with some minor modifications. This will facilitate a common philosophical base for the Government's assistance to people with disabilities. The Department's rehabilitation program is currently over half way through a Three Year Forward Plan which emphasises the development of community based services in preference to those provided in institutional settings, and concentrates on social and vocational rehabilitation for working aged people and on improving access to rehabilitation programs by women, Aboriginals and people with non-English speaking backgrounds. It is proposed that our rehabilitation services, providing as they do, a direct service to people with disabilities, should work closely with those areas of my portfolio which fund organisations providing services to disabled people. This will ensure the provision of a co-ordinated range of services. The Bill will also provide for the Commonwealth's Program of Aids for Disabled People, currently based in various provisions of the national Health Act. At this point the Government is proposing no major changes to this program but the opportunity will be taken to improve its operation through minor legislative modifications. At this stage, I anticipate that the new legislation will become operative as from 1 April 1987. For operational reasons The Handicapped Persons Assistance Act and those sections of the Social Security Act relating to the provision of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Program will not be repealed until 30 June 1987. In addition discussions are taking place with the Department of Health regarding the authority for the operation of the PADP scheme. Regulations will then be introduced under the new Act to provide initially for interim funding for organisations who commit themselves by way of formal contracts to the objectives of the new program. This interim funding will be similar to that currently provided under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. Departmental officers will be contacting each organisation through to April 1987 to discuss the objectives of the new legislation as this relates to the specific service types, and to invite organisations to enter into contracts which will be consistent with the new legislation. There may be a small number of existing services which will not qualify for funding at all under the new legislation. I envisage that carry-on funding at existing levels will be available for these services until such time as other arrangements can be made for them. A requirement under the new legislation will be that a review of all services, to assess their achievement of the objectives embodied in the legislation, be undertaken at least every five years. The Department of Community Services will be conducting a series of short intensive workshops to explain in more detail the operational significance of the new legislation and its underlying aims and objectives. The present intention is for these to commence towards the end of 1986. At the same time as the introduction of the new Disability Services Bill the Government will launch a Statement of Principles and Objectives in relation to people with disabilities to be followed in the administration of the legislation and specifically to be applied to individual services. We will also work towards the implementation of the Principles and Objectives by all those involved in service delivery to people with disabilities. A draft of the Statement of Principles and Objectives is attached. The Principles recognise that people with disabilities are individuals who have an inherent right to respect for their human worth and dignity, and, irrespective of the origin, nature, type and degree of disability have the same fundamental rights as do other members of society. This applies to the realisation of individual potential; to involvement in decision-making in matters affecting their lives; to the pursuit of grievances and rights; and to services which offer the least restrictive alternative in the achievement of these ends. The Objectives relate more directly to service delivery and cover aspects such as a focus on consumer benefits, integration of services into the regular service structure where possible, and a community-based focus for specialist services where these are required. Adoption of the Principles and Objectives will have some very practical consequences for service delivery. They will demand new standards of accountability by service providers to their disabled clients. They will require a new emphasis on the rights of privacy and confidentiality. They will herald a drawing to a close of an era in which regrettably it has been possible for single organisations, in some cases without any accountability, to control the entire life of a person with a disability. The Handicapped Programs Review contained a large number of recommendations. As a means of pursuing both those covered by the new legislation and other matters, I am writing to my Commonwealth ministerial colleagues seeking their assistance in those areas which are pertinent to their respective portfolio responsibilities. For similar purposes I have also written to State Ministers, especially to open up the wider issues of co-ordination between State and Commonwealth initiatives which will promote a better future for people with disabilities. The Handicapped Programs Review has demonstrated the crucial importance of consultation with the community about the needs and aspirations of people with disabilities, but most of all with disabled people themselves. Such consultation will continue to be a cornerstone of the Government's policy in this area. I have outlined in this Statement the intention of the Government in the area of disability services. However, before I introduce the necessary Bill into Parliament, I and my departmental officers will be seeking discussions with relevant groups on the proposals I have outlined. I also expect those discussions to assist in the development of specific guidelines which will apply to the varying service types. I hope to be in a position to table those guidelines when I introduce the new legislation in the Budget Session. ATTACHMENT DRAFT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES Principles 1. People with disabilities are individuals who have the inherent right to respect for their human worth and dignity. 2. People with disabilities, whatever the origin, nature, type and degree of disability, have the same fundamental rights as all members of Australian society. 3. Every person with a disability has the same rights as other members of Australian society to realise their individual capacity for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development. 4. People with disabilities have the same right as other members of Australian society to services which will support their attaining an acceptable quality of life. 5. People with disabilities have the same right as other members of Australian society to participate in the decisions which affect their lives. 6. People with disabilities have the same right as other members of Australian society to the least restrictive alternative in the services they receive. 7. People with disabilities have the same right of grievance as other members of Australian society in relation to the services which they receive. In response to these principles, the Commonwealth Government will adopt the following objectives in its provision of services to people with disabilities and promote their adoption by non-government organisations, Local Government and State Governments providing assistance to people with disabilities. (A service is defined as direct assistance predominantly of a non-monetary nature provided through the Government or voluntary organisations. A program is any specific assistance of a direct service or of a monetary nature funded by the Government.) Objectives 1. That the focus of service delivery to people with disabilities should be the achievement of positive outcomes. 2. That services for people with disabilities should ensure that the conditions of the every-day life of people with disabilities are the same as, or as close as possible to, norms and patterns which are valued in the general community. 3. That services for people with disabilities should be provided as part of local co-ordinated service systems and integrated with generic services wherever possible. 4. That people with disabilities should receive services which are tailored to their individual needs and goals. 5. That programs and services should promote a competent and positive image of people with disabilities. 6. That programs and services should promote the participation of people with disabilities in the life of the local community through maximum physical and social integration. 7. That no single organisation providing services should exercise control over all or most aspects of the life of an individual with disabilities. 8. That services providing assistance to people with disabilities, be they specific or generic, should be accountable to consumers and their representatives, funding bodies and the public at large. 9. That programs and services should provide opportunities for people with disabilities to reach goals and enjoy lifestyles which are valued by the community at large and are appropriate to the chronological age. 10. That disabled people should have access to advocacy support where necessary to ensure adequate participation in decision-making about the services they receive. 11. That services should provide appropriate avenues for people with disabilities to air and resolve grievances about the services they receive. 12. That disabled people should be provided with avenues for participating in the planning and operation of individual services and opportunities for consultation relating to major policy development and program changes. 13. That services for people with disabilities should respect an individual's rights of privacy and con- fidentiality. Note: Individuals with disabilities should be read to include advocates and families of children with disabilities where appropriate. Senator GRIMES —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.43) —In 1979 the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare published a report entitled `Through a Glass Darkly'. Four of the senators who were on that Committee are still in the Senate. Senator Chipp —Who thought of that title? It is a beauty. Senator PETER BAUME —I thought of that title, actually. I thank Senator Chipp because it was a report about an evaluation of health and welfare services, and it is a good title. Senator Haines —But where did you get it from? Quote your sources. Senator PETER BAUME —My biblical colleague is asking me a question that I cannot answer. The thrust of that report was, in social policy in Australia, to measure need; we sought to work to statement of goals and we laid down objectives in outcome terms which we wanted to achieve. I think Senator Grimes, who was a member of the Committee, will recall those recommendations. The then Professor Gordon Reid, now His Excellency the Governor of Western Australia, wrote to us and said that he thought the report would have a significant effect upon welfare policy in this country. It is against that background that I want to say to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) that the statement which I have read and which he has just incorporated in Hansard is an admirable document and one with which the Opposition would want to be associated. That may be unusual in this place where conflict is the norm, but I think the statement sets down some very important matters with which I agree and which I want to identify just briefly. Later I want to indicate a couple of concerns that I have with the statement but they are of a less important nature. First, at page 11 of the statement is a very important value paragraph. It is so important that I just want to read it to the Senate. It is the view of the Government, and one which the Opposition shares. It read as follows: The Principles- that is, the principles behind the Government's approach to its legislation- recognise that people with disabilities are individuals who have an inherent right to respect for their human worth and dignity, and, irrespective of the origin, nature, type and degree of disability have the same fundamental rights as do other members of society. This applies to the realisation of individual potential; to involvement in decision-making in matters affecting their lives; to the pursuit of grievances and rights; and to services which offer the least restrictive alternative in the achievement of these ends. In terms of a statement of values, that is an admirable statement, and one with which we would wish to be associated. In the same way, the Minister's statement contains at page 6 a statement of goals and objectives which seek to implement those values that I have just read out. If the new legislations, which we have yet to see, is based upon those values and those objectives, there will be much merit in it. The Minister advises that the Government will seek to assist people through mainstream programs, through the least restrictive programs possible. It will seek to make programs more accountable for the outcomes they achieve-not just for what they do but for what they achieve-and it wants some changes in content. The Opposition wishes to associate itself with those goals and those statements. We would also like to congratulate the Government on the demonstration project approach which will help those people with disability to know what is possible for them and will help people seeking to assist those with disability to know in which directions they might move with profit. By knowing what is possible by way of services, by knowing what is possible by way of residential options, we believe that people with disability may be able to achieve the kind of better outcome that the Government is seeking. Having made clear the support that I have, and that I am sure the Opposition has, for this document, I would like to outline a couple of concerns which my reading did reveal. First, some existing services, some services presently funded, may well lose their funding. This is made quite explicit in the document. My concern is not so much for the services but that in the process some people with disability may end up being losers by the discontinuation of funding. Secondly, there is no real guarantee in what the Minister has said in one of the smaller sections about the program of aid for disabled persons, that the range of aids or the availability of aids will be increased to cover some of the gaps and shortfalls presently existing. Thirdly, there are some very difficult transition questions between the present method of planning and delivering services and the proposed method which still remains to be fleshed out. If this is not done with care and sensitivity, again people with disability might be the losers. It is our firm belief that a vacuum in the provision of services, either during the transition stages or later, is simply not acceptable. We are reminded of some of the concerns that have been expressed to us in relation to the provision of rehabilitation services. We have moved from large institutional rehabilitation centres to a number of community based rehabilitation centres. But the feedback that we have been receiving from people seeking services for themselves is that during the changeover they seem to be falling through the holes. They seem to be unable to find the rehabilitation services that they need now. One of the problems we foresee is that during the transition period and afterwards there may be some new vacuums created. We ask the Government in changing over please to ensure that it does not throw out the baby with the bath water. That is all too easy to do. The Government wishes to say that it does not favour large residential institutions or large training institutions. That may be so; but large institutions are better than no institutions. We have to understand that what we have at present may well be sub-optimal but it is better than a vacuum and no provision at all. A ghetto for people with disabilities is really not good enough; but it is better than nothing. One of the problems we have is that some people who at least have access to some services are worried that they may have access to none. The main worry that I have relates to the inputs I am getting from people who have devoted their lives to the assistance of those with disabilities. Many people are worried that their life commitment to those with disabilities is in some way being devalued. The Minister shakes his head. I hope that he is right but I point out to him-I hope I do it constructively-that the statement that he has put down contains nothing that indicates the value that he places upon the commitment, the effort and the work of an army of people over many years, even if it is effort that he now thinks has been misdirected in some way. An army of people have dedicated their lives, often to the support of their own relatives. They have struggled; they have faced the anguish of there being no services available; they have created services where none existed; they have filled voids. Maybe they have done so in a way which is now regarded as less than optimal; maybe we are changing direction. But what they want to hear is that what they have done over a number of years is not about to be denigrated or dismissed and that the work they have done is not about to be decried. I hope that when the Minister brings forward his legislation, with all the admirable goals and features which I have endorsed and with which I have associated the Opposition, he will also make a special point of indicating to those who may have to change direction that the work they have done has filled a vacuum, has provided services ices where none existed, and that what they have done has been appreciated. I think that that is the least we owe them. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.51) —I will not delay the Senate. I simply welcome the fact that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has brought in a statement on this matter and place on record my acknowledgment of the long-standing interest of the Minister in this area, both in his capacity as a former Minister for Social Security and as the present Minister for Community Services. I, too, am conscious-I am sure we are all conscious-of the problems that are posed on a very regular basis about current funding arrangements. Page 8 of the text of the Minister's statement reads: One of the biggest problems with the current Act is that there is no recognition of the different funding requirements of different service types. There needs to be flexibility to recognise the widely differing needs of people assisted under the program and the differing needs of individual service types. Rather than a set funding formula, I propose that the Bill provide for funding formulae to be set out in regulations. That is a new initiative. It will be interesting to see whether it is successful. It will certainly enable greater attention, I believe, to be placed in the Senate on those particular questions, because if they are set out in regulations, quite obviously they will come before us as subordinate legislation and there will be opportunities for debate. I am pleased to see that the Minister and the Government have placed this question, which is a very important question, at the forefront of the attention of the Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 11 June, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.54) —Last evening we were debating these three Bills cognately in the Senate. The three Bills provide an extra $144m to our schools, higher education and technical and further education institutions. They take the form of regular supplementation Bills that come before the Senate each year. It gives us the opportunity to recognise and to put into perspective the financial resources that the Commonwealth is providing for all levels of education in Australia. This $144m takes the Commonwealth provision for education finance for the very first time to an amount in excess of $5 billion. This represents 7.2 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays. I was protesting last night, when I had more time to express this point, that in recent years we have achieved a plateau on which we seem-I realistically assess-locked in. I myself have been seeking a real increase in the education commitment from the Commonwealth. However, year by year, whether in regard to the former Government or this Government, we seem in Australia to be locked into the same amount of financial resources for education. What therefore has been happening, particularly in the last three years under this Government, is that that $5 billion worth of educational resource from the Commonwealth has been confined, restricted, locked into set boxes, administered by a rigid bureaucracy. All that is open and flexible in the system is who is able to get into it. There is not the flexibility in the education system to allow for growth or change, for openly meeting all the needs of Australians in the way the Opposition would wish. The plateau of $5,000m in the provision of Commonwealth money for education has led in the last three years to this inflexible system. We in the Opposition still want in the coming weeks to announce a well thought through series of policy options to find a way out of the boxes in which education seems so circumscribed. When these matters come before the Senate in the future, when the Opposition returns to government, I look forward to the prospect not only of our providing to education the same real amount of public money-certainly not less; certainly the same financial commitment in real terms-but also of providing it in such a way that our universities, colleges of advanced education and schools do not feel locked in and unable to meet the needs of the people they serve because they are circumscribed by all the regulations, by the need to gain the assent of the bureaucracy for any new development. At all levels of education in Australia we want to see the ability for local decisions that more truly serve the people. The Opposition is committed to maintaining this level of financial resource but with policies that will allow institutions to be flexible enough to meet the needs of their people with a maximising of choice. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.58) —We are debating the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1986, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986. I wish initially to address my remarks to the tertiary sector. The decade beginning with the last Hayden Budget in 1975 has been one of savage and counter-productive cuts to higher education funding in this country. Anyone who may be under the illusion that under the Hawke Government this funding has been restored need only compare funding now with that of a decade ago or compare the recommendations of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission with the Government's appropriations. For instance, the Commission recommended a funding increase of $355m for the 1985-87 triennium. The Government appropriated $65m. In inimitable style, the Government used this disparity as evidence of the Commission's irresponsibility. The most significant cuts in the period from 1975 to 1986 have been in an area to which I have referred constantly in debates on education-the capital works program. The CTEC report for 1985 in chapter 9.12 stated in regard to academic buildings: The problems most commonly identified by universities in relation to their building programs remain those identified on previous occasions. They include: the need to comply with revised fire and safety regulations; the dispersion of related activities both on and off campus; the continued use of old and temporary buildings, including many World War II huts, originally intended to provide only short-term relief for accommodation problems; and the existence of obsolete buildings which are absorbing an unacceptably high level of maintenance funds. The problem is not new. We know what the difficulties are. We know that those difficulties are increasing. The grants in schedules 18, 19 and 20 of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill are specified for building projects. As CTEC pointed out, the capital works program funding assumes that university buildings have a life of 200 years. This surely is carrying the bicentennial fervour a little too far. The most significant casualties, however, have been research funds. One-third of equipment in higher education is obsolete or useless. The replacement time frame is 15 years, which is absolutely absurd when compared with the rate of technological change. If one wishes to debate that point one has only to look at the Government's taxation laws, which allow computers, for example, to be written off over a three-year period. It is assumed for some reason that those areas which are teaching future generations and assisting in technological advancement can make do with replacements every 15 years. Post-graduate research scholarships have fallen from a parity with tutor salaries to approximately one-third of that parity. The Australian research grants scheme involves a continuing dilemma of slicing too small a cake by either giving adequate grants to a fraction of the research applicants who deserve assistance or giving totally inadequate grants to a much larger proportion of applicants. A survey in 1985 of ARGS grants highlighted that only 26 per cent of new project applications received funds. This figure is at an all time low since the beginning of the ARGS. Although 331 new projects were funded, 146 had to be abandoned to make this possible. The average grant is less than 40 per cent of the equivalent grant in 1966. Seven hundred and thirty-two projects that were considered worthy of support simply could not be funded. The ARGS estimates that more than double that year's allocation will be needed to cover adequately the following year's top-ranking projects. The Australian Labor Party in its platform before the 1983 election promised that, if elected, it would increase funds to the ARGS each year at a rate of 10 per cent above inflation. This promise has not been honoured. In 1984 the ARGS received a 3.5 per cent increase above inflation. In 1985 there was no increase and in 1986 it was 7 per cent above inflation. The latest Economic Planning Advisory Council research paper advises the Government to freeze research funding to tertiary institutions and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to encourage research funding from the business sector. I am not sure who writes such absolutely absurd statements. The reason for the statement is that the business sector is assumed then to receive a 150 per cent tax deduction. The reasoning behind the recommendation presumably is the contemporary dogma that research must be economically relevant rather than being just pure or fundamental research. As with most EPAC recommendations, it is based on the authority of the organisation and certainly not on any evidence that it has been able to produce. I will refer now to a rather fascinating program by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation called Occam's Razor and to the recent program by Dr Ian Lowe. He pointed out a variety of items which I think are fascinating. He points out that what is worrying is the approach being taken by the Australian Science and Technology Council, ASTEC, which seems to have the unenviable capacity to ignore evidence which is incompatible with its own views. That body's research funds-- Senator Teague —What was the relevance of Occam? Senator MACKLIN —Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem-do not multiply entities without necessity. It is the basis of a scientific method. If Senator Teague wanted to relate it to the argument, he should have listened. I referred to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program. ASTEC has a tendency to ignore evidence which is incompatible with its collective values. That body's recent report on research funding sets a new standard in this area. With an innovative leap into what appears to be a new discipline of psycho-physics, ASTEC recommends: Research of the highest quality requires research groups of sufficient size to have critical mass. It was stated on Occam's Razor: A critical mass is the minimum quantity of fissionable material necessary for a chain reaction to take place, and ASTEC define this in research terms as being a group "as large as a normal department". In this case there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that large aggregations of researchers in Australia are disproportionately productive. Such qualitative indicators which are available, for example, publications per researcher or citations of these publications, research grants awarded and so on, clearly give the opposite picture. It is a vital question because in these days of funding restraints on everything except the obvious, desperate, and all out need to get the new Parliament House up and running by 1988, there is a limited amount of money available to support research in this country. The centres of research concentration are being funded at the expense of allocation to the higher education sector in general. The same is likely to be true of any further reallocation towards large teams or new centres. The significance of this proposal from ASTEC becomes clear from a consideration of the role of university research. This research has two types of output. It produces new knowledge by way of research results and it produces skilled people who have been educated in research methods and techniques, or who have been exposed to the latest knowledge in a particular subject area. This skill base is currently at risk because of the funding constraints. As the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations (FAUSA) has pointed out, one third of the equipment in higher education is obsolete. Library funds are constrained so severely that the cancellation of journal subscriptions is returning Australia to the intellectual dark age in which we simply do not know what is happening in the rest of the world. I remind the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) that 98 per cent of research we are able to use operates and is developed outside this country. That is the usefulness of research, that is the usefulness of journals. As anybody who has been associated with tertiary institutions knows, the cutbacks in libraries are in the area of journals because that is the most expensive area being carried. Excessive years of marginal fundings have eroded the time and other resources available for research. I have mentioned many examples in other speeches I have made in this place of researchers who have international reputation operating on research funding of $300, $400 or $500, something which people in overseas countries just cannot understand. Of course they, quite rightly, are attempting to poach those people from our higher education institutions with offers of reasonable research funding. We all know of people in these areas who are buying their research equipment out of their own pockets, who are refusing to accept any more research students because they simply cannot afford to buy the equipment necessary for the research. If funds are frozen at the current level or are reduced still further to allow teams of critical mass to be assembled, as ASTEC wants, we are expected to believe that the private sector, for some reason, will rush in with wallets agape to press resources upon the researchers of this country. One might ask why it has not been doing that to date, not only with regard to our publicly funded institutions but also with regard to the research within their own institutions, even if it were research which would be short term only and only that which can be shown to produce a dollar. We are being offered simple answers to incredibly complex questions. We are being asked to trust in the inevitable economic recovery, or to starve the research community so that we can lavish resources on a few megastars. As has been pointed out, to every complex question there is a simple answer, and it is always wrong; but not only that, it is likely to do an enormous amount of harm. A reference to simple answers to complex questions should not pass without a mention of the Opposition's draft policy, or whatever it is that has been floating around, which looks at the so-called deregulation of education. The shadow Minister for Education, Mr Shack, announced some time ago-with a boldness which must stem from some kind of messianic ignorance-that the solution to the problems of our schooling system lies in exposing the system to market forces. We are going to call on Adam Smith to come to our aid, and will look again at vouchers, God help us. I never thought I would have to get out that file again. In fact, I did drag out my rather yellowing file on vouchers, which goes back to the early 1970s. I never thought that in 1986 we would have a rerun of that exercise. I found in my file that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle involved herself in that issue, and I understand that it was Liberal Party of Australia policy during various election campaigns. Of course when the Liberals got into government they realised the absurdity of the proposition. I do not want to take up too much time in this area, but basically I suggest to the Opposition that if it wants to have a look at that matter it should read the literature on it. It sounded like a good idea at the time but, when one works out the implications of that operation, undoubtedly rural education will suffer enormously-it has to; there is no other way out when we move into those areas-and more importantly there will be a congregation into selected areas, and those people who are currently disadvantaged even within the operation of the existing education system will be disadvantaged still further. Those people who are advantaged by the current system will be advantaged still further by the introduction of vouchers. I do not believe it is a serious proposition and I hope it will go away as quickly as it arose. I want to make one final point on the research area, the area in these Bills on which I chose to concentrate. The Australian Democrats have consistently urged-I am pleased to see that Senator Button's Department, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, has now made such a recommendation-for the establishment of a national research council. In the last two elections I have urged on behalf of the Australian Democrats the establishment of an Australian research foundation that would receive funds from government on a triennial basis. It would be empowered also to receive funds from industry, either on a tied basis or as free grants. The reason I suggested such a single operation is that it would take over the roles of ARGS and the National Health and Medical Research Council, and also of course the abolished area of the Education Research and Development Committee, for which no additional funds have been allocated. More importantly, we need in Australia to look at current research and problems that have arisen in overseas universities and tertiary institutions, including the ethical and professional problems of tied grants. We need to establish some means of getting arms length arrangements between the actual researchers and the funders. We also believe that each institution should be able to have at least one centre of research concentration and if any institution is not of sufficient standard to achieve this, it should be funded to run a development program of staff, plant and equipment to enable it to research to world standards in a particular area in minimum time. As well, part of that centre's establishment fund should go to student accommodation. We also believe that there needs to be a total restructuring of post graduate entrance so that all those who are capable of undertaking such studies and are certified as being eligible have the opportunity to do so. While this will cost money, I would suggest that, even from reading the document attached to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last night and other statements that have been made by various Ministers in this area, we have to acknowledge that the dollar spent on education is the best dollar invested by this country. Umpteen papers, symposia, documents and even books have looked at the link between money spent on education within any economic system and the performance of that economic system over time. The dollar spent on education has always out-performed the dollar spent on roads, mining or any other activity. We acknowledge that it does not bring short term gains but it does bring medium and long term gains to the community. We know it is a cost, but we must look at it in a far more realistic way; that is, look at that dollar not as a cost to the community but as the most worthwhile investment that any country can make, an investment in its own citizens. The fact that we still pay people more for unemployment than we do for study illustrates the values of our society. Until we hold education to be of economic value, until we hold the development of our own people to be that critical to the future of our community, any Education Minister, no matter what government that Education Minister is in, will be fighting an uphill battle in Cabinet to secure any reasonable funds for our education system. It really does not matter what party is in power; the total community must value our education system that greatly. Without that I do not believe this country has a future, no matter how much we go on manipulating the other variables in the economy. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(11.19) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions, and commend the Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —by leave-I table the revised explanatory memorandum for the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.21) —The Senate may rise this week. The Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 is a major piece of legislation. Nineteen speakers from the Opposition are listed to speak in the second reading debate together with speakers from the Government and the Australian Democrats. It is a major debate and there is no possibility of its being completed this week. It is only fair to advise the Senate that the Opposition has, I think, 40 amendments which may be considered in six, seven or eight groups. Senator Haines —Nineteen of them are consequential. Senator PETER BAUME —Nineteen of them are consequential and, I think, the Australian Democrats wish to move a series of amendments. There is really no way that I can see this Bill in good order being completed this week and we should put that on the record. The Opposition supports the passage of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill. We seek to assist the achievement of the goal of equal opportunity for all. We recognise that in the area of employment, as in so many areas, there has not been equality and women have not been given a fair go. We support equal employment opportunity because it is a fundamentally liberal goal to seek to empower people in their lives. We support it because it is right. We support it because it is fair and because it is a goal that will increase the talent and ability available in the service of the community. The Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, underscored the importance we attach to this Bill when he made the main speech on behalf of the Opposition supporting it in another place. However, we support the Bill with some reservations and I will put down now what those reservations are. The Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill will impose upon employers one more burden, it will impose one more layer of regulations, it will impose more government bureaucracy and it will impose more expense. It is important, when considering the benefits to flow from this legislation, to identify the costs as well especially when those persons who will bear the costs are different in many cases from those persons who will enjoy the benefits. To do that is not to decry or to belittle the benefits-I will set out in my speech why we support that achievement-rather it is to present a more complete, a more honest picture for the benefit of those seeking to understand and to appreciate the legislation. We make clear in a second reading amendment some of the costs that this legislation will impose. I move: At the end of the motion, add: `, but in fully endorsing the principle of equal opportunity in employment and career advancement through merit, the Senate believes that (a) voluntary co-operation rather than additional Government regulation is the preferred method of achieving equal opportunity in employment; and (b) this Bill- (i) should build on the goodwill and expertise developed with private employers during the voluntary pilot program, (ii) will add to the cost burdens of business, thereby reducing overall employment opportunities and increasing prices to consumers, (iii) will increase the level of business regulation, (iv) will establish yet another bureaucracy at a cost to the taxpayer, and (v) will further extend the interference of trade unions in the activities of private employers'. I hope that the Senate will see fit to adopt these amendments. Let me return to the Bill and to our decision that we wish to see it succeed. On behalf of the Opposition I will identify some of the obstacles, some of the prejudices, some of the discriminatory practices and some of the barriers which have made women's progress so slow in the achievement of work place equality of opportunity. Consider a running track with two lanes in it. One lane is for men and one lane is for women-the running track of life. In Australia the women's lane now has, and has always had, legal and institutional hurdles in it. The men's lane has no legal or institutional hurdles related to sex. Members of the Liberal and National parties want to remove altogether those hurdles from the track, because those hurdles make the way of women more difficult. We may have some good hurdlers in society but if there are running tracks there is no reason for them to have to become good hurdlers to succeed. To remove the hurdles is equal employment opportunity and it is the way of EEO. Some people seem to want to move the hurdle for the women's track across to the men's track and some people call this hard affirmative action. They regard it as a form of catch-up. It involves reverse discrimination, some kind of pay-back. That is the way of the virulent forms of affirmative action, the kind that has been discredited in some of its forms in the United States of America for example. We are deeply, sincerely and publicly committed to equal employment opportunity, to tearing down work place barriers against women. We are equally against virulent affirmative action where this means erecting barriers against men. One does not correct past injustice against one gender by replacing it with future injustice against the other. We know equal employment opportunity affirmative action by two tests. The first test is the merit principle as the critical determinant of employment; and the second test is whether quotas are to be achieved irrespective of merit. The answer to those two questions will tell us whether it is EEO or affirmative action. On those two tests this Bill is not a Bill about affirmative action; it is about equal employment opportunity which we support. I remember Senator Haines described it when it first came out as the affirmative non-action Bill. It is an equal employment opportunity Bill because no quotas are imposed and because employment matters will be subject to the overriding entrenchment of the merit principle in clause 3 sub-clause (4) of the Bill which reads as follows: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. Indeed, had this legislation set aside the merit principle and sought preferential employment treatment for women the Liberal and National parties would have opposed it. However, it does not set aside these matters; it does not seek preferential employment treatment. It seeks to remove barriers and so we support it. Every attempt to empower women to participate in society has been opposed and every advance for women has been won with difficulty. While we are considering employment matters today, employment discrimination in this Bill, it has to be in the context of equal discrimination which has occurred in the related areas of education and of access to political power because they are all related. Those are activities which help to determine success in employment. For a start let us consider some milestones of progress and let us use just South Australia as a convenient example since I have a record of some of the dates when some progress has been achieved there. These milestones reveal just some of the discrimination which has made it impossible for women for so long to compete as equal members of society. Women had been little more than chattels through most of the nineteenth century. In 1884 the South Australian Married Womens Property Act gave to women some right to own property and even to continue to own their own property after marriage. In 1911 women were allowed to practise law. In 1921 women were allowed to become public notaries and justices of the peace. When moves were made at the Federal level to introduce a Federal maternity allowance in 1912 it was opposed and it was criticised by some as `placing a premium on vice' and as `promoting an increase in illegitimacy'. Not until 1940 did women gain equal parental guardianship rights, again in South Australia. In the same State, women gained the right only in 1948 to have their own individual nationality, not necessarily the same nationality as their husbands. Not until 1965 did women gain the right to serve on juries though, of course, they had been required to appear as defendants before male juries for centuries. Not until 1965 were women allowed to sit on juries as part of their rights as citizens. They were still barred from serving in the Public Service if they married and they were not permitted to buy drinks in the front bars of hotels. They are some of the general kinds of barriers that existed. I turn to education. Education provides a capacity for women to participate in society. What is the story there? Denied much education at all, women's attempts during the last part of the nineteenth century and through the twentieth century to enrol, graduate and use education as a stepping stone to equal participation in society were all opposed. They have all been opposed during the last 100 years. Eminent doctors of the nineteenth century even went so far as to argue publicly that education for women could only be at the expense of the proper development and function of their reproductive organs. I must say that it is humorous to read some of those eminent medical opinions a century later. It was 1880 before women were permitted to graduate from Adelaide University. What earthly reason could there have been not to allow women to graduate from university? It was later than that in all the other Australian universities. Women were permitted to study medicine only from 1885, but the medical graduates, certainly in my city of Sydney, though they might have had a degree, were not made resident medical officers, which was essential for full registration as a medical practitioner and essential for them to be able to participate in society, until 20 more years had elapsed. Australia was echoing, as least in part, British resistance to the education of women. The British had no doubt that they were resisting the education of women. Oxford and Cambridge universities resisted completely the equal recognition of women students for decades. Elizabeth Windshuttle recorded that most opposition to women gaining full educational opportunity was based on the belief that they would lose their femininity if educated, and reject the role of wife and mother. So it was argued that the education of women would lead to a breakdown of the family, and so of society as a whole. Every advance for women has been opposed with exactly that argument, no matter what the advance has been. It has been argued that it will lead to a breakdown of the family and of society as a whole. This has been an objection based really on the desire to maintain an unequal society. Indeed, Dean John William Burgon, in a sermon at the University of Oxford in 1884, argued that allowing women to study mathematics and natural science was: . . . a proposed reversal of the law of nature which is also the law of God concerning woman . . . so far, at least, as women's education is concerned. He ended his sermon with the following sentiment: Inferior to us God made you, and inferior to the end of time you will remain. Cambridge University admitted women to full honour degrees with complete equality with men only in 1948. We all know of inequalities in school offerings and in the different expectations and ideology of schooling for girls. Today women students represent 45 per cent of total higher education enrolments, but they are still grossly underrepresented in some faculties. Today, while women represent 45 per cent of the most junior grades of academic staff, they represent less than 3 per cent of all the professors in this country and less than 5 per cent of those at associate professor level. Even today educational inequality is clearly one of the hurdles on the running track of life in the way of women. Even today the story of the winning of electoral equality for women has been equally slow and equally opposed. Women were given the vote in South Australia in 1894 and federally in 1902, but the Bill granting women the franchise was bitterly opposed by some. For example, part of the contribution of Senator Simon Fraser in this Senate in 1902 was as follows: Woman naturally and properly clings to man. Naturally and properly, by an instinct born in her, she seeks the advice of man, and looks up to him for advice and guidance . . . I say that woman should not enter into the arena of politics, the turmoil of it, and the chicanery of it. I say that if she enters into the arena of politics herself: if she is a unit, as has been contended here; if she uses her own judgement and discretion in politics, she throws all the advantages which have been extended to her from time immemorial. I say the one thing involves the other, and were I a young woman, I would infinitely prefer the position of looking up to a man as my director, my guide and adviser, to that of having the privilege, the sham privilege, of entering into politics and fighting and elbowing my own way in spite of man. I end that quote by Senator Simon Fraser by saying that I should observe that his grandson, Mr Malcolm Fraser, was of a very different view and much more enlightened. In 1914 South Australian women were permitted to become municipal councillors. It was 1943, however, before a woman was elected to the Federal Parliament. I remind honourable senators that women were given the vote in 1902. The gap between the right of women to stand for election and the successful election of a woman, more often than not a Liberal, was often considerable. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief table for the Commonwealth and for each State Parliament with the appropriate dates of the granting of the right of women to sit and the date of election of the first woman member of each Parliament. Leave granted. The table read as follows- POLITICAL RIGHTS AND REPRESENTATION Table 1.1 Women's political rights-representation (Australia) Parliament Right to vote Right to sit First woman elected lower House First woman elected upper House Federal... a1902 a1902 1943 1943 South Australia... 1894 1894 1959 1959 Western Australia... 1899 1920 1921 1954 New South Wales... 1902 1918 1925 b1931 Tasmania... 1903 1921 1955 1948 Queensland... 1905 1918 1929 n.a. Victoria... 1908 1923 1933 1979 Note: a Women in South Australia and Western Australia were entitled to vote and to stand from 1901. Note: b Two women were appointed in 1931. The first woman to be elected was in 1952. Senator PETER BAUME —I digress for one moment to say something about my own family. My grandfather, and the grandfather of my cousin, Senator Michael Baume, was Frederick Ehrenfried Baume, King's Counsel and member of parliament, the Liberal member for Auckland City and then for Auckland East in the Parliament of New Zealand. He died in 1910, while a member of that Parliament. In 1919, the first occasion on which women were permitted to offer themselves for election in New Zealand, his widow, our grandmother, Rosetta Ida Baume, an early woman university graduate and feminist, was a candidate for the Auckland seat of Parnell, in the first group of women candidates ever to stand in that country. She was unsuccessful. I seek leave, perhaps sentimentally, to incorporate in Hansard the final figures for the seat of Parnell in that election. Leave granted. The table read as follows- RESULT OF GENERAL ELECTION, 1919 Electoral Districts and Names of Candidates Number of Votes recorded Number of Electors on Roll Population at Census, 1916 Parnell- Dickson, J. S.... 5,706 Bloodworth, T.... 2,287 Baume, Mrs R. I.... 1,026 Informal... 110 9,129 11,985 16,911 Senator PETER BAUME —I thank honour- able senators. In 1921 Australia's first woman parliamentarian, Edith Cowan, was elected in Western Australia. When she was elected, what was said about her? During her first campaign she was accused of being a disgrace to women, of heartlessly neglecting her husband and children. The fact is that at that stage her youngest child was 30 years old and her husband was out campaigning for her. So much for the attitude and the rhetoric of what people were saying. Senator Haines —It has not changed much. Senator PETER BAUME —The honourable senator says that it has not changed. Let us consider some details of the discrimination that has occurred in the area of employment of women. Employment practices were based on certain values and attitudes critical of the capacity of women and prejudicial to the hopes of women seeking paid employment. Discrimination in public employment has been institutionalised. Mr McLachan, giving evidence to the Royal Commission on Public Service Administration in 1920, said that women were innately incapable of work requiring responsibility and ambition, and were peculiarly suitable for carrying out routine work. The Royal Commission, which reported in 1921, argued that women were less able than men-this is the Royal Commission's view, not mine-had fewer financial responsibilities, and therefore should be paid less. They were weaker and more likely to be absent from work and less able to cope with responsibility. Not surprisingly, that was the way in which our Commonwealth Public Service evolved. Only in 1949 were women from outside the Service allowed to sit for the examination for the Third Division of the Commonwealth Public Service, the clerical division. The only women members of the Third Division at that time were those who had transferred from the State services at the time of Federation 49 years earlier. It was only in 1966 that the Commonwealth Public Service finally removed the marriage bar which prevented employment of married women as permanent officers and which had required them to resign from the permanent service on marriage. This marriage bar had the effect, incidentally, of depriving women who married of their superannuation rights. In 1968-recent history now-the marriage bar was removed in New South Wales. Women continued to receive discriminatory and disadvantageous treatment in Public Service superannuation. Yet only as recently as 1972 were women permitted to sit for examination for entry to the administrative division of the Victorian Public Service. Only in 1973, just over a decade ago, when Australia signed an International Labour Organisation Convention against discrimination in employment were all Commonwealth Public Service positions opened to women in principle. It was in that year that Marie Coleman, appointed from outside the Service, became the first woman to serve in the First Division of the Commonwealth Public Service. In that same year, too, the Victorian Public Service finally ended its bar to the employment of married women. Only in 1977 did Victoria remove all discriminatory provisions from its Public Service-less that 10 years ago-and as recently as 1978 Mayor Rex Pilbeam dismissed an employee from the Rockhampton City Council when she married. The Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986, a Bill currently before the Senate, seeks to remove a marriage bar as it relates to employees of the Reserve Bank of Australia. It is still there on the books, even if it has not been followed in practice. On the subject of discrimination in pay the story has been equally grim. The first determination of a female basic wage in 1949 entrenched an inferior wage position for women on the basis of their sex. Equal pay was opposed by the union movement and by the Government, and the wage case determined a lesser wage for women. It was not until 1974 that an Act was passed giving equal pay for equal work, Mr Justice Moore arguing then that the Government should find some other way to compensate families where the man was the sole breadwinner. Women were generally denied superannuation available to men. The marriage bar led to the loss of superannuation rights. Most women did not have the level of pay or seniority to win private sector superannuation. In 1979, in the higher paid groups getting access to superannuation, men outnumbered women by 10 to one and in the lowest paid groups where superannuation was not available women outnumbered men by three to one. Women filled 78 per cent of all part-time positions. Even now-and this Bill addresses these problems-available contemporary figures still show how women are missing from the ranks of senior employment and are concentrated in the lowest ranking jobs. The Four Corners program on 17 February this year reported that women constitute half of the Fourth, or lowest, Division of the Commonwealth Public Service, they constitute one-quarter of the Third Division, but only 5 per cent of the Senior Executive Service are women. In Australia's top 10 companies, of 12,400 executives and managers, 757 are women-just 6 per cent-half of them in one company, Ansett Transport Industries. Caltex Oil (Aust.) Pty Ltd had no female executives or managers, BP Aust. Ltd had seven, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd had 25 out of 2,000 executives, and Westpac Banking Corporation had 45 women out of 3,425 executives. Will anyone argue that these figures derive solely from lesser merit? Senator Crowley —Some of your side will. Senator PETER BAUME —Well, I do not. We are supporting the principle of this legislation for the following reasons. Systemic work place discrimination is a problem for Australian women. It has been so since Federation, and before. We support equal opportunity. This Bill endorses that value. We understand that a revolution has occurred in terms of work place aspirations and rights and is continuing among women. We understand that work force participation of women is up by two-thirds in the last 20 years. We understand that two-thirds of women in paid employment are married; that more than half of married women in paid employment work full time; that almost half of married women with children are in paid employment; that more than half of non-working women plan to take paid employment in the future; that half the women in paid employment regard their job as a career; and that only 28 per cent of Australia's women are now traditional; that is, staying home with their families and not taking paid employment ever. That is a valued, valid, important role, but these days it is a valued minority role. Women have the same inherent ability as men, but occupy lower paid jobs and they have less access to power and authority than do men. With long and healthy lives, more women want to have part of their lives as full time careers at home and part of their lives getting a fair go in the work force. We recognise that this Bill imposes extra costs, but we know already that many companies are adopting equal employment opportunity. We know that 80 per cent of Australians are employed under laws in four States that outlaw work place discrimination. We know that New South Wales and Western Australia already have more onerous affirmative action laws than this Act might provide. Most importantly, the needs of Australian women for a fair go outweigh even the powerful arguments of business against this Bill. We are not discussing whether or not women will work in the home or in paid employment. That is a decision that each woman will make for herself. We are discussing whether those who do choose paid employment will find equal employment opportunity and a fair go. While we value women's choice to stay at home and while our policies will give support to single income families, we share the values and aspirations, we share the feeling of urgency of many women to cast off the shackles which have held them back. We wish to identify with moves to enable Australia to have greater access to the talents of more of its working citizens in the work place-and in more senior positions if that is where they deserve to be on merit. We are not ignorant of the existence of work place discrimination, we do not acquiesce in it and we do not support it. Therefore, we are convinced that it is right and necessary to support this Bill. We cannot afford to exclude from the work force the energy and talent of women. We can only imagine our losses as a society if potential Marie Curies were not encouraged while Pierre Curies were. The Opposition has a series of amendments which it will move at the Committee stage. These are designed to improve the legislation and to try to endorse some of the values that I have set out in my speech on the second reading. Some of the amendments have already had the support of the Government in the other place and I thank it for the amendment that it has already picked up. I will discuss these amendments in detail at the appropriate time. It only remains to reiterate our support for equal work place opportunity for all Australians and to express our hope that this legislation will actually advance that cause. We hope that it will and I wish the legislation well. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.51) —I begin my comments on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 by commending the Government for keeping one of the few commitments that it has made to the electorate in the past few years; that is, its commitment to introduce the sort of legislation that will give women a very real choice and remove some of the impediments that have been thrown up before them in past years. I make it quite clear that this legislation does not force women to do anything. The issue at the heart of this matter is one of choice. If women-or men, for that matter-choose to stay at home they should have that right and they should be in a position to make that choice. That is what we are talking about: People being in a position to make that choice. If women and men choose to work in the paid work force, choose to follow a career, and if they have the educational qualifications, the talents and the ambitions to achieve their goals, they should also have the right to choose to go in that direction without artificial impediments being put in their way. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary that we hear sometimes in the community, impediments-not unwillingness or lesser ability-have prevented women from achieving their goals. Anyone who does not believe this needs only to turn to a publication such as Dale Spender's splendid book entitled Women of Ideas and What Men Have Done To Them to work out just what impediments-artificial, political, educational and others-have been thrown up before women to prevent them from having choice and, more importantly, to prevent them from competing with men. That has been the source of the problem. Those sorts of impediments have led to some of the things that Senator Peter Baume has mentioned. The fact that, for example, 591/2 per cent of female employees are currently concentrated in three major occupational groups-clerical, sales and services; and the fact that while just over 19 per cent of females were in professional and technical occupations, 371/2 per cent of those were teachers and another 30 per cent nurses. The latter, of course, is hardly a highly paid position and in most States of Australia it has only been within the past 10 years that the teaching profession has allowed women to be paid the same as their male colleagues. These impediments have caused the disproportionate employment of women in part-time jobs, meaning that women's relative share of available employment is limited and their share of available money is significantly cut back, which makes them less able than their male colleagues to compete economically. In sales and service occupations, for example, something like 41 per cent of women employees are part-time employees. This does them no economic service, it does them no professional service; in fact, it does them no real service at all, unless of course they choose to work part time. That is another matter entirely and at this point I would add that there are increasing numbers of men in the community who would also like to choose to work part time, provided that choice allowed for permanent part-time work with all the pro rata benefits that are so necessary. It is not just in those occupational areas that women have been disadvantaged in the past or in which they are still disadvantaged. An excellent study done in 1984 by Dr Leonie Still shows that, even in executive positions, women are significantly disadvantaged. The whole socio cultural environment in this country-it is only a reflection, to a large extent, of what happens overseas-seems to suggest that unrestricted opportunities are available for the career seeking woman. They are not. We hear a lot about women who make it to the top, whether as tokens or because they are genuinely as good as any of their male competitors. What we do not hear is the difficulty that those women have faced on the way up and the limited numbers who actually make it. For example, American studies indicate that there is a barrier at 15 per cent, that once that magic figure is reached the ranks of men in the corporations concerned tend to close and no more women-irrespective of their merits, talents or capabilities-advance very far. Dr Still's study shows that women executives in Australia hold a very marginal position in organisational life and that they have not begun to reach their full potential. That, of course, advantages neither the women concerned nor the organisations which employ them. Apart from that fact. the women in the survey were concentrated mainly in the lower levels of management. Women received less remuneration than men at all supervisory and management levels, with the difference in salary levels between genders becoming greater in the upper levels of management. This is despite the fact that her study also showed that the women managers were generally better qualified educationally than their male colleagues. Furthermore, women managers tended to be concentrated more in the narrower areas-the softer option areas, if you like, of personnel, advertising, retail sales and buying. The male managers were concentrated in production and technical areas, research and development, exploration, banking and general administration-the status managerial positions, if you like. Furthermore, training opportunities for women managers, according to Dr Still's study, were not offered in the same proportion as they were offered to male managers and, more particularly, relatively few young women were employed in management cadet or graduate training programs by those companies which offered such programs. We all know how important it is to be noticed while one is still a fairly low-level employee, to be picked up by management, encouraged and given the sort of confidence that is necessary for both male and female employees to advance up the corporate ladder. Finally, Dr Still found that there were differences in promotional opportunities for men and women managers, with male managers being recruited from many sources, including the external environment, whereas women were much more likely to be promoted from within their own organisations. In other words, the companies wanted to keep an eye on them to make sure they proved themselves. They were not prepared to take a risk. When these women were promoted they were promoted to much more junior managerial positions than their male colleagues, whether those men had come up the ladder from within the organisation or had been taken in from outside. Many more men than women were being promoted in the management hierarchy, with women's assumed lack of locational mobility being cited as one of the reasons. There are a great many assumptions that have prevented women from achieving everything that their inherent talents would normally allow them to do. I will return to that in a moment. The affirmative action legislation that is before us today aims to ensure that equal opportunity practices are put into effect rather than simply talked about. Let me make it clear that this legislation is not social engineering or anything like it, as has been suggested by some. In fact, I would say that it is quite the reverse. The intention of the legislation is, I suggest, that for the first time in the history of this country merit, and only merit, will be the criterion used for employing and promoting people, both male and female. Passage of this Bill will go at least some way-- Senator Peter Baume —Except in Telecom Australia and Australia Post. Senator HAINES —Except in statutory authorities, some of which have the worst employment and promotional practices in this country. Senator Walters —Why are they? Senator HAINES —I presume because they are fairly largely technical and male employing areas. They are the two main hurdles. Passage-- Senator Walters —Why does the Government not do something about that? Senator HAINES —We will come to why the Government is not doing anything about statutory authorities. Not being a professional crystal ball gazer, I have a feeling that that is about to be fixed up one way or another. Passage of the Bill, as I have been trying to say for some moments now, will go at least some way towards ending previous sex-based work practices. I was invited, as was Senator Peter Baume, to speak to a Coopers and Lybrand-W.D. Scott conference a couple of weeks ago which had as its title something like `Coming sex-based issues in the work force'. I suspect that I aggravated one or two people there by pointing out that this Bill was a desexing piece of legislation, that it was taking out the inbuilt sexism which has been so much a part of our assumptions, our legislative process and our past employment and promotion practices. I was referring to the sorts of practices which, over the past 80 years at least, have prevented women in this country from achieving their rightful place in the paid work force; practices in effect which have denied women all choice in making career decisions. Anybody who does not believe that employment practices have been supported or imposed by sex-based legislation-indeed, I would say, sex-biased legislation-need only look at laws and decisions ranging from the Harvester decision back in the early years of this century to legislation which forced women to resign from the paid work force on marriage and to retire at 60 instead of 65, which imposed the most extraordinary weight lifting restrictions on women but not on men regardless, I might say, of the size of the person concerned, which offered transfer or promotion positions to men only and which failed to encourage women and girls to take on broad-based educational courses, retraining schemes, management courses and so on. Given that sort of list, it is hardly surprising that what we are now faced with is undoing a lot of the damage that has been done to women through the legislative system in the past 80 to 100 years. There is no doubt that over that period the law in Australia and elsewhere, aided and abetted by entrenched public attitudes to men and women, let me hasten to add, has ensured that sex-based employment and promotion practices have been an integral part of the paid work system. That, of course, has not been helped by the fact that there have been so few women in the sorts of positions that I, Senator Zakharov, Senator Ryan, Senator Crowley or even Senator Bjelke-Petersen currently find ourselves in. As Senator Peter Baume pointed out, it has been only recently that women in any numbers have been represented in Federal politics or, indeed, in State politics. In fact, it was not until 1923 that women even had the right to be elected to the Victorian Parliament. In 1908 women in Victoria had the right to vote but they only had the right to do so for a male candidate and I find that almost the ultimate form of patronising legislation. It was not until 1923 that they had the right to bring themselves forward for election and thereby give the population the right to choose between a much broader range of candidates than had previously been the case. I would remind people such as Senator Walters and Senator Knowles who claim that we should not have such things as sex discrimination legislation in this country that in fact legislation passed in all States and expressed in the Australian Constitution is precisely that-it is sex discrimination legislation pure and simple. You, Madam Acting Deputy President, Senator Ryan, Senator Bjelke-Petersen and I would not be in the Senate at the moment if it were not for the fact that that sort of legislation has been passed by all parliaments, sometimes for pragmatic reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with the principle of giving women the vote. For example, in your own State of Western Australia, Madam Acting Deputy President, there was a much more cynical reason behind the move to give women the vote. The then Government of Western Australia faced a problem in the mining areas of Western Australia which it hoped to correct by giving very conservative women the right to vote. Nevertheless, had the parliaments not passed such legislation, we would not be here. Our predecessors would not have been here and our sisters and daughters, if they choose to follow our careers-and more for them if they do-would simply not have that choice at all. So I think it is quite extraordinary to hear people in this chamber argue that we should not have sex discrimination legislation when they themselves are only here because of such legislation. Senator Peter Baume —But it is consistent with everything that has happened every time people have tried to empower women. Senator HAINES —Certainly. The sorts of comments that Senator Peter Baume made earlier about women who seek positions in the Parliament, ignoring their husbands, rejecting their children and so on, are still the sorts of things that are flung at me. Just to digress for a moment-if the honourable senator can be anecdotal, so can I-I recall that in 1977 when I was first appointed to this place to fill a casual vacancy I was something like 32 years of age and my children were aged 7 and 8. Senator Baden Teague was elected that year and his children were of pre-school age. I cannot think of any occasion on which I was being interviewed around that time when reporters did not ask me how the family was going to cope, nor do I imagine that it occurred to them to ask Senator Baden Teague the same question. The implication was very strong that somehow my children were going to suffer whereas his would not. For those people who are still tuned in to the parliamentary broadcast of this debate, might I say that I have not yet been sued for divorce and my children have not yet, as a consequence, become wards of the state. Senator Gareth Evans —It is only a matter of time in each case. Senator HAINES —The honourable senator can speak for himself. His children were very young when he came into this place. In fact, while we are on a personal element, I recall the honourable senator saying to me that his daughter asked him once why everybody else's father was not always on television. I know that Senator Macklin's youngest son, when asked at one of the little school sessions in which the children talk about what daddy does, announced to all and sundry that his father went to work by plane. He was immediately told by the teacher that that could not possibly be true. When he insisted it was, she asked him: `Ah, is he a pilot?' Kevin said no. I presume he thought that his father might have been given the amount of time he spends in the air. So we all face these problems-not just women who have children and want to pursue a career. In the past the law has imposed restrictions on working conditions for women ranging from the weights they can carry to the age at which they have to retire. The question of the amount of weight that may be lifted is, of course, a fascinating one since the restriction is usually set at 16 to 18 kilograms. For anybody who is interested, that is the weight of an average three year old. I have yet to see men in the street, who presumably are aware of the award conditions that prevent women from lifting weights of more than 16 kilograms, leap to the assistance of a women who is walking down the street, carrying a fractious two-year-old and a load of shopping and dragging an unwilling four-year-old. Senator Zakharov —Or lifting them on to the bus. Senator HAINES —Yes, or lifting them on to the bus. Those restrictions are a nonsense. They are the sort of artificial impediments that, in the past, have been put in front of women to prevent them achieving the goals they would like to achieve. Nurses, of course, belong to another professional group that has been conveniently overlooked where things such as weight lifting requirements are concerned. Social attitudes to the roles of men and women within marriage have, very largely, been the reason for this sort of impediment being allowed to continue. That is the reason the community has used to justify that sort of discrimination and in justifying it, the alleged attitudes and assumptions were entrenched. As I have just indicated, many of those beliefs have no base in fact, but that has not stopped people of both sexes from arguing that women should not do dirty work or the aforementioned heavy work. Again, nurses and housewives would be interested in that statement. I wonder what people told the women who worked in the munitions factories in World War I and World War II about their not being able to do dirty and heavy work. So all of those factors have operated to prevent women from achieving the goals that they would like to achieve. As a consequence of those legislative, assumed and socially enforced impediments and the sex-based work place practices and laws that have been around for many years, State and Federal legislation has had to be introduced in recent years to replace gender-based practices with merit-based principles and practices. In many ways, this Bill is the contemporary equivalent of the sorts of things that Senator Peter Baume was talking about earlier-the nineteenth and twentieth century controversies relating to property rights for married women, restrictions on the use of child and sweated female labour, work safety requirements and regulations, paid holidays, equal pay for women, access to education for women and girls, women's right to work after marriage, access to superannuation schemes, the right to vote, the right to be elected to parliament, and so on. Each of the pieces of legislation covering those matters was resisted vehemently by some politicians, employer groups and professional groups, as well as some members of the general public. As Senator Peter Baume also said, learned and not so learned men asserted that allowing women to work, to own their own property after marriage, to earn and keep their wages, to enter contracts, to study and enter the professions, to vote, and so on, would lead to a range of socially catastrophic consequences, ranging from the breakdown of marriage, child neglect, atrophy of the uterus, inhibition of lactation, nervous breakdowns-which I do not doubt occurred but, I suspect, not in women-and depriving men of the jobs which were their natural born right. For those who doubt the validity of the assertions that Senator Baume and I have made as to the nonsense that was talked about the likely social, personal and individual outcomes of this legislation, I suggest that they turn to the record of parliamentary debates, letters to newspapers, editorials and pamphlets distributed at the time because they show all too graphically how true are the statements that Senator Baume and I have made and how deeply entrenched were the prejudices. Sadly, some of those assertions are still being made in Australia in the 1980s. I refer anybody who is interested in pursuing this matter to the December 1983 debates on the Sex Discrimination Bill, in which we heard allegations of possible breakdowns of marriages if trucking companies were to send drivers of both sexes together on trips between Melbourne and Perth. We heard the more extraordinary example of what was likely to happen to the marriages of those Telecom employees of opposite sexes who were forced to work together underground with a pole between them. Anybody who thinks I am making that up or distorting the facts ought to have a look at the Committee stage debate on that legislation in December 1983. If people do not believe that in 1986 this is still the policy in some areas, I refer them to an article in the Canberra Times of 20 February of this year, in which Mr Ian Cameron, the honourable member for Maranoa, a member of the National Party from Queensland, is reported as saying on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio: . . . that as contemporary society was a consumer society, it made more sense to pay men more so that women would not be forced out to go to work. ``There are glossy magazines and radio and television all encouraging women to go out and take their place in the work force, but I believe governments should be spending money to encourage married women to stay at home'' . . . ``They could be making the kitchen a lot more attractive than what they're doing these days''. I might add that not only did the honourable member run slap into the ire of people such as the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and me, but also I understand that his wife was not too happy either. While it may have been possible in a buoyant economy to defer to the somewhat fragile male egos that periodically pop up and allow arguments that women could not or would not do as well as men in many areas, even if one wants to leave aside the principle of the rightness of allowing choice and equal employment opportunity and if it is only economics that will get through to some people, we should realise that the fragility of the economy at the moment is such that business, industry and the public sector can no longer afford to ignore the talent and skills of half the population. This sort of issue was raised with me earlier this year by a constituent. A metallurgist, who had a PhD, came into my office with some concern complaining that no one would employ her despite her overseas experience, her excellent references and her qualifications and despite the fact that her PhD involved original research in that discipline which had been put to practical use by industry in Britain. She could not get a job here, the reason being that she was a woman and the company she had approached had never employed a female metallurgist before and it did not want to start because the men might not like it. She was told that, anyway, a lot of travel was involved, and we all know that women are less mobile than men! Apparently, the fact that she was single and much more likely to be more mobile than many of the married male metallurgists counted for nought. Whether some people want to acknowledge it or not, the fact remains that this kind of non-use of expertise, talent and experience means that businesses and industries are not maximising their opportunities to develop because they are ignoring the qualities, talents, capabilities and skills of half the work force. Providing employment, advancement, training and retraining, encouragement and extended opportunities to only one half of the population or the work force cuts employment opportunities by half. While some may prefer to keep the best jobs the exclusive preserve of men the country simply cannot afford it and women do not deserve it. They are entitled to be treated as people, not as some second rate group to be considered only after the needs of their betters are taken into account. The Bill before us is at least a step in the right direction. However, it does have a considerable number of deficiencies which we want to address in amendments. The public reports required by the legislation should include reports on each of the eight steps of an organisation's affirmative action program, not just a general run down. The naming of employers who fail to submit reports as required by legislation should be mandatory. I imagine that the Government will probably name them in the Parliament. I suggest that that is likely to produce an elitist club that will probably rival the Melbourne Club comprising all the groups of employers who have thumbed their noses at the legislation and have been named in the Parliament. Employers who fail to meet their forward estimates without reasonable excuse ought to be named by the Director of Affirmative Action in the report he or she tables in the Parliament. The 28 companies which participated in the pilot program ought to be required to report at the same time as the higher education institutions; that is, at the first stage of implementation. Financial incentives could well be included, particularly with regard to tied grants for higher education institutions and, in particular, specially disadvantaged groups of women ought to be pinpointed in the legislation. There are something like 26 speakers on the second reading debate list and there is a day and a half left for debate. All I can say is this: We support this legislation in principle and in content but we would like to see it go further. If we cannot get the legislation through this session the alternative is to have it apply retrospectively to 1 August and we would certainly support- Senator Robert Ray —But you will not vote for that, will you, on principle? Let's gag it now. Senator HAINES —We have opposed punitive retrospectivity. If the honourable senator opposite thinks equal employment opportunity for women is punitive retrospectivity he will not shoot little barbs at me across the chamber about supporting legislation which would allow this Bill to apply retrospectively from 1 August. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(12.21) —I speak to the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill today as Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate on behalf of National Party senators. I have no doubt that other senators will want to speak on the legislation if it is not pushed through as Government senators opposite were talking about earlier. However, the number of speakers in the present debate today is limited so I am just putting the National Party point of view. The affirmative action, equal opportunity legislation, which is before us today, will cover all companies which employ more than 100 staff. The legislation requires that companies undertake a prescribed affirmative action program within a specified time-frame, reporting publicly both on compliance and confidentiality. The legislation requires employers to comply with certain prescribed steps, including the setting of objectives and forward estimates and prior consultation with trade unions. The legislation will establish a new statutory government agency within the portfolio of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to administer the legislation, assess the progress of programs, report annually to Parliament and conduct associated research. Initially, 25 people are to be employed to investigate 500 companies each employing over 1,000 people. This is estimated to cost $1.5m. I ask the Senate: How much will it cost to investigate the 5,000 companies in Australia which employ 100 people and over? Senator Boswell —Millions and millions of dollars. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Indeed. I ask: Will it stop there? Maybe the Government will get down to firms employing 50 people and over; it is hard to know with this Government. Indeed, perhaps every business in Australia will have to do the same thing. I also draw the Senate's attention to the fact that clause 5 of this Bill invokes the use of an external treaty which will override State government legislation. This is something which every honourable senator worth his salt from every State should oppose-- Senator Reynolds —Or her salt. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Or her salt. I suppose, seeing as this is an equal opportunity Bill I should say every honourable senator worth his or her salt. The Senate is supposed to be a House that protects State rights. It does not happen very often, though. I believe that the legislation is an unnecessary regulation of the private and tertiary education sector and it gives inordinate power to the trade unions. Senator Robert Ray —It will not affect the National Party. What are you worried about? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —This is a very important point. It amazes me that, when Australia needs more incentive for business, when the private sector needs assistance to go ahead and make it more efficient and provide jobs and job opportunities, the Government brings in legislation such as this that requires unnecessary regulation and more paperwork because that is what it will mean for business. Coming on top of the regulations and paperwork of the fringe benefits tax it is certainly enough to make all employers ask: `Is it worth it? Why bother?' This legislation will not create one more job or improve the efficiency of one more firm. Indeed, I feel that it is making a mockery of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that business has to become more efficient. I feel that this type of enforced legislation will be counter-productive. Real social change cannot be enforced. It is best to proceed slowly via education, attitudinal change and independent acceptance. These changes are already occurring without legislation and without undue backlash. Senator Reynolds —Where in Queensland? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I can point to many people in Queensland who have excellent jobs. As a matter of fact, I cut an article out of the paper on Tuesday this week concerning Jan Taylor, who is the front person for the Queensland Consumer Affairs Bureau. I am quite sure that Senator Reynolds would want a consumer affairs bureau in Queensland. Jan Taylor, who is now the Assistant Commissioner of the Consumer Affairs Bureau, maintains: `Affirmative action is only aimed at a small percentage of people. It doesn't address the nitty-gritty issues . . . She said: A lot of women will disagree with me- of course, women senators opposite will do that- but I think we can succeed without things like affirmative action. Women are in the minority in senior public-service positions-- Government senators interjecting- Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Honourable senators opposite can all make their own speeches. I just ask them to let me have a go. Jan Taylor continues: Women are in the minority in senior public-service positions, but I don't think it helps to artificially push them up the ladder. From what I have seen of affirmative action in the States, that's what happens. And the result is a lot of resentment . . . Changes are already occurring without legislation and without undue backlash as far as I am concerned. Legislation will inevitably encourage formal compliance in lieu of real commitment on the part of employers. To my way of thinking, it would be far more productive for people to accept equality of opportunity through education, encouragement and rewards rather than through enforced quotas and binding legislation. Senator Reynolds —They are not quotas. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am sure that the legislation will eventually come to that as it has in other places. This is a very important point for our women senators here today. In my opinion it is demeaning for a women to be given a job just because she is a woman rather than because of her ability and suitability for the job. The legislation says to me: `You are not good enough. You cannot make it on your own. You need artificial legislation to make you equal'. Senator Coleman —That is exactly how you got to be here. Your husband put you in against a sitting member. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —In the 1980s, more than ever before, doors are opening for women. If the honourable senator opposite would really like to know, I came to the Senate because the people of Queensland voted for me. That is how I came to the Senate. I would say that I am probably one of the best known women senators in this place. In the 1980s, more than ever before, doors are opening for women. In Australia, we have the first ever female Speaker of the House of Representatives, we have a woman Cabinet Minister in Queensland, two excellent women members in the Queensland Parliament and the National Party has a woman as its Federal President. That is more than honourable senators opposite can say about the Australian Labor Party. It has just got rid of Mr Wran, or he is going to resign, and it will put Mick Young in. It will not put in one of the women senators here who think, they are all doing a very excellent job, of course. I just say to honourable senators opposite that the National Party has a woman president. In Australia, we also have female judges, lawyers, business executives, scientists, surgeons, professors, teachers and politicians. Senator Robert Ray —And pilots. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That is right. We have 15 women senators in the Senate. The woman pilot is doing a very good job for the Premier in Queensland; there is no doubt about that. We do not have 50 per cent of women senators but, after hearing some of the interjections from women senators today, I am very glad that we do not have any more of them. But certainly the number of women in the Senate and in the Parliament is increasing all the time. There are female truck drivers, bus drivers, jockeys, boilermakers, mechanics, labourers and airline pilots as has been mentioned. Everywhere we look, women are working hard and making an invaluable contribution to this country. In offices, in laboratories and factories, in social and political organisations, in local government, in service clubs, women are making their presence felt-and without an affirmative action and equal opportunity Bill, I might mention. I believe that if women have the ability they can get where they want to; that is obvious from what I have said. The whole subject of equal opportunity, sex discrimination and affirmative action is a very subjective one. Each of us is coloured by our own personal experiences in life. We must somehow strike a happy medium so that women are free to choose to pursue a career. But traditional family women who want to stay in the home and raise their families should also be encouraged to do so. Senator Coleman —Nobody is stopping them. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —No. But, just as Senator Haines took us way back in time to what happened in the earlier days, I am just putting a point of view about which I feel very strongly. I support equal opportunity; I would be very silly if I did not as I am here as a senator. I have never found that I do not have equal opportunity in this place, although I must say that some honourable senators opposite are trying to stop me from having an equal opportunity today. Affirmative action appears to me to enforce another form of discrimination with the quota system, forcing employers to employ a certain number of women regardless of talent or suitability. Allow me to say that not all women feel that they are discriminated against; but some do. Not all women want to achieve greatness in their careers. Senator Robert Ray —It will not worry you then. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Some do not even want to have a career outside the home. My word, it is a good job that Senator Ray has a good wife at home looking after his family for him. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. I feel that the whole crux of the problem is one of how a woman can best reconcile her traditional and domestic role with her wider role outside the family. A growing number of women are choosing to pursue careers. Many of these are married women with families. Thirty-eight per cent of the total labour force in 1985 were women and 62.7 per cent of all female employees are in full time employment. Likewise, women comprise 79 per cent of the part time work force, with married women accounting for 58.2 per cent of all part time employees. I accept that there are probably many women who work outside the home and do so out of sheer financial necessity these days. None of us needs to be reminded of just how difficult it is to manage these days with high inflation, excessive taxes and the very high cost of living caused in the main by the Labor Party that is in power at the moment. One wage really is not sufficient in many Australian households. Senator Robert Ray —That is three fibs. Senator Gareth Evans —Your nose is growing. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I have just touched a nerve over there. Because of the changing emphasis of society on the role of women, many women now feel forced both socially and economically into the paid work force. However, many are becoming disillusioned with the burden of trying to cope with a career, marriage and a family. The stress risks faced by these women are now recognised as a major health problem. It is really very hard to be the superwoman that the feminists think that all women should be. Those women who have chosen to care full time for their families have seen their role devalued by society as paid employment is promoted as the only method of achieving fulfilment. I feel that the work performed by women at home needs to be recognised both socially and by some form of monetary compensation. This should increase the options available to those women who are now working out of economic necessity. It will give back to women in the home some sense of dignity and purpose. The Government should be looking at the provision of a homemaker allowance or at the splitting of family incomes. But, of course, nobody on the Government side will agree with that. It has always been the case in our society that women have traditionally taken on the responsibility for the young children and for the family-the role of the carer and the nurturer. The National Party believes that a recognition of the maternal and child rearing role that women have undertaken is very important not only to society but also because it has a very significant cultural, economic and social significance of its own. In this whole issue of legislating for affirmative action my biggest concern is for the family. We value the family in our own lives and for our children's future. Some of us fear that moves to legislate for affirmative action may occur at the expense of the traditional family and traditional family values. Senator Crowley —Madam Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to standing order 421 and ask you to draw the attention of the honourable senator to this standing order and to ask her to cease her continued irrelevance and tedious repetition. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —There is no point of order. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I should think not. Thank you very much indeed, Madam Acting Deputy President. I am not quite sure how I am making tedious repetition. Senator Boswell —You are making good sense. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I think so too. In my opinion the full time career of a mother and housewife is essential to the family unit and she should be supported by the Government. Time is the greatest changer of all things. I believe that, given a more enlightened education program, all people will accept that equal opportunity is a natural way of life and that women will be accepted into more and more demanding roles and environments because they are good, because they have the talent and because they are worthy of the job, rather than just because of legislation such as we are debating today. True liberation means true freedom of choice, whether that choice is for paid or unpaid employment and whether it is employment in previously all male areas or in traditional female occupations. However, I do not believe that any government has the right to compel a private employer to employ certain kinds of people, as is the case in this legislation for affirmative action and equal opportunity that the Government has introduced. Our National Party has a free enterprise philosophy and I believe it is the right of a private employer to determine what constitutes maximum efficiency in his business. Perhaps the most important reason for opposition to affirmative action is the fact that affirmative action becomes reverse discrimination when persons who are alleged to have suffered a disadvantage are given special treatment and when merit and qualifications are bypassed in the process. Affirmative action aims to eliminate inequality but, in addressing one problem, I believe it creates another in its place. Soon we will have men saying that they are discriminated against and that they want an affirmative action and equal opportunity Bill. In the National Party we know that women are equal because they stand beside their men on the farms and in small businesses; they are part of the operation. They help to drive the tractors. They are the farm accountants. They help in small businesses by standing by their men; they do not need any legislation to tell them that they are equal partners. For these and other reasons that I have outlined, I and my National Party colleagues do not support affirmative action although we believe in equal opportunity for everyone, men and women. We do not see the need for this Bill and we do not support it. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(12.40) —I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. I congratulate you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and Senator Peter Baume for your contributions to the debate. It is not often in this place that we have such broad agreement across the political spectrum on an issue as important as this. I certainly think that the contribution made by Senator Peter Baume through his service on the Representative Working Party on Affirmative Action Legislation is to be commended and I congratulate him on his contribution to the debate this afternoon. Senator Haines also made eminently good sense, as she always does when she speaks on this subject. However, I will refer to the other speaker in this debate a little later, because I would like first of all to take the opportunity to lead for the Government in this debate. It is quite clear that this legislation has the support of the major political parties in this country; it has the support of the business sector; it has the support of the trade union movement; it has the support of higher education institutions. It certainly has the support of the women of Australia. I say to Senator Bjelke-Petersen that it has the support of the women of Queensland. I will be in a better position, when I continue my remarks later, to detail the extent of that support in Queensland. All major national women's organisations support the legislation we are debating today. At the National Agenda for Women Conference held in Canberra in April 1986, 500 women representing up to 100 organisations from throughout the country passed with acclamation the following resolution: That the Federal Government be commended for maintaining its commitment to introduce affirmative action. I take this opportunity to commend the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Susan Ryan, the staff of the Office of the Status of Women, and the Working Party, which was representative of the Government, the Opposition, business, trade unions, women's organisations and higher education. I especially commend the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) because it was the Prime Minister who actually introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives. Senator Boswell —Ha, ha! Senator REYNOLDS —Some members of the Opposition, particularly Senator Boswell, may snigger at that, but I am sure that the women of Australia have taken note that the Prime Minister placed such high priority on this legislation that he himself introduced it in the House of Representatives. Senator Boswell —He should be giving priority to the state of the economy. We are going down the drain. Senator REYNOLDS —The women of Queensland, in particular, will note Senator Boswell's comments because his Party does not even have a women's policy in that State. Senator Boswell —We treat them like men. Senator REYNOLDS —You treat them like animals. I will deal with that later. The Prime Minister, in his speech introducing the legislation in the House of Representatives on 19 February this year, said: This legislation is necessary to ensure that all large employers take seriously their obligations to their women employees. The changing role of women in our society is reflected, to a large extent, in the changing patterns in the work force. The Government is determined that women should be able to enter and compete in the labour market on an equal footing with men and that outdated prejudices or conventions should not prevent them from fully participating. Neither individual employers nor the nation can afford to waste the valuable contributions which women can, and do, make to our economy. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.46) —Last night the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke) gave an address to the nation. The address had been heralded as being of great significance to every person in this country. It has today been roundly condemned by every section of the community-by the trade unions, by businesses, by social service workers and, indeed, by all the media. It has been condemned roundly also in other countries of the world. To understand what has happened one must look at the background and understand that for three years the Hawke Labor Government has said to the people of Australia: `Everything is all right. We have a sound economy; you are secure, your wages and conditions are secure'. This went on until a month ago and then suddenly, when the Prime Minister was overseas, the Treasurer, Mr Keating, reacted to adverse balance of trade figures and said that there was a critical situation which could lead Australia to be a banana republic or like a Third World country. Suddenly, a matter which the day before had been all rosy and meant prosperity for all Australians became a very serious matter indeed. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either it was right in the past and therefore is wrong in the present, or the situation is the other way round. Mr Keating and his colleagues then set up a business and trade union summit to look at the matter and to tackle the great issues of the day. The Prime Minister was away. He reacted angrily to his Treasurer and came back. Mr Hawke, who had been impotent in these matters and who has always gone against the Treasurer and made deals behind the scenes with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, decided to cancel the summit and to give an address to the nation. So we had last night the projection of an address to the nation by the Prime Minister. His aim was to tell the people of Australia what was happening in Australia and the solutions to it. He did neither last night, and the tragedy is that we saw once again a Prime Minister who resorts to rhetoric and personal appeals, makes great promises and tries to talk things up on a grand scale but is in fact impotent within his own Party, within the Government of Australia when it comes both to projecting the truth and to facing up to the situation. What are the facts? What did he say last night? He said last night that there had been a 3 per cent decline in the value of our export earnings and that therefore the living standards of all the people of Australia had to be reduced. This was fascinating, but for three years the story was that the living standards of the people of Australia would be preserved or rising. Suddenly, within days, the situation is such that the living standards have to be reduced. Why is that? It is because there is an adverse balance of trade, according to Mr Hawke, caused by a decline in primary industry. But, of course, the adverse balance of trade in terms of the earnings of primary industry has been going on for years. There is nothing new about it. The figures themselves were reflected and anticipated in the Budget months beforehand. There is nothing new, nothing new at all. In any case, that was only a fraction of the truth. What was the truth? We are dealing with a symptom-the balance of trade-and not the cause. The crunch of the matter is that Australia has become totally uncompetitive with overseas countries. The unit costs of production in Australia are so high that we have costed ourselves out of world markets. The fact is that our manufacturing industry has declined year by year. Throughout the whole of the years of the Hawke Government manufacturing industry has shed employment. Unemployment in manufacturing has grown and our ability to stem the tide of imports has failed. Therefore, two things have happened. We have an adverse balance of trade because we are paying enormous amounts for imports, and we have no manufacturing industry to provide jobs for the 600,000 unemployed because our costs are too high. The tragedy of the situation is that our costs are too high even though there has been a 30 per cent devaluation of the dollar-a judgment by the world about Australia, a judgment that Australia's economy had to be deflated 30 per cent. Even though that 30 per cent provided an extra tariff protection, manufacturing industry in Australia has been incapable, for a number of very important reasons, of competing with imports. The other side of the coin was not told, that being the fact that our unit costs of production are the central cause of this situation. The Prime Minister went on to say that we will have to take a reduction in our living standards. I believe that it is the most outrageous statement I have heard from a government. It cannot decide suddenly, in one day, that what was rosy yesterday is to mean a reduction in living standards tomorrow. That is a quite outrageous proposition. If the Government knew that this decline was taking place, why were these actions not taken months or years earlier? Why were not the people of Australia told months earlier or years earlier? The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that this Government was right in its first three years whereas in fact they were three years of decay and degeneration, three years of failure to tell the truth to the people of Australia. We have been subjected to a pretence that here was a government making a consensus with the people and overcoming conflict when, in fact, there was the most major confrontation. A bargain was made behind the scenes with the trade union movement in confrontation with the rest of the community-with manufacturing industry, with the employees in shops, offices and factories; and with the pensioners and all others. Here was a situation of pretence. We were told that all would be all right because of the accord, yet the accord was based upon the indexation of wages through the consumer price index, a process which simply indexed inflation and kept the inflation rate in Australia throughout the whole of this period about three times higher than those of our trading partners. This situation of pretence has gone on for three years, but the day of judgment has come. Even when the day of judgment came the Prime Minister and his Treasurer would not and could not tell the people the truth. The simple truth is that under this Government there has been a building up of costs through extra government charges, a failure on the part of government to see the competitive world around us, the imposition on industry of taxes such as the prospective fringe benefits and capital gains taxes and the crowding of industry so that competition could not survive. As a result, Australia has gone under in comparison with the rest of the world. Fundamentally, the thing that to me is thoroughly ugly is the fact that the Government's solution is not a constructive one. It says: `All you people have to suffer because of what we have done; you have got to take a reduction in your living standards'. But that was never necessary. It would never have been necessary if there had been an honest approach to this situation over the months and the years. How can Australia achieve a better competitive situation? How can we get costs down and quality up? It is not necessarily by the slashing of wages and working conditions, which now is inevitable. Let us not forget that is the solution the Government is now proposing. The absolute inevitability of that solution has been brought about because the Government has failed to say to the people of Australia: `If unit costs of production are as substantially high as they are, there are two ways in which to deal with them'. The first is the positive way-a constructive, co-operative teamwork between management and worker, an understanding that only by co-operation between the two will productivity get up and wages and living standards be preserved, an understanding that by getting productivity up and costs down the 600,000 people now out of jobs will be able to get jobs. There has not been a squeak of a message for three years about the fundamental fact that the solution to Australia's present ailment is increased productivity through getting governments off people's backs and off the backs of industry and commerce; freeing up the situation to allow for better industrial arrangements between boss and worker; providing incentives so that workers can strive and gain more; and telling workers that the ugly, socialist idea of class conflict must go and that in its place, as is the case in all the countries we are competing with, must be a co-operative society. It was left to the former General Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, Charlie Fitzgibbon, to say to the Economic Planning Advisory Council that we had to change from a confrontationist society to a co-operative society. It was left for him to say that it is no good hiding behind the fact that others outside Australia receive lower wages. He said: `Look here, the countries you are competing with now have higher wages than Australia'. That is not the answer. The answer is fundamental. It is fundamental that in those countries management and worker co-operate. They work as a team and productivity is high. In other words, the unit cost of production is lower. The alternative is what the Government is doing. We can simply do nothing. As a result, living standards will fall, there will be more unemployment, wages will be cut and so on. Of course we must come out now saying emphatically that for the time being, for the years ahead at least, the superannuation scheme cannot be imposed on Australia's cost structure. We have to face up to the whole question of whether Australia can afford the productivity increases for the moment. The Government now says, as its only solution: `We have to discount wages'. This is a government which in opposition fought against the Fraser Government's wage freeze back in 1982-the wage freeze which, in fact, brought inflation down. Here is a government groping. It has done a terrible thing. It should have said to the people of Australia: `We are going to ask bosses, workers-everybody-to take restraints, but before we do that we will do what is fair and equitable. We have promised to give tax cuts on 1 September, and we will give those tax cuts. That will establish the equity of the situation. Having established that equity, having given people relief of an average of $9 a week as promised, and as we have the money for it-there is no alibi about that-we will then ask for restraints on other matters, such as the deferral of national wage cases and so on'. But the Government has not said that. The Government which poses as supporting the ordinary working person has in fact slid the tax cuts away for months, and on what basis? It is saying: `Let the people pay in tax cuts for fixing our deficit, rather than our being efficient as a government'. It was exposed last night that a Prime Minister cannot have as his only resource or depend only on some capacity to present some kind of charismatic rhetoric to the people of Australia. Ultimately they will look through that; they will look through the television screen and want to say: `Fine words, but tell us the truth. What are you doing? How did it happen? How could this accident happen when you told us it would not, that everything was beautiful? Why are you now saying that we must reduce our living standards? Why are you putting a gimmick into this situation?'. The Government has always railed against any kind of idea that those who are unemployed ought to be put into some kind of constructive employment. The Government which opposed that proposition in season and out of season needed a gimmick, so it used one. Mr Hawke put it in his speech, but he did not know what it meant. Today all the learned people such as the leaders of churches and social security organisations are saying: `This is wrong. By all means give people constructive, meaningful work. By all means teach people to upgrade their education, but do not engage in a leaf-scraping, town hall-painting pretext because you will then be confessing total and ultimate failure. You will then be confessing that you cannot create any more jobs but in fact are losing jobs and that the best thing you can do is engage in some kind of pretence or leaf-scraping'. That is the picture of last night. It is a tragedy. Leadership in this country will come not from that kind of message but from a message telling the truth to the people of Australia. The Government has costed itself out of world markets. If we want constructive jobs for those 600,000 unemployed, if we want to preserve living standards, let us get together. Let us get together and work as a team to get productivity up. If we can do that, if we can get costs down, we can not only prevent a further decline in living standards but also get jobs for the 600,000 people who are out of work. Last night the Prime Minister touched upon things, and very quickly the ACTU said: `No more discounting of wages'. The man who said that he could get consensus was shown confrontation straight away. Why is it that, his speech having been made around the world, the world judged the speech to be no good? Why is it that the value of the dollar fell in England as against sterling and in an enormous way in Japan as against the yen? It is because the people of the world looked behind the pretence of words and said: `This is a failure of a Prime Minister with a failure of a policy. The implementation of these words rather than constructive action will cause in Australia a decline and very great danger, so we put a lower value on your Australian dollar'? Mr Hawke last night put far too low a value on the quality of the Australian people. They will see through what he has said and they will react, as they have done today, violently and vigorously against it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.03) —I should have liked to consider the questions raised by Senator Sir John Carrick, but the matter that I am required to raise at this point cannot be raised at any other time before the Senate rises. I will explain why. First of all, I place on record my appreciation of Senator Vigor and Senator McKiernan yielding to me on this subject while the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who represents the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), is in the chamber. I am sure that the issues will be of interest to Senator Peter Baume also, as they relate to sex discrimination legislation. Actions in direct compliance with Commonwealth, State or Territory legislation which were in force when the Sex Discrimination Act commenced on 1 August are, by virtue of section 40 of that Act, exempt from the provisions of the Act even where what is done is inconsistent with provisions in Division 1 or Division 2 of the Act. Senator Peter Baume —Is that for a limited time? Senator HARRADINE —Yes. After 1 August 1986 the exemption provided by section 40 will in effect terminate insofar as the Government declines or refuses to exercise before 1 August 1986 the power given by section 40 to make regulations continuing the exemptions after that date. The Minister has said that a small number of discriminatory provisions in Commonwealth legislation will be preserved by regulations. At this stage it is surely appropriate, indeed necessary, that the Minister identify to the Senate which discriminatory provisions in Commonwealth legislation will be preserved by regulations, and which will not. We have only two days before the Senate rises. The task of identifying discriminatory provisions in the enormous mass of Commonwealth legislation is one which must be performed by government for its own purposes and which in practical terms can be performed only by government. I am asking the Minister and the Government to supply to all senators a list showing, first of all, all discriminatory provisions in Commonwealth legislation which would cease to be operative on and from 1 August 1986 if regulations were not made under section 40 of the Sex Discrimination Act, and, secondly, all discriminatory provisions that the Government presently proposes to continue in force by regulations under section 40. I feel that the Minister and the Government should also supply to the Senate separate lists with respect to legislation in force in each State and Territory because in this, the States' House, the Government has an obligation to inform senators which State legislation is to be overridden by the Sex Discrimination Act, especially where, as here, the Government has the power by regulation to suspend the overriding operation of the Sex Discrimination Act. It is not at all clear which laws will be overridden by the Sex Discrimination Act if no regulations are made under section 40, or what will be the effect of overriding some of them. Let us take, for example, section 66 of the Evidence Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory, which provides that in a criminal proceeding the husband and wife of the person charged are competent witnesses but, except in a very narrow range of cases, not compellable witnesses. Will the Sex Discrimination Act have the effect of making a party to a marriage both competent and compellable as a witness in all criminal proceedings against the party's spouse? Senator Peter Baume —You are asking this of the Minister, are you not? Senator HARRADINE —Yes. I think this is a very vital point. If so, is that a desired and desirable result? Section 134 of the Real Property Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory provides for the marriage of a female proprietor to be certified to the Registrar and for the register to be amended accordingly. There must be a host of other provisions in legislation of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories which will be affected by the Sex Discrimination Act when the sunset provisions in section 40 operate from 1 August 1986. That, as I said, is only one and a half sitting days away. Parliament will be rising, presumably, tomorrow afternoon. Senator McKiernan —I have got the fingers crossed. Senator HARRADINE —I have only half a minute to go. I urge the Government to extend by general regulations the operation of paragraph (a) and (b) of sub-section 40 (1) of the Act. During the period of that extension the Government should publish lists of the legislation of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories that would be overridden when the regulations expired, and it should indicate which pieces of legislation the Government proposes should continue to be protected from being overridden by the Sex Discrimination Act. The public could then make useful contributions to the ultimate decision-making process on which laws should be, and which need not be, protected from being overridden by the Sex Discrimination Act. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(1.10) —I rise to canvass a matter which has been brought into focus for me by the discussions associated with the self-government proposals for Canberra which have been put forward by the Government and to canvass some of the ideas associated with electoral systems and how fair particular electoral systems are. One of the things that we take for granted in a democracy is our ability to influence the political processes at election time. However, I believe that in the proposals for self-government in the Australian Capital Territory, put before the Parliament by the Hawke Government this year that particular right would have been denied to Canberrans. This is why the Senate has taken the strong stand that it has in saying that it would pass the self-government legislation only if a proper electoral system were provided for. In practice, a person's fundamental right to influence the political process at election time depends very much on where the person or the elector concerned lives, because most of the seats are safe for one party or another. Indeed, this has been so in the circumstances that have prevailed until now. In the 1984 general election the efforts of 3,827,118 voters were completely futile. They managed to record a formal vote but they voted for a candidate who was defeated and their ballot papers were not examined at all for second or later preferences. These totally unsatisfied voters comprised over 44 per cent of those who recorded a formal vote. I am certain that this lack of representation bedevils our political system. It means that large parts of the nation are ignored because there are no seats that can change hands. Sometimes the problem in those areas do not get any attention because a government does not believe it can ever get one of its own people elected there. At other times the neglect is because the local member uses the safety of that seat to indulge in other political games and ignore his or her constituency. In other cases the local member loses out to those in marginal seats when the pork barrel comes out, and hence the political process is distorted. In these safe areas the political process usually revolves around getting and retaining the preselection. For instance, the electors of Bass Hill in New South Wales have not had a resident local member since 1971 and on current indications they are unlikely to have one for quite a while. Similarly, there is quite a deal of jockeying over who will get the Liberal plum-I refer to the Federal seat of Wentworth-once the present incumbent retires. I do not believe that the presence of such safe seats encourages real democracy. Ordinary voters feel that they are basically rubber-stamping the work of a panel of preselectors. The opportunity for public input at this level is severely limited. This is not at all the situation in the Tasmanian election where the Hare-Clark system operates for the election of the House of Assembly. No seat is safe under that remarkably robust and fair system of proportional representation. There is very little need for boundaries to be redrawn and usually 90 per cent or more of the voters get satisfaction from their vote; that is, they get someone they voted for. The same electorates are used for the House of Assembly as for the House of Representatives. Each of those electorates returns seven members. This means, under the quota-preferential system of proportional representation that operates there, that any candidate who gets 12.5 per cent of the vote-just over one-eighth of the total formal votes cast-is guaranteed election. It also means that parties with a majority of the vote will obtain a majority of members in any seat, which is not the case in some other systems available. At the last general election the Liberal Party won 19 seats, one for each of 7,300 voters, and the Australian Labor Party won 14 seats, one for each 6,400 voters. The Labor Party received under 35 per cent of the vote and would have been wiped out under a single member district system. However, the Labor Party retained fair representation under the Hare-Clark system and in fact in Tasmania is a viable opposition. It is this type of system that we were proposing for the residents of Canberra. They have, in fact, had a PR system in the past. We were hoping to improve it through the amendments that we planned to move to the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill to make it work. However, we are not being given a chance to move those amendments as the Bill is not being raised in the Senate. I continue with the electoral system. It is interesting that at the previous Tasmanian election in 1982 there were also 19 Liberals and 14 Labor members returned. The Liberals won one seat for every 6,400 supporters and Labor won one seat for every 6,600 voters. This is clearly as near to one vote, one value as one can get. I will come to some examples in the other system where this is completely out of kilter. Furthermore, the Tasmanian voters brought 17 members into the Parliament-two to replace retiring candidates and 15 in place of defeated candidates. That is what I mean when I say that there were no safe seats. The Hobart Mercury's editorial of 17 February was titled `Parliament got a house cleaning'. Part of this editorial read: Casualties came from both Liberal and Labor ranks and included some surprises, but all in all, the electors of this State showed great perception in choosing from the many candidates people of proven skills and enthusiasm. People seen as ideologues, and others who have been given a chance and who had not performed up to expectation were cast-off by the electorate in an unprecedented shakeup, given more emphasis by the fact that it did not involve the defeat of a government or a major transfer in the balance of power. I believe that that is exactly what the voters want in an electoral system. Later in the editorial we had these comments: It is a tribute to the fine-tuning under the Hare-Clark multi-member electorate system that the voters can judge individuals harshly but still retain the same balance between the parties in the Parliament. Parties can guide the choice of electors but not absolutely as they can in single-member electorates, where often a voter is forced to back a candidate he does not like if he is to support an ideology which matches his convictions. We note that in the last House of Representatives election many people deliberately spoilt their ballot papers because they could not find anybody worth voting for. That is an indictment of the system. What actually makes the Tasmanian system work apart from the quality of its voters? The crucial factor is that the parties cannot present a fixed slate of candidates. They do not specify an order in which names are to appear on the ballot paper. In fact, it was a private member's Bill sponsored by Neil Robson, which was passed in 1979 in Tasmania, which ensured that this would not happen. Every candidate endorsed by a party gets equal access to the best places in the party's column. This is achieved by rotating the order of names within the column and printing quite a few different batches of ballot papers. The party column remains in the same place but the order of names changes from ballot paper to ballot paper. This means that the party machine cannot control who gets elected and who does not. This is extremely important. This procedure was used for the first time in February 1980 in the Denison by-election which was precipitated by court findings that candidates had overspent on their election campaigns. The interesting thing is that the seven candidates elected showed quite a deal of stability in their support, no matter in which position they appeared within their party column. Unsuccessful candidates relied a lot more on the top position for their vote. In other words, voters are quite able to pick and choose. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which shows the relative support for each candidate in each position within the party or group column. Leave granted. The table read as follows- DENISON BY-ELECTION 1980 Candidate Total vote Percentage vote from position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Baker... 1,540 21.0 12.3 11.3 10.8 9.4 8.5 8.5 9.2 9.1 *Bingham... 5,960 14.8 11.2 11.2 11.2 10.8 9.6 10.4 10.4 10.4 Bower... 462 26.7 11.9 8.6 8.2 7.3 8.8 7.1 12.1 9.3 Clark... 1,194 19.4 9.9 9.8 11.5 9.0 10.7 10.2 10.5 8.2 Davis... 1,616 17.2 10.3 10.8 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.1 10.6 10.4 *Haros... 5,658 14.1 10.5 10.9 10.9 10.6 11.1 10.7 11.1 10.4 Hughes... 355 34.8 9.3 9.1 8.5 7.1 8.8 6.2 7.9 8.2 *Mather... 2,160 16.9 10.1 10.8 9.5 10.6 8.9 10.7 9.9 12.5 Robinson... 1,364 18.3 12.2 10.7 10.6 11.9 10.3 8.3 7.6 10.4 Broadby... 422 33.0 12.0 13.0 10.1 9.7 11.1 11.1 Brown... 466 33.3 10.9 9.0 12.2 13.5 9.2 11.8 Harrison... 130 69.8 11.7 3.9 3.1 4.7 4.7 7.0 Holloway... 206 39.0 10.2 13.2 9.3 8.3 9.3 10.7 Kent... 121 64.2 5.8 4.2 5.0 6.7 3.3 10.8 Lanzlinger... 149 55.0 7.4 8.1 8.7 6.0 6.7 8.1 *Sanders... 2,798 16.6 14.3 13.5 14.7 12.6 14.9 13.3 *Amos... 3,928 18.8 14.1 13.4 13.4 13.3 13.1 13.8 *Batt... 8,272 17.7 14.1 14.1 14.0 12.9 13.9 13.3 *Devine... 4,346 18.3 14.2 13.8 12.9 13.4 13.8 13.6 Graham... 2,108 22.7 13.2 13.7 11.7 13.6 12.4 12.7 Green... 2,325 19.7 14.5 12.3 13.1 14.1 13.7 12.8 Hanscombe... 304 57.2 11.8 5.6 6.9 5.3 5.6 7.6 Joiner... 332 54.5 7.8 9.9 7.2 6.0 5.1 9.3 Kelly... 168 76.2 23.8 Shelley... 167 71.9 28.1 46,551 Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. This Denison by-election arose in most unusual circumstances. Ordinarily, Tasmanians do not return to the ballot boxes if a place in the House of Assembly becomes vacant. This is a way of saving money. It was among the proposals we were putting forward for the Australian Capital Territory. The ballot papers for the outgoing candidate are re-examined to see whom the voters who have lost their representative want to put in as a replacement. The process is orderly; it avoids the nonsense we saw surrounding the Lowe and Flinders by-elections in 1982 and the Scullin by-election earlier this year. Money is not wasted on a pointless exercise. For instance, the Labor Party did not even bother to run candidates for the recent Pittwater and Vaucluse by-elections in New South Wales. I believe that the Tasmanian approach could be improved if the ballot papers re-examined were all those without representation in the first place; in other words, those who failed to get a representative at the general election should not be automatically excluded as they are in the Tasmanian system. The principle should carry over to single member districts also, I believe, even if we cannot go the full way towards one vote, one value. It would certainly avoid the extravagance that goes with the current exercise. It would also force parties to offer more than one candidate. That would make branch stacking less important in terms of preselecting candidates, because the voters would decide who was going to be elected. We would find that the Government would go on with the job of running the country without worrying or being distracted by by-elections. Earlier I mentioned that the one vote, one value figures for Tasmanian Hare-Clark elections were excellent. When we look at non-proportional representation systems we find that one vote, one value is a fraud. For instance, in New South Wales, which is taken as a model by some people, in 1984 the Liberal Party obtained one seat for each 44,000 voters while Labor needed 25,000 supporters for each seat and the Nationals, 22,000 voters. That was actually in a good year. In 1981 the Liberal Party obtained one seat for every 55,000 supporters. At the same time, less than 23,000 supporters each were needed by the Labor and National parties. However, the boot has been on the other foot at other times. For instance, in 1975 Labor received 42.8 per cent of the vote and won 36 House of Representative seats. The Liberals received 41.8 per cent of the vote and won 68 seats. There was a reduction in electoral enrolment tolerance to 10 per cent for the 1977 elections but the same misrepresentation occurred. Labor received 39.6 per cent of the vote and won 38 seats while the Liberals took 67 seats on 38.1 per cent of the vote. This is certainly not one vote, one value. The only way to achieve one vote, one value is to have a quota-preferential proportional representation system. That is what the Australian Democrats are proposing for Canberra. I believe that we should stand firm on this matter to make certain that the people of Canberra have an electoral system of which they can be proud and which allows them to change the people who govern them if they choose. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(1.24) —Today must be the day for talking about electoral reform because that is the subject that I also wish to raise in this public interest debate this afternoon. The question of electoral reform in my home State of Western Australia has been the subject of great controversy in recent years, but I am thankful to say that it is one that looks like being resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of the citizens of Western Australia in the very near future. I am not seeking in this address to skite or score political points because the matter is close to resolution. What I will be doing is accepting the will of the people of Western Australia who clearly expressed themselves in the ballot box in February of this year, to the effect that they wanted and needed some form of electoral reform. In doing so I will be acknowledging that the Liberal Party, the chief Opposition party in Western Australia, has now accepted that there is a need for reform. It released its policy on this matter only this week. It is a welcome statement. It is long overdue. There are still significant differences between what has been proposed by the Liberal Party and what has been proposed by the Western Australian Government. The National Party, which is now a significant force in the Western Australian Parliament, has also put forward different proposals. I am not seeking to use this debate to analyse or compare the different submissions being put forward. That is more rightly done, and will be done, in the Parliament of Western Australia. I have no doubt that the argument will range far and wide in the coming weeks and months. Hopefully, a satisfactory degree of concensus and goodwill will prevail between all and we will get some semblance of electoral reform, some equal weighing of votes, for people in Western Australia in the very near future and certainly before the next election. Each political party-I have mentioned three of them-has come forward with different suggestions. Each party has accepted that because of the size of the State and the uneven distribution of population centres there will be a weighting of votes in favour of rural or non-metropolitan areas. Honourable senators will appreciate that Western Australia covers approximately one-third of this continent and there are vast distances and very lightly populated centres across the whole of the State. The ratios suggested for the weighting of votes are different, but not drastically so. The National Party is proposing a 2:1 ratio, the Liberals are suggesting a ratio of 1.8:1, and the Government's suggestion is 1.4:1.There is a difference of less than one vote between what has been proposed by all major parties. Even so, some people in Western Australia, certainly within my Party, will not be completely happy with what has been put forward and the fact that we seem to be moving away from the concept of one vote, one value. It is worth noting that even if we end up with what is perhaps the worst of the proposals-the 2:1 ratio proposed by the Nationals-it is going to be an enormous movement from what we currently experience. In the House of Assembly elections the ratio is 7 1/2:1 and in the Legislative Council elections the ratio is in the region of 10 1/2:1-10 1/2 votes to the value of one-depending on the area of the State. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about Tasmania having six senators, the same as New South Wales? Senator McKIERNAN —I am addressing a State matter now. I think I will stay with the State matter, otherwise we might get into confusion with some of the things raised by Senator Vigor, who preceded me in this debate. By way of background, the Western Australian Parliament consists of two Houses-the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. The State is divided into three areas. The lines that divide the three districts are drawn by the Parliament itself, not by independent electoral commissioners. There are political dangers in this and the parliamentarian with a vested interest in it could draw lines to suit himself. Indeed, accusations have been made that this has in fact happened. The three areas are the metropolitan area, which consists of 30 Assembly seats and seven Legislative Council provinces; the agricultural, mining and pastoral area, which contains 23 Assembly seats and eight Council provinces; and the north-west and Murchison area, which consists of four Assembly seats and one Council province. That makes up a total of 57 Assembly seats and members and 34 Assembly Council members, because each Council province elects two Council members. Those figures lead to a great disproportion in the representation of the people of Western Australia. The metropolitan area as defined by the lines on the electoral map drawn by the Parliament itself consists of 68 per cent of the number of enrolments in the whole of the State. That 68 per cent has the opportunity of electing only 52.6 per cent of the Assembly seats. It is a majority, but it is nowhere near the representation deserved. The situation is vastly different as regards the Council. The metropolitan area, with 68 per cent of the enrolments, elects only 41 per cent of the Council members. So there is a great chance that the rural area, with only 41 per cent representation, could control the House of Assembly if the representatives were elected on a party basis, which does not always happen because of our Party's good rural policies in Western Australia. The average enrolment in the metropolitan area is 20,122 electors. In the rural area the average enrolment per seat is 10,585 electors. To get that into some perspective in order to do some comparisons, the State average enrolment is 15,581, so neither the metropolitan nor the rural average comes anywhere close to meeting the State average. That leads to a great disproportion in the number of electors per seat. The number of electors in the seat that contains the highest Assembly vote-that is, the seat of Murdoch-is 92.4 per cent higher than the State average. The number in the seat with the lowest enrolment, which is Murchison-Eyre, is 74.9 per cent below the State average. In the elections for the Commonwealth House of Representatives and for most State parliaments, the electoral enrolments may vary by only 10 per cent but we see that enrolments in Western Australia vary on the plus side by over 90 per cent and on the minus side by 75 per cent. For the Council provinces the problem is graver. The average enrolment in the metropolitan area is 86,237 electors. In the rural area it comes right back to 28,443 electors, and the State average is 52,241. The seat with the highest number of voters-North-East Metropolitan province-has an average enrolment which is 87.9 per cent greater than the average State enrolment, a percentage that enables misrepresentation. On the reverse side, the seat with the lowest number of electors, Lower North, has an average which is 82.6 per cent below the State average. It would be possible for the four Legislative Council provinces with the lowest enrolments together to contain a lower number of electors than the single province with the highest enrolment. The four provinces with the lowest votes elect eight representatives. They can do that now with 87,792 as compared with North-East Metropolitan province with 98,186 enrolments. Even within the boundaries of individual Council provinces there is great disproportion. Within the South-East Metropolitan province, which contains four Assembly seats, the seat with the highest number, being 29,979, contains 10,000 more voters than the seat with the lowest number, which is Canning with 19,489. In the province in which I have great interest, and not just because I live there, North Metropolitan province, the Assembly seat with the highest number of electors, Joondalup, which is very capably represented by my beautiful wife, Jackie Watkins, contains 29,067 voters. The lowest seat, Scarborough, contains only 17,825 voters. That is a difference of over 11,000 voters. I could give other examples that would establish the clear need that has now been accepted-I acknowledge that-for electoral reform in Western Australia. Let us give just a thought on the dividing lines on the map done by the Parliament itself. It is provided in legislation that the lines dividing the four Assembly seats in the North-West Murchison-Eyre province are drawn by the Parliament. There is an enormous disproportion in the number of electors in each seat. Kimberley, which is by far and away the most distant seat from Perth-it is nearly as far from Perth to Kununurra as it is from Perth to Sydney or Perth to Canberra-contains 18,300 voters. It is larger than many metropolitan-based seats. In conclusion, I pay a tribute to the Deputy Premier of Western Australia and current Minister for Parliamentary and Electoral Reform, Mal Bryce, for bringing about our achievement in that satisfaction is close even if it is not yet achieved. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about Arthur Tonkin? Are you going to give him a guernsey? Senator McKIERNAN —I am certainly going to give Arthur Tonkin a guernsey. Arthur Tonkin did work, but before I move on to him let me say a few more words about Mal. Mal will be remembered not only for being Minister for Parliamentary and Electoral Reform in a government that achieves a measure of parliamentary and electoral reform in Western Australia, but also as a former Prime Minister's favourite Mal. I am talking now of Gough Whitlam, who often uses that expression when he meets up with Mal. Of course the staff who work with Mal Bryce in his department at the moment also have to be included in that tribute. Arthur Tonkin, whom Senator Crichton-Browne mentioned a moment ago, is a former Minister for Parliamentary and Electoral Reform, and as I recall he was also a shadow Minister for that portfolio. Arthur pursued the quest for electoral reform with a vengeance, one might say; he certainly did not give up. I am certain his resignation from the Cabinet over differences of opinion-I am not fully informed on what those differences were-has been a loss to the Cabinet of the Western Australian Government. I will refrain from saying anything of Senator Crichton-Browne; he is getting his name in the paper too often at the moment because of things that are happening within the Liberal Party in Western Australia. I will not say anything about that. Mr Deputy President, I have with me some tables which show the actual enrolment in all of the seats, both Assembly and Legislative Council, in the Western Australian State Parliament, current as at 20 May 1986. I have shown these to the Opposition front bench and I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. The incorporation of these statistics might help historians reading through the Hansard at some later date. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- PRESENTATION TO STATE PARLIAMENT (20TH MAY 1986) DISTRICT No. of Electors No. of MLA's Province No. of Electors No. of MLC's METROPOLITAN AREA Cottesloe... 17,918 1 Floreat... 19,541 1 Nedlands... 16,791 1 Metropolitan 89,854 2 Perth... 18,299 1 Subiaco... 17,305 1 Joondalup... 29,067 1 Karrinyup... 21,588 1 North Metro 92,888 2 Scarborough... 17,825 1 Whitford... 24,408 1 Balcatta... 20,618 1 Balga... 22,458 1 North Central 78,966 2 Mount Lawley... 18,362 1 Metropolitan Nollamara... 17,528 1 Ascott... 16,813 1 Helena... 22,182 2 North-East 98,186 2 Maylands... 18,140 1 Metropolitan Morley-Swan... 22,825 1 Welshpool... 18,226 1 Cockburn... 23,114 1 Fremantle... 17,407 1 South Metro 83,054 2 Melville... 20,283 1 Rockingham... 22,250 1 Clontarf... 16,589 1 East Melville... 17,599 1 South Central 68,848 2 South Perth... 18,124 1 Metropolitan Victoria Park... 16,536 1 Armadale... 21,494 1 Canning... 19,489 1 South-East 91,864 2 Gosnells... 20,902 1 Metropolitan Murdoch... 29,979 1 Metro Total... 30 7 603,660 14 Grand Total... 57 17 888,094 34 AGRICULTURAL, MINING AND PASTORAL AREA Avon... 9,780 1 Merredin... 9,109 1 Central 27,812 2 Mount Marshall... 8,923 1 Collie... 9,452 1 Narrogin... 9,284 1 Lower Central 27,626 2 Warren... 8,890 1 Dale... 12,443 1 Mandurah... 12,674 1 Lower West 36,485 2 Murray-Wellington... 11,368 1 Albany... 9,249 1 Katanning-Roe... 9,663 1 South 29,106 2 Stirling... 10,194 1 Esperance-Dundas... 11,864 1 Kalgoorlie... 11,407 1 South-East 23,271 2 Bunbury... 9,252 1 Mitchell... 11,813 1 South-West 32,038 2 Vasse... 10,973 1 Geraldton... 10,599 1 Greenough... 10,499 1 Upper West 32,801 2 Moore... 11,703 1 Darling Range... 10,946 1 Kalamunda... 10,624 1 West 32,634 2 Mundaring... 11,064 1 Total... 23 8 241,773 16 NORTH-WEST MURCHISON-EYRE AREA Gascoyne... 5,176 1 Lower North 9,083 2 Murchison-Eyre... 3,907 1 Kimberley... 18,300 1 North 33,578 2 Pilbara... 15,278 1 Total... 4 2 42,661 4 Rural Total... 27 10 284,434 20 Grand Total... 57 17 888,094 34 SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM THE REPRESENTATION FIGURES: (20TH MAY 1986) Enrolments Assembly seats Council Seats Metro... 68% 52.6% (30) 41% (14) Rural Area... 32% 47.4% (27) 59% (20) State... 100% 57 34 ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS Average enrolment in: Metro Area = 20,122 electors; Rural Areas = 10,585 electors; State = 15,581 electors. Percentages above or below State average district enrolment: Highest Assembly Seat = (Murdoch) = +92.4%; Lowest Assembly Seat = (Murchison-Eyre) = -74.9%. (For the Commonwealth House of Representatives and most State Parliaments, electorate enrolments may vary by only 10% from the average). COUNCIL PROVINCES Average enrolment in: Metro Area = 86,237 electors; Rural Areas = 28,443 electors; State = 52,241 electors. Percentage above or below State average province enrolment: Highest Province = (NE Metropolitan) = +87.9%; Lowest Province = (Lower North) = -82.6%. OTHER FACTS The 29 Districts with the lowest enrolments elect 29 out of 57 Members, so they therefore can control the Legislative Assembly. They contain only 35.6%. The Assembly District with the highest enrolment contains over 7 1/2 times as many electors as the District with the lowest enrolment. The 9 Legislative Council Provinces with the lowest enrolment elect 18 out of the 34 Councillors, so they therefore can control the Council. They contain only 27.9% of electors. The 4 Legislative Council Provinces with the lowest enrolments together contain a lower number of electors than the single Province with the highest enrolment. Electors Province Represen- tatives 87,792... 4 lowest 8 98,186... Single highest 2 The Legislative Council Province with the highest enrolment contains over 10 1/2 times as many electors as the Province with the lowest enrolment. Fourteen metropolitan districts each have a lower enrolment than Kimberley. Instead of ALL electoral boundaries being drawn by independent Electoral Commissioners, the boundaries of the 4 north west seats and the lines which divide the State into 3 different electoral areas were drawn by Parliament itself. Among all the Australian States and Territories: electorate enrolments for the Western Australian Parliament show the greatest variations; the only other places in which unequal enrolments are possible are the Tasmanian Legislative Council and the Queensland Assembly. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(1.39) —I wish in the short time available to me to speak on the effect on schools of the Federal Government's fringe benefits tax and to discuss the impact it will have on education, particularly in Western Australia. As a consequence of the Government imposing that fringe benefits tax on employers, it will tax institutions which under normal taxation arrangements would not be taxed. We have already seen, of course, that the Government was prepared to impose a tax on charity. Under the fringe benefits tax legislation, if there had not been an effective Opposition in this place, this Government, the Government which tries to claim some affinity with the poor and underprivileged in our society, would have imposed a fringe benefits tax on the Red Cross Society, the Smith Family and the churches which provide accommodation for the elderly. Happily this has been prevented but there still remains the fact that fringe benefit taxes will be imposed upon schools. On 17 October the Treasurer, Mr Keating, clearly stated the Government's intention to impose a fringe benefits tax on schools when he admitted in a response to a question by the honourable member for Forrest, Mr Peter Drummond, that the tax would hit schools, both public and private. The main impact of the fringe benefits tax will be on schools which provide accommodation for members of staff. This may be provided for members of staff so that they can supervise children who board at school, or it may be provided in remote areas simply to attract teachers to isolated schools. The tax will also be levied on the provision of air fares for teachers who are posted to remote schools. In hitting these benefits the fringe benefits tax will hit Western Australia, particularly the private schools of Western Australia, more adversely than States such as New South Wales and Victoria. It will also hit a particular category of schools; that is, schools in remote areas. In so doing it will worsen the situation for a section of education which is already regarded as disadvantaged. Western Australia is Australia's largest and least densely populated State. As the last speaker, Senator McKiernan, said, it occupies one third of Australia's land mass and has only 8.9 per cent of the population. It therefore comes as no surprise that it has a higher dependence on boarding accommodation for children than States such as New South Wales and Victoria. In 1984 11,853 children boarding at schools throughout Australia were in receipt of assistance under the isolated children's assistance scheme. Of these children 30 per cent, or some 3,600, were from Western Australia. When schools provide accommodation for children who are forced to board they must of course also provide accommodation for one or more of the teachers to live at the schools to supervise. If they did not, of course, it is most likely that should an accident occur to the children who are boarding, the school would in some way be held liable, as a result of negligence, for failing to provide adequate supervision. When a teacher lives in at a school, that school, whether public or private, will under the legislation recently passed be liable to a fringe benefit tax. Based on the statutory formula in the Bill the tax could cost the schools $1,640 per member of staff per year if no rent is paid by the school teacher. While this tax will affect both public and private schools, its impact will be proportionately more on non-government schools than it will be on government schools. Using the figures of the isolated children's assistance scheme again, some 64 per cent of boarders in receipt of benefits were boarding at non-government schools. This is in contrast to the fact that only 25 per cent of children attend non-government schools. A considerable number of schools will be hit by this tax. In Western Australia the Roman Catholic school system, for instance, runs 12 schools where boarding takes place, and 1,406 children board in those schools. The tax will also affect schools such as Santa Maria at Attadale, where about 100 children board and several members of staff live in to provide supervision. Such a school, to name only one, may face several thousand dollars in fringe benefits taxes. The other way in which schools will be affected is if they provide accommodation to attract teachers to the area. One of the most ludicrous effects of this tax could be on the Aboriginal school at Turkey Creek. That school teaches about 50 children, mainly of Aboriginal descent. It charges no fees and it is so isolated that the Catholic education system has to provide a caravan to the teacher as accommodation. Incredible as it might seem, that caravan will be liable to the fringe benefits tax if the school is not charging the market rate for caravans at Turkey Creek. Such is the ludicrous position of the fringe benefits taxation arrangements recently passed. Flights home for the teachers at these schools will also be taxed in the same way as travel for employees of mining companies is liable. Schools may also be liable for the fringe benefit tax if they provide education for the children of teachers at the school at a rate lower than for members of the public. The notion of taxing schools is quite unbelievable, to say the least. Historically schools have always been exempt from tax, in the same way that charities have been exempt. This is because governments in previous times have recognised that education benefits the whole community in addition to benefiting the individual. Not only has this Government overthrown this principle by introducing a fringe benefits tax in a way that will affect schools, but no consideration has been given to how the schools will actually pay the taxes. The tax will have the greatest impact upon private schools. Despite what the Government would like the community to believe, most private schools are not extremely wealthy. The schools are not necessarily overflowing with funds, and the parents who send their children to these schools are not necessarily wealthy. In fact, 56 per cent of children who attend private schools have working mothers. In most cases children are sent to private schools because the parents have a genuine commitment to their children and are prepared to make a great sacrifice to enable their children to have the best education, to be exposed to the widest curricula and to be able to have religious instruction. For example, in the Catholic system the highest fees charged in Western Australia are slightly under $5,000, including board, and at Turkey Creek, which I have already mentioned, there are no fees charged at all. It may surprise most people to learn that the general level of resources of non-government schools is lower than for government schools. In 1984 the Commonwealth Schools Commission indicated that to bring the level of resources in non-government schools up to the level in government schools would require additional educational spending of $400m. It is therefore highly unlikely that many schools will be able to pay the fringe benefits tax out of their own money. The alternative would be for the Commonwealth to increase the funding it provides for these schools, apart from the obviously ridiculous situation put forward of the Commonwealth simply taxing with one hand and paying it back with the other. That seems to me to be most unlikely. Despite the evidence to the contrary, the Australian Labor Party regards non-government schools as some undesirable social phenomenon which it will tolerate only while the political pressure is great enough to force it to do so. The present Government does not believe that all Australian children have the right to some form of assistance for their education. The platform of the Labor Party requires it to make funds available, to quote its platform, `only to the non-government schools whose total public and private resources do not exceed the resources of comparable government schools'. From 1984 until 1986 total Commonwealth funding for non-government schools was increased by only 2.7 per cent. It becomes obvious that the more inclined parents are to contribute to their children's education, the less likely they are to get help from the Government. Therefore I do not believe that the Government is likely to give further assistance to schools to help overcome the effects the fringe benefits tax will have upon them. I believe that ultimately the cost will have to be borne by the parents of the children attending the schools, despite the fact that many parents are currently spending an enormous proportion of their incomes on their children's education. This tax is therefore in my view both unfair and miserly. Despite opposition from the Liberal and National parties it was passed by an unholy alliance between the Government and the Australian Democrats. When the tax causes the damage to the education system which is predicted by the Opposition, these two groups will receive the condemnation which they deserve. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(1.49) —I raised some time ago in the Senate the matter of waterfront land owned by the Army at Woolwich, on which the Army had planned to build houses. This of course is very expensive waterfront land. It has commanding views of the harbour and is worth multi-millions of dollars. The Army had sought, as I and the residents of the area understood it, to develop this land, which had been used as a horse paddock and a recreation area for the convenience of the people of that region, for Army housing. The Army has failed to explain properly the incredible reason for this. In any event, this action has been deferred, and I hope cancelled. But the Army is now at it again with regard to this land. Its latest actions concerning this waterfront land, which as I said is in a very suburban area of Woolwich, are simply intolerable and demonstrate how inappropriate it is for this property to remain in such insensitive and arrogant ownership. The Army has subjected this quiet suburban area to an appalling onslaught of continuous noise and inconvenience for up to 24 hours a day, caused by heavy vehicles including mobile cranes, semi-trailers and trucks, during several weeks of an exercise involving the Tenth Terminal Regiment. The Army's motives for conducting this noisy and offensive exercise on a piece of waterfront land raise some serious questions, particularly in the context of the local residents having opposed so strongly the development of this land for Army housing. This latest exercise and the noise involved appears consistent with a desire by the Army to threaten residents by intimating that the alternative to developing the area for Army housing will be to use it in this sort of anti-social manner in which it has been using it in recent weeks. The fact that the unit which undertook this exercise is not resident at Woolwich, in the neighbouring small craft section of the Army, but came from Middle Head for the specific purpose of the exercise, raises several questions. Are there any other more suitable areas for the Army to undertake such exercises in the Sydney area? If so, why did the Army decide to create such a public nuisance in a suburban area? If not, how would such exercises take place once the Army proceeded with its plan to build residential accommodation on this site? Is it the Army's intention to try out Woolwich as a possible site for relocating its Middle Head operations? Whatever the motives, the Army's arrogant disregard for the local residents of Woolwich is self-evident. Beginning with the Anzac weekend, April 26 and 27, the streets leading to the horse paddock-which is the site in question, on the waterfront-from Woolwich Road were frequently filled with a large contingent of semi-trailers, trucks, transporters and mobile cranes of the maximum road size. From 11 p.m. on Sunday 11 May to Thursday 15 May, and again from 8 p.m. on Saturday 24 May the Army engaged in training exercises which were carried on at night and into the following day. The operation was carried out under floodlights and consisted of the use of heavy mechanical handling equipment to move dummy ammunition boxes from point to point on the site, onto a ship and then to their original positions. This operation created excessive noise and seriously disturbed all the surrounding residents, particularly during the night when they were attempting to sleep. This latest exercise underlines the inappropriateness of the Army's presence on the horse paddock waterfront site and even calls into question its continuing occupancy of the old Woolwich dock. The Army's indifference to the manner in which its operations interfere with the surrounding residential area indicates a need to consider transferring the Army's activities at Woolwich-that is, its entire activities-to one of the Royal Australian Navy's other available outlets in the Sydney region. The current site could then be included in the existing harbour foreshore park. Of course this is very much in line with the views of the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales. The reality is that there has been widespread and strong public opposition to the Army's continued use of the site. A petition with 2,000 signatures of local residents expressing their views on the matter has been presented by the local Federal member, who happens to be the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. John Howard. We understand that some of these local residents who suffered most severely from the effects of the exercise are considering mounting a legal action to prevent the recurrence of such a nuisance in a residential area. A committee of local people that has been set up, called the Woolpac Committee or the Woolwich Peoples Action Committee is requesting of the Government an immediate undertaking that such exercises will never again occur on the Army site, on the horse paddock or at Woolwich. It has made a request, which is supported by the Hunters Hill Council, the National Trust, the Hunters Hill Trust, local Federal and State members of parliament and the New South Wales State Government, that serious consideration be given to relocating the whole Army site at Woolwich to a more suitable non-residential area. The arrogance that the Army has displayed in this matter surely merits its removal from the site. I would like briefly to conclude on another matter altogether, relating to an extraordinary decision, or temporary decision, by the Industries Assistance Commission following an inquiry into luggage, handbags and similar containers. The IAC proposes a tariff of 15 per cent on goods which have had no protective duty placed on them since 1978, for no reason other than that it cannot distinguish between a wallet and an overnight bag. A company involved in this matter, Hunt Leather Pty Ltd, estimates the cost to the consumer to be $48m for the whole of the goods under reference and $23m for luggage, although this latter industry employs no more than 20 people in local manufacturing operations. Twenty people are involved and there is to be a $23m impact on the consumer. There has been no attempt by the IAC to calculate the cost to the consumer and in any event the 15 per cent tariff is insufficient to have any effect on manufacturing employment, which has similar cost structures to clothing and foot- wear. The proposed tariff, compounded by a 24 per cent sales tax on imports, will have a damaging effect on sales to Australian travellers and overseas tourists, which are a significant part of the business of Hunt Leather Pty Ltd and many retailers in Australia. There is far more scope for employment in selling duty free travel goods to tourists than in manufacturing here. I understand this matter has been raised with Senator Button. This draft proposal of the IAC to impose this 15 per cent duty on luggage is now getting very serious indeed because it appears that the IAC does intend to go ahead with this proposal. As I said, the number of people employed in manufacturing these items is miniscule. The concern that really emerges from this is that the IAC clearly proposed this impost on the consumer without any serious attempt to quantify the cost. I understand the estimates by the industry that the cost would be $23m have not been challenged effectively by the Commission. The Commission appears to have given no consideration to the increase in consumer prices and local protection, due to devaluation, that has already taken place. No consideration has been given either to the fact that an import duty of 4 per cent on all items is built into the sales tax legislation. It seems to me that at a time when the Government is quite properly showing concern about inflation and costs in Australia, this kind of extraordinary tariff decision-as I said, 20 people are involved in manufacturing and there is something like a $23m impost on consumers-is simply absurd. The great majority of local and imported goods in this trade are bought directly from manufacturers by retailers. The sales tax on a locally made item is 20 per cent; on an imported item the sales tax is increased by a national wholesale margin of 20 to 24 per cent. If a 15 per cent duty is imposed luggage and many other items in this reference, which are not made here and are not likely to be, will have applied what amounts to a sales tax of 15 per cent plus 24 per cent. This compounds to 42.6 per cent on ordinary everyday items in use. The IAC commissioner at the public hearing seemed to think that the cost to the consumer was not particularly important, which perhaps explains why the commissioner did not cost it. He responded to the representations of Hunt Leather to the effect that `we have to look at the capital and the flow on from manufacturers to other people who might benefit'. The capital employed in this industry is, though, negligible, and in regard to the flow on benefits I quote from page 29 of the previous IAC report in 1979: As most materials used in the production of travel goods are imported, the recommendations made in this report, if implemented, would have only a slight effect on local supplying industries. That report recommended the elimination of the duty which this report now seeks crazily to impose. The PRESIDENT —Order! It now being 2 p.m. the debate is interrupted. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today and tomorrow. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Gietzelt in relation to his portfolio and those he represents in the chamber should be directed to the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, when he said: We have, in the Budget process so far, identified savings of more than $1 billion. Can the Minister explain whether the Prime Minister was talking about the reductions in existing programs or whether this figure relates to forward estimates of expenditure? Finally, does `identified' mean that either the Cabinet or a committee of Cabinet has agreed to specific cuts, or does it mean that possible areas of reduction have been put forward for discussion? When will the Government announce details of the spending cuts? Senator WALSH —The details probably will be announced in the Budget. Some of them may be announced before that; indeed some of them have been. One of the cuts decided on was debated in the Senate, I think, two days ago-the one regarding ending the pathology rip-off whereby specialist pathologists were charging specialist fees for pathology services performed entirely by machines and, therefore, there was absolutely no justification for specialists charging specialist prices for a service in which their specialist skills had absolutely no relevance. As I recall, that was severely criticised, if not opposed, by the Opposition. Of course, that is typical of the Opposition's double standards on this issue. They are forever demanding cuts in government expenditure and usually opposing specific cuts which this Government puts up. Moreover, the Leader of the Opposition is running around the country with his shopping list of political goodies filled with promises to increase expenditure by a total of $2 billion. The earlier part of Senator Chaney's question relates to matters which I regard as confidential to the Cabinet. I do not intend to answer it. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I find the end of the Minister's answer quite extraordinary. The Prime Minister announced as part of his formula for the recovery of the Australian economy $1 billion in expenditure cuts. Is the Minister saying that the Senate and the people of Australia cannot be told what is meant by that statement? Are we simply to be left completely in the dark as to whether that $1 billion represents cuts in actual expenditure or just some mythical figure that has been conjured up for the purpose of that wet statement of yesterday? Senator WALSH —The Expenditure Review Committee processes have not yet been completed. There will be significant decisions made about additional expenditure cuts. As I said before, one of them already is in legislation-and some others may be announced before the Budget-but I expect that the overwhelming majority of them will be announced in the Budget. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Finance aware that Queensland is the only State which will not allow scrutiny of its financial management by a joint party public accounts committee? As we can expect the Queensland Premier to distort, as usual, the facts related to Federal-State financial relations when he comes to the Premiers Conference tomorrow, will the Minister put clearly on the record the extent of the financial advantage which Queenslanders have enjoyed under the Hawke Government? Furthermore, will the Minister again attempt to get a guarantee from the Queensland Premier that his State at long last will introduce proper public accountability of government expenditure so that the Federal grants are not manipulated by the Premier to cover up his mismanagement as Treasurer of the Queensland economy? Senator WALSH —Of course, I know-I think nearly everybody knows-that the Queensland Parliament is the only parliament in Australia which does not have a public accounts committee. Even the Northern Territory has recently established a public accounts committee. I suggest that there are very good reasons why Queensland does not have such a committee. If there were a public accounts committee in Queensland the various rorts and rip-offs which the Premier's friends indulge in would be detected with more certainty and also more quickly than they are under the present arrangements. For exactly the same reason I do not expect that the Queensland Government will agree to set up a public accounts committee. As far as I know there is no way in which the Commonwealth Government could compel the Queensland Government to do so. To the extent that Queensland has a dollar problem, or a revenue and expenditure problem, that has been caused by the runaway growth in Queensland State Government expenditure. The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on State Government expenditure show that over the six years from 1979-80 State government outlays in Australia as a whole increased at an average real rate of 4.2 per cent. In Queensland, the figure is above 6 per cent. That is by far the highest figure of all the States. It is around 50 per cent above the all-State average for expenditure increases. The fact remains-it cannot be contradicted-that State Government in Queensland is out of control and has been out of control for many, many years. That is contrary, of course, to the rhetoric of the Queensland State Premier. Moreover, the government financial estimates of overall deficits for 1985-86 for State Budget and non-Budget sectors combined, on a per capita basis, also published by the ABS, show that New South Wales had the lowest figure at $330, Victoria had $462, South Australia had $358, Western Australia had $529 and Queensland had $666. That is a figure very much higher than the all-States average. It is very much higher than those of any of the Labor government States. It is second only to the State of Tasmania, which had a per capita figure of $844. I suppose related to the runaway growth in Queensland Government expenditure is the fact that Queensland is accumulating debt at a higher rate than any other State as well. Certainly, the Queensland Government has misused some Commonwealth funds provided to it. Previously I have given details in the Senate of natural disaster relief funding which for many years was provided from the Commonwealth Budget. Senator Button —Is the Waste Watch Committee looking at that? Senator WALSH —I do not think the Waste Watch Committee has shown any interest in this at all. It is an area to which it could well direct its attention. Funds from the Commonwealth Budget have been provided to the States. These funds are then on-lent, principally to farmers, at highly concessional rates of interest. For many years the Queensland Government has required farmers to repay those loans. The Queensland Government has then stashed that money away in a hollow log to use and misuse, for whatever purpose it chose. It is impossible to get an accurate figure on that, but the contents of that hollow log alone probably amount to some $30m. That is money that has been provided to Queensland at a 4 1/2 per cent interest rate for on-lending to farmers. That money has been on-lent to farmers for a very short period. The Queensland Government has then taken the money back from the farmers and used it for its own purposes while continuing to enjoy the highly concessional Commonwealth interest rate of 4 1/2 per cent, until such time as ultimately it is obliged to repay the loan. From memory, that is after a 20-year period. Of course, there are other examples of waste in regard to Queensland Government expenditure. Qualitatively the most important of all was the political decision to locate a power station at Tarong instead of at Millmerran, where the State Electricity Commission of Queensland had recommended that it be located and where, I understand, the then responsible Minister, Mr Camm, also recommended that it be located. He was rolled on that decision. That imposed an additional cost on Queensland of $259m which is reflected in its State Government debt rather than in outlays. There is also the notorious case of the MacKenzie River dam in which a project which had never been submitted to the Commonwealth Government for funding-even though lists of water conservation projects which are submitted by the Queensland Government are in the nature of a wish list rather than a serious bid for funds-suddenly jumped to the front of the queue. It was announced that $5m would be spent building that dam. Fortuitously, immediately before that decision was made a licence had been granted to the Premier's son to install a 12-inch pump. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. The very lengthy answer-- Senator Michael Baume —And boring. Senator Chaney —The answer by the Minister shows very great signs of preparation and is really in the nature of a ministerial statement. I suggest that if the Minister wishes to give a great mass of detailed information of that nature he should give a statement. I do not know that this amounts to debating the question, because as one of the interjectors behind me said, it is too boring to be regarded as a debate. It clearly seems to be an abuse of Question Time. Mr President, I ask you to ask the Minister to finish his answer to enable other honourable senators to ask a question. The PRESIDENT —Bearing in mind the question that was asked, the Minister clearly is in order in answering in the way he has. However, I point out that there are a number of questions which it is desired be asked today. I ask Ministers when answering questions to be as brief as possible. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Mr President. I shall certainly pay heed to your request. I have cited only two examples of politically determined and highly wasteful expenditure by the Queensland Government. Of course, the second case also reeks of political patronage, to say the least. The major problem of the Queensland Government, as I said in the beginning, is that its expenditure is out of control. It has been out of control for many years. Its expenditure is increasing at a rate that is 50 per cent higher than the rate of increase for State government expenditure in general and is higher than for any other State. In the same period, Queensland has accumulated for government and government authorities the highest per capita debt of any State. In the most recent figures that is also increasing at a rate that is faster than in any other State except Tasmania. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. I refer the Minister to a paper recently prepared by Mr Geoffrey Lill, the Marketing Manager of Utah Development Co., which indicates that an extra $1 billion could be earned from additional overseas coal sales if export controls were removed from that commodity. I also refer the Minister to the latest `Review of Business Regulations Paper No. 2', which indicates that despite this being a priority area little or no action has been taken on major export controls. In the light of this information from the Utah Development Co., why was no mention made of removing export controls in this area and in other mineral areas during the Prime Minister's address to the nation last night, which called for greater efforts by Australians to earn more overseas? Senator BUTTON —The correct answer to that question is that export controls on coal and other resource products have been under examination for-- Senator Parer —Years. Senator BUTTON —No, not for years-weeks, not months. They are under examination by the Department of Trade. A public announcement was made to that effect at the time. I do not know whether it was necessary for the Prime Minister to repeat that fact in his statement last night. I agree that those issues are very important. There are a number of conflicting views within the industry about them. Those matters cannot be dealt with simply unless one is in opposition and is charged up with macho feelings. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to an article in the Brisbane Daily Sun on 10 June headed `Brisbane Site for Christian Campus'? Is the Minister aware that the article claims that 35 students are already enrolled in the proposed private university which is due for completion in 1988? Will the proposed university be required to meet any Federal Government regulations or requirements? Will it attract Federal funding? Further, will any of the students attending this proposed university receive tertiary education assistance scheme payments or any other form of Commonwealth support? Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to the article in the Brisbane Daily Sun headed `Brisbane Site for Christian Campus'. This institution, if it exists, has no status as far as the Federal Government is concerned. From what I have read in the article it has no status as far as the Queensland State Government is concerned either. Senator Colston's question addressed its status as far as the Federal Government is concerned. To the Federal Government, there is no such thing as a private university. If students are enrolled in this situation they are not enrolled at a university in terms of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act. Tertiary education assistance scheme payments are made to students undertaking approved courses; that is, courses that have been assessed and approved by the proper Commonwealth procedures. No courses from this alleged college have been accredited and therefore there will be no payment of TEAS to any students enrolling. I am grateful to Senator Colston for asking this question because it is possible that young people or their families could be misled by organisations claiming to offer university education. University education is increasingly prized in our society. There is increasing competition for university places. Therefore, there is an environment in which unscrupulous people could mislead parents or students as to what is offered in some sort of private institution. This would be very much to the detriment of those students. I want to make it quite clear from the Federal Government's point of view no private university is or will be recognised. Therefore, courses offered by any private institution that simply chooses to call itself a university with or without State agreement will not attract any form of Federal support. In conclusion, the Government has the best of all possible reasons for adopting this very firm position. That reason is that we are proud of the standards achieved by the Australian university system. University places are sought not only in fierce competition by Australian students but also by overseas students. In order to maintain those standards and improve them-which is an objective of our Government-we must be sure that all courses offered are offered at a standard which has been approved by Commonwealth approval procedures, which are constantly updated and under which courses are reviewed over time, changed if necessary and in general monitored so that standards are satisfactory. Any attempt to go outside the system and establish private institutions claiming to be universities or some other form of tertiary institution can only undermine that high standard and therefore act against the interests of Australian students. The PRESIDENT —I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the presidential gallery of Sir Robin Vanderfelt, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Sir Robin will shortly be retiring after 37 years of service with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am sure that all honourable senators join me in warmly welcoming him to Canberra and thanking him for his contribution to parliamentary relations throughout the Commonwealth. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. First, does the Government believe that the Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain, has a right to determine whether or what sort of United States nuclear warships can come into Victorian ports? Secondly, what is the difference, if any, between Mr Cain's position and the position taken by New Zealand's Mr Lange? Thirdly, Mr Cain has said that his information on the United States Ship Rathburne and the United States Ship Cimmaron was from Federal Government sources. Where did the Government get its information from-the United States? If so, where does this leave the United States policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons? If the source was not the United States, where did it come from, given Janes Fighting Ships says that these two ships carry Asroc missiles which can be armed with nuclear weapons? Fourthly, does the Government agree that were the other Australian States to follow the lead of Mr Cain this would effectively place Australia in the same position as New Zealand on the nuclear warships issue? The PRESIDENT —Order! I have already drawn attention to the length of ministerial answers. I now draw attention to the length of questions being asked. I ask honourable senators to respect the rights of other senators. Senator GARETH EVANS —There has actually been an item in the media claiming that the United States Ship Rathburne, which is a frigate, and the United States Ship Cimmaron, an oiler which left Melbourne a few days ago, were not carrying nuclear weapons, and that the Federal Government gave the Victorian Government an assurance to this effect. I want to make it clear that no such assurance was given. Neither ship was nuclear powered, but it is not the practice of United States authorities to depart from their established principle of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons. I am also informed that Mr Cain's office has confirmed that a briefing given to journalists addressed the question only of whether the vessels in question were nuclear powered. It did not address at all the question of their being nuclear armed. It is, of course, well known that our policy is not to seek to exclude nuclear weapons capable ships from our ports. Such decisions are for this Government to make, not the Victorian Government or any other State government. I believe that is a view which Mr Cain shares. Senator Sanders —It is within our constitutional prerogative. Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course it is within our constitutional prerogatives as an exercise of the defence power, both as an executive matter and, should we want to formalise that in legislation, as a Commonwealth legislative matter. I am asked the difference between Mr Cain's position and that taken by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Lange. I suggest that the honourable senator direct that question to Mr Cain, if he feels so inclined to follow that up. As to whether or not other Australian States might follow the lead of Mr Cain and produce the effective situation of placing Australia in the same position as New Zealand, once again I suggest that that question be better directed to Mr Cain. It is his view that is allegedly in issue here, not that of the Commonwealth Government which has made its position absolutely clear. Senator SANDERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the Federal Government impose its will over any State government denying access to nuclear armed or powered ships? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Sanders is a glutton for punishment. The short answer obviously is yes, we do accept the responsibility, take that responsibility, and if it became necessary to take action to enforce that assumption of responsibility, of course we would. Senator COONEY —What value does the Minister for Community Services place on volunteers working in community services? What encouragement can the Minister give to operations such as Telecare conducted through the Portland and District Community Health Centre in Victoria? Does the Minister see voluntary organisations helped by government growing in the area of community services? Senator GRIMES —Volunteers are and will remain essential in the provision of community services in this country. They not only give local involvement to the provision and planning of those services, but also they assist fully paid and professional people in providing those services in an economic way so that the community and therefore the Government can afford to maintain those services. Senator Cooney mentioned Telecare which is a service provided, as he said, at Portland in Victoria whereby elderly people who are at risk are phoned each day at specified times by volunteers. This has the social effect of giving them someone to talk to at those times and it also gives the volunteers an idea of any help the people may need, and in times of emergency it means help can be got to them fairly quickly. This is a concept which is fairly common in other countries. It has been very successfully run out of the Community Health Centre in Portland. Under the home and community care services, the Minister for Community Services in Victoria, Mrs Caroline Hogg, and I have approved assistance to that organisation-as well as to many others to the extent of about $9m-to enable it to continue and develop. I, and, I believe, all the State Ministers, see the voluntary organisations helped by government as being a crucial part in the development of the home and community care program. In particular, the Victorian Government has been very active, once the home and community care agreement was funded, in combining with the Federal Government to ensure that good, innovative and sensible programs are developed. I am sure that Mrs Hogg and I will be able to develop home and community care in Victoria in the future to the extent that it will be a very good example to some of the other States and will enable us to get a rational program going in this area much quicker than we would have otherwise. Senator WALTERS —I refer the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters to the rhetoric in the Prime Minister's address to the nation about streamlining the Public Service and to Mr Hawke's selective and deceptive misuse of statistics on the Carleton-Walsh Report in an attempt to prove the unprovable, that this Government has a better record of restraining Public Service growth than the Fraser Government. Will the Minister confirm that the figures quoted by the Prime Minister on the Carleton-Walsh Report refer only to direct Public Service increases and ignore increases in other Commonwealth agencies-that is the total Public Service increases? Will he confirm that the average rate of growth in the total Public Service employment for the Fraser years was well under 1 per cent, compared with about 3 per cent for the first two years of the Hawke Government, and that in three years under the Fraser Government there were decreases in both categories, something which the Hawke Government never has and never will accomplish? Senator WALSH —I am not familiar with the figures which the Prime Minister quoted on the Carleton-Walsh Report last night, but if the Prime Minister quoted them I am absolutely certain that they would be accurate. Senator Walters raised the question of selection and deception which is an excellent description of the practices the Fraser Government followed in its period in office in order to conceal the true size of the Public Service. The Fraser Government, for a number of years, followed the practice of sacking the day labour force, particularly in the Department of Housing and Construction. In that way it achieved a cosmetic reduction in Public Service numbers. But the only effect of that is that construction and maintenance work previously done by people employed in the Department of Housing and Construction, and therefore under the Public Service Act, was then transferred to private contractors. That may or may not have been a defensible policy decision, but what was indefensible and remains indefensible is to present that as a reduction in Public Service numbers when, in fact, it is just a transfer of a function previously recorded within the Public Service to a function still paid for by the Commonwealth taxpayers and off the Commonwealth Budget, but recorded in the private sector. At the same time as the Fraser Government was making that cosmetic adjustment-the area outside of the day labour force-the administrative section of the Public Service, particularly what was then the second Division and what is now the Special Executive Service-was exploding. It was growing at a run-away rate. So those who want to ridicule the corns on backsides syndrome or whatever it is supposed to be-people like Mr McLachlan-ought to know that that was running wild in the period the Fraser Government was in office. If Senator Walters wants to get the precise statistics on that I will try to get them for her by tomorrow. If not, I will post them to her during the recess and I will make them available to the Press as well. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the fall in commercial interest rates in recent weeks, for instance, the reduction in bank bill interest rates, from 18 per cent in mid-February to 14 per cent yesterday. What impact will the four percentage point fall in this key interest rate have on the Australian economy? Is the reduction in this important commercial interest rate and the 1 1/2 per cent fall in interest rates on Commonwealth bonds in line with Government expectations? Senator WALSH —Key interest rates have been moving downwards since December 1985. Since that time, for example, the market yield on 10-year Treasury bonds has fallen by more than 2 percentage points. Yesterday it stood at 12.9 per cent. The market yield on two-year Treasury bonds, short term Government paper, has fallen by 2 3/4 percentage points over the same period. The 180-day bank rate has fallen by over 5 per cent, which is a spectacular fall over that period. I might add, for the record, that at no stage was the 180- or 90-day bank bill rate as high as it was in April of 1982 when Mr Howard was presiding over the economy. Since December 1985 the 90-day bank bill rate has also fallen by more than 5 percentage points. All of those four critical interest rates, both public and private sector rates, are now at levels below those prevailing in April and May of 1985. Long term bond rates are currently at or near the low levels achieved in 1984 before the significant devaluation of the Australian dollar commenced. The Government is now seeking to place greater stress on fiscal and wages policy in handling Australia's terms of trade problem. Interest rates should continue to fall, and that will provide an added inducement to business investment, that is, added to high profits, low labour costs and improved international competitiveness. Senator COLLARD —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security explain exactly how the Prime Minister's unemployment benefit community service scheme will work? Will it be entirely voluntary or is there a possibility, as seemed to be suggested by Mr Hawke in interviews last nights, of some element of compulsion? If it is to be voluntary, how does it differ from the pilot program announced by the Fraser Government in late 1982 but abandoned by the present Government after the election? Senator GRIMES —The program will work as described by the Prime Minister in his statement last night and in associated documents. The trade unions, local government, State governments and other organisations will be consulted about making work available-work which would not normally be done under the existing system and work which will be of community benefit. These jobs will be offered to the young unemployed, and they will perform these part time jobs in exchange for the unemployment benefit. The co-operation of the union movement, local government et cetera will be necessary to ensure that other people are not displaced from these jobs, that the jobs are not used to provide community services and that the money comes off the unemployment benefit bill, which would normally be the case. The scheme will be gradually introduced. As for the voluntary/compulsory aspect of the scheme which the Opposition seems to be so interested in, we already have a work test for the unemployment benefit. If people are offered reasonable work-work at award wages et cetera-and they refuse to take that work they fail the work test and therefore are liable to lose the unemployment benefit. Inasmuch as that is compulsory, under the new scheme the same work test conditions will apply. I do not know of any suggestion that we will be making it compulsory other than that, and I remind honourable senators that there is a section in the Constitution about civil conscription. How does the scheme differ from the pilot scheme introduced by the previous Government in 1982? That is quite simple. First of all, it will be put into operation. Secondly, it will be put into operation with the co-operation of the State governments. Senator Chaney —You stopped it. Senator GRIMES —We did not stop it; after all that time it hardly got off the ground. The third way in which it will differ is that-- Senator Chaney —You haven't even got a scheme. Senator GRIMES —Senator Chaney's comment is very interesting. Here we are, less than 24 hours after the Prime Minister's statement, and he says that we do not even have a scheme. The previous Government's scheme was introduced in 1982. We came into government in 1983 but it still did not have a scheme. It had not discussed it with local government, it had nothing off the ground. That was the sad tragedy of the previous Government. In the last two years of the Fraser Government 265,000 people were added to the unemployment lists in this country. That was the shame of the Fraser Government. It introduced a scheme to try to do something about it but when we got into office in 1983 it had not even got off the ground. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of warnings issued in the United States and in Britain about the dangers of giving aspirin-based medication to children and the decision to withdraw children's medicine containing aspirin from sale in the United Kingdom? In the light of evidence which indicates a link between aspirin and the potentially fatal illness known as Reye's syndrome, what action has been taken by Australian health authorities to control the marketing of these products and to inform parents of possible danger? Senator GRIMES —Yesterday the Department of Health issued a warning that children and teenagers with fevers should not be given aspirin as a medication. I must emphasise that this warning does not extend to children and teenagers who do not have a fever, and it does not include adults at all. It is important to emphasise this because aspirin will remain an important treatment for some conditions, particularly juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. This condition is usually treated under close medical supervision and certainly aspirin has a key role to play in its treatment. So I point out that people with children with that sort of condition who are being treated with aspirin should not be concerned because Reye's syndrome seems to be associated with the giving of aspirin to children who have fevers. There are very effective alternatives, such as paracetamol, for children who have fevers. Although the danger of Reye's syndrome developing is slight, as Senator Zakharov has said, the syndrome is very dangerous and frequently fatal, causing as it does liver failure and brain damage. It is important to point out to parents and those who may be worried that Reye's syndrome is a very rare syndrome. But that does not mean we should not do something about it. The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee has had aspirin's possible role in increasing the risk of Reye's syndrome under continuing review for some time, and there has been continuing consultation with the Australian College of Paediatrics. The Department of Health believes that, unlike the situation in the United Kingdom, aspirin-containing products formulated specifically for children were generally replaced in this country with paracetamol products some years ago. This occurred for commercial reasons and for the reasons stated involving Reye's syndrome. As far as is known, paracetamol is quite safe and is not implicated in the development of Reye's syndrome. The Department is now checking with the aid of pharmaceutical importers and State health departments on the availability of aspirin-containing compounds specifically for children on the Australian market. So far they have discovered only two such products and they are holding discussions with manufacturers to arrange their withdrawal. Because of the reasons I have already given, the possibility of this type of product being on the market is very small. I hope that the warning given by the Department of Health and the general awareness which will arise in the community as a result of the publicity of the last couple of days will mean that the possibility of this very rare syndrome occurring much in Australia in the future will have been reduced considerably. Senator PUPLICK —Will the Minister representing the Treasurer confirm that the Reserve Bank of Australia is strongly supporting the Australian dollar in money market transactions? If so, what has been the cost to date of this prop for the dollar made necessary by the failure of last night's prime ministerial address to tackle Australia's fundamental economic problems? For how long and at what cost will the Government maintain its support of the dollar? Senator WALSH —I recall that during the 1983 election campaign it was asserted by the then Prime Minister, with the implicit if not explicit support of the then Treasurer, now the discredited former Treasurer, that if the Australian Labor Party won office there would be a run on the dollar. That sort of prophecy having been made by people who were seen to be in positions of authority, there was, of course, a run on the dollar. The really reprehensible thing about that is that Fraser and Howard were indulging in economic sabotage. They sought to score a political point which they thought would save them from the electoral oblivion which was staring them in the face, at the expense of the rest of the country. Leading members of the then Government were economic saboteurs at that stage. I note from Senator Puplick's question that they continue to be economic saboteurs. I am not going to answer questions about the Reserve Bank policy. It would be highly improper of me to do so, particularly on a matter as sensitive as the Reserve Bank's currency trading operations. For me to do so would be to provide information to currency speculators from which they could reap substantial windfall gains. Senator Grimes —Who do you think Senator Puplick represents? Senator WALSH —I was about to say exactly that. They might be the sorts of people Senator Puplick is trying to help. They are certainly not the sorts of people the Government and I are trying to help. If Senator Puplick is concerned about the Reserve Bank's overall operating position and profit, I suggest that he wait until the Budget Papers appear and look at what contribution the Reserve Bank makes to revenue from its profits in the 1985-86 financial year. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister representing the Treasurer asserting that the Parliament is not entitled to be told the cost to public revenue of propping up the Australian economy in the face of the Prime Minister's clear failure to restore international confidence in the value of the dollar? Senator WALSH —I am asserting that the Parliament has absolutely no right to be told what is the currency trading policy being followed by the Reserve Bank at any particular time because to do so would be to provide windfall gains to currency speculators, who, I presume, are the very people Senator Puplick represents, at the expense of the nation as a whole and of taxpayers in particular. Senator COLEMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, follows in part that already asked by Senator Sanders and refers to media coverage of the situation at Port Melbourne on 9 June and, I understand, at Port Adelaide earlier in the week. My concern is about an incident that occurred when some Australian citizens, including anti-nuclear protesters and policemen, were struck by water from a high pressure fire hose operated by American crewmen of the USS Rathburne while the ship was in port. I ask: What is the legal position in relation to this incident and similar incidents? Does this incident constitute a precedent? If injury is caused to an Australian citizen or if property is damaged in such an incident, who is liable for the payment of compensation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Department of Defence, rather than the Attorney-General's Department, that the legal position and responsibilities of United States forces in Australia are set down in the 1963 Australia-United States Agreement on the Status of United States forces in Australia. Depending upon the circumstances, which would need to be assessed by due legal process, the agreement would allow for United States service personnel to be prosecuted in Australian courts. Naturally Australian citizens have recourse to due legal process. I do not want to comment or to speculate further on the particular incident to which Senator Coleman referred and the applicability of that legal process to those circumstances. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. How can the Government, as outlined in the Prime Minister's address to the nation, continue to justify a 3 per cent productivity claim which we as a nation cannot afford but which has already been distributed? Is it not a fact that the Government's commitment to the productivity claim arises from the fact that the Hawke Government is locked into governing this country by deals with the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Senator BUTTON —If we are accused of doing deals with the ACTU on this matter, we do not seem to be very successful at it. That is the obvious rider. The Opposition in this place continually misunderstands the fact that interventions by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in fixing wages in this country are interferences in the market-place and that a those interferences are, in a sense, built into the system and the Arbitration Commission is an independent organisation in making decisions about these matters. It may demonstrate that independence before long in a way which it has not done over many years. But it is an independent organisation. The Government's prices and incomes accord with the trade union is purely supplementary to that in that it seeks to reach agreement with the trade union movement about wages and other issues rather than impose its view on the market-place without discussion first having taken place. As I have said here on a number of occasions, the Government's view is that this country very desperately needs wage moderation and, in a sense, that has been delivered over the last two years in terms of declining real unit labour costs in Australia. They are back to the levels of the late 1960s. The question of whether we have an appropriate wage scale and appropriate conditions of employment in this country has been further highlighted by the recent sharp decline in the terms of trade which has again given this issue considerable importance in politics and the public eye. Insofar as the wage fixation system is concerned, the Government has put forward the view that there should be only one wage increase this calendar year-the 2.3 per cent wage increase-and that has been argued before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by the Government. It would be the first wage increase since November 1985. That would produce wage outcomes which are consistent with the Government's general policy. A number of other matters relating to wages, including deferment of the productivity case, deferment of a subsequent scheduled wage case this year and also discounting when the next wage case occurs, were announced in the statement last night. It is a matter of balance and judgment by government and others as to what is the appropriate mix in a wage package. It is quite clear from what was said last night and what has been said by me and other Ministers in this place that the desire and concern to obtain wage restraint is of very great importance to this country and we are trying to achieve that. The method of doing it is often open to some degree of criticism. Let me make it quite clear-I will say it in public; I have said it privately-that what we most fear in this country is an outbreak of wage increases in the trade exposed sector of the economy which would reduce the economic performance of this country to the levels it was at in 1981-82, when in one year there were 16 per cent wage increases, not 2.3 per cent. That sort of thing is the genesis of the current problems we have both with wage fixation and with the trade balance. That is what we are anxious to avoid. It is very easy to say when in opposition: `We will put a stop to all that'. To actually do it is beyond the performance of any current member of the Opposition. One only has to look at their performance over four or five very important years in the history of this country to understand that. Senator PARER —I ask a supplementary question. How can the Government continue to justify the 3 per cent productivity claim, in view of the Prime Minister's statement that we know we cannot afford it as a nation? Senator BUTTON —I do not think one can say `in view of the Prime Minister's statement'. In the view of Senator Parer, perhaps, we cannot afford the 3 per cent productivity claim as a nation. That was the substance of my answer to his previous question. If he is asking me for a personal view, I would not wish for the productivity case to be brought on and dealt with in the near future. Of course I would not, and my position is clear enough on that; but these matters have to be dealt with in the context of overall strategies and considerations about the economy and the wage fixing environment generally. It is no good rushing into glib and smart solutions that will not produce the results that are required over time. None of the problems this country has at this moment in terms of economic management and in terms of the external account are going to be solved overnight by summoning up an export control and, according to Senator Durack, hopefully getting an extra $1 billion worth of coal exports next week and fixing up the trade deficit like that. All these things require attention. I will convey Senator Durack's suggestion to the Minister for Trade because I think that matter requires more urgent attention, but no magical wands are going to be waved overnight to deal with the trade deficit problem with which we are fundamentally confronted. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Has she noticed the dishonest campaign by the Tasmanian Minister for Education, Mr Peter Rae, to shift the blame for State Government decisions on education outlays, in which campaign he has enlisted the support of education interest groups? How does this campaign gell with the attitude of Mr Rae's Party to the right of the States to decide their own priorities? Why should Federal Government programs be the only programs to suffer cutbacks? What is this Government's record of assistance to Tasmania in specific purpose education programs? Is there any basis for suggesting that Tasmania has been or will be unfairly dealt with by this Government? Senator RYAN —The answer to the last part of Senator Coates's question is a clear no. There are no grounds for suggesting that Tasmania has been unfairly dealt with by the Commonwealth Government in the past, nor will it be. Tasmania, like every other State and Territory, gets its fair share both of the capital and recurrent program funds and of the special purpose programs. Indeed, the special purpose programs in the main are allocated on a per capita basis, so there are absolutely no grounds for suggesting that there has been any differential treatment of Tasmania. Schools in Tasmania, like schools throughout Australia, have benefited from the policies of the Hawke Government. For example, the total funding to Tasmania in grants to government and non-government schools in 1983 was $35,910,000 and it went up to $39,936,000 last year. No doubt there will be further increases. So there has been a substantial increase in funds available directly to Tasmanian schools from Commonwealth programs. In relation to the campaign that Mr Rae is orchestrating, I think it is misguided. It suggests that the fate of Tasmanian schools is in the hands of the Commonwealth Government whereas, as Senator Coates's question rightly implies, the fundamental responsibility, the major responsibility, for schools funding is a State matter. The States attend to their schools' funding needs out of their general revenue grants from the Commonwealth. Perhaps what we should deduce from Mr Rae's campaign is that the Tasmanian Government is planning to give a lower priority to education and is hoping somehow or other to confuse the issue and suggest that it is as a result of Federal Government action. That is not a legitimate point of view and I doubt very much that the education lobby groups Mr Rae is trying to persuade of this will be hoodwinked for one second. Senator VANSTONE —My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and I refer him to comments by Mr John Halfpenny of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union who, referring to the announcement of a community work scheme for the unemployed, said on AM today that there was no way in the world all young people could be offered community work and that the Government knows this. He went on to say: It is not a genuine proposition. The announcement really is a deceptive admission on the part of the Government that the Priority One and the traineeship schemes have failed. How does the Minister envisage this new half-baked scheme fitting in with the failed Priority One: Young Australia program? Senator BUTTON —There are a number of parts to Senator Vanstone's question. I suppose the essential point she is trying to get at is whether the new proposition, as Mr Halfpenny was pleased to describe it, represents a failure of the Priority One: Young Australia program. Only a week ago I answered a question, from Senator Vanstone, as I recall it, about the Priority One program in which I frankly said that it had run into some difficulties but that the Government was working away at it, both with the business community and with the trade unions, to try to improve and lift the level of return and performance of the Priority One program. I do not think the proposal announced by the Prime Minister last night really has very much to do with that. I think that Mr Halfpenny, as a constructive contributor, which he can be, would be best advised to direct his energies to ensuring that the trade union movement is fully supporting the Priority One program and the traineeship announced by the Government and that there are no obstacles to their success in that area, just as we have to address attention to ensuring that there are no obstacles to the success of those programs in the business community and, indeed, in the Public Service. I do not necessarily see the connection between the two, but if the point of the question is again to draw attention to delays in Priority One, I concede the point. Senator VANSTONE —I ask a supplementary question. The point of my question, apart from drawing attention to the failure of the Priority One scheme, was also to ask whether the Government did envisage this so-called half-baked scheme fitting in with the Priority One program; whether there were any administrative arrangements envisaged whereby the two will in some way be connected, or are they viewed as entirely separate programs? Senator BUTTON —Not that I am aware. When the administrative arrangements are put in order an announcement will be made about them and I will make sure that Senator Vanstone gets an early copy of them. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government. In view of questions asked by members of the Opposition earlier, has the Minister noted the expressions of support from the Leader of the Opposition for the Government's `Buy Australian' campaign? Senator BUTTON —It has been drawn to my attention that the Prime Minister's address to the nation was hardly dry from the printing press before there were differences within the Opposition about the announcement which was made in respect of the so-called `Buy Australian' Program. For example, our new incumbent in office in the Senate, Senator Richard Alston, put out a Press release today calling it both fraudulent and unpatriotic and a publicity stunt designed to distract attention from the real issues. He continued: `What Australia needs is a competitive environment in which Australian goods will win through on their merits, not a sheltered workshop . . .' At the same time his Leader, Mr Howard, was on the Derryn Hinch show this morning saying that the Opposition supported the `Buy Australia' program, and Mr Howard has said that on three occasions to date. The Opposition has now had a bit of time and should sort out its views on some of these issues. In saying that, I totally agree with some of the detailed observations in Senator Alston's Press release: What Australia needs is the competitive environment where Australian goods will win through on their merits. Personally, I would not support a `Buy Australian' program which says `Buy Australian irrespective of quality, design' and a whole range of other factors that go to the merits of particular products. All is not lost. Senator Alston perhaps has introduced a new directional note into the Opposition's thinking on this matter, and that of course is welcome. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 3 and 1 standing in my name for tomorrow and for 22 August 1986 for disallowance of the Plan of Management No. 5 South Bluefin Fishery Management Plan (Amendment). I seek leave to make a very short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —There has been correspondence with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), firstly, concerning the relationship between the plan, certain fisheries notices and the Fisheries Act under which they were made; and, secondly, concerning review of discretionary decisions of officials. The Minister has explained the relationship between the plan, the notices and the Act. The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances thanks the Minister for his explanation. The Minister agreed to make the discretionary decisions identified by the Committee subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 12 June, from Senator Messner: Dear Mr. President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for more positive action by the Government to protect the living standards of Australians.' Yours sincerely, (Tony Messner) Senator for South Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.03) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for more positive action by the Government to protect the living standards of Australians. Some senators may recall the words of the Premier of New South Wales at the National Economic Summit Conference in 1983, when we heard him proclaim that the aims of this Government should be threefold-jobs, jobs, jobs. Now he has had his response from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and what we got instead were-words, words, words. That has become increasingly clear today from Question Time, when Ministers tried to deliver rambling answers to very pertinent questions as to the way in which the new schemes outlined in the Prime Minister's statement last night would work. How was the new community work test to apply to youth-how, indeed, was it to work? There were no answers. Obviously the scheme has not been thought through at all. How was the Government to consider freeing up the position in regard to coal contracts, and I believe that the Utah Development Company was mentioned? No concern was shown about that issue. What was the Government prepared to tell us about expenditure cuts? Nothing, other than that Ministers said that they had identified $1 billion worth of expenditure, but they could not tell us whether it was coming off the Budget or the Forward Estimates, or whether programs were identified for the chop. There were no particulars whatsoever. Clearly, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) was embarrassed over that question, and that demonstrates the rubberiness of this statement made by the Prime Minister last night. Is it any wonder that Mr Wran is getting out? He knows better than most-he is, after all, President of the Australian Labor Party-that the Prime Minister cannot deliver, and all that he can deliver are words. That is all we got last night-a Hawkespeak version of the Keating banana republic theme. It was smooth, surely, and as a television production it was tops, but as a charter for action it was the absolute pits. To the Government's credit, last night's statement admitted one thing-namely, that there is a crisis in the economy. It is interesting to note that the Chinese word character for `crisis' is in two parts: One part is `danger', and the other is `opportunity'. Hawke showed us the dangers, but none of the opportunities. Let us examine why that is so. There is no doubt that the overriding concern of Australians is for jobs-jobs for breadwinners, jobs for their children, jobs in order to gain self-improvement for those already in work, and opportunities for small businessmen and farmers to expand. While it is at least mildly surprising, but welcome, that the Government finally has woken up to the fact that international competitiveness is linked inextricably with our domestic cost structure, it is nothing less than astonishing that it has taken this Government three years to find it out. During that time no doubt the Government has basked in the lavish self-praise of all those who swallow their own propaganda-that is, that the Government has increased the number of jobs while economic growth has gone ahead. Government members have been led into their own trap by believing that propaganda. They kidded Australians that Utopia was just around the corner as a result of their policies which it now seems they believe, even though some rationalists, such as Senator Button and Senator Walsh, apparently have been preaching the truth within the ALP's inner councils. It is interesting that neither of those Ministers, who both have responsibility for economic management and represent those portfolios in the Senate, is prepared to take part in this debate today to defend the actions of his Prime Minister. What were the policies they espoused to produce those kinds of growth rates from a very low base which made their rather ordinary statistics look somewhat prodigious? In short, the policies were to build up government spending, risk a false boom which would lead to a balance of payments crisis, which is now plainly evident, and push up interest rates to attract foreign money to cover our shortfall of imports over exports, which increases our foreign indebtedness. What is the result of all that? The result is very little change in the unemployment rate, some small reduction in inflation and a huge overseas debt build-up from some $35 billion in 1982 to $80 billion this year. Now these policies are being seen to be disastrous. Now we have a crisis, and we have to deal with it. To reduce the crisis to its bare bones, this debate is all about jobs. Without increasing the availability and the numbers of jobs in the community, living standards for all will fall. There will be competition for existing jobs, but prosperity in any economy is about expanding job opportunities, not decreasing them. The concern of the Prime Minister last night seemed to be more with debates and arguments about how the cake was to be cut up among those with jobs already, rather than with looking to ways to expand those opportunities in the future. The Prime Minister had his language right. He told us where there were problems in the economy. He recognised the problem of overseas competition, of the great growth happening to our north in many of the Asian economies which are producing goods far faster and more technologically advanced than our own. He failed to note the effect, however, on business in this country, particularly on small business and farmers, of the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. It is astounding that the Prime Minister should be making statements of such moment and portent when some few days ago he sponsored the passage through this chamber of two new tax measures, along with others, to impose heavy tax liabilities and future cost restrictions on business. Clearly those measures will destroy jobs, not improve them. The essence of the problem that the Government needs to face is bound up with union control over existing jobs, whereas the solution obviously is to free up the control and create new and sustainable jobs which have real prospects for the future. There is a need to recognise that the cost problem, which is very evident in this country today, is the result of union control of existing jobs. In his statement last night the Prime Minister failed entirely to grasp that fundamental point. Let us have a look at the question of costs in the community. On many occasions we have heard in answers to questions here and in the House of Representatives both the Prime Minister and Senator Button say that there has been a reduction in the unit costs of labour since this Government came to power in 1983. It has been one of Senator Walsh's favourite lines during Question Time. He insists on claiming that the Government is getting control over that particular issue. Yet in the papers that were handed out last night by the Prime Minister there is a very revealing graph of our competitiveness, comparing the first quarter of 1985 with the first quarter of 1986. We find that in that time our competitiveness improved by 23.7 per cent. However, when one takes account of the fact that those figures are already adjusted for the changes in our exchange rate and one deducts from that the trade weighted index change-and that index fell by 25.2 per cent-one finds that the change in relation to unit costs, which the Government says it has under control and is doing great things with to improve Australian competitiveness, results entirely from the change in the value of the Australian dollar. As everybody knows, the value of the dollar has fallen substantially-by about 25 per cent-since this time last year. In other words, the improvement is entirely due to the exchange rate change and not the Government's control over labour costs in this country. Each fall in the exchange rate will bring lower standards of living. If the Government's policy is to reduce costs by allowing the exchange rate to continue to fall, which it obviously is, that means there will be more and more pressure on Australian living standards. The result, as admitted by the Prime Minister last night, will be that those living standards will continue to fall. In reality the lesson to be learned from that very interesting graph provided by the Prime Minister-which he apparently overlooked-is simply this: Apparently we are prepared to pay ourselves while allowing the devaluation of our currency to maintain our present competitive state but we are not prepared to allow methods to come into play by which we could improve our competitiveness. The crux of our problem in dealing with labour costs is political. The Government is running slap bang into the trade union movement, the very constituency with which it must deal if it is to deal effectively with the problem. At that test the Government is obviously failing. It gave away nothing in the statement last night, nothing that had not already been agreed to in the accord mark 2 with the Australian Council of Trade Unions last September. I admit that there has been some attempt to open up the question of wage discounting, but again there is absolutely no commitment in specific terms of what that will entail and how it will be achieved. The question of a further wage case in 1986 was part of the original deal back in September. The question of the superannuation deal being spread over two years was stated quite clearly in the accord mark 2 and spelt out equally clearly in the superannuation guidelines that were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last December. There is nothing new at all in those proposals. If the Government is interested in jobs and in improving the circumstances of those who are out of work, it must deal with those very rigidities which it ignores by virtue of last night's statement. Yet those are the very issues which the Liberal and National parties have addressed in their industrial relations policy. We offer flexibility rather than rigidity; we offer the opportunities for business to negotiate with employees for the advantage of both through the proper management of new wage, salary and conditions arrangements. All those things mean that the process of changes which this Government seeks to implement is too rigid, too slow and too tied into what the trade union movement is prepared to forgo-if anything. It is an indictment of the very system under which we operate and therefore the only solution lies in a change in attitude. This is the only way in which we can address the central issues that are before us. It is the central tragedy of the Prime Minister's statement that by his own admission the economy has changed-changed since the Government entered into the accord in September last year. By his own admission yesterday, the Prime Minister is not prepared to take any action other than that that has already been agreed to by virtue of that accord last year. If the Government believes that the only solution to containing the costs in this community in order to generate jobs is by improving our competitiveness, I must ask it what has happened to the 100,000 jobs that the Prime Minister promised us last year as a result of the devaluation of he dollar. Honourable senators will recall that the Prime Minister got on his soapbox last year when the dollar crashed after the famous MX missile crisis. He told us that this would all be a good thing in the long run and that we would end up with 100,000 extra jobs. Have those jobs arrived? Can the Prime Minister identify them? Why did he not refer to them in his statement last night? In fact, he offered exactly the opposite point and said that our living standards were falling. This means that the number of jobs in the community is dwindling and that living standards are down by some 3 per cent. At the beginning of my remarks I noted how this Government's policies of encouraging high borrowings overseas had led to high interest rates-in fact, the highest real interest rates in 50 years. The Government risked the very balance of payments problem that it now has by its policy of borrowing to pump money into the economy to produce growth and, by its standards, generate jobs. Now it is not only stuck with a high and increasing trade deficit but it also has a high Budget deficit of its own. Both these deficits are unlikely to produce lower interest rates in the short term. Nothing could be more destructive of the incentives for business to invest in new jobs than these continuing high interest rates in Australia. If we view this scenario against Australia's inflation rate, which is stuck at about twice the level of that of our trading partners, coupled with an inflexible system of wage determination and an obdurate ACTU, we now have a very difficult position to be managed by any government. This Government particularly is incapable of managing it. This effectively denies the Government any control over the absolutely vital pivot of economic policy-its wages policy. This is the core of the problem which this Government failed to address in the Prime Minister's statement last night. It has failed to do anything more than had already been agreed to between the Government and the ACTU last September. It has failed to deal with wage discounting in any detail whatsoever. It failed to deal with the so-called productivity case and the superannuation deal. It surrendered to the ACTU at the vital moment of crisis when Australia demanded action from its Government. Australians' jobs are at stake and the jobs for unemployed Australians and for future Australians are in the balance. There is more than a need to protect Australia's living standards. Australia demands positive action from this failing Government to cut the cackle and get on with the job-a job which it obviously does not have the heart nor, apparently, the nerve to undertake. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.21) —Senator Messner has moved a hypocritical urgency motion on behalf of the Opposition. He did not talk much about living standards which are the central point of his urgency motion. The Opposition is concerned to protect the living standards of only some Australians-those whose living standards are already high. It does not care about those in poverty or even those in employment who are in receipt of low and moderate incomes. The Opposition's attitude has been shown over the years by its record in government and by its pronouncements in opposition. In fact, it fights against any attempt to protect and, even more so, any attempt to improve, the living standards of the less well off in our society. Members of the Opposition have been chanting for a long time the slogan about Australians living beyond their means. Also, they have demanded that living standards drop. They cannot have it both ways about protecting living standards. Senator Messner stated untruth after untruth and misrepresentation after misrepresentation, both about the economy and about the Government's policies. In fact, there has been positive action by this Government to protect living standards. The Government has been attempting to take positive action over the past three and a quarter years since the 1983 election; and that is what it has achieved. This Government has a record which ought to be the envy of those opposite. It puts them to shame when we compare it with the seven damaging dismal years of the Fraser Government during which Senator Messner was a Minister-undistinguished, perhaps, but he has to share the blame for those years. Of course, his leader, Mr Howard, was the Treasurer for much of that period and during that time he showed little concern for the living standards of Australians. This Government's task has been made more difficult because of those seven years and the earlier 23 years of conservative rule during the 1950s and 1960s. The Opposition has the impertinence to suggest that more positive action should be taken and taken only by the Government. Of course the Government, especially a Labor government, should take the lead. However, those opposite do not acknowledge the need, as expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last night, for all sections of the community to share the challenge facing us. The Opposition is always clamouring for living standards to be reduced for Australians generally. It opposes the centralised wage fixation system which protects living standards. The drier and uglier amongst members of the Opposition would have the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission abolished. They want to see industrial chaos. They oppose the accord which aims to protect living standards, not only income and working conditions but also the other aspects of the social wage which are so crucial to all overall living standards-welfare, health, education, housing and so on. On the whole the accord has been effective in doing so. At the same time the Government is ensuring an unprecedented period of industrial stability, improvement in productivity and growth in the economy. The Opposition clamours for more and more cuts in Government expenditure, especially in those areas which are part of the living standards of this country. Yet, it has the cheek to come in here and pretend that it is in favour of protecting living standards. For example, the Opposition would chop Medicare completely just as it dismantled Medibank until it was a complete mockery of the original scheme. The Opposition does not acknowledge that health is an important aspect of Australians' living standards. To the Opposition, universal health insurance coverage is anathema. If it has its way, the better-off would be protected. The higher income earners would pay less for private health insurance while the low and moderate income earners would have to pay more and receive less effective coverage. This Government does not agree that only the wealthy have the right to be healthy. The Government has been, and is continuing to be, very rigorous in its budgetary saving exercises. Every year so far we have achieved expenditure reductions of the order of $1 billion-$1,000m. This is more than the Opposition when in government was ever able to achieve. Those reductions in outlays included some which caused pain to those of us who wanted particular programs to continue or to receive a higher level of support. Last night the Prime Minister referred to a further $1,000m of identified savings. No doubt these will include some painful and unwelcome cuts. But the Government is attempting to achieve a deficit level which is said to be in accordance with the demands of the economy while at the same time protecting living standards as much as possible. What is absolutely clear is that the Opposition's choices about where the cuts should be made would be quite different from the Government's and would lead to worse effects on the living standards of ordinary Australians. No matter how much the Government responds to the call for expenditure restraint, no matter how responsible we are about it, the Opposition and all of its powerful friends in business and industry call for even more and more to be chopped from the Budget. They are never satisfied. At the same time the Opposition is being completely hypocritical because it keeps proposing more and more of its own favourite expenditure programs which really would blow out the Budget. It wants those parts of the tax reform package with which it disagrees, because of its ideological prejudice and its desire to protect the well-off in this society, not to be implemented. However, it wants other aspects, such as the forthcoming tax reductions, to proceed. The Opposition does not want the capital gains tax, mild and totally prospective as it is, to proceed. It opposes the fringe benefits tax, fair and reasonable and as watered down as it is. It wants the rip-off of entertainment deductions to be restored. It does not want negative gearing dealt with as the Government is dealing with it. It wants to protect its mates involved in the tax avoidance industry. It has committed itself to repealing the tax reforms of which this Government can be proud. It wants to return to the dark days of an unfair tax system. The Government is taking positive action to protect the living standards of Australians. As I have just suggested, it is making the tax system fairer. It is spreading the load in a more reasonable way so that the burden does not fall primarily on pay as you earn taxpayers-those who do not have the opportunity to rort the system. Of course, we will be introducing really substantial tax cuts some time between September and December this year. Let me just list some of the achievements of this Government in various areas of policy that affect living standards in Australia. In the area of social security, available funds have been concentrated where the needs are greatest. In respect of unemployment, the increase in the adult single rate of unemployment benefit has reduced the gap between it and the pension level from $12.85 to now only $6.45. Family assistance has been provided to those who need it most. The pension rate per child has increased by 60 per cent. Help for those people renting has been increased substantially. Those who are in the greatest need-those whose living standards are most in need of protecting-have been looked after. In respect of community services, we have doubled the number of child care places available and an extra 20,000 places will be offered by 1988. The Government has instituted programs in the area of community services. It has taken action in regard to disability services. I refer to the home and community care program and the supported accommodation assistance program. The Office for the Aged was established as a result of the reorganisation which resulted in the Department of Community Services. Achievements have also been made in Aboriginal health. Only three years ago 27 Aboriginal medical services were funded. Now there are 49 and over $15m has been committed. In the area of employment something like 10,500 Aboriginal people have been placed in jobs under the community employment program and many of these have now found permanent jobs. Aboriginal education has been promoted. There are specific programs to ensure an adequate supply of Aboriginal teachers. Those are just some examples of this Government working to protect living standards of Australians in all sorts of ways. In education, despite the difficult economic circumstances, we have managed to provide extra places in tertiary education-3,900 in 1984, 5,500 in 1985, and around 5,000 in 1986. Full time enrolments in higher education are up by around 8 per cent. There is a participation and equity program. The Government has worked hard to increase participation and equity at all levels of education. That program is aimed at the most disadvantaged groups. In 1984 funding for schools was increased by 5.6 per cent. A four-year funding program has been legislated for 1985 to 1988 to give schools some security in funding arrangements. I turn to housing. This year the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has provided $654m of direct Federal funding to the States. Funding has been granted for much needed research into housing and homelessness. This will allow the Government to define its policies and determine areas of real need. Of course, assistance is provided through the first home owners scheme, which, again, has helped so many thousands of Australians to buy their own homes. Even matters such as the status of women involve questions of living standards of Australians. The sex discrimination legislation is an important achievement which ensures that those Australians who have been discriminated against in the past will be looked after. Women's information centres have been opened in Brisbane and Hobart-in the two States where there is special need, because of the State governments that are involved-to provide the much needed service and information to those women who have been ignored by those State governments. Assistance in the immigration and ethnic affairs area has been provided through grants to cultural groups, again to look after their needs. So we have had economic growth and increased employment, including the introduction of schemes such as the community employment program to ensure that as many Australians as possible can be assisted in getting away from the problem of unemployment and getting into permanent jobs. Later in the debate Senator Cook will deal with some of the other economic aspects of the statement the Prime Minister made last night, especially the wage aspects, and so on. I want to highlight just one important aspect in the Prime Minister's address to the nation-that is his call for business to play its part not only by investing, working to increase exports and, with individual consumers, buying Australian goods where possible, but also by being more reasonable about price increases. There is always the temptation to charge what the market will bear, regardless of cost increase, the worth of the goods concerned or the ability of the consumer to pay. A recent Australian Consumer Association survey showed that supermarket prices have risen well above the consumer price index. So I think it is important for business to heed the Government's call for reasonableness in price increases. There is also the need for non-wage remuneration-executives' salaries, directors' fees and professional incomes-to be restrained. If that does not happen, how can anyone expect ordinary wage and salary earners to accept the restraint they have already shown and are being asked to continue to show? Let the Opposition support these aspects of the Government's call for action. We will not get that support, of course. The Opposition is basically not in favour of equity. If it were fair dinkum it would endorse the Government's program involving, as I have said, some hard decisions to maximise employment prospects, to make it more likely that we can not only protect living standards in Australia but also enhance them for all and not just for some. That is what I want to see. The Opposition's prescription is to reduce living standards even more. So I reject the so-called urgency motion as being not only unnecessary but also hypocritical. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.35) —There is one policy issue on which we are all agreed, and this is the urgent need for jobs, jobs and more jobs. The question is how to get them. There is no doubt that if the 580,000 unemployed people in Australia were to be found employment the Government would be better off to the tune of $4.5 billion, and most of its budgetary problems would be over. There is also not doubt that as Australia's terms of trade have dropped, our living standards have inevitably dropped. That raises the question, even if only temporarily, of how this fall in our living standards is to be shared across the community generally and what are we to do to increase our living standards in the future. The policy prescription of the Opposition amounts to a recognition of the need to drop our living standards. Its prescription is to cut wages and government expenditure, which is another way of saying: `Let us reduce the standard of living of the workers of this country and of others dependent on governments'. Unfortunately the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in giving his prescription said very similar things with less force. There were very few hard policy options in the Prime Minister's statement to the nation. There was certainly no change of direction for the economy. Let us look briefly at what the Prime Minister said. The only concrete pledge was that there would be further wage discounting. The likely outcome of the present wage case, a 2.3 per cent pay rise, is to be the only pay rise for workers during 1986. There is some considerable doubt as to how this will be achieved, although it is significant that Simon Crean has said over the last few weeks that the Australian Council of Trade Unions would perhaps be willing to delay the next wage decision. That really looks like the only concrete policy option that the Government has come up with. The Government said that prices are not to be controlled; that it will ask business to be careful about increasing them. The Budget is to be cut by $1 billion. What that will mean at the end of the day is really anybody's guess. The tax cuts and the productivity case will go ahead. Australians are to be encouraged to buy Australian goods, to invest, to run faster, to sing louder and to sail yachts. I am afraid that it is all pretty airy-fairy stuff. Regrettably, we are seeing the end result of the Government's commitment to total deregulation. It has not been able to respond sensibly to a balance of payments crisis other than to say that the solution is to cut wages and limit expenditure to please financial markets. The Government has delegated responsibility for the economy to international currency speculators who have no interest whatsoever in Australia other than making profits out of currency speculation. The Government has adopted the monetarist rhetoric. It has to do this or run the risk of the currency going down the drain. It has come up with no real alternative policy option. It has not addressed the other side of the equation; it has ignored the investment side. If we are to get ourselves out of the problem we are in, we must develop export industries-both service and manufacturing industries-and we must be able to channel low cost finance to productive areas. Over the last few months we have seen $7.7 billion channelled into the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd takeover. That amount of money, in current dollar terms, was the subject of the Khemlani scandal during the days of the Whitlam Government. It does not seem to cause so much concern these days, for reasons which are amazing to me. But the channelling of this $7.7 billion into unproductive investment is really a symptom of a much wider malaise. We are encouraging the misdirection of investment through our unwillingness to control our economic destiny. Both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia are saying: `Let the market forces reign supreme no matter what the consequences'. In simple terms, we are like a family living beyond its means, buying all kinds of expensive goods on time payment without the income to meet its commitments. That is a recipe for disaster for a family and it is a recipe for disaster for our economy. There is only one solution. We must work our way out of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, we have not been given a new direction as to how to do that. The Australian Democrats have addressed this problem. We have a very clear policy direction. We say that it is essential for the Government to intervene creatively in the economy so that we can establish a strong private sector and an export-oriented manufacturing and service industry in this country. It can be done. It has been done by countries such as Japan. In 1945, it started from a heap of rubble and today it has an industrial machine that is the envy of the whole world. Japan now makes more motor cars than the United States of America, it produces 53 per cent of the steel used in the United States and it makes 90 per cent of the motor bikes. I could go on ad nauseam, but I will not. Senator Button —We started with a heap of rubble, too, after this lot had been in government. Senator SIDDONS —I just wish that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce would be a little more specific in his policy statements as to what we should do about it. In the time that I have available I will very quickly outline nine policy points that represent the Democrats' solution to our current economic problem. The first is creative government assistance to develop export-oriented industries, both servicing and manufacturing industries. Existing industries must be assessed as to their viability and their export potential. Areas which have a capacity to compete successfully internationally must be identified and assisted. The old red herring that one cannot pick winners has to be disregarded. We do have winners and if we do not pick them nobody else will do it for us. The second policy option that the Democrats advocate is government and industry co-operation. Government and industry must co-operate to establish long term indicative plans so that key industry sectors can be identified and given concrete directions for the future. The criterion for assessing the long term directions must be the potential to develop them as export oriented industries. We must do this based on the model that the Japanese again have set with their Ministry of International Trade and Industry. The third policy direction is the protection of our foreign currency reserves. By scrapping exchange controls the Government has given up any power it ever had to control the flow of money into and out of this country. Our savings have to be mobilised and they must be mobilised to fund national priorities. They cannot be left to slosh around the world's money markets, as is happening at the moment. The fourth policy direction is the encouragement of productive investment. At present, although our profit levels and our share of profits in industry are rising, investment in industrial plant and equipment is stagnant. Investment is being misdirected into share market speculation and current business activity is obsessed with takeovers simply because they are seen as the quickest way to make money. If there is no encouragement or direction to do other than that, we will see money being squandered on stock market ventures for the control of companies so that they can then be split up, sold to overseas bidders and so on, as we have recently seen with the Repco company. Here a New Zealander got control of a very important Australian company and, within a matter of months, that company has been broken up and the initial purchase price already recovered by that entrepreneur. While those sorts of profits can be made on the Australian stock exchange, who will put money into productive resources? The fifth area of policy as we see it is that we must do something about the on-cost burden on industry. We are not competitive because Australian industry carries an on-cost burden out of all proportion to its competitors around the world. I speak of things such as payroll tax and workers compensation. The full imputation of dividends, of course, will help us to some degree and we can congratulate the Government on that initiative at least. I turn to the sixth policy area-that is, to introduce a `Buy Australian' Act. We note that the Government will encourage the buying of Australian products, if they are competitive, of course. Nobody wants to see rubbishy Australian products bought by governments or by the general public. But the fact of the matter is that last year $22 billion was spent by governments, State and Federal, on equipment and goods generally. If just 5 per cent of the $22 billion could be directed to be spent on Australian equipment and goods by governments it would save $1.2 billion in foreign exchange. Senator Button —I am sorry, what is the $22 billion for? Senator SIDDONS —The $22 billion is the total government expenditure, State and Federal, last year. It is an enormous sum. I am suggesting that a big percentage of that was spent on overseas purchases. If 5 per cent were directed to Australian purchases, it would have made a big difference-a $1.2 billion difference in fact. There is no reason why the Australian Government could not bring down a `Buy Australian' Act, just as the United States has a `Buy America' Act, which simply requires governments, where possible, to buy goods made in that country. The seventh policy area is that some direction to investment should be given. Fifty per cent of the money spent on stock exchanges in Australia comes from superannuation. If guidelines were brought down, there is no doubt that we would have an enormous potential to encourage productive capacity in Australia through that area. The eighth policy initiative that we would recommend is that further attention be given to personal income tax to break down the very steep marginal tax rates that apply in the average income area. This would go a long way towards encouraging personal incentive. The ninth and final point I make is that the best way for our industries to become internally efficient is to encourage worker participation. That is the secret of Japan's success. It is a matter that receives a certain amount of support from both sides of this Parliament but, unfortunately, very little action. My Employee Participation Bill 1985 still awaits debate in this place. It is very straightforward; it embraces principles that have been proven in many countries, notably in Japan. It encourages employee share ownership, giving employees a stake in their enterprise so that we can establish an environment of co-operation. It sets down a system of small group activities so that we can look to employees for their contribution to ways of improving the efficiency of the companies. It suggests profit sharing. I am pleased to see that the Opposition is encouraging that in its policy documents as well. My Bill suggests that we should have consultative councils in business so that internal problems can be discussed before they become major matters requiring the intervention of the trade union movement. I have outlined nine policy areas. As I have said, their hallmark is creative intervention by the Government in the way the economy is managed. It is pitiful that the Government has renounced any responsibility to intervene in the economy and is simply making this plaintive cry to international money markets: `Whatever you do, do not sell down the Australian dollar'. We should have control over our own destiny. We should have control over our own money markets. We should not lie back abjectly and let the international speculators do what they will with Australia. We do have the resources and the power to do something about it. Many countries do it and there is no reason why Australia should not. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.50) —The Senate is debating the following motion of urgency which was put to the Senate by my colleague Senator Messner: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for more positive action by the Government to protect the living standards of Australians. It will come as no surprise to those people who are interested in this debate that this has been brought about by the speech to the nation last night by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a speech which has fallen flat everywhere and which very few people chose to listen to in any case. When he was speaking today on Ray Martin's show Mr Hawke had quite a lot to say but I will quote one little section. He said: It's going to be a tough Budget and its going to be a tough Premiers Conference because the simple fact is that we can't as a community just keep spending on the basis that we'll borrow abroad to finance the sort of levels of consumption that we want to have so we've got to make the decisions as governments, federal and state, that give effect to that. It is almost as though-we have heard this expression quite frequently lately-Mr Hawke also has been on the road to Damascus. He is just saying what everyone else has been trying to tell him for the last six to 18 months. Quite interestingly, when Senator Coates was supposed to be addressing himself to this subject, he did not address the subject. He talked about everything but the subject. I do not blame him. After the performance of his Prime Minister last night-I will be very interested to hear what Senator Cook has to say-it would be very embarrassing to have to go into bat on a subject such as this. However, I give Senator Coates full marks for trying, and undoubtedly we will do the same for Senator Cook. This was the Prime Minister's big chance. We all know that he has tried to act as the great communicator. This was his big chance and he blew it. Significantly, the people of Australia accept the fact that we are in trouble. I believe a recent poll suggested that something like 64 per cent of people believe that the country is in deep and serious trouble. Here was a time for the Prime Minister of this nation to exercise leadership, and he blew it. Significantly, I noticed this morning when I was watching one of the early television programs-before most Government senators get out of bed-that, of those people who were interviewed on their way to work, many had not seen the Prime Minister's address. Two years ago it would have been hard to imagine, when the Prime Minister was going to address the nation on a matter of dire consequences, and with all the hype and the publicity before it, that people would not be watching with bated breath. But last night most people chose not even to watch the address. Those who did pretty well all gave it the thumbs down. Mr Hawke started by mentioning the fact that when he came to government in 1983 we were in the most serious economic crisis for 50 years. What he did not say was that we are a great exporting nation and that we were then also in the middle of one of the worst droughts this nation had had for some considerable time. He did not say that the international economic situation was not good at that time either. Those are the parts that he overlooked. Senator Chaney quite rightly pointed out yesterday that the Prime Minister was going on air last night and that, after three years of his rule, the drought has broken but we are in the worst economic situation we have been in for 53 years. So the Prime Minister took to the infamous box to tell the people all about it. As we have indicated, he blew it. Quite significantly, the economic crisis with which we are confronted now is peculiar to Australia. There is no international recession as such, as there was in 1983, and no drought. The economic crisis is peculiar to Australia. Indeed, the economies of most of our trading partners-those against whom we compete internationally-are quite strong. I give credit to Mr Hawke for having spelt out some of the problems. We are receiving less for our exports; we all know that. In one of the Prime Minister's answers to Ray Martin, he said: I think that the people of Australia will come to understand what's been done to us by the rest of the world. That is fair enough. The Opposition has no quarrel with that as far as it goes; but our terms of trade are only part of the story. I shall quote Senator Chaney once again. Some time ago in a different debate he made the point that as a nation we are consuming more than we are producing; we are buying more than we are selling. That is the crux of the matter. It is not just our terms of trade. This is being reflected in our current account deficit. For the financial year 1985-86 it looks as though the current account deficit will go pretty close to $13.7 billion. Our overseas debt is currently approaching $80 billion. Significantly, that figure has doubled in the three years that the Hawke Labor Government has been in power. That is a large amount of money. In fact, it is so much money that it is almost mind-boggling and people find that it goes over their heads. Let us bring the situation down to a level on which we can all understand it a bit better. When a family sits down to draw up its yearly budget, it can project pretty well what the breadwinner-the husband, the wife or both-will earn. They put down that figure and look at their costs and they are then able to balance them out. They know what they have coming in, how much they can afford by way of rent or house repayments, whether they can afford to change the car, whether they can afford to send the children to a particular school or buy them new clothes. That is the sort of thing that every household does every year. What happens if the family says: `Hang the expense, let's live it up. Let's put in a swimming pool. Let's air-condition the living room. Let's get a new hi-fi stereo set'. The family borrows to do that. At the end of the year there is still the same amount of money coming in and so the family finds itself in pretty dire trouble. They may be evicted from the house and the house sold. The car may have to be repossessed and so on. In other words, the family is technically bankrupt. The same thing can happen, and indeed is happening, to this once great country of ours. Whereas a country does not quite go bankrupt as easily as does a family, quite a few economic analysts are suggesting that it will not be too long before the International Monetary Fund comes in like the big banker and starts sitting down with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and saying: `Well, Mr Treasurer, your country is now indeed a banana republic and this is how you will construct your fiscal policy'. Obviously, for us to survive, the first thing we have to do is to sell more. It is no use our growling about our terms of trade. We recognise that that is something over which we have no control. Having recognised that, we have to see what we can do about it. The problem is that we have become less competitive, particularly over the last three years, and at the same time we have gone deeper into debt. Nobody has tried to balance the budget as an ordinary family would have to do. Mr Keating, and to a lesser extent Mr Hawke, have quite often cited figures showing that we have had so much economic growth or so much recovery. Indeed, those figures are right on the surface. However, I say to honourable senators that what we have had has been a debt led recovery. We are like the family that went beyond its budget because it wanted to live it up, to live beyond its means, and borrowed to do so. That is the situation in which Australia finds itself. We have had a debt led recovery and we are now paying the price. We have to become competitive. We have to increase productivity. We have to reduce our costs; in other words, we have to encourage the farmers, miners and manufacturers to be able to produce more and sell more, because they are the engine room of this society. They are the people, the only people, the only sector of the community, who will get us out of trouble. The one concrete thing that Mr Hawke said last night was that there would only be one wage increase this year. Significantly, that will be an added cost and an added burden on our competitiveness. That was the one structural, firm thing that Mr Hawke said. The rest was hyperbole and rhetoric. He did not come to grips with our structural problems. He must realise, as all members of this Government must realise, that neither the Australian Council of Trade Unions nor the Government raises our standards of living; they just redistribute what other people produce. It is those in the engine room of the society who have to be encouraged. They are the ones who should be helped and not hindered by things such as the fringe benefits tax. We must recognise that we have on-costs which other nations do not have, such as the 17.5 per cent leave loading, four weeks annual leave and long service leave. Our competitors do not have those on-costs. I am not saying we should do away with them. We can keep all of those things, but we must work that much harder than the nations which do not have those costs if we want to survive and if we want to maintain our standard of living. As is the case with the family budget, what one cannot afford one cannot have. Much has been said in regard to jobs. My colleague Senator Messner mentioned the job situation. I will refresh the memories of honourable senators opposite with regard to the level of unemployment during 1974 and 1975. There seems to be something about a Labor government. It is big spending, big taxing and all the rest of it. In those two years it tripled our rate of unemployment. It also increased our inflation rate to heights which we never thought we would see in this country. Now the present Labor Government is talking about the fact that it has provided 600,000 to 700,000 jobs since it has been in office. Of course, it does not say in what sectors those jobs have been created. The taxpayers of this nation are funding about 150,000 of those jobs. Senator Button —Eighty per cent in the private sector. Get your facts right. Senator COLLARD —The taxpayers are funding those jobs which are certainly not in the productive sector. The Minister can say that some of those jobs have been created in the private sector, but they are government assisted jobs or schemes. This country cannot survive on that sort of basis. Senator Button —Rubbish! Senator COLLARD —Senator Button, in all honesty, knows that that is so, because he alludes to it quite often. The Prime Minister has identified $1 billion in savings in the Budget. Every government at this time of the year prunes forward bids. What did this Government do in 1983? It belted us continuously over the head in regard to the projected deficit of $9.6 billion, before the forward bids had been pruned. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say to the country `We are pruning our forward bids' and still belt us over the head with that spurious and artificial figure, as it did then. William Gladstone once said: `The first essential for a Prime Minister is to be a good butcher'. That is what this Prime Minister must do in regard to his own profligacy and government spending. Significantly, the government sector now makes up a little in excess of 40 per cent of our gross domestic product. No nation can continuously afford that sort of a figure. So this Prime Minister must be a good butcher, but he must start work in his own butcher's shop. This nation must come to grips with the problems we are facing. They are structural problems, and this Government must treat them as structural problems. We must increase our productivity and get rid of our archaic work practices that are holding us back. We must get our costs down and we must reduce expenditure in the government sector as a percentage of GDP. We must get rid of government imposts on the private sector. Unless this Government is prepared to address those matters in a meaningful way, Mr Hawke had better book television time for a repeat performance, because he will need to talk to the nation again in about six to 12 months time. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.05) —It is a cliche to say that I rise more in sorrow than in anger. Unfortunately, it is true that I rise sorrowfully to deal with the puerile superficiality that the Opposition has put forward in this debate. I guess it is a reflection of the depths to which the Liberal Party has plummeted that this is the best it can do after a major economic statement has been issued. Senator Siddons made a gallant effort to rescue this debate with some degree of respectability, but he, too, was torn on the grounds of no responsibility for hard decisions and having a two bob each way package. At least he made an effort. Senator Messner put in a dreary and shallow performance, and Senator Collard a pedestrian one. I now look forward with some dread to the theatrical histrionics of the schoolboy debating champion, Senator Peter Baume, when he replies to the debate. This could have been an important debate. It has not been an important debate because the Opposition has failed to address any issues seriously. If it were to be thoughtful and not engage in a sloganeering exercise in cheap political rhetoric, it would have concentrated on establishing what is the case in regard to the Australian economy, analysed what are the problems, canvassed what could be the solutions and, informed by a sense of reality and not fantasy, suggested what would be constructive outcomes for the Government to seek in the economy. None of those things has been tried. It has been an exercise in political gimmickry, and we are all the worse off for that. What is true about the Australian economy is that intrinsically on a domestic basis it is a strong economy. What is true is that the J-curve is working-not in the superficial, comprehensive way in which political analysts and Opposition spokesmen sometimes allege, but in a sectorial way our trade balance is picking up and the J-curve is showing signs of turning around. What is also true is that, despite all of those things, world terms of trade have moved against us. We cannot pretend that that does not exist; it does. It is a reality with which we must deal and it is a reality to which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) addressed his message to the nation last night. Senator Messner in his remarks pretended that that does not exist. At least John Howard, the failed former Treasurer, was honest enough to say, in commentary this week, that Australia is living beyond its means. That is what the Prime Minister said last night. He addressed a comprehensive program for dealing with the structural adjustment of this economy to the world trading scene, so that we can grow again, be more competitive and provide an increasing living standard in the medium to longer term for our citizenry. All of those matters were ignored by Senator Messner and some other speakers in this debate, as if sacrifices do not have to be made. Indeed, the emphasis of their contribution is that if there are sacrifices to be made, they must all be made on one side. The emphasis of what the Prime Minister said last night, and what we assert is the only way this country can proceed to deal with the very difficult terms of trade problem we have, is that if there are to be sacrifices there must be an equality of sacrifice across the board. It is not an argument of protecting privilege. It is not an argument of singing, as did Senator Messner, a hymn of hate against trade unions. It is not an exercise in pompous rhetoric or shallow superficiality. What is perhaps one of the most outstanding statistics, in all of the statistics that have been canvassed in this debate, is that the deficit in our terms of trade in 1982 comprised 6 per cent of gross domestic product. It is slightly less than that now. In 1982 it was not noticed as being a major flaw in our economic performance, because we had then an inflation rate in excess of 11 per cent. We had over 600,000 Australians unemployed. There was constant disputation and division. There was negative growth in that year. In that plethora of adverse statistics, that performance was not noticed. The fact is that we have turned the economy around in terms of inflation. We have brought the level of inflation down. We have turned the economy around in terms of unemployment by reducing the level of unemployment. There are higher participation rates than at any time during the Fraser period. In view of the fact that there is far less disputation now than there has been over the last several decades, in view of the fact that we have achieved positive growth, and in view of the other positive indicators in terms of the unit cost of labour and so on, that present figure of just under 6 per cent of GDP stands out. That is why this Government is addressing it. As I have said in previous debates in this chamber when the economy has been centre stage, the Liberal Party's rhetoric on economic solutions cannot be given any credence because if one resorts to the record one sees that what it achieved when in power was negative economic growth, spiralling inflation, burgeoning unemployment, higher labour unit costs, rampant division and industrial conflict, wages explosion and a switch of investment away from the manufacturing sector into the mining areas, thus building into the economy the structural problems with which we are now dealing. That is the record of honourable senators opposite, who lecture and hector this Government today-a Government that has presided over a resurgence of the economy. The Opposition uses that record to try to pretend that it has some credibility in this matter. We have seen an overcoming of the recession. We have seen a lowering of inflation and unemployment and all those things that I have spoken about. Under this Government it is possible to achieve a discount of wages because of the prices and incomes accord which it has with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is possible to achieve a redistribution, in terms of gross domestic product, from wages to profits-undertaken due to the accord-because of moderate wage outcomes. This has lifted profits to record levels. We now expect that those profits will be invested in the manufacturing sector. That has been achieved because of the accord. It has been possible to set up a co-operative framework to tackle problems such as those in the steel and motor vehicle industries. It is now possible to tackle the problems in the heavy engineering area with the package brought out in that area. It is possible now to protect jobs, to make those sectors competitive and to get investment back into those sectors so that we can take our place as a competitive nation. As well it was necessary to float the exchange rate to let the dollar, which was overvalued under the Liberals, find its proper level. All of those things have been achieved because of the accord. All of those things were the starting point for the Prime Minister's address to the nation last night. It is not that we have done anything wrong. We have done everything right. Because we have done everything right we have been able to tackle these problems. As I have said, the domestic economy is sound but, as a nation, we are caught in an international trade war. Minerals and agricultural products form 90 per cent of our exports. On the agricultural front, because of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community, we are caught with an oversupply of agricultural products on the world stage. That world-wide oversupply has pushed the United States into passing its Farm Bill, which will further complicate the matter. If we add the competitiveness of East Asia in this area too, we find that many of our traditional markets are being flooded by agricultural goods that are more competitive than ours. That is having an adverse effect on a major trading sector for this country. We find an oversupply of minerals around the world. Just recently the Japanese were able to negotiate a lower price for Australian iron ore. That has nothing to do with anything that is the fault of this country. We are a more efficient and more reliable producer of iron ore now than at any other time in our history. However, Brazil, India and other countries are contributing to the oversupply of iron ore. Because the client country, in this case Japan, wants to lower the price it is able to break the price ring and negotiate. Japan has offered a higher volume and market share to India in exchange for iron ore at a lower price. This then forces the other suppliers of iron ore to follow suit. They are some of the real reasons that we are in difficulties in regard to our terms of trade. To face those problems we have to shift investment into our manufacturing sector. It is true that all world economies that are performing well now do so because they have a burgeoning and buoyant manufacturing sector. It is true also that under the Fraser Government, when the false horizon of the mineral boom was being pursued, investment switched from our manufacturing sector, in search of a quick buck in dividend returns, to minerals. We are now paying the price for that loss of investment because we have not re-established our capital stock. We have not modified our production processes to be competitive. That is what this Government is addressing. We do not do it with cheap populist stunts. We answer the challenge. We do not have the snake oil remedies that the Liberals are talking about. The almost sole purpose of the Prime Minister's address last night was to stimulate investment in this economy in order to make jobs. I must say that I have been disgusted by the greed and self-interest of some employers who, not recognising what the union contribution to the stimulation of this economy has been, simply ask for more and more. Rather than describing myself what in fact the union contribution has been I turn to an article written by a senior economics commentator in this country, Ross Gittins, in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 June. He said: The signs that the Government may ask the ACTU to accept further wage discounting will neither surprise nor satisfy the bosses. To them, wages are always too high and it's always the right time for a pay cut. But to ordinary wage-earners and their union representatives, it's very hard to swallow. From their point of view, they already have shown a considerable degree of restraint and it's a bit rich to ask for more. They've already forgone any catch-up for the wage freeze, accepted the Medicare fiddle, agreed to a wage discount for the depreciation, cut back their productivity claim, allowed it to be delayed until July 1 and phased in over two years, and have been waiting since April for the latest indexation adjustment. As for the two compensating tax cuts, they only offset the effect of fiscal drag. So I'm quite prepared to accept that wage-earners have demonstrated an impressive degree of restraint, particularly when you consider the pay rises they could have got away with had they tried. They've stuck to the Accord agreement; wages drift has been modest, and the level of strikes is way down. Ross Gittins went on to talk about the reduction in real labour unit costs as well. That is the commitment that has been made to rectifying this economy by those on the labour and union side. In addition, they are being asked to take a further wage discount by accepting the delay in the current national wage case which would amount to a one per cent discount on the wage outcome. They are being asked to accept a further one per cent discount at the next national wage case, on 1 January next year. On top of that they are being asked to accept a further discount in real terms of an unspecified amount. They are also being asked to accept the deferral of tax cuts from 1 September to some time before 1 December. I think that no matter what one thinks about those outcomes the Government is seeking from the union side they are indeed, as expressed by the independent commentator Ross Gittins, a considerable sacrifice. What is needed now-if honourable senators opposite who are members of the Liberal Party had any guts they would stand up and say so-is price restraint. This year we are looking at wage increases of 4.3 per cent but price increases of over 8 per cent. It is about time that we heard a call from the Liberals for a restraint on prices. It is about time we heard a call for States to hold taxes and charges too. It is about time we heard a call for executive and upper class salaries, which have been galloping ahead of those of ordinary wage and salary earners, to be held back to those levels as well. It is about time we heard something about professional incomes being kept in line with those of ordinary wage and salary earners. We hear nothing at all about that. Honourable senators opposite do not want equality of sacrifice. They do not want to meet the challenge that this country faces. They simply want to continue on in their ideologically blinkered way demanding more and more sacrifices so they can wax under some of the profits generated and not reinvested in this country. The challenge that the Prime Minister's address last night put squarely is that business should now invest. The climate has now been set. There is now no restraint on investment. None of the possible barriers to investment that could have been put up have been introduced. It is now an open go for investment. If this package fails it will not be because of this Government, nor will it be because of what the ACTU contributes. The reason will be as stated by Ross Gittins in an article on 30 April: Its to be hoped that Australia's businessmen will stop whingeing and making excuses, and will lift their game in the way the unions have. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.20) —The Senate is debating the following matter of urgency which was moved by my colleague Senator Messner: The need for more positive action by the Government to protect the living standards of Australians. Labor senators cannot have it both ways. If Senator Cook and Senator Coates are right why did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) find it necessary to make an address to the nation last night emphasising the gravity of our economic situation. If the Prime Minister was right how could these Labor senators fail to acknowledge here the gravity of the situation and the extent of the crisis? Senator Cook has told us that there has been a resurgence in the economy-a resurgence indeed. We are in trouble in Australia. That is why Mr Hawke addressed the nation last night. That is why the Treasurer, Mr Keating, a few weeks ago said that we were becoming, in his words, a banana republic. That is why Professor Fred Gruen said that our foreign debt is making our economy similar to that of a South American country such as Argentina. That is why Maximilian Walsh says that the economy is showing all the signs that preceded the two worst depressions ever for Australia-1890 and 1930. In summary, we have a balance of trade crisis. Our Treasurer says that we are becoming a banana republic and respected commentators say we are like a South American country and are facing a very bad recession. This is a disaster for all Australians. It threatens us with fewer jobs. This will particularly affect young Australians. It threatens us with higher prices and with having to cope with a dollar that is now worth less than US60c-and worth less since last night. It threatens us with a lower standard of living. A recession of the kind that has been talked about means unemployment for young Australians because no jobs will be created. It means unemployment for adult Australians because jobs will be lost and will disappear. It means that wages will be cut-and the Prime Minister called for that. It means that there will be less overtime and more hardship and bankruptcies. It means repossessions, business failures and a failure to invest. It means blighted hopes as opportunity disappears. Why have we heard nothing about that from Labor senators when the Prime Minister at least found it necessary to tell the nation that we were facing grave times? That is why he took the step of addressing the nation last night. Apparently the Prime Minister cares more than do those Labor senators. Australians are struggling. We know that we are worse off now than we were three years ago. We know that the Labor Government has meant more tax, more hardship and more registered unemployed-the voters of 10 electorates make up the number of unemployed after 3 1/4 years of Labor government. It means that 23 per cent of young Australians are out of work and families are unable to live on their incomes. It means more crime, more drugs, more violence and more evidence of societal failure. That is what Australian families are facing and what they are talking about. At least our Treasurer had the honesty to talk about our becoming a banana republic. He meant it. He said it because he thinks that it is true. He knows that it is true. The Treasurer's colleagues do not mention it and as far as I am concerned they do not understand what he was saying. Senator Siddons —Are you going to tell us what to do about it? Senator PETER BAUME —Give me a moment, Senator Siddons. The Federal Government responded last night. What did we get? What was the response from the Prime Minister when he addressed the nation? He delivered an economic statement about the crisis. He admitted the crisis but he failed to meet it. What was the community's response to the Prime Minister's speech? Was the speech accepted as being good and effective or an adequate response to the crisis? It was not. The Sydney Morning Herald talked about it as being `a tinsel and trust package' and anti-climactic, and said that it failed to back rhetoric with specific commitments. It talked about the dollar falling in response to the speech. That was the judgment of the international community. The Sydney Morning Herald said that the speech contained too few specific decisions and had all the untimely superficiality of being thrown together since the weekend-which of course it had. The Australian said that the Prime Minister has failed to address the rigid structures that hold us back and has failed to offer the inspiration Australia needs. That is what that newspaper said today about the speech last night of the Prime Minister. The Age newspaper said that the bad news is that Mr Hawke's speech failed to fulfil the pre-address expectations. It also said that the speech failed dismally and that it is simply too late for pep talks and good intentions. Perhaps all those newspapers are wrong and Senator Cook is right. The Australian Financial Review said that instead of the fireworks expected, last night our Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, gave us a damp squib. So it goes on. The Government's speech got a thumbs down, and our currency dropped on international markets. What needs to be done? The following are the standards against which Mr Hawke's speech must be judged. Did it provide economic leadership? Did it set directions? Did it take hard decisions? Did it take action? It did none of those things. Our troubles will not go away just because of slick talk. Is Mr Hawke just all talk? He failed dismally to meet the standards last night that were necessary to resolve the crisis. That was the judgment of the Press and of leading commentators. That was the judgment of the international market on our economy and that is the judgment of Australians. The statement was vague on tax cut timing, on the amount of wage discounting, on the delay in the productivity superannuation deal, on the size of Budget spending cuts and on the size of next year's Budget deficit. These are the things about which people want to know so that they will know whether they can put any credence in what the Government is saying. Mr Hawke gave no direction, leadership, decisions or policies around which the community could rally. We have a crisis but no hard answers. A crisis without answers and with indecision will send us down the gurgler if we are not there now. We are facing more unemployment, lower wages, higher prices and a lower standard of living for families and all Australians. But this did not need to happen this way. There are ways of pulling us out of Mr Keating's economic hole. Unlike the Australian Labor Party, the coalition has spelt out clear and specific policies. My colleague Senator Messner has already referred to some of them. We need the community to unite behind the policies. We can come out of this crisis without lowering our living standards unduly. We can improve our trade and manufacturing, our investment and productivity. Above all, we need to lower the price of production of our goods. We have dismally failed to do so under this Government in three years. Changing that alone, apart from anything else we want to do, will lead to more jobs, lower prices and eventually to higher wages. We want an immediate recall of the Parliament for a June mini-Budget to cut government spending, because nothing was said last night about doing that. We want the productivity claim before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to be abandoned now. We want the national wage case currently being heard to be postponed for up to 12 months. We want the anti-business and anti-investment elements of the tax package abandoned now. We want foreign investment controls relaxed. This package of measures will help us come out of the recession which faces us. These specific policies give the country a clear direction. We have done what the Government is not prepared to do and have indicated what we want to see happen. In the longer term we need to introduce tax policies that provide effective incentives for risk taking and effort. We want to introduce a new industrial relations framework to promote work place productivity and greater competitiveness. We want the gradual removal of distortions and excessive regulation in industry. We want more choice, higher standards and greater relevance in education with the pursuit of excellence. We want less government and more competition in our transport and communication. The Prime Minister last night talked about working for the dole. I remind honourable senators that this proposal is very similar to one introduced by the Fraser Government in the wage pause program. At that time, we foreshadowed that we would use money from the unemployment benefit and some saved from the wage pause to provide work for the long term unemployed. We saw then what Labor is now belatedly realising. Our proposals were attacked by the Labor Party, and on its election in 1983 the Labor Government abandoned our proposals to provide work for those on the unemployment benefit. But the Labor Party is coming back to it now because it is right and it is needed. The Government's own youth poll showed that young Australians do not want something for nothing; they want to work. We tried to give them work. The Labor Party abandoned that proposal when it came to office, and I suppose we should be grateful that it is coming back to it now. The proposal announced by Mr Hawke last night of working on community services for the dole has always been fought against by Mr Howe and by some of the left wing. They do not realise that the unemployment stigma can be beaten only by community work and by empowering people and giving people greater skills. One month ago we received bad trade figures. We received evidence that we were going broke as a nation under the Labor Party. We were told by the Treasurer that we were facing banana republic circumstances. We know that this could have been avoided had we spent less, produced more and indulged ourselves less. We have not heard from the Government how those issues can be addressed. It has reneged on its promises to the Australian people and it has avoided the hard options and decisions which are necessary. Labor tries to blame its crisis on the previous administration. Labor has been in office now for almost 40 months-for 3 1/4 years. If Labor senators wish to assert in this chamber that a Labor Government cannot control the economy, cannot address problems, cannot turn things round, cannot be responsible after 3 1/4 years in government, and that 3 1/4 years is not enough time to be taking responsibility for what it has done and for resolving problems, it is time for a new government, and it is time to get rid of the Labor Government. I want to spend one moment telling the Senate how sad some Australian parents are. A letter appeared in this morning's Australian which seems to sum up many of the problems inherent in the youth employment-unemployment debate, at a time when 23 per cent of our youth are unemployed. Mr Richard Fordham of Western Australia complained that it is hard to keep his apprentice son motivated when the son sees the good life of his many friends on the dole. The son rises each morning at 5.30 a.m. His mother cooks his breakfast and he leaves home at 6.15 a.m. to be at his place of employment by 7 a.m. Mr Fordham wrote that his son puts in a long, hard day. He averages 45 hours a week. His work is dusty, dirty and physically exhausting. He does all the cleaning and he draws at the end of a week $160 clear. In contrast, his friends on the dole get $88.20 and are allowed to earn an extra $30 a week. Most of those boys are excellent sportsmen. Six of them live in an old rented house. They have a combined income of $529.20 a week and can earn up to another $180. Usually they do not bother. The father's problem is how to keep his son motivated while people are taking the dole, doing nothing in return, and gaining nothing in the sense of responsibility. I come back to what I said a moment ago. If the Labor Party wants us to believe that after 3 1/4 years it is not in the position to be responsible for what it has done and to be responsible for the position in which Australia finds itself, I offer to it the same advice that Oliver Cromwell offered to the Rump Parliament at the end of April 1653: You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go! Senator BLACK(Queensland)(4.35) —I recall reading this afternoon on the Australian Associated Press monitor a statement from the Queensland Premier to the effect that the Australian Labor Party at its next National Conference intended to abolish the Senate. I do not think that anybody has explained to him that there is a little more to it than that. At least, if that were to happen it would spare us the sorts of contributions which we have had here this afternoon, and it would, at least in one respect, be welcomed. I am bemused at the idea that the Opposition will protect living standards by cutting wages. It would seem that irrespective of how the rhetoric is dressed up, the bottom line always is that wages will be cut. I am completely at a loss, as a former union official, to understand how one could protect living standards by cutting wages. I think that it is appropriate at this time that I deal with the credibility of the Labor Government as an economic manager and compare that to the sort of record that the Opposition had when it was in government. In keeping with the general predictability of this debate, I will continue to repeat the truth to the Opposition in the hope that it will begin to understand it. I will look at the major indicators of the economy: Inflation, unemployment and growth, and compare the position which was left to us by our predecessors with the sorts of achievements which we have been able to bring about. First, for the year ending March 1983, when we came into government, the inflation rate was running at 11.5 per cent. For the year ending March 1986, inflation was running at 9.2 per cent. For the last full financial year, 1984-85, the consumer price index was growing at a rate of 5.8 per cent. The prediction for the 1986-87 year, depending on the credibility of sources, ranged around that 5 per cent figure. Secondly, on the subject of unemployment, during the last 12 months of the Fraser Government with the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as the Treasurer, 243,000 jobs were lost to the Australian economy. That is almost a quarter of a million jobs lost. There is no real protection of living standards there. We had an unemployment rate of some 10 per cent. The unemployment rate, by this morning's figures for May, was 7.8 per cent. Since the election of the Hawke Labor Government, 674,000 jobs have been created. That represents a very real improvement in the living standards of those people. Thirdly, in the 1982-83 financial year, dominated by the conservative policies of economic management by the Opposition, economic growth was minus 0.8 per cent. During the 1984-85 financial year, under the policies of the Labor Government, economic growth was 4.6 per cent. In the 12 months ending March 1986, the figure was 4.5 per cent. I indicate those figures to the Opposition and to those people listening in order to point out that the record of the Opposition is appalling in those areas, that the record of the Government is something to be proud of, and also to indicate that whilst we appreciate that we are facing massive problems brought on by events overseas, we nevertheless have the Australian economy in a reasonably sound position to meet those adverse circumstances. I would now like to touch on some of the other measures which the Labor Government has brought about since it came into office. The major task we had before us when we were elected was to create jobs. As one of the earlier speakers said, our priority was jobs, jobs and jobs. As any experienced economic manager would know in dealing with the Australian economy, any increase in demand for labour across the economy can be syphoned off by disproportionate wage increases gained by workers who are lucky enough to be in a powerful bargaining position at that time. This can result in both wage inflation and unemployment, as the conservative government learnt to its sorrow. It is also inevitably accompanied by a high level of industrial disputes. What the Labor Government has achieved under the accord and under a centralised wage fixing system is a means by which the increased demand in the economy is used to mop up the large pool of unemployed which was left to us as a legacy of the Fraser-Howard years. This has been achieved with record low levels of industrial disputation. I will give a couple of figures to highlight my case. During the seven years of the Fraser Government, the figure for average annual working days lost was 3.2 million. Under the Labor Government this figure has been halved and it is now at its lowest level for almost 20 years. This represents not only a pretty enormous improvement in the living standards of three-quarters of a million Australians who now have jobs and their families, but also a considerable improvement in the living standards of those people who have not had to fight through the strike mechanism in the work place to protect those living standards. It has also served to protect Australian workers in weaker bargaining positions who traditionally have had to rely on the mechanisms of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to protect their living standards. The Opposition has no alternative at all to these policies. Its own industrial relations policies would create chaos and dislocation in every individual work place in this country. With no upper limit on wages, there would be a massive wages push by powerful workers and a severe dislocation as other workers sought to protect their living standards. Wage push inflation and unemployment again would be the inevitable result of these sorts of policies. Under the accord the Government has also sought to protect low income earners through a system of family income supplements under which low income earners, earning less than $273 a week, receive direct transfer payments from the Government of $16 per child per week. This is yet another means by which the Labor Government has protected the living standards of low income Australians and provided an indirect subsidy to the rural sector and to other areas of the economy which have been experiencing consistently low levels of profitability. It is worth while emphasising that point because a lot of the rural lobbyists from the National Farmers Federation and a number of other conservative organisations who have been urging welfare cuts on the Government ought to realise that those welfare payments in a number of areas will subsidise their own level of profits. I have heard complaints from employers in the country that they cannot get labour these days for $4 an hour but that at the same time those potential workers are living off the dole. I simply point out to them that the only way they can get any workers at all for that sort of money in a deregulated labour market is because those kids are living off the dole. We are giving through the dole payment a direct subsidy to those people. I do not laud that procedure by any means. The Federal Government has done a good deal through its youth traineeship program, although we acknowledge that it is still in its infancy, to increase mobility in the work force and to introduce some degree of flexibility with traineeships. While on the subject of improved living standards and transfer payments, I point out as far as pension payments are concerned that in March 1983, when the Fraser Government fell, the single pension payment was $77.25. In March 1986, three years later, it was $97.90. That represents a real increase of 5 per cent. As I have said, the Government has been aware of a number of problems within the economy-long term problems, nothing to do with our current balance of trade problems-which it has sought to counteract with the primary objective being the protection of living standards. The superannuation agreement currently being negotiated will do a great deal when it eventually comes to fruition to protect the position of the working poor, particularly women, people working in the private sector and part time workers. There is no way that we could continue to manage the economy of this country in the longer term without doing something to reduce the burden on the economy of increased pension payments. Some sort of superannuation agreement was needed, but, of course, it was opposed by the Opposition. The Government has provided considerable assistance to rural producers, who we acknowledge have been facing severe problems. I remind the Opposition of the $200m rural aid package. I remind the Opposition also of the $100m sugar aid package which was delayed for about nine months due to the opposition of the Queensland Premier. The State Government wanted to claim all of the political kudos that resulted from the provision of this money. That $300m is now flowing through to the rural working poor and to their employers, and is providing a genuine measure of assistance in protecting living standards in Australia. I also touch briefly on the proposal to introduce an identity card, which would go some way towards protecting those workers who are paying the tax they are obliged to pay through the pay as you earn system and would also prevent a degree of welfare fraud, which unfortunately exists in our society. I mention, too, the fringe benefits tax, which again is designed to protect the living standards of PAYE workers. It is designed to prevent the sorts of rorts which have proliferated over the last couple of years. That was also opposed by the Opposition. The main point of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last night was the deterioration in the terms of trade and the steps that the Government intends to take to try to counteract that. I note that many of the Opposition speakers appear to have read the newspaper editorials and summaries, but it certainly appears that not many of them have read the 22-page statement attached to the address made by the Prime Minister. I commend it to them. If they had read the statement and the attachments they would have acknowledged that they are a genuine attempt to come to grips with the problem this country is facing. Since the December quarter of 1984 our terms of trade have fallen by almost 14 per cent, with more than two-thirds of that fall coming since the June quarter last year. There are few signs of any sort of early reversal. Despite the large depreciation of the Australian dollar, which in normal circumstances would raise returns to our exporters, prices for our exports in domestic currency terms have risen little, if at all. I think the Government has made a genuine attempt to address that sort of problem, and it has listed a series of measures which will go a long way towards counteracting it. I would like to go through those and discuss them briefly. The first proposal from the Prime Minister was that the 2.3 per cent increase sought in the current national wage case should be the only national wage increase in 1986. Outside the ambit of the accord the Opposition would have no mechanism to bring about this degree of liaison with the union movement and with wage earners generally. The Government intends to argue for further discounting in the following cases. The Government intends to seek to delay implementation of the productivity superannuation case so that it is implemented over a period of some 2 years. That is again a very real measure to ensure that in the longer term the gain is introduced and yet in the short term costs to employers are kept to a minimum. The Government is also determined to stop the growth in the wages drift by restraining non-wage pay cheques in the form of executive salaries, directors' fees and professional incomes. The Opposition has no alternative to that sort of policy, because those things would be completely deregulated under its wages system. The Government also intends to upgrade the Prices Surveillance Authority to ensure that we have a greater capacity to restrain the growth of prices to maintain our degree of international competitiveness. The Government will also make greater efforts to hold down the level of public sector growth, which has already been considerably restrained during the last three years. I wish to touch on a number of other measures which I have no doubt the Opposition would consider to be fluff and nonsense. They deal essentially with motivation, with people's intentions, and they are very nebulous concepts. But as anybody who has studied economics would know, those sorts of nebulous concepts provide the foundation for economics. The rest of it is a mathematical superstructure which in itself is quite okay, but if the underlying assumptions about behaviour do not hold up, none of it does. The Government intends to launch a `Buy Australian' campaign, to commence within the next few months. It also intends to promote purchasing policies which favour Australian producers, and it is setting up a committee to report on that within six months. The Government intends also to initiate a number of other moves to encourage exports and to try to improve the balance of payments. I will list those briefly in the time remaining. They include export management education, a new small exporters scheme, a high technology exporters scheme, reduction of insurance charges on exporters and transport and handling costs, and a reduction in the pricing of agricultural inputs. I commend to members of the Opposition all of those points in the 22-page attachment, which I urge them to read. Their contributions might have been a little better had they already done so. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.48) —in reply-By any test of what has been put forward in this place today, the Government has failed to support the case made by the Opposition during this debate. The fact is that members of the Government have not successfully put forward answers to the questions that have been raised. Chiefly, and put quite simply, the Government has failed to tell us what it proposes to do to fix the economy. The statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last night was just 22 pages of waffle. Senator Black should have known better than to try to justify the statement. No specifics are mentioned, and even when we tried to pin down the Government at Question Time in the Senate today as to what the statement really meant, for instance, by expenditure cuts, Government Ministers were not prepared to tell us in what general areas they were going to cut expenditure. They could not tell us, for instance, whether it would come off the expenditures already voted for departments and those which have been entered into already during this financial year, whether they were cuts from forward estimates proposed by departments and considered by the Expenditure Review Committee, or whether they would be some other kinds of cuts. So how on earth can anybody, after proper consideration of the Prime Minister's statement, say that the Government has made any attempt to justify in specific terms what it intends to do? I pick up Senator Black's last point in connection with the terms of trade. He pointed out to us that somehow this is all beyond the control of the Hawke Government, that a 14 per cent decrease in our terms of trade has produced the results it has, and that has come about because we have had such heavy investment in our resources industries rather than in manufactured products. That is the line of the Government. Yet as my colleagues have pointed out during this debate, the Government has been in power for three years and has had responsibility for the economic policies of Australia over the period. When did the Government suddenly find out about the terms of trade? Apparently it is only in the last few days, since we found out that we are a banana republic, according to Mr Keating. The terms of trade have been around for a long time. If the Government has failed to recognise that from time to time there are changes in the terms of trade for our export industries it has failed in its duty in economic management because it has failed to address and control in a proper way the problems that are occurring in our economy. If the Government woke up to the fact that we were too heavily dependent on our export industries, why did it not start in 1983 to develop policies that would have produced alternative industrial structures? Why did not the Prime Minister spell out in his statement last night what he intends to do about alternative industrial structures? The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, from all the derogatory comments on the Prime Minister's speech last night, said about the statement: . . . short on specifics and long on generalisations. It's hard to know what we've learned from the speech that we didn't know before. That is precisely the conclusion the Opposition has reached and it is the reason why it raised this matter of urgency today. Quite clearly, all the points that were raised during the Prime Minister's statement have been put forward in the course of the last 12 months in debate with the trade union movement, by agreement with the trade union movement. The question of putting off the superannuation case for two years was agreed to last September. It was also agreed in the last 12 months that there would be only one national wage case this year. Senator Grimes —Where are all your supporters? Senator MESSNER —Before I worry about that, I am sure that the Government's support would have to be examined. The point about this issue is quite clear. Apparently the Government's determination is governed by one overriding factor and that is its difficulty in coming to terms with the trade union movement, which of course is its constituent organisation. That is what the Government has failed to address in the statement. It is the point that cannot be addressed appropriately by the Prime Minister because the Government knows that the trade union movement is not prepared to forgo the very things that will cure Australia's economic problems. I should again like to put on the record the Opposition's position so that the Government might contemplate the points that are brought forward and consider them in future policy development. We consider them to be the major issues before Australia in the restoration of our economic health. There are several steps. Our short term approach involves the immediate recall of the Federal Parliament to debate a mini-Budget in order to cut government expenditure. In that way we might find out the specifics of the Government's program. We seek the immediate abandonment of the specious productivity claim that is before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We seek the postponement of the national wage case for up to 12 months. We seek the abandonment of the anti-business and anti-investment parts of the taxation package, some of which has already been passed. Of course, we seek the relaxation of foreign investment controls. To attack the long term problems of the economy we believe that we should be doing the following: Firstly, we should be introducing taxation policies that provide effective incentives for risk taking and effort. Secondly, we should have a new industrial relations framework promoting work place productivity and greater competitiveness and co-operation between employers and employees. That policy has already been announced and is in the public arena. Thirdly, we should seek the gradual removal of distortions and excessive regulations in industry. Fourthly, there should be more choice, higher standards and greater relevance in education generally in relation to the industrial framework within which we operate. Lastly, we should have less government involvement and more competition in the areas of transport and communications which are so vital to the establishment of a more competitive economy. By all the tests the Government failed to put forward a reasonable package in its statement last night. The Prime Minister failed to tell us in detail what he intends to do, and we know the reason why he cannot do that. The reason is that he simply does not have a program he can sell to the trade union movement. Until the Government is prepared to deal with that problem in particular the living standards of Australians will suffer as a result. Until we deal with that problem effectively we will not get more job opportunities for young people or for those who have been out of work for a long period, and apparently their number is growing. Those are the issues that need to be addressed and they are the ones this Government is failing to address. This matter of urgency is of complete and utter relevance at the present time because it brings to the attention of the Senate the issues the Government failed to address in the statement last night and which now, through debate, have been brought forward as weaknesses in the Government's position. The Liberal-National Party Opposition has already put down its alternative position on how it would address these problems. That is something we believe ought to be carried by the Senate now so that even at this late stage the Government may turn its mind to those problems and take into account the issues that have been raised by us. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That unless otherwise ordered- (1) The hours of sitting of the Senate on Friday, 13 June 1986, be varied as follows: 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (2) The Senate meet on Saturday, 14 June 1986 and that- (a) the hours of sitting for that day be as follows: 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (b) the Order of Business for that day be as follows: (i) Petitions (ii) Notices of Motion (iii) Ministerial Statements (iv) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (v) Government Business as set down on the Notice Paper. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.59) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Today we are moving rapidly towards a cashless society as demonstrated by the community's increasing reliance on the operation of cheque accounts, credit cards and, in the last five years, electronic banking facilities. We have quickly become fluent in the use of the acronyms of the new system of financial transactions, acronyms such as ATMs for automatic teller machines, PINs for personal identification numbers, and EFTPOS for electronic funds transfer at point of sale. In the era of EFTs, money is becoming an electrical impulse travelling within a communications network. EFTPOS represents a transformation of the payments system. It reduces the need for consumers to carry cash or cheques and it extends the number of outlets from which people can operate their accounts, with very little or low transaction costs for the banks and the non-banking financial institutions. To demonstrate the benefits of the move away from the paper based and labour intensive paper transactions, in its submission to the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System the Westpac Banking Corporation estimated that the transaction cost for every cheque processed was 60c, compared with a cost of only 30c for every EFT transaction. Electronic funds transfers have been described by the Law Reform Commission as `a legal no-man's land, with legal regulation and protection lumbering along in the wake of technological development'. Consumer protection and the safeguarding of financial privacy are major problems arising from this new technology. At present the onus to disprove a financial statement lies with the customer. The Australian Consumers Association is concerned that the burden of the loss incurred from fraudulent automatic teller machine withdrawals rests with the customer and that many customers have had their accounts incorrectly debited because of ATM malfunctions. Under most of the contracts the banks have devised, customers are now totally liable for transaction failures, even if they are a result of negligent behaviour on the part of the banker, and also for fraud and carelessness. The customer is made responsible for reviewing his or her bank statements and bringing discrepancies to the attention of the bank. I believe that the laws must be revised, particularly the old statutes governing cheques, which are still largely drawn in terms of paper procedures, because these are now increasingly being replaced by electronic messages. I believe reform is needed in placing the onus on financial institutions to justify financial statements rather than, as at present, normally imposing on the customer the onus to disprove a statement. I believe there is a need to safeguard the financial privacy and security of the electronic system and to limit access to the data in it. I also believe there is a need to control the use to which financial institutions can put electronic, financial and personal data-for example, limiting its sale or supply to associated travel companies, insurance companies, credit cards companies and direct marketing bodies. I believe there is a need to define the extent to which law enforcement authorities can, without court orders, have access to instantaneous records of financial dealings by which movements of citizens can be traced. Legal regulation and protection are certainly lagging behind technological development. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! In accordance with usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the Government has not responded within the prescribed period. This list has been circulated to honourable senators and, with the concurrence of the Senate, it will be incorporated in Hansard. The list read as follows- PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Title of report Date tabled Government response SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES Constitutional and Legal Affairs 1. Conscientious Objection to Conscripted Military Service... 28.5.85 I: 6.12.85 2. Commonwealth Law Making Power and the Privilege of Freedom of Speech in State Parliaments... 30.5.85 I: 6.12.85 3. IVF and the Status of Children... 6.12.85 - Education and the Arts 1. Tenure of Employment of Academics... 9.9.82 I:15.12.83 I:22.10.84 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 2. A National Language Policy... 21.2.85 I:28. 5.85 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 I:14. 2.86 Finance and Government Operations 1. Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth-5th Report... 16.9.82 I:11.11.82 I:15.12.83 I:22.10.84 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 2. Practical Operation of the Prescribed Payments System of Taxation... 4.9.84 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 Industry and Trade 1. Australia-China Trade... 23.8.84 I:31. 5.85 I:11. 9.85 I: 6.12.85 2. The Development of Closer Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand (First Report)... 11.10.84 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 3. The Development of Closer Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand (Second Report)... 20.8.85 I: 6.12.85 4. The Development of Closer Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand (Third Report)... 11.2.86 - National Resources 1. Development of the Bauxite, Alumina and Aluminium Industries... 25.11.81 I:15.12.83 I:16.10.84 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 2. Natural Resources of the Australian Antarctic Territory... 5.12.85 - Science, Technology and the Environment 1. Land Use Policy in Australia... 21.2.85 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 Social Welfare 1. Children in Institutional and Other Forms of Care. A National Perspective... 22.8.85 I: 6.12.85 JOINT COMMITTEES Australian Capital Territory 1. Parliamentary Zone Draft Development Plan... 1.3.84 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 Foreign Affairs and Defence 1. Disarmament and Arms Control... 11.10.84 I: 6.12.85 National Crime Authority 1. First Report... 29.11.85 - SENATE SELECT COMMITTEES 1. Statutory Authority Financing Vol 1:... 8.9.83 I:15.12.83 I:22.10.84 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 Vol 2:... 13.10.83 I:15.12.83 I:22.10.84 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 2. Video Material... 28. 3.85 I:31. 5.85 I: 6.12.85 3. Animal Welfare: Dolphins and Whales in Captivity... 29.11.85 - 4. Volatile Substance Fumes: Volatile Substance Abuse in Australia... 6.12.85 - JOINT SELECT COMMITTEES 1. Parliamentary Privilege-(Final Report)... 3.10.84 - 2. Electoral Reform-Determining the Entitlement of Federal Territories and New States to Representation in the Commonwealth Parliament-First Report... 17.2.86 - Note I: Interim Response Only As at 12 June 1986 Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I present the sixth report arising from the Committee's examination of annual reports, dated May 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(5.04) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I table a sixth report arising from the Committee's examination of annual reports, pursuant to the provisions of sessional order 7. During the past year, the Committee has tabled five other reports on its examination of the annual reports of Government departments and authorities. Two of these reports dealt with technical issues; namely, timeliness of reporting and the appropriate contents of annual reports. Two reports dealt with children's television. In the remaining report, the Committee dealt with the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and with the assessment in secondary colleges in the Australian Capital Territory. The report I table today deals with the annual report of the Australian National Gallery for 1983-84. The Committee decided in September 1985 to examine this report in detail. At that time, the Public Accounts Committee intended to hold a public hearing with the Gallery in connection with adverse comments made about some aspects of the Gallery's administration in the Auditor-General's report of April 1985. With the agreement of the Public Accounts Committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts decided to investigate the issues raised by the Auditor-General. Given its wider interests, it also pursued issues relating to other aspects of the Gallery's operations. The Committee took evidence from officers of the Gallery and from an Assistant Auditor- General at public hearings held in Canberra on 17 October and 4 November 1985. The annual report of the Australian National Gallery for 1983-84 adhered closely to the Commonwealth Government's reporting guidelines for statutory authorities. The Committee commends the Gallery for its comprehensive coverage of its activities during 1983-84. The Gallery's annual report was one of the few reports investigated by the Committee which identified its major operational problems. The Committee considers that it is strange that relatively few statutory authorities and departments addressed operational problems in their 1983-84 annual reports. The Committee's survey of the Gallery's operations indicated that the Gallery, in general, is well managed and is fulfilling the role set out in the National Gallery Act. The functions of the Gallery are described in the Act as follows: Firstly, to develop and maintain a national collection of works of art; and, secondly, to exhibit, or make available for exhibition by others, works of art from the national collection in the national interest. Under the Act, the Gallery is also obliged to `use every endeavour to make the most advantageous use of the national collection in the national interest'. As I indicated earlier, the Auditor-General has commented adversely on some aspects of the Gallery's administration. It should be remembered, however, that the National Gallery has been functioning as an art gallery for only a short time. Its first full year of operation was 1983-84. The Committee considers that some of the Auditor-General's criticisms, although warranted, have resulted from what might be described as `teething problems' at the Gallery. There have also been some isolated mistakes which occurred in circumstances which are unlikely to recur. Most of these problems appear to have been solved, either during 1983-84 or in the period since 1 July 1984. Some problems, however, seem to be more deep-seated. The Committee, therefore, has made four recommendations on difficulties identified by the Auditor-General. These are that the National Gallery should: Firstly, develop and implement, as a matter of urgency, a systematic, progressive stocktaking strategy for its collections of works of art; secondly, make a special effort to complete the cataloguing of its library and to institute a system of stocktaking its library holdings; thirdly, ensure that local purchasing procedures meet all the financial management obligations required of statutory authorities as soon as possible; and, fourthly, implement a system of checks on the condition of stored works of art. The Committee has found that the Gallery has generally functioned efficiently in terms of developing a national collection and displaying the collection in Canberra. It has also made available works of art from the collection for exhibitions in other centres and has organised some travelling exhibitions. While commending these activities, the Committee considers that it would be desirable if the Gallery were to make works of art more readily available to all Australians, including those in localities remote from Canberra. At present, the Gallery is attempting to find private sponsorship for travelling exhibitions. The Gallery's Director, Mr Mollison, suggested that now that the National Gallery `has brought its collection to order' it may have staff it can use to work on touring exhibitions. The Committee welcomes the Gallery's initiatives in this area. It considers, however, that touring exhibitions should now be given a higher priority by the Gallery and should be a continuing activity. It has recommended, therefore: (5) If private sponsorships are insufficient to fund touring exhibitions, the Gallery should allocate funds for such exhibitions to ensure that as many Australians as possible in areas remote from Canberra are able to view works from the national collection. I conclude by thanking the Director and other senior staff of the Gallery for their co-operation. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.12) —As Deputy Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts that undertook this inquiry into the Australian National Gallery, I have pleasure in supporting the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Colston. In the few moments of debate that are available to me, I will seek to highlight one particular matter. Honourable senators will recall that 3 1/2 years ago on a very splendid occasion the Queen opened the National Gallery. Some 11 years ago the Parliament passed the National Gallery Act. For some 10 years the Council of the Gallery has been conducting its work, and for nine years the administration and management of the collection have been in the hands of the Director of the Gallery, James Mollison. It was therefore timely, given that the preparatory decade has been completed and that the Gallery has been open to the public for 3 1/2 years, that the annual report of the Gallery be investigated by the Senate Committee. In this first public review of the National Gallery, we found it in order and were pleased to see there a responsiveness to the Auditor-General's inquiries, and indeed to questions and other matters raised in Estimates committees over recent years. The matters that had caused some concern that were in our minds when we undertook the inquiry, we are happy to see, are now in hand in the administration of the Gallery. In this context I was anxious that our inquiry not be misinterpreted as seeking to make the Gallery more unnecessarily bureaucratic, or pedantic or inflexible. It is, after all, an artistic endeavour to locate works of art and to display them to the Australian public, and that must always be paramount in the management of the Gallery. But we see that it has the matter of accountability in perspective. I want to emphasise the Committee's recommendation that the Gallery place even greater priority on some exhibits from the Gallery touring to other parts of Australia so that the art exhibited here permanently in Canberra can be more accessible to all Australians. The terms of our fifth recommendation are: If private sponsorships are insufficient to fund touring exhibitions, the Gallery should allocate funds for such exhibitions to ensure that as many Australians as possible in areas remote from Canberra are able to view works from the national collection. While we welcome and anticipate real results in the Gallery's looking to private enterprise to put up the money to enable regional touring, if that is inadequate let the agenda still be determined by the Council of the Gallery to set aside funds and to make proper submissions in the Budget process to enable the magnificence of the Gallery to be displayed to all Australians. Then we will see that the National Gallery truly has a national impact. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —I present the 249th report from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts entitled `Proposed Computer Acquisition for Repatriation General Hospitals by the Department of Veterans' Affairs'. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — by leave-This report contains the findings of the Public Accounts Committee's inquiry into the proposed computer acquisition for repatriation general hospitals by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This proposal was the first received by the Committee under its standing reference to examine and report on major computer acquisition proposals before they proceed to Cabinet for approval of funds. The Committee accepted this standing reference in May 1985 in response to the Government's concern that major computer acquisition proposals are often of such complexity and raise such important related issues that they cannot be dealt with adequately under the severe pressures imposed by the Budget timetable. It is intended that the Committee's scrutiny of automatic data processing acquisition proposals will occur outside the annual Budget process and will precede any Cabinet approval for the commencement of tendering and acquisition action. Some of the major matters which the Committee was requested to examine in its review of these proposals included their justification and cost effectiveness, employment and industrial relations issues, technical and other risks and provisions for Australian industry participation. The Department of Veterans' Affairs proposed computer acquisition for repatriation general hospitals was approved by Cabinet and funds of $2.6m were included in the 1985-86 Budget, subject to advice from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). The Minister for Finance subsequently advised the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) on 1 August 1985 that no expenditure should occur until a satisfactory report on the proposal had been received from the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee is concerned that this proposal was not referred to it directly as a result of a Cabinet decision as envisaged under the arrangements agreed between the Committee and the Minister for Finance. It also notes that the intention of the reference was, as the then Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, stated in his speech, to ensure proposals are reviewed outside the Budget cycle, and well in advance of any decision to commit funds. This clearly has not been the case for this proposal where funds had already been approved for the current 1985-86 Budget subject to a satisfactory report from this Committee. The Committee is unequivocally of the view that all proposals should be referred to the Committee by Cabinet itself and well in advance of any request for or approval of funds. The proposal from the Department of Veterans' Affairs is to upgrade the computing capacity and facilities available in repatriation general hospitals to provide an integrated hospital information system to improve patient care and treatment, including admissions, scheduling of patient services and discharges. The Department proposes to acquire an IBM computer for Concord Repatriation General Hospital and IBM compatible computers for the four other mainland capital hospitals at an equipment cost of $10m over the four years 1985-86 to 1988-89. The Department proposes to acquire the IBM computer for Concord without going out to public tender, but to request tenders for the computers for the other hospitals. The Committee's major conclusions about this proposal are, first, that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has not to date conducted the development of an integrated information system for the repatriation hospitals in a manner consistent with existing planning guidelines and sound project management practices; secondly, that the computing systems at repatriation general hospitals generally lag well behind those available in other public hospitals; and thirdly, that some form of integrated hospital information system is the most effective way to satisfy repatriation general hospital information requirements and that the patient care system proposed offers the only available means of achieving this in an IBM compatible environment. The Committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs proceed with its negotiations with the Department of Finance and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services with a view to purchasing computers for the repatriation general hospitals and that the Department of Veterans' Affairs supply the Committee, accompanied by comments from the Department of Finance, with information on computer capacity requirements before placing an order for a computer at Repatriation General Hospital Concord, and that the Department of Veterans' Affairs respond to the other Committee recommendations through the Minister for Finance minute mechanism prior to proceeding beyond the purchase of the Concord computer. Should the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services accept the arguments put to it by the Department of Veterans' Affairs for a certificate of exemption for an IBM computer for Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, the Committee recommends that a supply and development contract be concurrently negotiated with IBM which ties further development and support for the patient care system software to the initial IBM computer acquisition. The Committee also makes several general recommendations for future computer projects. Some related recommendations are also contained in the Committee's Report on the Australian Audit Office Computer Acquisition which was tabled yesterday. From its experience with the Department of Veterans' Affairs proposal the Committee recommends that departments include in their ADP strategic plans a clear statement where the proposed acquisition of computer software is subsequently likely to involve or influence computer hardware expenditures; and that this information be explicitly drawn to the attention of the Department of Finance, the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and this Committee. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the eleventh report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Futures Industry Bill 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(5.23) —When this debate was adjourned before lunch I was speaking in favour of the broad cross section of support for the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. I welcomed the remarks that had been made in this place by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Haines. I welcomed this broad agreement from the Opposition, notwithstanding some of the comments from the National Party's Senator Bjelke-Petersen, which I will come to later. However, I must admit I am a little intrigued as to why, if there is such wholehearted support for the Bill from the Opposition, there are 27 speakers. It concerns me because at the rate Government business is proceeding I am not sure how all those 27 speakers will have the opportunity to put forward their views today and tomorrow. As Senator Peter Baume assures us that there is broad agreement for the Bill-and we welcome that agreement; it is a very commonsense approach-why can we not ensure that this important piece of legislation is passed in the next 24 hours? The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and other speakers in this place have often detailed the statistics which indicate the urgent need for affirmative action legislation as outlined in the Bill. Senator Baume and Senator Haines also commented on the extensive statistics that are available to show the need for this legislation. They tended to comment particularly on the still low representation of women in both the Federal and State public services. Although this is low it has certainly improved at the Commonwealth level and it is improving at State level with the notable exceptions of my home State of Queensland and Tasmania. I well remember noticing very early in my career in the Senate that not one woman member of the Public Service was at a high enough level to be called to give evidence at hearings of the Estimates committees. I certainly took note of that when I was on my first Estimates committee, Estimates Committee E. It was with great delight that 12 months later I noticed that there were women represented at the Estimates committee hearings and I also noted with some amusement the reactions of the predominantly male public servants when a woman was called to advise a Minister. The Minister certainly was not embarrassed but a number of senior male public servants looked quite askance that a woman had been asked to come forward to advise the Minister-a male Minister-about a particular issue before the Committee. I have special concern for the very low representation of women-still only 28 per cent-employed by Commonwealth statutory authorities. Many organisations which are performing functions that are still regarded as traditionally male oriented still have a low representation of women. Many of those statutory authorities would continue those practices of not giving women the same recognition and opportunity if this legislation were not to proceed. I am afraid that many of those statutory authorities-and of course I am far too polite to name them in this debate-would be backward in improving the situation without a good hearty shove from the Federal Government in the form of this legislation. That hearty prod is certainly long overdue. Senator Peter Baume —But the statutory authorities have been excluded by the legislation. Senator REYNOLDS —They will be dealt with separately. They will be encouraged by this legislation and I hope that they will take note of the excellent record that will develop throughout the Public Service and in academic institutions. Similarly academic institutions present a fairly depressing picture. Women are over represented at the junior levels-tutors, research assistants and so on-and under represented at senior levels. Some recent statistics show that women comprise 42 per cent of tutors in academic institutions; 20 per cent of lecturers; 11 per cent of senior lecturers; 4 per cent of associate professors; and only 2 per cent of professors. A similar pattern obviously exists with colleges of advanced education. I do not believe that anyone in this place can seriously suggest that affirmative action is not required. Because of some of the statements that were made by Senator Bjelke-Petersen I would like to run through the actual processes involved in the affirmative action program. There are eight basic steps and these include: The issuing by management of a policy statement notifying employees of the commencement of an affirmative action program; conferring responsibility for the program on a person with sufficient authority and status within the management to enable its proper development and implementation; consulting with trade unions which have members in the work place; consulting with employees, particularly women; collecting and recording statistical and other relevant information on the program; and-I consider this one particularly important-reviewing policies and practices of the employer to identify any discriminatory policy or practice or any patterns of lack of opportunity relating to women. I would particularly identify interviewing practices. I wonder how many of my women colleagues have had similar experiences to mine in regard to interviews. I have never been to an interview where a woman was on the interviewing panel. I have been asked questions that are totally irrelevant to my ability to perform the job for which I had applied. I have been asked questions about my child care arrangements, for example, which no interviewing panel would dare to ask a male coming forward for the same job. As my background is in the teaching profession, honourable senators can gather the area I am criticising. That applies to the State governments, universities and colleges of advanced education. I turn to the situation in which the National Party of Australia finds itself in regard to the affirmative action legislation. I do not know whether its members are as confused as I am about their position. I believe that there was a good deal of hypocrisy in the speech Senator Bjelke-Petersen made this morning. She said-I wrote it down-and honourable senators can check the Hansard: `I believe in equal opportunity'. I congratulate her if she believes in equal opportunity. It shows that this place and this Government have started to educate her. I wish that she could pass on some of that broad education to her husband so that Queensland can start to be brought into line with the other States in regard to women's policy. However, it seems that while Senator Bjelke-Petersen is prepared to say `I believe in equal opportunity', she ruins the whole effect by saying': `But I am not prepared to do anything to ensure that everybody will in fact have access to equal opportunity'. So, really, her statement that she believes in equal opportunity is negated by the fact that she is not prepared to do anything to support any legislation that will ensure that that principle that she actually stated she believes in is enshrined in legislation and practice. Of course, I am confused when I go back to the performance of the National Party in regard to this sex discrimination legislation because one of the very excellent speeches from Opposition members in the House of Representatives came from Tom McVeigh. He spoke eminent sense on the need for sex discrimination legislation. Yet, when it came to the debate here in this place, we found that the National Party performed as if the passing of that legislation would mean the end of the world as we know it. As honourable senators will no doubt have noticed, there have not been any disadvantages to women or men since the sex discrimination legislation was passed and the dire predictions of the Queensland National Party have not come true. I think we will find precisely the same situation in regard to the affirmative action legislation. Headlines early in March indicated that the Nationals were looking for a legitimate excuse to split the coalition and that they were prepared to use the affirmative action legislation for that purpose. Of course, by mid March they had been brought into line by their more sensible and senior colleagues in the Liberal Party of Australia. A newspaper article of 17 March stated: National Party opponents of the Federal Government's affirmative action legislation are preparing to scale down their trenchant stand in a move to head of a crisis within the Coalition. So, obviously, no matter what we may hear in this place, and no matter what we may hear from National Party members as they travel around the country, we know that they have in fact scaled down their opposition. I do not quite know how they are going to vote on the legislation. I wonder whether they know how they are going to vote? I guess we do not have to hold our breath for that, the way the debate is going at this stage. Senator Bjelke-Petersen made a number of other points which I think bear comment. She was especially concerned about the cost of implementing the affirmative action legislation. Does the honourable senator not believe that 51 per cent of the population is entitled to some cost in regard to equal opportunity, especially, as she has already indicated, that basically she believes in equal opportunity? Given that the Queensland Government has been shown by Australian Bureau of Statistics figures to be the highest spending State government with the second highest deficit, I am not sure that Senator Bjelke-Petersen is in a particularly good position to be critical about costs. Secondly, Senator Bjelke-Petersen spoke about the fear of the external powers being used in regard to affirmative action legislation. This is an old favourite tactic in Queensland. As soon as the Federal Government takes any initiative, we can be absolutely sure that members of the National Party will jump up and down on their soap boxes and say that the Federal Government is going to interfere and intervene in regard to Queensland. What they do not seem to know is that they are essentially a minority government, that 61 per cent of Queenslanders did not vote for the National Party and that 61 per cent of Queenslanders frequently urge Senators Colston, Jones, Black, Georges and me to urge the Federal Government to take special action with regard to Queensland. This is because the 61 per cent are fed up with being dominated by the 39 per cent. It is obvious that legislation in recognition of women's policy is so overdue in Queensland that at some point in time it may well be necessary to consider just what can be done to overcome the nineteenth century attitudes of the Queensland National Party. Senator Bjelke-Petersen also referred to social change. As she believes in equal opportunity, apparently she has decided to believe in social change. Again, her husband does not agree with social change. He likes things just the way they were 100 years ago. Senator Bjelke-Petersen is convinced that equal opportunities will develop if we just sit back and wait for social change to take place. She cited Jan Taylor, the head of Consumer Affairs Bureau, as a shining example in Queensland of the view that affirmative action is not necessary. I congratulate Jan Taylor on the excellent work that she does in consumer affairs. However, the Consumer Affairs Bureau is a minute section-it is not even an independent department-of the entire Queensland bureaucracy. The fact that there is one woman in that position, that there is one woman in the cockpit of the Premier's plane, that the wife of the Queensland Premier is a member of the Senate and that there is one woman Minister-just four individual women who are in positions of authority-really does not do anything very much for the women of Queensland in respect of whom there is no policy, no information and no sex discrimination or affirmative action legislation. So, the fact that the honourable senator can pick out a couple of names here and there and say `Look at them, they are examples of why we do not need affirmative action', is not, I am afraid, acceptable to the women of Queensland. Senator Bjelke-Petersen talked about women being artificially pushed up the ladder. I think her basic assumption is that the majority of Queensland women belong at the bottom of the ladder. I suggest that she go out and tell the women of Queensland that she considers that they belong at the bottom of the ladder. Nobody is suggesting that affirmative action will result in women being pushed in any direction, artificially or not. This legislation simply seeks to give women the opportunity to be considered on an equal basis with men, performing at the same level. Again, Senator Bjelke-Petersen was guilty of telling a few mistruths in regard to quotas. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator cannot accuse Senator Bjelke-Petersen of telling mistruths. Senator REYNOLDS —I thought I was expressing that nicely. I do not like to use the word `lies'; so I used the word `mistruths'. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That remark should be withdrawn. Senator REYNOLDS —I withdraw my statement that Senator Bjelke-Petersen was telling mistruths. Rather, she was distorting the facts. I will put the facts about the quota situation clearly on the record. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his second reading speech on this legislation, said: I want to stress that the Government's affirmative action legislation does not propose positive discrimination or reverse discrimination. We are totally opposed to the use of quotas, and this legislation, by stating that all actions are to be based on merit, makes this clear. Those opponents of equal opportunity for women who tried to discredit our legislative approach by claiming that we are proposing quotas are wrong. I say to Senator Bjelke-Petersen that she is wrong. The Prime Minister continued: The Bill clearly demonstrates that. It is also clear from the definitions of objectives and forward estimates contained in the legislation, that these are to be determined by the employer and not imposed by the Director of Affirmative Action. I wish to continue with a few comments about the Queensland National Party women's branch, whose members, I am afraid, would be in agreement with Senator Bjelke-Petersen, who said that she believed in equal opportunity, because in 1980 the National Party women's branch moved at its annual conference on Magnetic Island that sex discrimination legislation be introduced. At that conference, the Premier agreed to look at the role of women in the Public Service. Apart from the appointment of the Premier's pilot and the appointment of Jan Taylor to the Bureau of Consumer Affairs, we still have no public policy document from the Queensland National Party about women in the Public Service. We have no policy on programs for women throughout Queensland. We have no equal employment opportunity legislation, no women's advisory committee, no Public Service reforms; in fact, the Queensland Public Service is top heavy with old men. It is rather comparable with the minority Government in Queensland. I turn to the teaching profession. I have some personal experience in this regard. The teaching profession is well represented by very able women, but they are to be found in the lower echelons of the Queensland Department of Education. I have personally been told `Why do you want to go for a promotion? You are only a married woman. You have no need to go for a promotion' and that was not all that many years ago. Having been a tutor at a teachers college, I am aware of male students being placed in schools even though their results were way below those of female students who were not placed for a further six or nine months. Frankly, Queensland women are fed up. Queensland women want some change. I shall quote some resolutions that were passed by the Queensland Division of the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women at its annual conference in Brisbane in April of this year. It resolved: . . . that the Queensland Division of A.F.B.P.W. urge the Queensland State Government to appoint more women to senior positions within the State Public Service. It commented: The lack of women in senior positions within the Public Service-and we acknowledge that the appointment of Beryl Young to lead the Government air wing does not fall within the gambit of the Public Service-shows that women have not attained senior positions because- (a) their sex; (b) their ability has not been examined; (c) that they have not been given the same opportunity to train for and advice to these positions the same as men. At the same conference this resolution was passed: . . . that the . . . Queensland Government . . . set up a department for women's services within the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of the Premier, to administer, co-ordinate and formulate policies in relation to those matters that specifically affect women. I think there is absolutely no doubt that Senator Bjelke-Petersen and other Queensland National Party senators are totally out of touch with what Queensland women are saying. Queensland women's organisations throughout the State-I have spoken at numerous meetings over my three years as a senator, and particularly in the last six months-are saying over and over again: `Why should we lag behind every other State except Tasmania in regard to women's policy? We want to have the same sorts of programs and policies. We want the same opportunities. We want affirmative action in Queensland. We are tired of the National Party Government treating us in a way that does not recognise our abilities'. On a final note, I recall that this morning Senator Boswell made references to Queensland women being treated very well. Of 60 government instrumentalities, only six relate to women. Debate (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Mr Deputy President, may I suggest that the Senate have a cognate debate covering this Bill and the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a cognate debate covering these two measures? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.47) —The Supply Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87, the subject of this debate, relate directly to the Government and to the governing of this country. It is therefore to the Government and the governing of this great country that I address my remarks. Last evening the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) delivered a speech to the nation which was supposed to be directed to the governing of this nation. He made the speech for several reasons. First, his Treasurer (Mr Keating) put our money markets and the Australian dollar on the skids with his intemperate, even if accurate, remarks a month ago that Australia risked becoming one of the poor nations of the world rather than the wealthy, prosperous and vibrant nation that we have every potential of becoming. Secondly, the Prime Minister saw himself and his leadership of the Australian Labor Party as being at risk because Mr Keating appeared to be calling all the shots. Thirdly, Mr Hawke, having the peculiar psychological make-up for which he has long been famous, believed that if he and no one else were to appear on television before the people of Australia all would be well with the nation. The Prime Minister, with his minders-the Manchu Court, as Paul Keating has described them-having taken the unilateral decision again to publicly humiliate the Treasurer by pushing him aside, saying, in effect, `Paul, this is too big for you, let me handle it', had to ensure that his speech contained several essential ingredients. It had to meet the enormous expectations that he, Mr Hawke, had deliberately created in the electorate. It had to analyse the deep-seated problems facing Australia-problems which should have been the basic reason for the speech in the first place. Having analysed the problems, the Prime Minister had to provide answers. The speech had to be specific. It had to show the people of Australia that the Government was on top of things, that the Government was leading the nation, that it was, in fact, governing. The speech was, therefore, of critical importance for the Australian economy, the Australian people and the Hawke Government. It was of special importance because only now, in mid-1986, more than three years after its election to government, the Hawke Government has been forced to take hard decisions and to exercise economic management skills. Until now it has been held afloat on the wave of extreme good fortune that accompanied its election in March 1983-good fortune which included the inheritance of the stimulatory Fraser Government Budget of 1982, the inheritance of the Fraser Government's 12-month wage freeze at the end of 1982, the inheritance of the world economic upturn, which commenced just at the time of the Hawke Government's election, and the inheritance of the breaking of one of the worst droughts in Australia's history in March 1983. Not to put too fine a point on it, and to borrow a little political licence from the immortal words of Bill Hayden as he lay mortally wounded politically from the knives of Bob Hawke during Mr Hawke's leadership coup of February 1983: `Even a drover's dog could have managed the Australian economy during the past three years'. But no longer. Now, in June 1986, the Prime Minister and his Government are being put to the test to perform, to take responsible economic decisions, to exercise leadership, to really tackle the problems facing Australia. It is against that background that the Prime Minister's performance yesterday and the performance of his Government must be judged. What is that judgment? It is the judgment of virtually all sections of the Australian community-the business sector, the union movement, the financial markets, which today have seen the dollar fall sharply and interest rates rise again, the welfare agencies, the young unemployed, the media, Mr and Mrs Average Australian. The judgment of all those sections of the community is that Mr Hawke and, therefore, his Government, have failed miserably the first real test of economic responsibility and leadership. Mr Hawke has failed on every count. He raised expectations to unprecedented heights and then callously, want- only and destructively dashed those expectations and hopes. He failed to provide an adequate analysis of the real problems facing Australia. He failed to address the root problems and, inevitably, he therefore failed totally to prescribe any real solutions. Last night's performance by the Prime Minister was of the greatest significance to Australia and to Australians. It seemingly deliberately insulted the intelligence of average Australians. It demonstrated beyond any doubt that this Prime Minister has feet of clay. Bob Hawke, the self-proclaimed Messiah, has walked the waters too often. He has become water-logged. It demonstrated a total, pathetic lack of leadership by the Prime Minister and his Government and it will, without any doubt, hasten the demise of this wretched Government and this plastic Prime Minister-this Prime Minister of whom the Melbourne Sun's cartoonist this morning so devastatingly and so accurately said: `At least he was funny in the Gillies' report'. I also like the Tanberg cartoon in today's Age which shows the Prime Minister saying `Any one of us is capable of designing a keel like Ben; sailing like John; singing like Joan', to which someone off-stage in the cartoon then adds: `And running the country better than Bob'. I add to that statement that few of us would be capable of running the country worse than Bob. Today the Prime Minister of Australia is the object of ridicule throughout the nation and overseas for his pathetic performance yesterday. I suppose that I, as a member of the Opposition, should be pleased about that, but I am not. Senator Maguire —And you are. Senator SHORT —I am not because I believe, unlike the members of the Government, that all Australians, whichever way they vote, want, need and deserve a Prime Minister they can respect and look to for leadership. Australians no longer have such a Prime Minister. Senator Robertson —Why do you talk him down all the time? Senator SHORT —I do not have to talk him down; he did it himself last night. That is a matter not only for considerable sadness but also, and perhaps more importantly, for great concern. What we have today in Australia is a leader less leader in charge of a rudderless rump that masquerades as the government of Australia. Let us now have a look at some of the facts the Prime Minister should have talked about and was expected to talk about last night. Let us have a look at some of the facts behind the present serious economic situation we find ourselves in. The facts which make the situation so serious are numerous. Inflation, which is high and rising, is already up to three times as high as the average of our major trading partners- Senator Robertson —What was it when you were in? Senator SHORT —For a considerable period of the time we were in office the inflation rate in Australia was below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and at no time was it as high as it is now above the OECD average. Indeed, our comparative inflation performance over the last 12 months is the worst it has been in our post-war history at least. That is my first point. Let us consider the balance of payments deficit. We have a balance of payments deficit of $14,000m this year alone. That is not far short of $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in Australia. Senator Robertson —Where did that come from? Senator SHORT —It came from the policies of this wretched Government. It is a debt owing to foreigners, amounting to about $80,000m; a debt which has trebled since the Hawke Government came into office. The Government component of this foreign debt has increased by no less than 500 per cent-an increase in the foreign debt component of 500 per cent in three years alone. As well there is a total Federal Government debt at the national level in excess of $100,000m, which is about $7,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. This debt has increased by more than 70 per cent since the Hawke Government came to office. We have an interest bill on this debt which exceeds what the Federal Government spends on the defence of this nation, on education, on industry and even on health. We have a dollar which has declined in value, compared with other currencies, by 30 per cent in the last 18 months alone, thereby putting up the cost of our imports while reducing the prices we get for our exports, and thereby automatically lowering our standard of living. It is this latter point-the so-called terms of trade effect-on which the Prime Minister placed so much emphasis in his statement yesterday. I agree with the Prime Minister that this is a fundamental problem, but the Prime Minister was wilfully misleading. He was almost criminally negligent in his presentation of the argument. The deterioration in our terms of trade and in the value of our dollar is a symptom of our problems; it is not in itself a cause. The Prime Minister conveniently omitted to point this out. Why did he fail to point it out? There can be only two answers to that question: Either the Prime Minister is an economic illiterate or he is unwilling or unable to face reality. I suspect that the truth may lie somewhere in between those answers. I repeat: The magnitude of our very serious external economic situation is a symptom, not a cause, of our deep-seated economic difficulties. What are the causes of our difficulties? They, too, are numerous. Let me just mention the main ones: Government spending, which has increased at a rate far in excess of the capacity of the economy or of ratepayers to fund it; an increase in the tax take to the highest level in our history; an increase in Government borrowing to the highest level in our history; the introduction of new types of taxes which are totally anti-business in their application-- Senator Robertson —Actually, anti-crooks-tax evaders and avoiders, whom you call businessmen. Senator SHORT —I continue: The failure to provide incentive to large and small business people, farmers and financiers, manufacturers and miners to invest, to create, to produce, to provide jobs and to generate wealth and income-a concept that members of the Government, and particularly the honourable senator who spends his time interjecting, seem to find incredible; the maintenance of an archaic and inflexible wage fixing system which pays scant regard to the capacity of the economy to pay, or to the circumstances of individual firms or of particular industries. Unless we as a nation directly attack these root causes of our problems we will never solve the problems; instead we will play around with the symptoms. We will bandage the wounds but fail to treat the infection. That is the indictment of the Prime Minister's performance yesterday. To be fair, he did address himself to the wages issue, but in a totally unsatisfactory, wishy-washy, indeterminate way. Indeed, by expressing his Government's continued support for the Australian Council of Trade Unions superannuation claim, Mr Hawke demonstrated beyond any doubt that he has no real conception of the cost pressures facing Australian industry in all sectors of enterprise. Other than his totally inadequate approach to the wages issue, the Prime Minister deliberately and deceptively ignored the other causes of our problems-causes that are the direct result of the Government's policies and which I have already mentioned. Mr Hawke omitted to mention that the massive deterioration in our terms of trade over the past three years-a factor of which he rightly made great play-has been a direct result of his Government's economic policies. As the Australian newspaper put it today, the Prime Minister failed to address the rigid structures that hold us back and he has failed to offer the inspiration that Australia needs. He also failed to tell us why the Government has so late in the piece come to a recognition of our difficulties. It is only a matter of weeks since the Government was trumpeting to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and to the nation at large how well the economy was doing. Why the sudden change of heart? Why the damaging delay in recognising some of the facts? The Government gives the impression that it has only just discovered the deterioration in our terms of trade, despite the fact that that deterioration has been with us for years. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister's performance has received an unmerciful caning from all sections of the community. It is no wonder that the statement has been variously described as vague, rhetorical, a disaster, bitterly disappointing, a failure to address the root causes, insulting, a failure to bite the bullet and as bearing all the hallmarks of a policy on the run and of much cosmetic fluff. What should the Prime Minister have said? At the very least, he should have announced firm and specific decisions to reduce Government spending and to control the money supply. He should have announced the abandonment of the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the other raft of socialist taxes that so destroy incentive and damage the confidence of the private sector, particularly small business. He should have announced an unequivocal and specific approach to the elimination of the Budget deficit. He should have withdrawn the Government's support for the ACTU superannuation claim at this time and he should have opposed further wage increases for the next year. Those are the tough decisions that the nation was looking for yesterday. Mr Hawke said: `I will not shirk from the hard decisions that are necessary'. Well, he did shirk. He did not announce one single hard decision; nor did he give any indication that he would take any hard decisions in the future. Last night Australia saw the Prime Minister for what he really is-a man who is not able to take the lead and the decisions required; a man unwilling to face up to his responsibility as a leader; a man and a Government that have no clear vision of where they want Australia to go or of the type of country they want Australia to be; a man whose economic policies and the policies of his Government-the accord, high interest rates, an explosion in business regulations, punitive anti-business taxes, record levels of Government spending, taxing and borrowing-have served only to undermine confidence and create a climate of instability. Yesterday the Prime Minister put a terminal nail in the coffin of his Government by failing to provide hope, encouragement and incentive for those upon whom rests the task of dragging Australia out of the economic hole that this Government has previously dug for it; I refer to those Australians willing to take a risk, to have a go at contributing to the nation's wealth and to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Do those descriptions not apply to virtually all Australians? The Prime Minister has put a terminal nail in the coffin of his Government and of his leadership of both the country and the Labor Party. What we in the Opposition and what the men and women of Australia must ensure is that Mr Hawke has not also placed in a coffin the future of Australia and the future of our children and our grandchildren. We can only ensure that by getting rid of this leaderless and rudderless Government at the earliest possible opportunity. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(6.08) —This evening we are debating Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2) for 1986-87. These Bills seek an interim appropriation for the services of the Commonwealth Government for the period from 1 July next until 30 November 1986. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $7.9 billion for the ordinary annual services of the Commonwealth Government. Supply Bill (No. 2) seeks interim appropriations totalling some $2.1 billion for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and also certain other services for the period from 1 July until the end of November. So it can be said that the Bills provide finance for the Government from the beginning of the next financial year until the time at which the 1986 Budget is brought down. In addressing myself to these Bills, I wish to begin by nailing some of the distortions of and the carelessness with which Senator Short has used facts in his speech in this debate just a moment ago. For example, Senator Short made some really outrageous claims about foreign debt owed by Australia. He distorted the picture completely on the structure of foreign debt. I remind honourable senators that Senator Short, before he came into this place, was an officer of the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury. As a former officer of the Treasury, he would be very familiar indeed with Budget Statement No. 1, one of the papers that accompanies the Federal Budget every year. I will quote from page 65 of that document. It is not written by the Government of Australia; it is written by the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury. It is the economic data which is provided to supplement the Australian Budget every year. I turn to the table on page 65 which deals with Australia's external debt. At the end of June last year-the latest period for which we have official information on the overseas debt-Australia's total gross debt owed overseas was $68.4 billion. Senator Short, throughout his address to the Senate this afternoon, tried to create the fiction that that debt was government debt. Senator Short —No, I did not. Senator MAGUIRE —He did. He tried to create the fiction that that debt was government debt and the result of government policies. Senator Short —I said that the biggest increase in it since you came into government has been in the government proportion, and that is correct. The government proportion has gone up by 500 per cent. Senator MAGUIRE —Senator Short is wrong again. He has just dug a deeper hole for himself. He is now saying that the biggest increase in that debt was the result of an increase in the government debt. The figures from the Treasury-Senator Short is a former officer of the Treasury, I believe-show quite clearly that the biggest percentage increase in overseas debt owed by Australia was in the private sector, not the government sector. I will cite the figures. Pick a number, pick a year. At the end of June 1980, private debt owed overseas by Australian companies was $6,700m. At the end of June 1985 the figure was not $6,700m, but $42,300m. That is not government debt; that is private debt. They are the sorts of increases that have occurred. So of the total amount of overseas debt of $68.4 billion owed by Australians and Australian organisations at the end of June last year, $42,300m was owed by the private sector, by the corporate sector of our economy-not by the Government and certainly not by the Commonwealth Government. I would like to point out also that the Commonwealth Government-we are members of that Government-is a net lender overseas; it is not a net debtor overseas. The figures show very clearly that at the end of June last year, we had official reserve assets of $13,500m and the Commonwealth Government's debt owed overseas was $12,700m. So in those terms, despite the rhetoric, despite the nonsense, despite the fictions created by the Opposition, the facts presented by the Australian Treasury clearly show that the Commonwealth Government is not a net debtor overseas; it is a net lender overseas. Let us nail that lie once and for all. I wish to talk about economic growth in our country under the Hawke Labor Government. The fact is that since the Hawke Government was elected to office in 1983 Australia has achieved higher economic growth in real terms-that is, growth ahead of inflation-than any other developed country in the world. It has achieved higher growth than any other member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is based in Paris. The national accounts data show clearly that the Australian economy has grown in successive financial years at over 5 per cent annually in real terms, which is very strong, high growth by international standards, on any criteria. Before we came to office in 1983 we promised to create half a million jobs in our first three years in office. The Opposition-it was then in government, of course-ridiculed that promise. At every opportunity and on every occasion it tried to convince the Australian people that by no stretch of the imagination, under no circumstances, could Labor create half a million jobs in three years. Of course, the record contradicts that statement. The record demonstrates very clearly how successful we have been in creating new employment opportunities for Australians. The fact is that since the National Economic Summit Conference in April 1983, just over three years ago, not 100,000 jobs have been created in Australia, not the 500,000 extra jobs that we promised, but over 600,000 new positions have been created in this country, which is over 100,000 above the figure we pledged to the Australian people. Despite the carping of the Opposition, despite the Liberal Party speakers' notes which are retailed in this place time after time, the fact is that the jobs created in Australia have not been band-aid jobs; the overwhelming majority have been created in the private sector and the overwhelming majority have been full time jobs. During the current financial year the Government estimated that it would create 180,000 extra jobs for Australians. That was part of the Budget forecast in August last year. But the figures released today show just how out of date that forecast was. Today, figures were released by the Australian Statistician showing new employment levels in our country. The fact is that we did not create 180,000 extra jobs in the financial year. In the 11 months to the end of May we have created 260,000 jobs. So with a month to spare we have created 80,000 more jobs-not 18,000, but 80,000-than were promised in the Budget Speech last year. So that is the record. The figures released today by the Australian Statistician show the continued fall in the unemployment rate in Australia. It is certainly not falling as fast as I would like to see it, and I am sure it is not falling as fast as other members of the Government would like to see it, but a further fall in unemployment was measured in the figures released today. The fact is that the highest rate of unemployment in Australia, as a result of the Howard induced recession in 1982, was 10.4 percent. There was double digit unemployment. The figures released today show that the unemployment rate has been reduced to 7.8 per cent. So in just 2 1/2 years the unemployment rate has been reduced by one-quarter. One of the most unfortunate things about the recovery which has occurred in Australia to the present time has been the very tardy, belated economic recovery in Queensland. I regret to say that Australia's third most populous State has been holding down the economic performance of the nation. Unfortunately, the tail has been wagging the dog in this case. Queensland, unfortunately, has acted as a brake on economic recovery in Australia. I was very concerned today to see that Queensland has now opened up a very significant unemployment gap compared with the figure for the State with the next closest figure. The unemployment rate in Queensland is now 9.8 per cent, which is well ahead of Tasmania which has the next highest level. So Queensland has by far the highest unemployment rate in Australia. The most incredible thing that was evidenced in the figures released today by the Australian Statistician was that there are now more people seeking full time work in Queensland-they are unemployed, but seeking full time work-than there are in Victoria. That is a very historic position, because Victoria has a labour force-that is, an economically active population which wants to work-which is 65 percent larger than that of Queensland. So one State has a vastly larger labour force than the other, but the other State, as of today, has more people wanting full time work. In September 1983 the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen-now Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen-delivered a policy speech in which he said that he would implement policies for growth and jobs. That is what he told the electors of Queensland in September 1983. When he delivered that policy speech, the Australian Statistician at the time indicated that 14.8 per cent of Australian's jobless resided in Queensland. Today's figures show the relentless slide which has occurred in the Queensland economy. Today, according to the figures published by the Australian Statistician, it is not 14.8 per cent of the unemployed people of Australia who live in Queensland, it is not 15.8 per cent or 16.8 per cent, but 19.9 per cent of all unemployed people in Australia live in Queensland. There we have it: Queensland, the third State of Australia, on a population basis, is the second State of Australia, in terms of numbers of persons seeking full time work. As a result of the policies of the Hawke Government there has been a reduction of inflation in Australia. The rate of increase of prices has been brought down. Despite the fictions which Senator Short tried to perpetrate a moment ago, when he claimed that inflation was not a problem under the Liberals, in fact the record shows very clearly that when the Liberals lost office-despite all their rhetoric about fighting inflation first and getting rid of double digit inflation-inflation was 11 1/2 per cent. It is now not 11 1/2 per cent but 9.2 per cent. I believe that there are further prospects of falls in the rate of inflation in the community, for example, with the delay in the national wage case. A national wage increase was not awarded in April, as would normally have been the case. So far the trade union movement has agreed to discount wage rises to take account of the effect of the devaluation of the Australian dollar on price levels. It has agreed to discount wages by some 2 percentage points. The union movement is not seeking a 4.3 per cent wage rise; it is seeking a 2.3 per cent wage rise. We have had the Government decision in regard to petrol prices. There has been a reduction in the price of fuel of 5.3 cents a litre. Information made public by the Australian Statistician last week showed that the manufacturing cost index for Australia fell in the month of March. This is the first fall in 16 years. That is very welcome news indeed. Therefore, there is indeed a good chance that the current 9.2 per cent rate of inflation in the country in fact will be reduced to a lower level. Obviously, the country has a problem with the balance of payments. One of the reasons that we have balance of payments difficulties in regard to overseas trade at the moment is that we have had very rapid economic growth in Australia. It is very well known in the economic field that rapid economic growth can create balance of payments problems as bottlenecks occur and as there is a need for equipment to be purchased from overseas. We have had very rapid growth in Australia and, therefore, have had some difficulties with the balance of payments. The Government has taken a number of actions to stem the flow of imports. The Australian dollar has been floated with a subsequent devaluation of the dollar. There has been a tightening of monetary policy. Interest rates have been lifted to try to attract overseas capital to Australia in order to improve the balance of payments. The March balance of payments figures for the current account show that there is some improvement occurring on the import front. Certainly, in terms of the volume of imports the devaluation of the dollar is working. The physical quantities of imports into Australia are showing some slackening as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. I think that it is very important to put on record the fact that Australia's balance of payments problem has not arrived in the last week or in the last month. It has evolved over decades. This problem has developed over tens and tens of years in this country. I think that if one really wants to sheet home the blame for the current balance of payments predicament in this country one really has to go back to the Menzies years in Australia. I do not remember very much of the Menzies years. I was not old enough to recall all of the things that were perpetrated on the Australian people during that era. However, I do know that the Menzies Government had very much of a laissez-faire attitude to economic policy. It was very much a hands-off policy. That Government had an open-door policy on foreign investment. It tended to postpone the very hard decisions that needed to be made in Australia about economic policy. In fact, they were the days when State Premiers regularly were seen at airports catching planes for overseas destinations in a desperate scramble to try to bring industries to their States. Of course, what happened was that overseas firms tended to play those Premiers off against each other and reap the gains. For example, we had the then Premier of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte, rushing overseas to try to attract industry. We had Sir Thomas Playford of South Australia fighting against the Victorian Government to try to outbid it for industry for South Australia. I think that we are now paying the price for those years and for that Menzies era when those Liberal Premiers went overseas and attracted heavily tariff dependent industries to Australia. These were industries that produced goods for a very small domestic market. They were import- replacement oriented rather than export oriented as was the case with industries of comparable countries such as Sweden and Switzerland. If the Government's strategy is to work each group in the community must take its share of the weight. I believe that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has more than kept its half of the bargain up to the present. The union movement has adhered to a commitment to seek no further wage claims other than those to take account of the consumer price rises and productivity gains. I think that it is very important to note that since the prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement was signed in early 1983 there has been a very dramatic fall in work days lost as a result of industrial disputes in Australia. It is very important to note that in the 12 months to the end of December 1984 the total number of days lost in Australia through industrial disputes was well below the average for all of our major trading partners. If we take the average of all days lost for all the countries with which we normally trade we see that days lost as a result of disputes in Australia were well below average. It is striking-pardon the pun there-to note that the number of days lost as a result of industrial disputes in Australia in 1984 was less than a quarter of days lost in Mrs Thatcher's United Kingdom. Days lost as a result of disputes in Australia represented less than a quarter of those days lost under the conservative model worshipped and admired by the conservatives in this place. The fact that days lost as a result of industrial disputes in the United Kingdom were four times as high as Australia really shows what happens when a government puts into practice the policies of industrial confrontation rather than policies of industrial conciliation. The statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last night recognises that Australia is facing new economic challenges. The declining terms of trade require a different set of policy responses. They require policy responses designed to increase Australia's export competitiveness and to reduce our reliance on imports. If Australia is to face the challenge both unions and business must join with government in a common purpose. Let us put the Prime Minister's statement in a proper context. Australia is not facing an economic crisis. It is not entering a recession. The current job figures today show that over 600,000 new employment positions have been created in Australia in a three-year period. We have not created half a million jobs as we promised; we have created over 600,000. Senator Collard —How many have the taxpayers paid for? Senator MAGUIRE —The great majority of those, as I said earlier when Senator Collard was not in the chamber, are not band-aid jobs, they are not make-work jobs, but jobs in the private sector of Australia. Some 65 per cent of all the jobs being created in Australia at the moment are in the private, not the public, sector of the economy. The Australian economy is not now in the sort of mess that the Government inherited from Mr Howard in 1983. The Australian economy is not on its knees. Record job creation is occuring in the country. The Government is making a series of policy adjustments which will ensure the long term future and viability of Australia's economy. This Government has the guts to make the hard decisions. It rejects the weak-kneed indecision of previous Liberal governments. It rejects the soft options. It rejects the short term expediency that characterised the Fraser years. The success of this Government's strategy in just three years is clearly evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of people who have found new jobs, the shortening of the dole queues and the re-emergence of hope and opportunity in the Australian community. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.02) —I take the opportunity of this debate on Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2) to discuss an overview of Australia's foreign policy. Australia is not adequately defended. This fact has become terrifyingly clear. Our foreign and defence policies and the assumptions underlying them have little connection with political or logistic realities. These policies guarantee Australia neither security nor national independence. Instead, they have become a source of continuing division in Australia as have similar policies within other member nations of the Western alliance. I would like to discuss ANZUS briefly. The Australian Democrats say that ANZUS not only is of no use to Australia for our defence but it is a positive danger in its present form. It would cease to be a danger only if all nuclear involvement could be eliminated from the alliance. There is no indication that this is possible. Successive Australian governments in the hallowed name of ANZUS have made a number of places in Australia prime nuclear targets. In fact, the entire continent may be in danger. A superficial argument could be advanced, although the Democrats could not embrace its crazy logic, that even though Australia has been exposed to the risk of nuclear attack, the risk is worth while because of the guarantee of Australia's defence. The stark facts are that there are no guarantees either explicit or implicit. There are only two relevant articles in ANZUS, Articles III and IV. I ask leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard the text of those two articles of ANZUS. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Article III: The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific. Article IV: Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Senator CHIPP —I thank the Senate. The lack of any definite obligation by the USA in view of what we as a nation have mortgaged in the name of ANZUS is quite breathtaking. Let us take the hypothetical case in Indonesia attacking Australia. No-one would seriously say that the United States would send troops, planes and ships to attack Indonesia if it attacked Australia. The decision for the United States to become involved would depend on one thing only-on relevant factors but not on a simple piece of paper. Even a casual reading of Article III discloses the disturbing fact that the only responsibility of the President of the United States, and of the United States itself, under the terms of ANZUS if Australia is attacked is to `consult'. There is absolutely no obligation under Article III for the United States to do anything more than consult. However, if the President of the United States did, by some extraordinary act of beneficence towards Australia, decide to send armed forces to attack our attackers, he would by the explicit terms of Article IV, need to have the decision, his decision, ratified by Congress. Having had its fingers burned in Vietnam, the United States Congress would be exceedingly reluctant to commit forces to another South East Asian war. ANZUS, therefore, gives Australia no automatic protection. Indeed, it could be argued that it gives us no protection at all. On the other hand, the extent of the concessions which the United States has gained from successive Australian governments, both Liberal and Labor, in return for nothing is outrageous. In the name of, or to protect, ANZUS, Australia has done the following for the United States: It has given the United States 24 pieces of Australian soil for bases, some of which make us a nuclear target; it has been a party to complicity and duplicity in President Reagan's Star Wars mania, with such things as the electro-magnetic railgun and the upgrading of Nurrungar; it has permitted the entry of nuclear-powered and nuclear warships into our ports and cities, which makes our most densely populated areas targets for nuclear bombs. I am impressed, Madam Acting Deputy President, by your question today about the fact that Australia regarded with a stifling yawn the fact that members of the United States Navy-foreigners-hosed down decent, idealistic young Australians, simply because they protested against the visit to one of our ports of a ship which carried nuclear bombs. Senator Sanders —They actually punched one of them. Senator CHIPP —As my friend reminds me, one of these Australian idealists was punched and savaged by one of these Americans. Yet we do nothing. We regard that with an air of singular reticence. The list continues with Government's silence in the face of the massive and destabilising buildup of Tomahawk cruise missiles and the right to fly B52 bombers, possibly loaded with nuclear bombs, through Australia. I have now completed 25 years of service in this country and I find it incomprehensible that 95 per cent of Australians do not give a damn that we are now allowing B52 bombers from the United States to fly over Australia in low flying exercises possibly carrying nuclear bombs-we do not care. Much of the 2.9 per cent of our gross national product which is devoted to defence equipment is not to defend Australia in the region but to fit in with United States global foreign and defence needs and objectives-not Australian needs and objectives. I refer also to Australia's complicity in the development of first strike nuclear weapons-for example, the MX and the Trident II through Geosat and Navstar. In any event an unforgettable fact of history is that no nation has ever honoured any treaty it has had with any other nation if it did not suit it to do so at the time. I do not quarrel with that. The Australian Democrats do not quarrel with that. But we do question the way in which we have mortgaged our future, our children's future, under the terminology of one treaty, namely ANZUS, which means nothing. Nations send forces to protect other nations for only one reason, that is, if it is in their own self-interest so to do. Therefore, the Democrats say that it can be concluded that Australia has meekly submitted to the demands of the US in what can only be described as a craven, simplistic and childishly trusting manner, thus ensuring our children are the nuclear targets of the Soviet Union. I ask the few senators in the chamber at the moment and those people who are listening to contemplate that fact. What we have done is to make our children nuclear targets of the Soviet Union in order to accommodate the United States on the pretence that we will be protected by the United States but we have absolutely nothing in writing to guarantee that kind of protection. In other words, we have sold our birthright, we have mortgaged the future of our children, for nothing. Yet in return we have received no automatic guarantee whatsoever of protection. The position is even worse than that because, by our simplistic subservience, over the past three decades we have denied ourselves the opportunity of creating a defence structure which could have gone a long way towards making a free, independent Australia with a defence policy based on armed neutrality. Australia is now in as great a danger as Western Europe, where nuclear bombs are stationed. To our knowledge there are no nuclear bombs in Australia, and yet we are in as much danger as Western Europe, which is 14,000 kilometres or more away. The Russians know that in order to knock out the United States the facilities in Australia have to be hit first. The United States has now placed a virtual prohibition on Australia seeking to establish a firmer and closer relationship even with New Zealand. It most certainly is in our interests to establish a closer relationship with New Zealand. We live next to New Zealand and we have so much in common with New Zealand, but the United States has virtually put an embargo on Australia forming a close relationship with our cousins across the Tasman. What are the possible threats to Australia? People have the good old Aussie way of putting hard questions into the back of their minds and saying: `She'll be right, mate'. When I say to Australians `Do you know that you have made yourselves a nuclear target?', they say `Oh yes, but we need the protection of the Yanks' or some other expression. I just wonder how that proposition could be defended by those people in Australia who have children, who go to church and say `I am a good Christian' but at the same time have allowed their children to become prime nuclear targets of the Soviet Union without thinking the matter through. They say that they need someone to protect them. Let us examine who are our enemies. what are the scenarios that could lead us into a dangerous situation? What are the possible threats? Scenario one, a nuclear war, is certainly a possible threat, but could ANZUS and the United States help us if there were a nuclear war? Let me break down that question into two possibilities-a global nuclear war and a limited nuclear war. Firstly, if a global nuclear exchange occurred ANZUS is irrelevant and powerless. To rely on the protection of the so-called United States nuclear umbrella is mindless and its proponents have been dishonest. The United States cannot protect itself from nuclear attack in a global context, let alone Australia. In a limited nuclear conflict, I remind honourable senators that Mr Reagan, Secretary of Defense, Weinberger, and various Pentagon officials have advocated a winnable limited nuclear war and have pursued policies towards it. Australia would not have to be directly involved in a limited nuclear conflict for us to be annihilated. We could be annihilated even though we were not involved. The nuclear winter research indicates that if only 500 of the 50,000 nuclear bombs in stock at the moment exploded anywhere in the world it would have the effect of destroying all animal, plant and human life on earth. I will just recount the chilling statistics. There are now 50,000 nuclear bombs in stock in the world. If only 500 of those bombs were exploded, and that is a small proportion of the 50,000, there would be a nuclear winter where nothing, not even the parasites, would survive. Senator Crichton-Browne —That, in part, is still a theory. It has not been demonstrated in absolute terms. Senator CHIPP —I would have thought that no sensible nuclear scientist or physicist would disagree with the figure of 500. If Senator Crichton-Browne wants to make it 600 or 700, I will accommodate him. The fact is that the insanity of a limited nuclear war has now been proven by people on both sides of the political spectrum. Below 500 bombs, ordinarily Australia would not be affected. However, because of the United States bases on our soil, Australia would be a target, even in a limited nuclear war. More recently, the nuclear winter has been used as an argument for Australia to throw its weight behind ANZUS. To pretend that ANZUS would be a protective shield if a limited nuclear war were to occur is absurd. However, without our United States nuclear involvement there would be no reason for the Soviet Union to make Australia a nuclear target. Scenario two that the so-called defence experts put forward is an Asian invasion; that is a possible danger for Australia. That scenario can be broken down into three sub-scenarios. The first is that Australia could be over-run by an Asian nation for its mineral wealth. It is believed that the major motive for Japan's aggression against Australia in the 1930s and early 1940s was to acquire strategic raw materials. Today there is no question of denying Japan or any other country access to our raw materials. We now pay countries to take our raw materials away, as with woodchips. Australia has an overriding need to sell more than the world is willing to buy, and since buying is cheaper than invading our raw materials do not constitute a temptation for invasion. The second sub-scenario of an Asian invasion is an over-populated Asia-Asian hordes flooding south to an under-populated Australia. This domino theory is the issue upon which Harold Holt, in 1966, won probably the biggest electoral majority since Federation. Most people who put forward this example of an over-populated Asia and the yellow hordes of Asia coming down point to Indonesia which has a population of over 160 million. While parts of Java are overpopulated, other parts of Indonesia are underpopulated. I speak with a little expertise because I have been to Indonesia 17 times during my parliamentary career. I can say that the Indonesian Government has found it extraordinarily difficult to get people, even of their free will, to leave the overpopulated areas for resettlement in the underpopulated areas. The third sub-scenario of an Asian invasion is a beleaguered Asian dictator. I take this threat seriously. It is possible that a dictator could try to unite his people by turning their minds from domestic problems to foreign ventures, rather in the way Confrontasi was used by Sukarno. But whether a dictator would be able to rally the people, the arms and the equipment would be quite another story. It is most unlikely that such a country could mount an invasion, but if such a country were to attempt an invasion we should be able to defend ourselves. It is in respect of this threat of invasion that Australia should be directing its defence policy. This is the point I make in my speech tonight. We should be devoting our defence resources-we should be spending more to this end to make Australia capable of defending itself against a beleaguered Asian dictator or what are the real threats. So far as this threat is concerned, ANZUS is of no help whatsoever to us. Australia could certainly not count on the United States to bail us out. In any event, the United States might see her interests lying with Indonesia or the Philippines. I would not blame the United States one bit if it said `Indonesia has attacked Rockhampton or Cairns or Darwin', but then went through the exercise of saying: `Is it in our interests to intervene, to send troops, to send a navy, and planes to attack the Indonesians to stop this invasion of Australia?' I would have thought that Indonesia, with 160 million people, straddling the equator with great strategic importance to the United States, would be equally important, if not more important, to the United States than would Australia. Scenario three is the invasion, conquest and occupation of Australia. For us to feel fearful of the future we must contemplate what nation, if any is capable of invasion, conquest and occupation of Australia? Clearly the only two powers on earth that are possibly capable of that are the super-powers. The realities of modern warfare are such that there are only two nations that would be capable of this, and they are the United States of America and Russia. One cannot in one's wildest imagination conceive of the possibility of the United States ever doing so. If the Soviets were to mount this sort of attack on Australia, could the United States stand idly by? The United States would become involved, not because of its love of Australia, or its mateship with Australia, or because of ANZUS, but simply because it would be contrary to United States interests to allow her rival to acquire such a strategic area. Assuming that the Soviet could persuade itself to go thousands of kilometres, mount an invasion force to occupy three million square miles in Australia, does anybody here believe that the United States could stand idly by, with or without ANZUS, and let that happen? It is incomprehensible to contemplate that. The United States would become involved in that situation, not because of ANZUS but simply because it would be a direct threat to the United States of America. As for the Soviet Union possibly invading Australia, I ask honourable senators to contemplate some facts. Russia has a huge surface and sub-surface navy, but lacks the essential air cover. Working on a three-year deterioration of Australian-Russian relations, Australia in that period could build up to three divisions with weapons, equipment and logistic support with a total strength of 150,000 personnel. To conquer this force, the Soviets would have to plan on putting ashore some 450,000 personnel-that is at a ratio of 3:1, three times our forces. Can people listening to this debate contemplate an invading force coming thousands of kilometres from the Soviet Union? How many ships would that country require to carry 450,000 personnel? It is absurd to contemplate that the Soviets would even think about it. And for what? To invade Australia, to occupy us. To be superior to the Australian naval force of 14 destroyers and probably eight submarines, the Soviet union would need approximately four aircraft carriers with 30 aircraft each and the necessary merchant ships carrying troops, guns, vehicles and whatever is necessary to carry the troops. About 180 ships would be required. Can gung ho senators in the Liberal Party who say that the Soviets one day could invade Australia imagine an armada of 180 ships coming through where?-the Indian Ocean? What a prime target for the American Air Force or Navy they would be. For anyone wishing to pursue this invasion scenario, it is well to remember that Britain had to commit 23 destroyers and frigates as well as six submarines and many supporting ships to the Falkland Islands in order to land only 10,000 troops out of a task force of 28,000. In addition, 70 merchant ships were required. We are not talking about a Russian task force of only 28,000 troops to invade Australia, we are talking about a task force of 450,000 troops. Therefore a Russian invasion of Australia can be dismissed as being totally absurd. What about our current defences? While we can say there are no foreseeable threats to our security, if we as a nation are not prepared to have a strong defence posture our very weakness or unpreparedness may create a real threat. Therefore the Australian Democrats say that we should spend more on Australian defence, notwithstanding our economic problems. We should be self-reliant in defence. The defence postures of countries such as Sweden and Switzerland are commendable. Both are highly respected members of the world community with track records of skill and judiciousness in the conduct of their military, diplomatic and economic affairs that Australia might well envy and indeed copy. One of the reasons why these countries are highly respected is that they have always made it clear that they will fight to defend themselves if they are attacked and have taken elaborate steps to make that defensive or deterrent capacity a viable reality. How much credibility would we have in world forums with our defence forces now if we said: `If Indonesia attacks us we will get stuck into them and beat them'. All our defence expenditure has been directed towards assisting the United States of America in its global pre-emptive strike strategy. The European neighbours of Sweden and Switzerland, both large and small, know the readiness with which these two nations are prepared to defend their liberty. These nations are respected because they do not fawn over anyone but neither do they go looking for trouble. Australia is capable of developing a similar self-reliant defence posture. What is the Australian Democrats' plan? It is the objective of our party for Australia to achieve self-reliance in defence. The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, has said publicly that he believes Australia could be self-reliant in defence for only 3 per cent of gross national product. It is not necessary now to look at a future `shopping list' for a positive defence; that is really a question of a means to an end. If the will to be self-reliant is there the choices as to the best equipment for the job can be made. Extra or additional equipment may be required, increased numbers of existing craft might be necessary and minesweepers and mine hunters should also be considered, given Australia's vulnerability to mine warfare. For goodness sake, if we are to build more mine sweepers or ships or whatever and if we have to buy them under licence from the United States or France, let them be made in Australia. This is done by both Israel and Sweden. We believe it is important that, as far as possible, equipment should be made in Australia under licence. More than half our defence dollars are spent in buying equipment overseas. The total value of Australian produced defence output in 1980-81 was a pathetic $270m. Under no circumstances would the Democrats find conscription for overseas service acceptable. Any overseas commitment should have to be passed through both Houses of Parliament. We find it quite quaint that both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia should resist this. Surely the democratically elected representatives of the people should not be denied a say in the decision as to whether young Australian men should be conscripted and sent overseas. We say that that must be a decision of both Houses of Parliament and we have introduced a private member's Bill to this effect which will find no support with either the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. Anyone who would like Australia to snuggle up to the Russians or the Chinese or some section of the Third World should look elsewhere than to the Australian Democrats for encouragement. We will not have a bar of that. We would be totally opposed to any such move. Australia's security and independence are too important, too central to our future and our development as a proud, independent country in this geographical region to be left to the custody of others. It is far too important to ever be the area for party political point scoring, intolerance or misrepresentation. The foundation of our foreign and military policy is not a game to be played by party politics or media manoeuvrings. Some other countries, including Sweden and Switzerland, take their security and integrity far more seriously than we do. They know what they want and what they need. They are not prepared to let outsiders tell them what is best for them, be it Uncle Sam or Big Brother Boris. It is time for Australia to adopt policies and concentrate this country's resources, human and natural, in creating a strong independent Australia; to take responsibility for our own military defence, for our own regional security; to be a respected member of the international community; and to be a leader in disarmament. That is where our future interests lie and, perchance, our survival depends. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.32) —We have just heard a very significant speech from Senator Chipp not only for its content but also because it may well be his last contribution to the Australian Parliament after 25 years. I must say that Senator Chipp, in his former role, helped me considerably to become a member of this Parliament in 1975 and I will always be grateful to him for that. I simply regret that, in what I take to be his last major speech to the Parliament, there was very little with which I found I could agree. In dealing with the Supply Bills, I would like to make the point that it is bad enough when a government imposes incorrect and, in fact, counter productive economic policies on a nation because it does not know that there is a serious problem but that government is in fact culpable when it fails to provide proper economic leadership at a time when it belatedly admits that it does know what is wrong with our nation. While it can be said that the speech that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made last night was significant in that it involved a major admission that we were in a crisis, that all sorts of things had to be done, that in fact we had to accept reduced standards of living and increased standards of effort, that the Government will make the decisions necessary to meet this challenge and that it will not shirk from these hard decisions, the fact is that these decisions have not been made. That the Government has admitted that there is a crisis but is in fact not taking appropriate measures is, I think, a matter of major concern to us all. In reality, the Prime Minister did very little last night to advance the debate beyond the points already well and truly made by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, in his banana republic statement on talkback radio. As we all know in this place, unfortunately this Government has a tendency to govern by talkback radio or television rather than by treating chambers like this one and the House of Representatives in the proper way. Not only were the people of Australia well aware of the crisis that we faced after hearing Mr Keating last month but they were well aware of it when back in March the Sydney Morning Herald leaked a Cabinet submission which indicated, according to Mr Keating, that the Australian economy was at the point of crisis and that $1.4 billion had to be cut off the Forward Estimates of expenditure by the Government if that crisis were to be avoided. It is disturbing to note that three months later, not $1.4 billion has been cut, but so far the Government has been able to find only $1 billion. It is still hunting around, with something like three weeks to go before the start of the next financial year, for the remaining $400m of expenditure cuts that are required simply to meet the target that we heard about in March. The reality is that since then-I have had the Parliamentary Library do some work for me on this matter-the Government has undertaken something like half a billion dollars-$500m-worth of additional measures which will increase its deficit, other things being equal, by half a billion dollars. That means not simply that the Government will have to cut $1.4 billion off its spending to end up with this $5 billion deficit that it talks about but rather that it will have to cut something like $2 billion off its spending. In other words, the Government has achieved less than half of its target of a $5 billion deficit. On top of that, however, other disasters have taken place, such as the collapse of the oil market, which means that something like $1 billion of revenue which it would otherwise have received from the export of Australian oil-which is simply not taking place now-will not be available to it. The collapse of the car market has meant that the enormous revenue that comes from car sales, particularly from the importation of motor vehicles, on which there is a 57 per cent duty, will not be available. There are various estimates of what that will cost the Government, but it is generally estimated at around $300m. This Government has talked about restraint; this Prime Minister has talked about prices; and this Treasurer has talked about the absolute need to have a deficit no bigger than $5 billion. The Government started off with a forward deficit estimate of something like $6.4 billion. It has been chopped down, on the Prime Minister's admission, by only $1 billion-that leaves it at $5.4 billion-and it has had an extra $1.3 billion added to the deficit as a result of subsequent disasters. We are now looking at the risk of running a deficit next year of between $6.5 billion and $7 billion, at a time when this Government is saying that there is a vital need not to have a deficit any larger than this year's deficit of around $5 billion. The cut of $1 billion that the Prime Minister announced last night was inadequate even to meet the target that the Treasurer set last March, let alone the target that has now developed because of the sudden disasters that the Prime Minister says have come upon us. The reality is that last night the Prime Minister failed this country. He established what the crisis was, but he has done nothing practical to resolve it. The simple reality is that when Mr Keating, quite properly, freed up the financial system-I congratulate him for it-that very action imposed a discipline on the Government that the Opposition welcomed at that time. It said in these very terms: `It is now up to the Government to make certain that it meets this discipline, because no longer will it be able to hide behind the protection given to it by controls over the financial markets'. We can see now that this Government had no stomach for that discipline. We are all now paying the price for that governmental indiscipline. That, of course, is related to the massive increases in government spending that have taken place in the three Budgets under the Hawke Government. There would not have been a deficit of $5 billion in the Budget for the current financial year had it not been for the increased spending that has taken place in totally new programs initiated by this Government since it has been in office. The only reason for the existence of deficits and of the crisis we face now in fiscal terms is the extra spending this Government has undertaken. The Budget Papers reveal that for everyone to see. Of course, the Government had a clear warning that this would happen. The Opposition has been given warnings about what would happen. The Budget Papers of last year warned of the serious deterioration that would take place in the terms of trade this year. The Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia warned us, as did the Secretary to the Treasury last November, of the consequences of the Government's continuing with its policy of high interest rates as the only way to control this economy. High interest rates were all the Government could think of to protect us from a balance of payments crisis and to control inflation. Of course, that policy did none of those things. We have a balance of payments crisis. We have the worst relative inflation rate we have had in 25 years compared with that of the major countries with which we trade. So we have the situation that the Government's policies have failed. It was warned that they would fail, not simply by the Opposition but also by its own people, by the Secretary to the Treasury and by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The Government had a determined need, for political purposes, to ignore that advice. The reason it rushed ahead with these new Government spending programs-which, I repeat, are the only reason for the current deficit which is causing all these problems-was that it had to reduce unemployment, for political purposes. In other words, the price of buying the jobs that have reduced unemployment and provided the Government with its target has been the destruction of our currency, the enormous increase in our interest rates, and the crisis with which we are now faced. We have to put up with all those things because the Government decided, for a window-dressing purpose, for a political exercise, that no matter what the cost in terms of long term jobs it would rush ahead to meet a dramatic job creation target. The disaster is that those jobs will not last because of the way the Government has gone about gaining them. Look at what has happened in the last 12 months. In the last 12 months under this Government unemployment has gone down by only 10,000. That is just appalling. All we ever hear the Government talk about is how it has created so many jobs since it came to office. The point is that unemployment has fallen by only 10,000. In the last month-the figures came out today-the number of people at work fell by 39,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. So all this effort, all this cost, all this disturbance, all this disaster to the Australian economy, has been in order for the Government to get a political advantage, that is, to get the unemployment level down temporarily. That cost has been enormous but, even more significantly, the Government has failed because, as can be seen, the unemployment situation is getting worse. Let us look at the significance of the latest unemployment figures. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd's series of job advertisements has revealed a 2.9 per cent decline in May, indicative of reduced demand for labour in coming months. The Government has laid the groundwork for a deterioration in employment and an increase in unemployment. Mr Willis and Mr Keating have both indicated that their best scenario is for no further falls in unemployment this year. We know what optimists they are, so we can imagine what the real prospect is. The Prime Minister's economic statement yesterday acknowledged: . . . employment typically lags demand and output, and it would not be surprising to see some slow-down in employment growth in the months ahead . . . Yet if we do not have adequate employment growth we will get rising unemployment because, of course, of the increase in the population. The Treasurer's chief economic adviser, Dr Barry Hughes, said on 4 June: . . . the trend in unemployment will be broadly level, monthly volatility in the labour force figures aside. How quickly renewed falls in unemployment can occur is at this time a matter for conjecture. We can see that the Labour Party is preparing us all for a continuing, inexorable, inevitable rise in unemployment as the tactic simply has failed. With unemployment now stuck at about 8 per cent, the accord is clearly failing in its stated objective. Total unemployment is still higher than for all but five of the 86 months of the Fraser Government. Government members cannot blame the Fraser Government for that. They have been in government for three years. Senator Robertson —Rubbish. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —If Senator Robertson considers that rubbish, I would be grateful if he would produce the evidence. I am dealing with facts here. In only five months out of the Fraser Government's 86 months in office the unemployment level exceeded the unemployment level under this Government. Youth unemployment is a major concern; it is 22.4 per cent. That is three and a half times the adult rate. I remind Senator Robertson that that was the worst level achieved by the Fraser Government, but when the Hawke Government came to power it was something like three times that level. Clearly, youth has not shared equally in the recovery. I might tell Senator Robertson that, at 22.4 per cent, youth unemployment is a percentage point higher now than it was when the Prime Minister launched his Priority One: Young Australia campaign last August. That has been the effect of the Priority One campaign. It might have given the Prime Minister a great promotional boost but it did nothing for youth unemployment, which has risen one per cent-from 21.3 per cent to 22.4 per cent-in that period. So obviously Priority One, youth traineeships and community work proposals do not tackle the central problem of excessive relative wages for youth and an inflexible wages and industrial relation system. As I have said, after all this effort in the last 12 months, unemployment is down by only 10,000. The number of people who left the work force last month was 50,300. They are the people who have given up looking for a job. I would like briefly to deal with Mr Hawke's solution to looking after the unemployed. The only thing we heard about it was that younger recipients of the unemployment benefit should be given the opportunity to undertake some community work in return for that benefit. This seems to have brought the greatest reponse to his speech today. While I commend the idea that people should be given the opportunity to work part time a couple of days a week-I would hope at union award rates-for their unemployment benefit, it is remarkable that this is now being floated after the Labor Government rejected outright, opposed and then cancelled, a proposal announced on 8 December 1982 by the Fraser Government. I might say that I am proud to have been involved in encouraging that Government to undertake this scheme-a scheme which did exactly this. The Australian Labor Party not only has sat on this scheme for almost four years but also has actively blocked it. Let me indicate the reality by quoting from a speech recorded in the Hansard of 8 December 1982: The Commonwealth would provide grants through the States for local bodies to undertake specific additional projects using part time labour recruited from the longer term unemployed. These grants would cover employment at casual award rates for a period necessary to earn an equivalent of benefit plus $35 a week. A person could earn up to $35 a week by working at union award rates two days a week. The speech continues: Each project could run for up to 12 months and employ up to 50 people. As a guide the Commonwealth would be willing to provide funds equal to the benefit rates involved plus an amount of $2m to cover the $35 a week supplement. This would enable trial projects involving about 1000 people. All I ask Mr Hawke, he having announced this as some brilliant, bright new scheme to provide part time work for the unemployed, is: What has eventually made him admit his error? What has made him eventually admit to the young people of Australia that it was wrong, foolish and disastrous to cancel the scheme that was announced by the Fraser Government on 8 December 1982 and which would have provided exactly this? Senator Robertson —It was like most of the schemes you put up; it would not work. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator Robertson says that it would not work. What is different about Mr Hawke's scheme which means that it will work? That is the important issue. The interesting thing is that Mr Hawke has no idea whether his scheme will work. His speech last night was a con. He has no scheme. He simply outlined a proposal. He has no concept of how it will work. If there is a concept of how it will work, why is it not set out in the detailed supporting documents? He simply says: `It is an outline and we will work towards it'. If any Government member pretends that it is more than a broad outline that the Government is working towards and seeking to introduce, he is talking absolute nonsense. The accord is the central reason for the disaster that we now face because of the inflexibility that is imposed upon our economy. To say that the only reason that wages are being held down and there has been restraint in Australia is because of the accord is self-evident bunkum. In the rest of the world there has been wage restraint; in the rest of the world wage rises have been lower than ours; in the rest of the world inflation has been savagely reduced in order to enhance the economies and the job prospects of people. But in Australia the accord has resulted in the contrary situation. Let me read from the extraordinary, wasteful, expensive and disgraceful booklet that the Government has produced at our expense to promote itself and the accord. It is entitled `Accord-The First 2 Years'. It has been paid for by the taxpayers of Australia. Under the heading `The Achievements of Accord' the booklet reads: In following this course, in contrast to many other countries, the Australian Government is determined not to revert to the orthodox response to devaluation of using contractionary economic policies to reduce inflation. It also rejects calls for the dismantling or destruction of our wage indexation system. Wage indexation systems overseas have been recently interrupted or suspended, with no one system escaping unscathed through the 1980s. This booklet admits that Australia is the only country in step. It lists the other countries-Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France and so on-in which wage indexation has been either destroyed or diminished. It continues: The record of statutory minimum wages is also one of set-backs and reductions . . . It mentions Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain and the United States. I pick up what it says about the United States in particular: In the United States, 15 per cent of unionists accepted pay cuts in 1983-- as if this is something disgraceful; in fact, it saved jobs-- and another 22 per cent accepted a wage freeze. Some 8 per cent of early 1984 Agreements allowed for new employees being taken on at lower rates of pay than existing employees. In comparison with this overseas record, the gains achieved by Australian wage and salary earners under the Accord's wages policy are impressive. This booklet seeks to demonstrate that Australia is the only country in step. Is that why Australia is the only one now facing this economic disaster, while the rest of the world has its economic house in order, while in the rest of the world inflation is down, while the rest of the world is looking forward to increasing economic activity, and we are looking to a fall in gross domestic product, rising unemployment and rising inflation? Is that happening because we are out of step because of this accord? I put it to the Senate that this statement of achievement of the accord is an explanation of disaster for Australia. If we can see one simple reason why the Government's approach to the problems we face has been so totally inappropriate and how it has generated the problems we now face, it is that this Government was well aware that the terms of trade would be disastrous. It was warned at the time of the last Budget. It was warned by everyone that that would happen and that has happened. It was warned by the Opposition, by its advisers and in its Budget Papers; yet it persisted in being the one nation out of step, by way of the accord. As a result, we now face this crisis. The one fortunate thing is that at last Mr Hawke has stopped telling us fibs about how we are on track and how the economy is going well. At last he has stopped singing that song. But we have yet to hear him face up to the reality of what we should do. Until he does that, the rest of the world has every reason to be concerned about the future of our currency. We have every reason to hope that this Government, which has got Australia into this mess, will soon be replaced. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.55) —I take the opportunity, in spite of the attempt by Senator Grimes to interject, in speaking in the debate on Supply Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 to touch for a moment on the broader macro-economic problems facing this country. It has now become clear that the failure of Australia's current account deficit to improve in response to the 30 per cent depreciation of the dollar is not an illness in itself but, more particularly, it is a symptom. For the past 12 months the Opposition and industry associates have been crying out to the Government and pointing out the dangers of promoting an unstainable rate of economic growth and asking for restraint in public sector spending. We have been pointing out the dangers of prolonged tight monetary policy which has inhibited the growth of new investment. However, the Government simply would not listen. Finally, the Hawke Government has conceded the fact that its choice of an economic mixture has failed. Mr Hawke now, albeit after much prompting, is attempting to change the Government's policy direction. He has said so superficially but we have yet to see the truth of the matter. Of course, if the Prime Minister really is on the road to Damascus-if he is Saul with the scales falling from his eyes-there is hope for us. Frankly I fear that the Government lacks sufficient foresight or, perhaps, is too entrapped or anxious at the thought of the forthcoming Federal election to commit itself to the necessary long term policy changes which are required to get this country back on its feet. A short term turn-around in the balance of payments position in response to the depreciation of the dollar could occur only if world markets responded with increases in demand for our mining and agricultural commodities. The mining and agricultural exports together account for something like 80 per cent of our export earnings. Traditionally Australia's high standard of living has been supported by strong world demand for raw mineral and metal exports and for our rural exports. However, changing world trends in consumption and production of these commodities has, of course, altered world supply and demand patterns. A rise in the world supply of both agricultural products and raw materials has depressed demand and therefore depressed world prices. There has been an increase in supply over demand not only for agricultural products but also for natural raw resource products produced by Australia. More particularly, in recent times the percentage of raw metals and minerals consumed in the manufacturing sector has dropped significantly. It ought to be understood that Australia as a price taker on the world market consequently has suffered a real reduction in export income, despite the depreciation of the dollar, as its exports have so heavily concentrated in these areas. The rural economy is faced with a glut in world demand and low world prices, particularly, in recent times, in respect of wheat. In the last five years the rate of growth in world trade of wheat has declined very significantly, and for some very good reasons. Largely this has been due to the improved capacity of wheat production in the major nations which, as a consequence, have now become considerably more self-sufficient. Our traditional importers of wheat are now either approaching self-sufficiency or are net exporters. India, which produced 12 million tonnes of wheat in 1965-66 increased production to 44.2 million tonnes by 1985-86. In fact, it was a net exporter of wheat in 1984-85. Its production is forecast to rise by 46 million tonnes in 1986-87. It is now the fifth largest producer of wheat in the world. China's production of wheat also has risen from 26 million tonnes in 1966 to 80 million tonnes in 1985. That is forecast to increase to 88 million tonnes by 1986-87. It is suggested that by the year 2000 China will be a net exporter of food. Last August when I was in Egypt there was a delegation from the Chinese seeking to sell wheat. I was disappointed that the Australian Wheat Board did not have a single permanent representative in Egypt which at that time was our major buyer of wheat. While China in many respects is still a net importer it now purchases relatively small quantities of wheat. It has a capacity in the short term to export. Similarly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the world's largest producer of wheat but is also the largest purchaser. Last year sales from us doubled. Last year the USSR bought more wheat from us than any other country. As is China's, it is a volatile and not certain market. In talking about China, the USSR, and Egypt we are talking about by far our major consumers. We cannot guarantee them as sources of export income in the future. The future outlook for wheat producers, therefore, is not one of immediate revival and prosperity, nor is it for the dairy, wine, beef, sugar cane or rice industries, just to name a few. As a result of the European Economic Community's protectionist policies and the USA's recent farm policy our traditional markets are being very much impinged upon. That was demonstrated by recent sales of rice to Papua New Guinea and by the sale to North Yemen of US wheat. The mining industry has suffered very much a similar fate. Increased world supply and reduced demand for raw materials have forced prices down. Rising capacity has not been matched by sustained demand for raw materials as expressed during the investment boom of the early 1980s. Further, the fall in oil prices is an aggravating factor in reducing demand for Australia's steaming coal. Because of a very major iron ore project coming on stream in Brazil our iron ore market is also threatened. It has to be understood that in recent times the level of exports amongst the less developed nations has improved very much. In the last 10 years mineral and metal exports have increased between 20 and 35 per cent in developing countries. As long as they have such levels of debt they will not be interested in making profits but in attracting foreign exchange currency. The mining industry has thus been faced with a substantial reduction in profit levels. Profit has also been squeezed by costs. Wages and total labour costs have risen significantly as a proportion of total industry costs. A coal miner now earns $750 a week. A worker in the iron ore industry earns $730 a week. In comparison, the average Australian male as a full time employee earns $413 a week. It is interesting to note that the rise in wages within the mining industry caused by the resources boom in the late 1970s and early 1980s has not been matched by a decline in labour costs during this period of reduced raw material demand. Labour costs for the mining sector for the year ending 1984-85 amounted to some $3 billion as estimated by the Australian Mining Industry Council. This represents 25 per cent of total industry costs. Therefore, under the present circumstances, a 3 per cent productivity increase and a 2 per cent award rise in my view would be most inappropriate, to say the least. Adding 5 per cent to the total cost of labour, a productivity claim and a wage award would squeeze profits even further. While the long term prognosis has not been considered by some people to be bleak a crucial factor in determining the industry's outcome is the current control of domestic costs which is within the grasp of this Government if it chooses to have the courage and fortitude to do something about it. It is obvious, however, that the competitive pressures induced by an increase in world production and capacity have meant that Australia can no longer rely on the rural and mining sectors to produce the necessary increase in exports which will in turn solve our balance of payments problems. The time has come, in my view, for a major re-think. The nature of world trade has changed and we simply have not kept up with the pace. Between 1949-50 and 1953-54 Australia's exports averaged 21.7 per cent of gross domestic product. Australia was one of the largest exporting nations in the world. By 1982, Australia's exports had declined to 13.9 per cent of GDP, while Canada's share, for instance, had increased to 23.8 per cent, France's to 17.8 per cent, Germany's to 26.7 per cent and Sweden's to 27.1 per cent. The United States of America's share had almost doubled from year 1958 to 7 per cent. Additionally, Australia's share of exports has not grown as fast as world trade. In 1938, for instance, Australia supplied about 2.2 per cent of the world trade. This declined to 1.18 percent in 1980. The commodity composition of Australia's trade has also changed. In the early 1950s wool alone made up almost half of Australia's exports. As I said earlier, mining and rural commodities now account for about 80 per cent of our exports with manufacturing accounting for something like 20 per cent. It is the composition, of our commodity imports which is arguably responsible for the reduction in our share of world trade. Between 1970 and 1981 world manufacturers' trade volume increased by an average of about 7 per cent per annum, but Australia's increased by only 2.2 per cent. Eighty per cent of that world increase comprised elaborately transformed manufactures which include high technology goods. However, Australia's own export share of elaborately transformed manufactures was only 12.2 per cent. In contrast, imports of manufactured goods rose from 68.9 per cent of total imports in the early 1950s to 75 per cent in the early 1980s. Australia's share of technology intensive goods was 36 per cent of total imports in 1980. Australia's share in manufacturing has clearly suffered a substantial decline since the early 1970s and it has failed to maintain its trade proportion in line with world trade, as I have pointed out in the statistics I have given so far. One of the crucial problems affecting the manufacturing industry is the declining or static and generally inadequate levels of profitability. By and large, company profits have not recovered the historical levels which were necessary to encourage adequate investments, particularly in real terms. Despite some recovery from the recession levels during the two years to September 1985, profit levels in most industries have not been sufficient to sustain an adequate rate of private investment. In the December quarter of 1985, the gross operating surplus of trading enterprise companies fell by 6.1 per cent, while wages and other labour costs rose by 4.4 per cent in current prices and seasonally adjusted terms. Reduced opportunities for business investment by declining profits have been exacerbated by rising labour costs as a proportion of total industry costs. On-costs in particular have risen as a proportion of direct payments to labour and Australian industry. It was estimated by the Australian Confederation of Industry to contribute to roughly 40 per cent of the total cost of labour for the year 1983-84. Adding a 3 per cent productivity claim and a 2 per cent award wage rise would bring on-costs to about half of the industry's total labour costs. High interest rates and high levels of taxation have also been major factors in reducing the level of productivity and profitability, thereby causing inadequate levels of business investment. That is one of the intrinsic problems which face the manufacturing sector at present. However, that is not the whole story. The manufacturing industry was established through protectionist policies which were designed to increase Australia's self-sufficiency. Such traditional infant policies, so to speak, have been maintained in a fiercely competitive international environment. Tariffs, quotas, content requirements, bounties and export subsidies have prevented the industry from undertaking the necessary structural readjustments which are required, in my view, to maintain international competitiveness. Protection has been a major cause of misallocation of resources and inefficiency in these industries. Senator Walsh —Does Watson agree with that? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Watson and I do not agree on everything, particularly, I suspect, in respect of protection of the manufacturing sector. I do not believe for a moment that all right is on my side, but I think there is a nice balance between what the two of us say. The burden to consumers and consuming industries as a result of all forms of assistance to the manufacturing industry is estimated to be $11.3 billion for the year 1982-83. Clearly, the protectionist policies of the past are outmoded in the current climate of changing international trade. In the past Australia has not been programmed to specialise or to excel in particular areas of expertise. We have not been encouraged to continue the production process. We have left designs and innovations where they were some time ago. Finally, before I touch on education-I point out that for very many years there has been no real tangible or intrinsic relationship between education and job opportunities-I want to refer to one changing factor in respect of the manufacturing sector. The amount of industrial raw materials needed for one unit of industrial production is now no more than two-fifths of what it was in 1900 and the decline is accelerating. The Japanese experience is particularly striking. In 1984, for every unit of industrial production Japan consumed only 60 per cent of the raw materials consumed for the same volume of industrial production in 1973, just 11 years earlier. Industrial production is steadily switching away from heavily material-intensive products and processes. One of the reasons for this is the new high-technology industries. The raw materials in a semi-conductor microchip account for one to 3 per cent of total production costs. In an automobile their share is 40 per cent and in pots and pans it is 60 per cent. Even in older industries the same scaling down of raw material needs goes on. For example, 50 to 100 pounds of fibreglass cable transmit as many telephone messages as does one ton of copper wire. This steady drop in the raw material intensity of manufacturing processes and manufacturing products extends to energy as well, and especially to petroleum. To produce 100 pounds of fibreglass cable requires no more than 5 per cent of the energy needed to produce one ton of copper wire. Similarly, plastics, which are increasingly replacing steel in automobile bodies, represent a raw material cost, including energy, of less than half that of steel. Thus it is quite unlikely that raw material prices will ever rise substantially compared with the prices of manufactured goods or high-knowledge services such as information, education or health care, except in the event of a major prolonged war. Senator Puplick has quite properly argued long and hard for that. Australia needs a clear change of direction in terms of its export capacity and the areas on which we ought to be concentrating. That is something we have ignored so far. If we do not recognise that our major export-minerals and metals-is diminishing in its percentage contribution to the manufacturing sector, our balance of payments will continue to deteriorate dramatically and our capacity for exports will also decline dramatically. If we do not understand that we ought to be moving into the high technology areas, we are really going to get left behind in terms of our balance of payments and our capacity to understand what exports the world wants. That leads me to the question of education. In my view, our education system does absolutely nothing to encourage students either to stay on in further education or to study science oriented subjects. In 1982, the percentage of 16-year-olds enrolled in full time or part time study in Australia was 77.3 per cent. Those enrolled in the United States of America, Japan and the Netherlands represented 93 per cent, 94 per cent and 97 per cent respectively. In Australia in 1984 45 per cent of school students stayed on until year 12. Of the 26 subjects available for tertiary entrance examinations in Western Australia, exactly 50 per cent cover the fields of languages and history. Only 20 per cent are related to science. This gives us some indication of where our priorities are in our education system and its intrinsic and necessary relationship with the jobs that are available, and the growth and the dynamic capacity that this country ought to have. The greatest challenge facing Australian industry is to improve its ability to compete in the international market when a greater proportion of that market is being taken up by the high technology trade. The future strength of Australian industry thus depends on its ability to produce more inventors, more researchers and more technological innovators to meet these immediate demands. It is essential that the Australian economy be assisted with short term policy measures, but long term foresight is necessary also to prevent its general demise. Our education system must encourage a greater uptake of subjects relevant to the economy's future needs. Employers in manufacturing must become more aggressive in their marketing and production plans. Greater investment should be encouraged in those industries and commodities which cater to world trends in demand, and resources must be allocated to their most efficient use in production. Our outlook need not be bleak, but it will require recognition by the Government that the economic environment must be improved to increase and promote business confidence. Industry can be assisted in this respect by a reduction in the costs caused by high taxes, high interest rates, high labour costs and government regulation. If the Government continues with its failure to adopt a long term view of Australia's economic future, it will continue to fail in restoring any prospect that this country has to enjoy the kind of prosperity we have experienced in the past. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.18) —I take this opportunity of debating Supply Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 to refer to appropriations under divisions 315 and 316 for the Department of Foreign Affairs and to introduce a subject that might be of a controversial nature-the question of the application of sanctions to a country. I refer particularly to South Africa. I do this in a constructive spirit because I believe that the Western World-the democratic communities of the world-is not entirely cognisant of the differences that exist between conditions in the African continent and conditions in a country such as Australia. It is very easy for the international community to criticise activities in South Africa and to relate those activities to the conditions that exist in Australia. I recall my first visit to that continent in 1969, when I visited the northern African States. I observed the effects of the handing over of rule by the colonial powers and the Africanisation of departments, hospitals and so on which were formerly under English administration. There was a considerable period in which the African people who took over the responsibilities at that time needed the guidance of expatriates in order to maintain administrative efficiency. I well recall meeting a very young aggressive Minister from Kenya called Tom Mboya, who was a Luo-a potential threat, if one can so put it, to the supremacy of Kenyatta, who was a Kikuyu, the predominant tribe of that country. I formed the impression that Tom Mboya, the Minister for Development and Education, was a very astute, intelligent young man who, in my view, would be the ideal person to take over the presidency of that country from Kenyatta, who had ruled very effectively following his days as a terrorist Mau-Mau leader. I was very distressed when I learned nine or ten months later that he had been shot by a Kikuyu tribesman. That alerted me to the immense difficulties of the African continent with its tribal traditions. Seven years after that experience, I first visited South Africa and was not pleased with what I saw. I noticed that there was decided discrimination between the whites and blacks in particular and the other ethnic groups that constitute the most complex society in the African continent. South Africa consists of no fewer than 10 or 11 black tribal groups, the Indian tribal group, the coloured tribal group and two white tribal groups. Those white tribal groups combined represent five million people, 60 per cent of whom are Afrikaner and roughly 40 per cent English. The South African Government faces a complex problem at present in coming to some arrangement to accommodate diverse ethnic groups, among whom are 100,000 Jews, as well as Asians from China and Japan. The Western world does not appreciate the complexity of South Africa. I am an opponent of apartheid, as we all are. Senator Puplick —Hear, hear! Senator JESSOP —My friend Senator Puplick is also an opponent, but I take the view that the way in which the international community is treating the South African Government at present is reprehensible. Many moderate blacks and the majority of the two white tribes in South Africa believe that the attitude expressed internationally is retarding the progress of reform. The authorities have admitted the mistakes of the past and have said they believe that apartheid was wrong. When I first went to South Africa the policy of apartheid envisaged the establishment of homeland states, wherein the tribal groups among the black people would be able to be provided with independence and autonomy in their particular group. I believe the Western world is culpable for not recognising that that Government has been big enough to say: `We were wrong and we are attempting to correct the mistakes of the past'. Honourable senators must remember that the policy of apartheid has persisted for 50 years and the majority of people in South Africa-most of the white people, the majority of moderate black people and the Indians and other ethnic groups to which I have referred-have recognised the sincere purpose of the President of South Africa, Mr P. W. Botha, and his Ministers in the program that they have instituted. Many of those particular matters have been addressed, the more difficult ones are being addressed at present and will be addressed in the future. The problem in South Africa is the extreme left wing which, unhappily, is represented by the African National Congress. The ANC comprises a majority of the Xhosa tribe which is not recognised by the Zulus and certain other people as being entirely representative of the black community. Unhappily the Congress is influenced-and I am not a red witch hunter, but one must recognise the facts of the case-by its executive and members of that executive are predominantly members of the South African Communist Party. These people owe their allegiance to the Soviet Union which supports them financially and provides them with weapons. However, I do not want to give the impression that I brand the whole of the ANC with that particular brush because there are some people who are more moderate. On my most recent visit to South Africa I found that Oliver Tambo claims to be and has the reputation for being a nationalist. I understand also the feelings about Nelson Mandela, who is incarcerated in gaol, and who was convicted 25 years ago on a charge of treason, because of his accumulation of weapons which threatened the peace and security of South Africa. I will not go back over the past 25 years, but I do believe that there could be very good reasons why Nelson Mandela should be released-on the condition that he rejects violence in respect of the accommodation of the black people of South Africa. Senator Crichton-Browne —Even if he did it would be meaningless because he is no longer in control of the ANC. Senator JESSOP —I believe that Nelson Mandela is a myth, but in the eyes and minds of the younger people in South Africa he is a person of influence. As far as I am concerned, there could be merit in releasing him and in consulting with Mr Tambo who, I hope and believe, is a moderate and a nationalist. But that is not the end of the problem in South Africa because the majority of the black people do not recognise the ANC as the legitimate spokes organisation for the black community in that country. In particular, the Zulu people have a traditional history of antagonism to the Xhosa tribe. That in itself is a problem. The Zulu nation is under the leadership of a man whom I regard as a black statesman. In my view he has made constructive comments about the situation in that country. He has advocated the release of Nelson Mandela. I believe that he is a leader of great credibility among the black people of South Africa who represent 75 per cent of the population. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is Gatsha Buthelezi. Senator JESSOP —He does not like to be called Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi. He has a different name. I refer to the Chief Minister of KwaZulu. When I visited that country recently I was impressed by the way in which the predominantly ethnic population happens to be running its own affairs in a very aggressive and independent way. The Chief Minister is prepared to stand up to the white administration and say `I will consult with you under certain conditions' which I believe involves the release of Nelson Mandela. I think that is worthy of recognition. I return to what I said earlier. I think the people of Australia are sympathetic to the people of South Africa. Australians recognise-this is something that is often denied-that sport in South Africa is multiracial. There is no question about that. I believe that the average Australian recognises that historically in the past South Africans have always stood up with us against the aggression of other countries. Senator Jones —Oh, they are fascists. Senator JESSOP —The honourable senator may say that, but I am pointing out that we ought to be reasonable and compliment the South African people. I am an apologist for the Australian Government. The Australian Government has let the people of Australia down economically. It has let the workers down economically. The Government is unwilling to recognise its mistakes. If the Australian Government got up and said `We have made mistakes economically. We have done the wrong thing by the workers of Australia', I would not have to be an apologist for it. I believe that governments say that apartheid in South Africa is wrong but South Africa is saying: `We are doing our very best to correct that situation. We are frustrated by the people in the black community who are now known and becoming infamous as Comrades'. These young people are killing black people who dare to co-operate with the white government in the interests of the total black community. South Africa is trying to accommodate the wishes of the black people. Once the mayor of a black town-there is local government there-dared to suggest that he was going to co-operate with the white government, so called-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Collaborators. Senator JESSOP —They call them collaborators. Those people are then marked down for necklace treatment by these Comrades who are young black people who delight in necklacing fellow moderate black people. The Comrades terrorise and inject fear into these people because they are afraid that they will evolve a peaceful resolution to accommodate the wishes of the black people of that unfortunate country. I believe that we can do far better; I have said that before in this chamber. I am as great an opponent of apartheid as any other member of the Senate, but I believe that international governments should treat members of other governments as people. If I were to say to Senator Sheil that I disagreed totally with the way he was running a medical practice, that what he was doing to his patients was wrong, that he should be doing something else, and if I condemned him for his treatment, he would be likely to tell me what to do. If I were to say to Senator Sheil that I admired the treatment he was giving to his patients in one respect and asked whether he thought that perhaps by doing something different in another area he and his patients could profit, that sort of carrot rather than the stick approach would be much more helpful, as it would be to the black people in South Africa. I turn to the heading `Millions could die, Fraser group warns'. I say to honourable senators that the person who is held in high regard in South Africa-- Senator Jones —Is Malcolm Fraser. Senator JESSOP —It is not Malcolm Fraser; it happens to be General Obasanjo, who was the general in Nigeria who put down the Biafran riots. General Obansanjo summarily executed without trial his officers who were incompetent at that time. It so happened that he expelled 200,000 refugees from Nigeria at that time. He was one of the more moderate generals in Nigeria. He ultimately became President and introduced a civil administration in that country. He is respected more than Malcolm Fraser, who does not know anything about tribalism in that continent. He went to South Africa for two days and branded the Government of South Africa as being nazi, simply because it has a problem. It has a problem-this is what I want to get around to-with the members of the extreme black left who want to necklace the moderates who are prepared to co-operate. Unhappily, there are also the members of the extreme right amongst the Afrikaners, whom I deplore equally because they want to introduce violence. They are in the minority. One cannot brand the whole Afrikaner race, because the majority absolutely reject that attitude. It is those nazi-like people who have the laager mentality who want to isolate the white community from the black people, and that is wrong. So I am suggesting to honourable senators-- Senator Jones —What category would you fall into? Senator JESSOP —Of course, Senator Jones would not know anything about this. I have a great regard for Senator Sibraa, but I did not believe my ears the other day when I heard Red Harrison on AM-I am not sure what the `Red' stands for; I presume he has red hair or something like that-call upon Senator Sibraa, a senior member of the Labor Party and Chairman of the so-called influential Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, to make a comment. What did Senator Sibraa say? I like Senator Sibraa. I would have thought that he would have some knowledge of the tribal problems in Africa, but he said: Well, I think we've got to look at downgrading our diplomatic representation in South Africa. We ought to look at closing the South African Tourist Commission in Australia-- Senator Jones —Hear, hear! Senator JESSOP —The Minister for Finance says `Hear, hear!' Senator Walsh —No, he said that. Senator JESSOP —Well, I am sure that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) would not agree because it happens to be very important to Australia that we attract international finance. We want to correct our balance of payments. Senator Sibraa went on to say: We ought to look at closing the South African Tourist Commission in Australia and perhaps stop South African Airlines operating into Australia. Of course, what we ought to be doing is allowing South African Airways to have two flights a week. Qantas Airways Ltd ought to have two flights a week to South Africa because that would increase our tourist income. I would have thought that would be important to the Government of Australia. I have heard on good authority that Qantas is anxious to do that. What happens now is that Qantas flies into Harare and then South African Airways has to transport Australians down to Johannesburg and we have to pay for that. What an absolutely stupid idea that is. I repeat what I said about Senator Sibraa. I like the fellow; I believe he is a moderate and reasonable fellow, but this was the climax of what he said: Perhaps give more assistance to the ANC to allow them to run their office and train people within this country. Can honourable senators tell me who is training the African National Congress people? It is the Libyans, the East Germans, the Czechoslovaks and the Russians. Senator Sheil —Against foreign incursions. Senator JESSOP —The honourable senator can say that, of course. But what is this Government all about? We are supposed to be combatting international terrorism. We are supposed to be trying to help the black people of South Africa. Will that be of help to them? I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that there are two million foreign black people working in South Africa who send back to their countries 60 per cent of their wages every time they are paid. That is a significant contribution to the economies of 10 or 12 African states. The South Africans have also entered into an agreement with four or five other countries with respect to sharing of Customs excises. South Africa allows the exports and imports of those other countries into and out of the ports in South Africa and allows the railways they have built to be used for that purpose. That represents a significant economic contribution to those other countries in Africa. Any economic sanctions that are applied inhibit the capacity of South Africa to continue that sort of economic assistance to those other states. We have to recognise the significant contribution that has been made by the South African Government to those other people. If we are worried about black people, we should include the number of black people who happen to be in the northern part of Africa but who are being assisted by South Africa. South Africa also provides something of the order of $3 billion worth of aid to other countries less fortunate than itself. It provides food, fresh fruit and other exports to those countries. I am glad to see that Fraser's Eminent Persons Group has fallen short of calling for economic sanctions against that country because it realises the damage that would be done not only to South African blacksbut-- Senator Siddons —I thought they recommended that. Senator JESSOP —No, I am glad to say that they did not. I am, of course, concerned about the problems in South Africa. Nevertheless, I think we ought to be giving South Africa a few carrots, a few commendations, for its recognition that it has been wrong in the past and for the fact that it prepared to redress those matters, to correct them in the future. I was talking to Kent Durr, who is an Assistant Minister in the National Party, who was in Australia in 1966 and doorknocked for Andrew Peacock. He said: `I am a progressive Minister in this Government and we are anxious to accommodate the black people on the question of decision making and on the question of political determination in this country'. Senator Jones —Who paid your fare to South Africa? Senator JESSOP —I believe, quite frankly, that the Western world would do well to encourage this Government rather than talk like Senator Jones, who would not know anything about it. Senator Jones —No wonder you are an apologist for the South African Government; it paid your fare over there. Senator JESSOP —Yes, of course it did. I do not mind admitting that. I do not mind admitting that people on the other side of this House have been paid to go to China and Yugoslavia. I do not mind accepting a fellowship to inform myself of the facts in that country. Senator Jones could not care less about the welfare of the black people in that country. I condemn Senator Jones for that and suggest that he is negligent and reprehensible for making the suggestion he makes. I could nominate people who have gone overseas to the Eastern bloc countries-apologists for the communist countries of the world, who have accepted the same sort of invitation that I have. I will do it again, because in three visits I have noticed incredible progress. I could talk for a long time on this subject, because I think the people of Australia do not realise just what is happening. I will talk again about this matter, because I believe that the rest of the world is not helping the black population of South Africa-incidentally, the whole of Africa-in the way in which it is approaching this important subject. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(9.47) —It may come as somewhat of a surprise to those few Australians who still happen to be listening to the airwaves coming from Parliament House that we are, in fact, debating Supply Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87. We are debating whether the Government should be allowed the money necessary to carry on. I will endeavour to confine my remarks to matters of money and finance, even though this may be less exciting than the affairs of South Africa. These Bills will be supported by the Australian Democrats as they are money Bills and we have a commitment to support such Bills. However, I believe that these Bills should give food for thought to all in this chamber. The amounts shown in these Bills reflect a larger than inflation increase on the amounts shown in the equivalent Bills of last year. I know, of course, that there are reasons why there should be increases at a rate above the inflation rate on the amounts shown for last year. We have had to increase payments to rural industries to help farmers through the present tough period caused by the world glut in agricultural products. We have had to offer special support to the sugar industry to cushion the devastating price falls experienced by producers, particularly in Queensland. Significant expenses have been incurred as a result of payments for major pieces of defence hardware. Nonetheless, these Bills show that there has been a significant real increase in Government expenditure in a number of areas, despite the Government's commitment to the trilogy. The whole question of Government expenditure needs to be reviewed. We hear plenty of talk about the pros and cons of Government expenditure. Indeed, it is a favourite hobby-horse for the coalition parties. Government expenditure, we are told by the coalition, is the root of all evil. Government expenditure, we are told, is unproductive. Government expenditure, we are told, is the cause of inflation. Throughout the 1970s we were hammered with what I consider to be the preposterous position that inflation was caused by big government expenditure and that the squeezing of government expenditure, the squeezing of the government deficit, would squeeze inflation out of the system. Those who pushed that view ignored probably the most significant political and economic happening of the last 20 years. The fact is that the price of oil rose from $3 a barrel in 1973 to $30 a barrel in 1980. Oil, the major input of the world economy, experienced a tenfold price leap. Its cost rose by no less than 1,000 per cent. But this, we are told, was not connected in any way with inflation. That, at least, is what the monetarists of this country would have us believe. Of course, the increase in the oil price triggered inflation. It triggered a recession and an enormous change in the priorities and attitudes of all world economies-the West, the East, as well as the Third World. Looking back, it is, I believe, a testament to the durability of the Western economies in particular that there was not in the 1970s a depression as bad as that which took place in the 1930s. All of this, of course, went unnoticed by the Right and, indeed, by the Opposition parties, although I must admit that their record in reducing expenditure was in marked contrast to their rhetoric. Again, this country, unfortunately, is facing a balance of payments crisis. We are still being bombarded with the tired old `government spending' rhetoric. Let us look at what the small government people are really saying. Quite simply, they are saying this: `Let those dependent on the government for their income or the provision of services carry the can for whatever economic problems we happen to be facing at the moment'. In the 1970s they were saying: `Let social security recipients and those who use public services-public transport, public hospitals and so on-bear the brunt of the increase in the oil price'. Interestingly, implicit in the rhetoric is the undertaking that government services to the wealthy in terms of aid to private health and education systems and the existence of tax inequalities should not be touched, although this is never stated explicitly. They did not want society as a whole to bear the burden of the oil price shocks. They thought the disadvantaged and the workers should carry the can. I am afraid it is the same story now. To get over the balance of payments problem, we are told that the Government must cut its expenditure. Once again, those least able to accept reductions in living standards are singled out to carry the burden. Of course, this addresses right wing prejudice rather than the real problem, which is the balance of payments situation. The only way out of the balance of payments predicament is through the adoption of meaningful industry policies, agreements with unions through employee participation, and other similar measures to end irrational, restrictive work practices, and the closing of rorts which disadvantage those who are in a position to engage in jiggery-pokery investments on the stock exchange. There is another point that the conservatives cannot come to grips with. Their knee-jerk, reaction to any crisis is to cut back government expenditure, in other words to disadvantage those who already are disadvantaged. They are unable to cure the problem. In fact, their reaction just exacerbates the problem. Whether we like it or not today government expenditure is necessary to provide social and economic infrastructures to keep up demand in the economy. To cut back government expenditure in real terms at this stage would take out all the impetus that is in the economy at the moment. To cut back government expenditure at a time of economic difficulty would be a sure recipe to bring on a recession. The grotesque example that should bring this home, even to the Opposition, is that of Thatcher's Britain. I wonder whether the unemployed in Liverpool and Glasgow would get a warm feeling in their hearts if they were to hear their Prime Minister say that she had managed to squeeze inflation out of the system. Somehow, I doubt it. Her obsession with cutting expenditure in fact has strangled that nation. Therefore, the important point is that we, like it or not, need government expenditure. I suggest that in the 1980s this should be an undisputed fact. However, the important question-it is a very important question to the Australian Democrats-is what type of government expenditure we need. Unfortunately the Democrats seem to be the only people in this country to ponder this question. In the 1930s government expenditure meant giving jobs to people to build roads. Of course, those days are gone forever. The advent of machines has meant that road building employs very few people. In the 1980s President Reagan used government expenditure to boost the economy. He did this very effectively. However, he chose to do it by boosting the arms industry in response to his idea of the cold war. This, too, the Democrats find grotesque because it threatens life on this planet and diverts resources from socially and economically useful ends; the arms industry in the United States booms while the infrastructure in many American cities crumbles. What worries me and the Democrats about these Bills that we are debating at the moment is that inevitably they are a pointer to the target of Australian Government expenditure. If we choose to spend money on unproductive self-expanding bureaucracies we will head for disaster. Both Federal and State governments have expanded their bureaucracies-this is undeniable-at a greatly alarming rate over the last 20 years. Much of this bureaucracy is unnecessary. Many of the jobs bureaucracy creates provide little satisfaction in the work they develop. They are little more than a wage for those people who occupy a position in the bureaucracy. Also the role of many of the departments that have been set up seems to be to hinder both citizens and business. In many cases the term `public service' has become one of black humour. The Democrats would like to see a policy of reducing bureaucracy through the freeing up of regulations and the utilisation of computer technology. We would like to see it rearrange its resources so that it can be a public service rather than a public hindrance. We must channel government money straight into the community without the bureaucratic conduit. We should fund councils, work programs and community groups to provide social, economic and cultural services. We should fund those in industry who have new ideas and who want to be innovative. Let us increase welfare payments and the allowable income that can be earned by those prepared to take part in part time work and thus increase their living standards. Let us fund farmers to find new crops for which there is world demand and to plant trees on their properties. Let us put money into rural communities to help them survive. This sort of creative government intervention would benefit us socially, environmentally and economically. What I find disturbing about government expenditure is not its size, but its direction. By using our imaginations we could create a better nation. If we do not accept this challenge we will face a depression that will make the 1930s look like a tea-party. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.02) —Last night the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) cost the nation $745m. This cost does not represent the cost of presentation of the address which the taxpayer will pay for. It is just the additional cost on our overseas debt caused by the immediate fall in the dollar following the speech. The Prime Minister's speech, according to so many editorials, was so long on rhetoric and short on specifics, so short in detail and sincerity that in the first 10 minutes the Australian dollar fell by half a cent overseas. As the night wore on its value fell by an additional half a cent. That value was worse when compared with the price of sterling. In Japan the Australian dollar tumbled. Our present debt of $74.589 billion immediately went up another three quarters of a billion dollars because every time the Australian dollar falls by a cent we lose another three quarters of a billion dollars. Headlines in the newspapers have also said this. The Sun said: `It's discord'. It also said: `Unions upset, dollar dives'. Another comment which I think is most appropriate was in the Age. Terry McCrann said: Disastrous. That is the only appropriate word to describe what Bob Hawke did last night. And everyone in Australia-except perhaps John Howard-is going to pay the price. After raising expectations that the Government would demonstrate conclusively that it was prepared to take the tough decisions necessary to address the worst economic crisis this country has seen since the 1930s Depression Mr Hawke produced a wishy-washy-albeit impressively delivered-damp squib. That is the sort of comment being made. From overseas markets to local financial markets, from the Australian Council of Trade Unions to the business community, from Australian Labor Party members-there are many-to Liberal Party members, there has been extreme disappointment, criticism and disgust. The Prime Minister told us that he was at last telling the people the truth about the Australian economy. The Opposition has been telling the people the truth for 18 months to two years. The Government Ministers-indeed, the Prime Minister himself-have been saying that it was just our political rhetoric. Now, belatedly, we have been joined by Mr Hawke and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The Treasurer told us that his plans just had not worked. He told us that Australia was now in a hole, that things were a disaster, that we were nothing short of a banana republic, that we cannot go on living in the way we are, and that we have to pull our belts in. In the past he said to us: `There are no worries. She'll be right mate. The J-curve is just around the corner'. He said that we could all take our share of the 3 per cent productivity claim, even those in industries such as the rural industry where there was no productivity at all, as the J-curve would fix all that. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was told by the best Treasurer in the whole wide world: `You fix it. The unions want it. The J-curve is coming, so she'll be right.' All this time the Opposition was telling the people that things had to change, that things were not all right, that the Government was not telling them the truth, but ours was a lone voice. The Treasurer kept telling them that the J-curve was coming. The world's best Treasurer lulled the man in the street into a false sense of security-and then the crunch came. When the last balance of payment figures came out, Australians found out that what the Opposition had been saying all along was true. Mr Keating, the world's best Treasurer, was not heard from for 24 hours-he went to water. The media tried to interview Mr Keating but there was no response from him. After 24 hours the world's best Treasurer said that he had turned Australia into a banana republic. That did not do too much for the Australian dollar. He then said: `But it is not my fault; the overseas markets are the problem, so we will have a summit'. He wanted to have one to share the blame. But the Boss, who was visiting China, said: `No, we won't have a summit'. He spoke a few kindly words to the Treasurer and the summit was off, and instead there was to be an advisory committee meeting. When he came home, the advisory committee meeting was off and we were to have a speech from the Prime Minister himself. What has he said? He was asked last night on the Carlton-Walsh Report to say what were the hard decisions he had made. These were the ones he chose. First, he said that it was not easy for a Prime Minister to tell his nation that it has to have a reduction in its standard of living. That was a hard decision to make. Secondly, he said: `It is not easy when we have an accord with the trade union movement to say unequivocally something that you know it is not going to like but I did that'. Thirdly, he said: `It is not easy to tell both the community and the States that we will have to force some hard decisions upon them in the Budget and in the Premiers Conference'. He patted himself on the back, saying that he made those three hard decisions. The Prime Minister also talked about the Public Service. In his speech to the nation he said: . . . under successive Governments, including my own, the federal public service has continued, inexorably, to grow in numbers. While a good public service is essential to the well-being of our society, an increasingly efficient public service does not mean an increasingly large public service. Let me give some figures supplied to me by the Parliamentary Library's statistics section-a truly independent source. I will give the true figures showing the increases over the years of Commonwealth government employees. When we came to government in December 1985, following Gough Whitlam, the number of Commonwealth government employees, the public servants of Australia, totalled 400,500. When we left government the number totalled 407,500, an increase of 7,000. In 1978, when we took over the public servants of the railways of South Australia and Tasmania, we had to add 9,500 public servants to the Commonwealth payroll. We did not make that decision, Gough had made it, but we had to take over the additional 9,500 public servants. If we take off the Northern Territory self-government figure of 5,300, of that additional 7,000 people put on the government payroll during the Fraser years we find that there was an increase of only 4,200 Commonwealth public servants. The Fraser Government had 407,500 public servants on its payroll, but what happened when the Hawke Government came to power? At December last year there were 432,900 public servants, an increase of 25,400. The Prime Minister has fiddled the figures. He has distorted the public service figures for his own purpose. It is for reasons such as that that this side of the Senate, as well as the people of Australia, no longer trust him. An editorial in yesterday's Herald stated: The first thing to say is we have been living with too many myths. Myth Number One. Bob Hawke was wrong to cultivate the fiction that a swing in the business cycle (the recovery of 1984) and drought-breaking rain somehow flowed from summits, consensus, a swooning Press and silver-topped charisma. It's pointless to now blame Bob Hawke and his men for `going bad' on us. The truth is they were never that good. Competence and luck should not be confused with supernatural powers, which brings us to Myth Number Two. We never owned a world champion Treasurer . . . The truth is wages are regulated less by market forces than by a bureaucracy that produces blanket rises (as though all industries can pay equally) and mocks words such as productivity. The editorial went on to point out to the Australian people that Bob Hawke was just a dead loss. It continued: So what we now have is a confiscatory Government, and the ridiculous part is it all seems to have happened by accident. The editorial was referring, of course, to the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, and all the other taxes the Government has introduced just lately. The Government has become a government that confiscates public moneys. We have a fringe benefits tax that rips off $600m from business and a capital gains tax that, in a few years time, will be doing likewise. What have we as a result of that? The Prime Minister has offered to give back some businesses, just to one section, a limited subsidy on interest rates. The Government put interest rates up so high that it has now offered one section of the community a limited subsidy on those interest rates, and that section of the business industry is that section which invests in heavy manufacturing projects where, believe it or not, management and unions are co-operating. Good heavens, is it any wonder the people are at last recognising that it is no use blaming Bob and his Ministers for going bad on us; the truth is, they were never that good. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.17) —I understand that it is important to get Supply Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 through the Senate, but I want to make a few short points because some criticism has been made of the speech last night by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Prime Minister said that what is required is that there be a reduction in the increases in people's wages below that which they would normally get if those wages were adjusted according to increases in the consumer price index. He said that there would be a 2.3 per cent increase as a result of the national wage case that is presently before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and that after that there would be nothing. I would have thought that that was a fairly severe burden to place on the ordinary citizens of this country. At times we all become ordinary citizens; we become very ordinary citizens when we go into a shop to buy groceries, when we try to send our children to school or perhaps to send them on a school excursion, when we go to buy some decent clothes or perhaps try to go away on a holiday. We are now being told that we cannot do that because any increased prices will stay increased but the wages we receive to pay for those things are going to stay the same. We are told that we have to reduce our standard of living. People quite plainly understand that. Senator Chaney, who studies these theories, is known here as a man of some compassion, but when he studies this theory he forgets the very people he should be serving-the wage earners, the people who try to keep themselves and their families alive and with some sort of decent standard of living. In his speech the Prime Minister called for a reduction in wages. He said that there will be only one national wage increase in 1986 to keep up with increased prices. Prices keep going up. Senator Chaney said that the Government is not taking any real action. The fact that a person's salary has lost its buying power, the fact that a person might have to withdraw his children from certain schools, the fact that a person might not be able to go on some minor outing-to the pictures or some show, to meet some friends and have a few beers-is not good enough as far as Senator Chaney is concerned; there have to be further reductions. Senator Chaney has said that there is no real action on wages, that nothing is being done by the Government about the wage burden which is part of the problem of Australian industry. What Senator Chaney is really saying is that in this equation of employer and employee, industry and the people who work in it, there is only one factor to take into account and that is the people who he says create the jobs-as if it is a privilege to have the job that one is given. Is that the way to get over the economic, social and cultural burdens that are falling on this country? Is it not only proper that all elements-employers, employees and those who are unfortunate enough to be disadvantaged-should share the burden equally? Why does the Opposition criticise a Prime Minister who calls for wage cuts? Why does it say that those wage cuts should be even greater, even more draconian and even more onerous than those cuts which the Prime Minister has called for? The Opposition supports a situation where the greatest burden of external debt is contracted by private enterprise. Let us hope that that debt is being used to produce jobs. That is what has been happening under this Government and let us hope that it continues. But the Opposition, instead of looking to see how the burden can be more equitably distributed overall, says that there is one solution, and one only, to the problems of this nation, and that is the reduction of wages. The Opposition also envisages the cutting down of social services that this Government and hopefully other governments may provide. Why does the Opposition want to throw the burden on the person who is least able to bear it-the person who will not be able to send his or her children to the school he or she wants or to buy decent food and clothing? The Opposition would rather load up the wealth of this country into one sector and one sector only. Why is it that the burden should be so unjustly cast upon those who are least able to bear it? I do not wish to say anything beyond that. I shall now resume my seat in the hope that I shall hear the answer to that question. Senator PARER(Queensland)(10.22) —We are debating Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2). I shall be pleased at the end of my address to give Senator Cooney a few practical proposals he might like to take back to the man who pretends he is the Prime Minister of Australia. Let us look at the disastrous state of the Australian economy-an economy which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) described as a banana republic. It is a terminal problem which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred to in his pathetic address to the nation as a `challenge'. Let us examine some of the statistical factors-for example, the dollar. Our dollar has collapsed in just 12 months under this phoney little ex-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, reminiscent of his sortie into Bourke's stores and ACTU-Solo. Senator Collard —He was into travel, too, wasn't he? Senator PARER —Yes, I think he was into travel. Let us look at some of the comparative currencies. In Japan in just 12 months our dollar has dropped from 204 yen to 114.25 yen, a drop of 44 per cent. In the United Kingdom the dollar has dropped from 64p to 54p, the lowest level against the pound sterling in 10 years. Our dollar has dropped against the West German Deutsche mark from 2.40 to 1.52, a drop of 36 per cent, and against the Swiss franc from 2.00 to 1.25, a drop of 37 per cent. That is how far, even after the initial devaluation, that our standard of living has slipped in just 12 short months. Let us look at the balance of payments. Australia is headed for a $14 billion current account deficit for 1985-86-well over the $10.7 billion in the Treasurer's Budget predictions. I turn to our foreign debt. The extraordinary and frightening overseas debt was not even mentioned in the Prime Minister's address to the nation. In March 1983 the gross foreign debt stood at $33 billion. Confidential Treasury forecasts indicate that by June 1987 the gross external debt could stand at $100 billion. Since the Hawke Government came to power, the debt will have increased by around 300 per cent, which is $17,500 for every taxpayer and $6,300 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Every newborn baby has an IOU around its neck inscribed: `I owe $6,500'. Let us look at interest rates. We have the highest real interest rates in 50 years. Comparative bond rates in February 1986 were: Australia 13.7 per cent, Japan 5.2 per cent, United States 9.1 per cent and West Germany 6.2 per cent. Another statistic which we should consider is that of inflation rates. Australia's inflation rate is increasing while those of our major trading partners are decreasing. The latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates show that Australia's inflation rate is 9.2 per cent. Among the seven major industrial economies, the United States has an inflation rate of 1.6 per cent. In the 12 months to April, Japan had an inflation rate of 0.9 per cent, France 2.6 per cent, Britain 3 per cent and West Germany 0.2 per cent. These and any other statistics that we may care to use show what the Government and its political controllers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, have done to our once great country in just three years. Once again we saw the people of Australia conned by charismatic little figures and once again we will see the people of Australia throw them out. Australia's position is very grave indeed. Everyone knows that the cause of the problem is the experimenting in this country yet again with socialist ideology and more importantly, the disaster of a totally inflexible wages policy embodied in the accord. The accord may have reduced the level of industrial disputation. But at what price! The political control exercised by the unelected ACTU has brought Australia to its knees in just over three years. These are the facts that the Prime Minister did not bring to the attention of the Australian people in his address to the nation. He did not tell the people that as President of the ACTU in a short period of prosperity he presided over and instigated industrial disputations to force wages and conditions which have inevitably brought this country into an economic mess. Why did he not have the intestinal fortitude to state plainly what people know? Why did he not say that under the accord consumer price index-adjusted wages guarantee that our inflation rate will continue to outstrip those of the rest of the world? Why did he not say that the number of holidays we give ourselves is totally out of kilter with the rest of the world? Why did he not say that our sick leave, holiday loadings, penalty rates and long service leave conditions are major contributors to our lack of competitiveness in both export and import replacement businesses? Why did he not say honestly and bluntly that these were the factors which have created our unacceptable unemployment rate? The Prime Minister's address to the nation was nothing more than patronising rhetoric which will gain the applause only of his Manchu court. With all the hype surrounding the address to the nation, Australia expected and deserved something better. Australia expected leadership. We heard an address which, if given by any other leader in any other country in the world, we would have ridiculed. It is embarrassing to Australia and Australians. The Prime Minister has made himself-and therefore unfortunately us-the laughing stock of the whole world. What are the Prime Minister's solutions? First, he asks all Australians to work harder. What a joke! This Government, with its negative gearing, capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax on the productive sector of the economy, has taken away every single incentive for initiative and investment. The excuse has been to extract more tax from a few tall poppies who have evaded tax. The effect has been to destroy all incentive. Yet the Prime Minister says: `Work harder'. The phoney accord mark 2 productivity superannuation deal will be phased in over two years. This was always the stated aim of the Government. Our country is in the mess it is in today because of the political control exercised over it by the ACTU. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator PARER(Queensland) —Not satisfied with the control exercised by the ACTU, the Government, through union controlled superannuation, is hell bent in handing over financial control so that the militant unions associated with the ACTU can take control of key industries. The Prime Minister has also suggested that the activities of the Prices Surveillance Authority should be increased. This is a totally expected motherhood approach. The shelves of our supermarkets are full of competitive goods and comparative goods that are over priced and will not be bought. We do not need more public servants to prove that in a competitive situation the law of supply and demand does work. The unemployed will be paid the dole for work they might carry out on community projects. However, this work will be voluntary. The Prime Minister will, no doubt, be surprised at the lack of response that this so called incentive will engender. In a folksy sort of way, he refers to our stars in various fields. No one would disagree with the excellence of these people. We have always had outstanding people but never in our history has this country been dragged into such a crisis by a government. We thought the Whitlam Government was bad. It pales into insignificance compared with the damage done by the Hawke Government. The rigidity of the centralised wage fixing system was not addressed. The Prime Minister and the Government did not have the courage to subject the labour market to the discipline of deregulation. The only solution to our problems is the expansion of existing, and the developing of new, growth sectors. This simply cannot happen while the rigid wage fixing system stays in place. Hanging on to conditions which were bludgeoned on employers in affluent times is akin to promoting the horse and buggy when the motor car was introduced. While this Government is in power, because it is the political arm of the ACTU, the real problems will not and cannot be addressed. Senator Grimes —Mr President, I take a point of order on two matters. One is the official point of order, and that is the matter about reading speeches in the Senate. The second is an unofficial point of order about agreements in respect of the length of speeches. I think, really, when an honourable senator speaks for 120 per cent beyond what was agreed, and he reads his speech as well, it is very difficult for those of us on this side of the Senate to tolerate what is happening. The PRESIDENT —Order! I assume Senator Parer is reading from copious notes. In regard to the second point of order, the Chair cannot be cognisant of the agreements that might have been entered into between various parties. Therefore, there is no point of order. However, I draw Senator Parer's attention to the remarks made by the Minister. Senator PARER —Thank you, Mr President. The notes that I have in front of me-they are all over the place-are indeed copious. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, is at last perceived to be a man of straw. All Australians were looking for a clear commitment on wages and fiscal policy. As all commentators have said, the speech failed on both counts and is nothing more than very poor window dressing. Senator Cooney requested that we give some indication as to what the solution would be. I am happy to give that gratuitous advice. Solutions to the problems would be, firstly, to abandon the phoney 3 per cent productivity increase and, secondly, to introduce a 12-month wage freeze. This Government, in its first 12 months, cruised along on the effects of the Fraser Government's wage freeze. Senator Grimes —Mr President, I take a point of order. I am sorry that it is very difficult to get the message through to Senator Parer, but I point out that honourable senators on this side of the chamber kept to the agreement, and Senator Parer has ignored even the relatively subtle remarks you made. If he could actually exclude a few paragraphs, cut out a few commas and do what we are supposed to do in this place and actually make speeches without reading notes, perhaps this debate could be finished at a reasonable hour. The PRESIDENT —I draw Senator Parer's attention to standing order 406 and ask that he make sure that his notes are not as copious as they might appear to be. Senator PARER —Thank you, Mr President. I was concluding. I think the time I have taken is a lot shorter than that taken by most other speakers. People are looking for solutions, because the Prime Minister certainly did not give any in his address to the nation. I had got to the stage of talking about introducing a 12-month wage freeze. This Government cruised along on the Fraser Government's wage freeze for its first 12 months. We should simplify the tax system and remove the fringe benefits and capital gains taxes so that we can give more initiative and incentive to the people who create the wealth. We should ban penalty rates for any work of less than 38 hours. The Prime Minister, in his address, has probably signalled the end of his Government. Politically, the effect of his address has been akin to a duck declaring open season on ducks. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.37) —The Senate is considering Supply Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87, which give the Government money for the next five months. Because of the peculiar way in which a government runs its affairs, its Budget-the public servants' Budget, I suppose-is not introduced until August and is not normally passed until the end of October. Therefore, we give the government a five-month advance. This brings up the whole direction of a government's spending policy and its economic policy. The address last night by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is central to that. The Prime Minister's speech last night was a double disaster-an immediate one for the country and one for him too. He was trying to sound like Winston Churchill, who said: . . . We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds . . . we shall never surrender. Unfortunately, he came over like Neville Chamberlain, coming back from Munich, having done a sordid deal, waving a piece of paper called `Peace for our time'. The Prime Minister is still waving an equally disastrous piece of paper called the prices and incomes accord, and he is also claiming that it will bring us peace for our time and economic prosperity. It was said by Tacitus that the barbarians created a wilderness and called it peace. This Government has created an industrial desert and called it an accord. In economic terms we are heading into the desert, under this disastrous Prime Minister. Prime Minister Hawke is absolutely incapable of leadership. If he had been in Winston Churchill's position, his rallying cry would have been: `I will set up a committee, aah, to investigate the problem in respect of whether we shall fight on the beaches or the landing grounds, and I will study its report when it comes in six months time. With respect to, aah, surrender, that will be an option, but it will be voluntary, and only if clear community attitudes prevail will we make it compulsory'. This man is incapable of giving the leadership that we desperately need. The problem is that he does not recognise the problem, which would be the first step in solving it. He does not seem to realise that the reason we recovered from the 1982 recession was nothing to do with him; it was because of the wage freeze which the Fraser Government had the guts to impose, the breaking of the worst drought in our history and the upsurge in the world economy. It had nothing to do with the Prime Minister at all; it was mere coincidence. What does Mr Hawke say now? We have a real problem, with our wages costs pricing us out of markets. What he says is: `There will be no freeze now. You will have your 2.3 per cent increase'. For a country trading with the rest of the world at a cost of $1,000m a month to grant itself a wage freeze sounds absolute lunacy. He says: `You may have your 2.3 per cent increase now but you will not get another one for six months'-the people did not expect another one for six months anyway-`and you will also have your so-called productivity increase'. Any rational country faced with our problems would surely have used the productivity increase to make itself more competitive on world markets. Do we make ourselves more competitive? Oh, no, we whack it up among the employees. The three disastrous years of the Hawke Government have been years in which the swarming locusts have eaten. Mr Hawke talks glibly about 700,000 new jobs having been created. Where have they been created? They have certainly not been created in new export industries. The downward trend in the value of our traditional exports has been apparent for several years. It is not a new thing-the Opposition has been warning about it for several years-but, instead of encouraging new export industries and import replacing industries, for three years this Government has been promoting a milk bar economy and wasting $40 billion in overseas loans and credits in doing so. Imagine what a country such as Singapore or South Korea would have done with the $40,000m this country has encouraged to be frittered away. Three years of Hawke Labor Government have trebled the overseas debt, built up in the previous 80 years, without doing anything to improve our export earnings. What we need in our current economic crisis is leadership to tackle our problems. We need another wage freeze, such as the one the Fraser Government introduced. Singapore, whose economic situation is much less serious than ours, has a two-year wage freeze. This Government is incapable of even contemplating that. We also need to tackle all the industrial rorts that make the on-costs business has to pay over and above wages the highest in the world. We have a 17 1/2 per cent holiday pay loading. That is all right if a country is rich, but this country is not rich any more. An on-cost of 17 1/2 per cent is absurd. Workers compensation has increased by 20 per cent this year in New South Wales. In addition there are penalty rates. Sick leave is another rort. So the list goes on. We need to go back to a 40-hour week. Most of the people in the countries with which we compete on world markets work longer than 40 hours a week. We must become competitive. We must get our inflation rate down. At the moment it is more than double the rate of our major trading partners, and the situation is getting worse. We need to improve the efficiency of our ports to reduce the costs of our vital exports. It is absurd that, using identical equipment, someone in Rotterdam can unload in a single day twice as many containers as someone working in an Australian port. It is a total rort and it is damaging-- Senator Watson —What about coastal shipping? Senator HAMER —I would hate to get on to the subject of coastal shipping. I am talking about exports now. The whole structure is very damaging, and none of this has been tackled by this do-nothing Government. Perhaps most important of all, we must lower our interest rates to encourage productive investment. The world does not owe us a good living. If we do not work for it, we will not have one. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have been talking absolute nonsense about the internal economy going well. They say that it is only the external economy that is going badly. That is like a family whose breadwinner has lost his job and then gets another job which pays substantially less, yet the family goes on living as before, relying on borrowed money to do it and saying cheerfully: `Our internal economy is going well'. Perhaps it does go well until the bills start coming in. The bills for this Government are coming in now. Historically, the term of a Labor Government, before it reduces the country to economic chaos, is about three years. We have had Scullin, Whitlam and now Hawke. What we need is a leader who can inspire us to earn our place in the world, who is not simply a lowest common denominator manipulator. The time has now passed when we can afford any longer the disorderly rabble which is the Government-I was going to say led by Mr Hawke, but he is incapable of leadership. He has all the leadership potential of an attractively decorated but soggy blancmange. It is time that we were rid of the whole lot of them, because that is the prerequisite for economic recovery and the place in the world which our potential offers us. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(10.46) —What Australians saw and heard last night from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) I believe was nothing short of a disgrace and a gross understatement of the crisis that Australia is now facing. The Prime Minister simply called this crisis a challenge. Some three years later the Prime Minister is still trying to blame the previous Government for his own misdemeanours and the state of the nation today. Last night he even said repeatedly that he had inherited the inflation rate. All I can say to that is: What rot. The simple fact of the matter is that Australia's inflation rate has been rising for more than a year and it has risen in each of the past five quarters. Since the last election it has risen from 5.1 per cent to the current 9.2 per cent. Who is responsible for that-the previous Government or this Hawke socialist Government? It is absolutely this Government's responsibility and no one else's. Why is it that Australia's inflation rate is increasing while that of our major trading partners is decreasing? The latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development inflation estimates quite clearly show the dramatic differences, and I would just like to run through those differences. As I have already stated, Australia has a massive figure of 9.2 per cent. Senator Boswell —We can't live with inflation like that. Senator KNOWLES —Exactly; this country cannot afford such inflation, especially when we look at countries such as Japan with an inflation rate of 1.1 per cent, the United States of America with 2.3 per cent, West Germany with 0.1 per cent, France with 3 per cent, Italy with 7.7 per cent, the United Kingdom with 4.2 per cent, Canada with 4.1 per cent, the OECD average of 3.1 per cent and our major trading partners with an average of 2.9 per cent. I repeat: Australia's figure happens to be 9.2 per cent. Senator Short —And rising. Senator KNOWLES —And rising rapidly. It is almost triple that of the OECD average, more than triple that of our major trading partners, four times that of the United States of America and more than eight times that of our major trading partner, Japan-what a disgrace. Yet we get this Prime Minister boldly coming on television last night and saying that we are facing a little bit of a challenge. The fact of the matter is that Australia's relative inflation rate is three times the OECD average, and that simply is not good enough. That is the highest rate, the worst rate that we have seen in 25 years. It is disgraceful. This disastrous achievement has been attained in only three short years. Does it not make one really wonder exactly what will happen if this Government runs its full term and it is in office for another 18 months? The Prime Minister simply said that we must all buy more Australian products. I do not think too many Australians would disagree with the fact, but I wish it were as simple as that. Australia is just not competitive and it can never be competitive while our inflation rate is soaring at the rate that it is, while there is pressure on the Australian dollar such as we have, and also while our interest rates are where they are. Is it any wonder that Australia is not competitive? When one marries our inflation rate-quite frankly, I think the Government is trying to achieve an inflation rate which is like a football score-with the growth in average weekly earnings, the combination simply puts us further out of the competitive ball park. Like inflation, average weekly earnings have risen strongly over the past year-3.2 per cent over the year to May 1985 and 7.3 per cent over the year to February 1986. The most recent data available on earnings growth show the figure for Australia as 7.3 per cent; Japan, 4 per cent; the United States of America, 2.7 per cent; West Germany, 4.1 per cent; Canada, 4.4 per cent; and France, 6 per cent. I repeat: Australia's figure is 7.3 per cent. Like inflation, labour costs in Australia are increasing faster than those of our major trading partners. We are seeing at the moment the thin edge of the wedge. It is only child's play by comparison with what is further down this economic track of disaster. Under the accord labour costs are set to rise by at least 13 per cent in the next year. So much for the Prime Minister's sincerity in saying that he and his Government want restraint. They champion this wonderful accord. All the other anti-business and anti-investment taxation Bills that this Government has rammed through the House of Representatives and the Senate in this session can only deter employment and investment by business, thereby reducing the chances of lowering unemployment. The Prime Minister, I suppose, last night was at least partly honest when he said that the Federal Public Service had continued, inexorably, to grow in numbers under his Government. What has he done to stop that growth? Absolutely nothing. He mouthed those lovely words, similar to those that he uttered even before he became Prime Minister, that he would streamline and rationalise some existing functions and agencies. What does that mean? Senator Boswell —Rhetoric; just rhetoric. Senator KNOWLES —Exactly. It is rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. What will he do and how will he do it? Heaven knows. Anybody's guess is as good as mine. On his own admission he has done exactly the opposite; he has increased the size of the Public Service. The Prime Minister's statement that he wants Australians to show a readiness to work with great application and dedication would be wonderful, I suppose, if it were not quite so crude. He and the world's greatest Treasurer have managed very successfully to remove any motivation, any incentive that business could possibly have, that employers could possibly have, through the taxation system alone. That is a real pity for this country. This disaster that the Prime Minister calls simply `a challenge' must not be overlooked or downgraded in any way. Australia is in real and unadulterated strife, no matter how much the Prime Minister wants to play it down. Despite his rhetoric, this socialist Government is by any measure a big spending and enormous taxing Government. Tax revenue in real terms has increased at an annual rate of 5.4 per cent in the three years of Hawke socialism, compared with 3.3 per cent during the seven years of the Fraser Government. Tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product are budgeted to increase by 25 per cent in 1985-86-the highest increase in post-war history. Government expenditure in real terms increased by 4.8 per cent per year under Hawke, compared with only 2.1 per cent per year under Fraser. Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is budgeted to increase to 29.4 per cent in 1985-86-also the highest figure in post-war history. If the Government were serious and determined to reduce government expenditure, why would it not bring down a mini-Budget in June, which would then allow any reductions or decreases to take place as at 1 July, in preference to 1 November, as will be the case when the Budget is brought down in August? Some drastic steps must be taken, and taken immediately, to stop the slide. I will go through a little shopping list of what that slide includes. Economic growth has slowed. Private business investment has ground down. Investment in housing has declined. Dwelling commencements or new starts have declined. New motor vehicle registrations have declined. The Australian dollar has not just declined; quite frankly, it has dropped right out of sight. The terms of trade have declined. Interest rates have soared. Levels of taxation have soared. Unemployment has risen in four of the past five months. The current unemployment rate is higher than for all but five of the 86 full months of the Fraser Government. Youth unemployment, that is the 15- to 19-year-olds, has risen steadily to 23 per cent, which is higher than it was when the infamous Priority One: Young Australia campaign started last year. The average duration of unemployment has risen. Inflation has risen. Trade balance of payments are in total disarray. Last month's seasonally adjusted merchandise trade deficit was the worst ever recorded. Australia's foreign debt has risen dramatically. Commonwealth public sector employment has risen by 5.9 per cent over 2 1/2 years. Imports have risen while exports have declined. There has been negative real growth in retail sales. Both receipts and outlays will run well above Budget estimates, in the order of $1 billion plus. How's that for a shopping list? This is a summary of the real story. This is the story that the Prime Minister should have told Australia last night. Instead, he said that we were simply facing a minor hiccup-not even indigestion-called a challenge. It was pathetic and nothing short of a disgrace. I hope that Australians realise that we need firm and positive action taken by the Government to ensure that Australia does not go further downhill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.57) —In closing the debate on the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 I must say that I gather that Senator Knowles was not very impressed by the speech last night by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I do not understand that. Traditionally the Supply Bills involve a series of debates in which honourable senators can say what they like about anything they like. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for a Minister to stand up and reply to everything that has been said. All I can say is that this debate has been a very good demonstration of the old statement-I cannot remember who said it because I have not had time to duck out to the library to look it up-that statistics in this place are frequently used like a drunk uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination. We have had plenty of that in the last several hours of the debate tonight. All I can say is that when I became a Minister three years ago this country had record inflation. We had had 250,000 people added to the unemployment list within two years. In the three years I have been in government we have had 650,000 people added to the employment list. Inflation is much better than it was in those days. I am not concerned about what the community thinks about this because the polls consistently have shown that we have maintained our position in the electorate. That may upset honourable senators opposite and may cause them considerable concern; but, so be it. They can stand up and speak on the Supply Bills. They can wax long and hard-- Senator McKiernan —And lyrical. Senator GRIMES —They can wax lyrical on the things that interest them. However, it is of no interest to the electorate. The electorate is interested only in what happens to the people who are working and the people who are being paid. That being so, I will say no more. Senator Archer has been holding up signs with `three minutes' and `five minutes', and all this sort of thing, written on them. However, we have heard honourable senators speaking for 20 minutes longer than they were supposed to speak tonight. I am a very kind person and a pacifist and I do not want to provoke anyone. Therefore, I will say that I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate. I will thank honourable senators for the fact that they are not opposing the legislation. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. Consideration resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.03) —On 11 March I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade (Senator Button) a question concerning the Creation Science Foundation Ltd. I asked the Minister whether this tax-exempt organisation had written off over $92,000 because of the failure of the company's investment agents and whether this organisation was in receipt of an export market development grant from the Government. I also asked whether the Treasurer (Mr Keating) would be reviewing the tax-exempt status of this body. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has provided me with an answer which essentially skirted around the issue by stating inter alia that the Government could not alter the criteria of the Export Market Development Grants Act and that if the firms of organisations fulfilled the criteria then a grant could not be denied on `moral grounds'. The Minister said that this did not necessarily mean that the Government endorsed the views of any or all claimants under the scheme. As a result of my temerity in raising this question, the Creation Science Foundation wrote to various honourable members and honourable senators, accusing me of being a `stooge' for the Australian Sceptics-a body for which I do have the highest regard-making threats to write to all of their alleged 12,000 readers to expose me as having misrepresented the truth. In order to put the record straight I wish to make certain further remarks this evening. The Creation Science Foundation Ltd was incorporated in 1980 in Queensland. According to the articles of association of the Foundation the members believe that: The Bible is the written Word of God. It is inspired and inerrant throughout and the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. Its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. They also believe that: The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life. This statement is perhaps the raison d'etre for the Foundation's existence as an organisation, and I have no criticisms to make of its beliefs. Essentially the Foundation asserts that the theory of evolution is invalid although it clearly does not understand the theory, and in particular the work of Maya, Eldredge, Gould and others on the theory of punctuated evolution, which explains the difficulties of so-called gaps in the fossil records of evolution. It holds that the truth surrounding the question of the beginning of life lies in the Old Testament. This truth, it believes, is scientifically demonstrated and most of its efforts are spent attempting to `prove' that the universe was created by God some 6,000 years ago, presumably using the calculations of Bishop Usher and others. The Queensland Government has accepted that creationist theory should be taught alongside evolutionary theory in the science syllabus in that State's secondary schools. There has been considerable debate about the wisdom of teaching such material when one must concede that creationism is not a scientific theory at all, but rather a theory which relies on one's faith in the truth of the Bible which, I suppose, would make it quite acceptable for the syllabus for religious studies. I am not concerned here tonight with the rights or wrongs of the creationist argument, but rather with the extraordinary activities of the Creation Science organisation, which has received taxpayers' money in the form of a $24,693 export grant and the tax exempt status under section 23e of the Income Tax Act Assessment Act which it enjoys. There are seven directors of the Creation Science Foundation. In fact, there are only seven members in the entire company. I assume its claims to being a broadly based organisation are founded on facts hitherto unknown to the general public. The directors of the Foundation as of April 1985 were Mr David Denner, a teacher; Mr Robert Gustafson, a solicitor; Mr Kenneth Ham, a missionary and full time employee of the company; Mr John Mackay, a teacher and full time employee; Dr Alfred Osgood, a medical practitioner; Professor Tyndale Rendle-Short, a medical practitioner and chairman of the company; and Mr John Thallon, accountant and company secretary and treasurer. In the annual accounts of the Creation Science Foundation for the year ended 31 March 1984 the Foundation wrote off some $47,939 occasioned by the failure, in August of that year, of Goldcom International Pty Ltd. Goldcom failed with a deficit of over $1m. Goldcom had invested a considerable amount of money in the now failed International Commodity Traders Associated of Australia, which closed its doors in July 1984. It is interesting to note that the Creation Science Foundation wrote off half of its investment in Goldcom International in its accounts before 31 March 1984, whereas Goldcom did not fail until August 1984. The date of the presentation of the annual accounts by the directors was 10 October 1984. Could it be that the directors decided post-31 March to write off the amount partly in that financial year and partly in the next financial year to reduce the impact in any one year? It seems that this is the case. Had the directors decided to write off the entire amount in the 1985 financial year the loss would have represented a very substantial proportion of the Foundation's net worth and, if it had not been for the export development grant of $24,693 in that year, may have represented all the equity in the company. The firm of accountants which prepared the Foundation's accounts for 1985 was C. L. Lunt and Associates of Perth, the principal of which, Colin Lunt, and his wife, are also the Western Australian representatives of the Creation Science Foundation. In 1984 the Creation Science Foundation reported an income of $293,457 and so the loss of $47,939 represented some 16 per cent of total revenue in that year. Donations made up $152,398 of the total income. The net surplus for that year after the write down was $160. In the next year's annual report-1985-the Foundation wrote off the sum of $44,424 due to the failure of its investment agents, Goldcom International. The total amount written off over the two years was $92,363. The surplus for 1985 was $1,359. The Creation Science Foundation is very sensitive to criticism of its handling of its investment funds. In the February 1986 edition of Prayer News, its fortnightly newsletter, it claims: The media has taken this thing out of context and distorted it in an attempt to discredit us. It then claims falsely: The money only included magazine subscriptions and did not include donations as reported by the media. If it were only magazine subscription money, which it was not, it would be bad enough as the accounts show that the surplus on the magazine after production costs was only $8,897 in 1984. According to its own annual accounts, the total income from magazine subscriptions in the year ended 31 March 1984 was $47,000. The amount written off in that year's accounts was $47,939. When one adds the $44,424 written off in the next year one can safely assume not only that magazine subscription money went down the gurgler with Goldcom International but also that at least some of the donations found their way into that shonky investment company. Some of the supporters of the Creation Science Foundation may be very interested to know what the seven directors of the organisation have been doing with the donations made by generous members of the public. A leading Australian evangelical journalist, Reverend John A. Coleman, who edits the magazine New Life, commented on the $92,000 loss by saying that such losses `will doubtless happen again'. It would appear that the directors of the Foundation have little expertise with investment of their company's funds and, whilst not legally responsible to their supporters, should morally be providing a full explanation as to why the money was so invested and why no steps were taken to check the credentials of Goldcom International before investing such large sums of money. I was interested to note in the director's report attached to the 1984 accounts that the Foundation had engaged Tralil Pty Ltd as a management consultant for the year 1 September 1984 to 30 June 1985. One of the directors of the Foundation, Mr John Andrew Thallon, declared at an executive committee meeting on 27 September 1984 that he was a director of Tralil Pty Ltd. The reason I mention this is because Tralil Pty Ltd also invested money with Goldcom International. In fact, Tralil lost $83,689.90 according to the list of unsecured creditors of Goldcom International attached as an annexure to the report of the affairs of the company dated 24 August 1984. It would appear on the face of it that the management and investment advice that the Foundation is receiving is hardly of a high professional standard. I would like now to turn to the question of the $23,696 export market development grant which was made to the Foundation in 1985. According to the President of the Creation Science Association Incorporated of South Australia, Dr C. Wieland: Two of their people- that is Creation Science Foundation people- went to the United States to promote the sales of that book. The book is B. Setterfield's The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe. It would seem that the Government is handing out money willy nilly so that authors of pseudo-scientific tracts can go on junkets to the United States in order to sell their published works. It is bad enough that this organisation is able to receive taxpayer funds, but it has also acquired tax-exempt status under section 23 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I find it quite incredible that the Government can justify giving grants to organisations that have a penchant for investments in fly-by-night commodity trading enterprises and who send their members off to the United States to sell their books. Is it common practice for the Export Market Development Board to make grants to authors for the sole purpose of promoting their books overseas? I believe that the Treasurer ought to ask the Australian Taxation Office to investigate the tax exemption status of this company and I believe that the Minister for Trade ought to investigate the terms upon which export market development grants are made. There must, I believe, be no repetition of this scandalous waste of public money, especially at this time of restraint and when maximum effort must be put into encouraging our genuinely productive export industries. No doubt this Foundation will attempt to make further threats against me for exposing them for what they are. I have neither worry nor fear of this because the truth about the Creation Science Foundation speaks eloquently enough for itself. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(11.14) —I want to spend only a few brief moments tonight talking about three matters-the fringe benefits tax, advertising and inflation. The advertising I am talking about is a series of full page advertisements that appeared in the West Australian over the last two weeks. The fringe benefits tax was the subject of those advertisements, and the inflation is related to the figures in the polls, the results of which were in the advertisements. The first full page advertisement was headed `Mr Hawke There's Nothing Left to Take!!' and appeared on Tuesday, 27 May 1986 and was repeated on Thursday, 29 May. It called for, among other things, the readership of the West Australian newspaper to telephone the Western Australian Labor senators at their offices complaining about the tax and asking for it to be stopped. My office in Perth received 15 calls resulting from those two full page advertisements over two days. Two of those 15 calls were actually in favour of the Government's action on the fringe benefits tax. On Thursday, 29 May, the day on which the second Liberal Party advertisement appeared, another full page advertisement, headed `Say ``no'' to Paul Keating's Fringe Benefits Tax', was inserted by the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Small Business Association of Western Australia. Again, they were calling on people to make telephone calls, except that on this occasion the calls were to be made to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Perth. The next day, Friday, 30 May, it was reported in an article on page 11 of the West Australian that a spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce and Industry had indicated that the Chamber had received 600 phone calls in response to that advertisement. I remind the Senate that, in response to two full page advertisements, 15 phone calls were received, two in opposition to what had been requested. Yet we are supposed to believe that 600 responses were received from one full page advertisement. Today, 12 June, another full page advertisement appeared. This one, headed `Labor's formula for Australia's disaster', again inserted by the Western Australian Liberal party, calls on people to telephone the Western Australian Labor Senators, at the phone numbers provided to register opposition to the fringe benefits tax. Late this afternoon I had my office in Perth check with the other Western Australian senators to see what the response to the advertisement was. Those statistics make very interesting reading. Senator McIntosh's office received six calls, four supporting the Liberal advertisement and two supporting the Government line. Senator Cook's office received four calls in support of the Liberal advertisement and one in opposition to it. Senator Coleman's office received five calls in favour of the advertisement and one against it. Senator Giles's office received five calls supporting the advertisement and my own office received three in support of the advertisement and one supporting the Government line. I have not added up the calls to get a total, and I am not going to because we are running out of time. It would appear to me that two things need to be questioned here. Either the report given by the spokesperson for the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Western Australia which indicated that the Chamber received 600 phone calls in response to its one advertisement was a gross inflation of the facts or the electorate in Perth, which was so sensible in February of this year, was completely turned off the photograph of the Liberal leader which appeared in all three advertisements. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.18) —Already this evening Senator Grimes has referred to the uses people make of statistics. I would like to take that matter a little further. For the last two days in the Senate at Question Time the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has made allegations about so-called Tasmanian feather bedding and claimed that Tasmania has been treated too generously in the past. Senator Walsh either revealed his ignorance of the practices of the Commonwealth Grants Commission or, alternatively, deliberately misled the Senate when he claimed that the Grants Commission had recommended that Tasmania should have its payments reduced by $60m in one hit. The true situation is that the Commonwealth Grants Commission does not recommend the amount of money that should be received by any State. It merely recommends the proportion of the funds made available by the Government that should be distributed to each State. In Tasmania's case, in 1984-85 the proportion recommended was 38.5 per cent per capita more than the six-State average. In 1985-86, as I stated in my question yesterday, it was 37.6 per cent. It was up to the Government to decide on the distribution of funds in the pool. It was the Government, therefore, which decided that Tasmania's funding should be cut by $60m. The Government cannot hide behind the skirts of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Senator Walsh gleefully claimed that Tasmania received nearly 50 per cent more than did the other States. He surely cannot be as ignorant as his answer would suggest. That 50 per cent included the amount which the Government gave back to Tasmania to allow an adjustment period for our small and vulnerable economy. It also included sums for special revenue assistance to enable Tasmanian hospitals to adjust to a new hospital agreement. As Senator Walsh must be aware-if he is not aware he should resign as Minister for Finance-other States, for example South Australia, also received more than the formula when their special revenue assistance grants were added to the financial assistance grants formula. We in the Senate are only too well aware of the selective use of figures to which this Minister for Finance is prone. Apparently, however, it still comes as a shock to some of his Australian Labor Party colleagues. ALP National Executive member Alan Evans is quoted in both today's Mercury and Examiner as saying that Senator Walsh had used only those figures which suited his argument. Mr Evans said that Senator Walsh should get his facts straight before condemning public sector spending in Tasmania. The Senate will recall that on Wednesday, in response to a dorothy dixer from Senator Sibraa, the Minister for Finance claimed that 28.3 per cent of the Tasmanian work force-- Senator Grimes —Mr President, I take a point of order. I would not raise this point of order in any other circumstances, but we are now on the adjournment debate and we have a rule in the Senate that honourable senators should not read their speeches. Senator Newman is quite clearly reading her speech. I do not care what happens under normal circumstances, I do not argue about it, but this is the adjournment debate. Surely Senator Newman, who is a lawyer and an articulate person, can make a speech without standing up and drearily reading her speech in the way she is doing tonight. The PRESIDENT —I draw Senator Newman's attention to standing order 406, which clearly states: No Senator shall read his- or her- speech. I ask Senator Newman to stick to her copious notes and heed the point of order. Senator NEWMAN —Of course, as a new senator, I am not so up to date with the Standing Orders as the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), but I trust that he will not mind if I take longer by not speaking from my notes at all. Senator Grimes —I do not care how long you take. It does not worry me at all. Senator NEWMAN —Good. I did get the impression that the Minister did not like the body of my speech. Senator Grimes —I have no worries about that. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will address the chair. Senator NEWMAN —I am sorry, Mr President. Senator Grimes —I just want you to lift your eyes occasionally, that is all. Senator NEWMAN —The Minister obviously wants to look into my eyes. I would like to make a date with him afterwards if that is what he is on to. At the moment I am much more concerned about a serious matter concerning the affairs of Tasmania. If Senator Grimes would like to shout me down again, he might remember from last time that I can do a much better job of shouting him down than he can of shouting me down. So I think he is wasting his effort. The people of Tasmania are only too well aware of how little effort he has been making for Tasmania in this matter. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that it has been an ALP National Executive member Mr Alan Evans who has been getting stuck into the Minister for Finance. In response to a question from Senator Sibraa the other day, the Minister for Finance claimed that 28.3 per cent of the Tasmanian work force was employed by the State Government, compared with 20 per cent in New South Wales. Senator Walsh is inclined to use figures carelessly, as we are all well aware. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that that 28.3 per cent included not just the State public servants but the Commonwealth public servants and local government employees in Tasmania. So much for the Minister for Finance. Senator Watson —He is misleading the Senate. Senator NEWMAN —Misleading the Senate, indeed. He should resign. Mr Evans considers that his comments were almost unforgivable. Mr Evans said: He's quite simply misquoted the facts. I think it could be a softening up process before the Premiers' Conference. Mr Evans drew attention to the fact that Tasmania is an exporting State and that it subsidises New South Wales manufacturing industries by approximately $6,000 per person. Senator Watson —And Victoria. Senator NEWMAN —And Victoria, of course. I thank Senator Watson. He consciously did not mention that, said Mr Evans, and I remind the Senate that Mr Evans is a member of the Australian Labor Party National Executive. Senator Watson —What did Mr Batt say? Senator NEWMAN —Yes; what did Mr Batt say? Those critics in Tasmania cannot be stopped. They are friends of Senator Walsh. The former national ALP leader, Mr Batt, now the leader of the State Opposition, in case Senator Grimes was not aware of the fact-he has not been home for a while so he may not realise what is happening in Tasmania-went into bat for the State, even if Senator Grimes cannot. One might say he is trying to become a member of the Premier's eleven. Today he was also reported in the Mercury and the Examiner as saying that Senator Walsh's comments are particularly unhelpful. In fact, Mr Batt sent a telex to the Minister for Finance telling him to act in a more responsible manner. Senator Watson —He did not table that today. Senator NEWMAN —No, he did not. He was told to act in a more responsible manner in the future and to have regard for the legitimate concerns of the smaller States. Mr Batt went on to describe Senator Walsh's comments on the level of funding to Tasmania as irresponsible and ill informed. I draw the attention of the Senate to these facts because it is not very often that Mr Batt and I see eye to eye. But in this matter we are in possession of the real facts and the Minister for Finance has no excuse as he should be in possession of the facts. Senator Walters —He did not have the decency to turn up tonight, even though you asked him to. Senator NEWMAN —I thank Senator Walters for pointing out that Senator Walsh cannot even be bothered to listen to the problems facing Tasmania. Senator Aulich —This is like a song and dance act. Senator NEWMAN —I am glad Senator Aulich is listening. He might learn something too. I draw attention to the fact that the Premier, Mr Gray, commissioned a special report on the Tasmanian economy by Mr John Donovan from Coopers and Lybrand. Mr President, I was goaded into this, if you recall, by the Minister. Senator Grimes —I have not said anything. Senator NEWMAN —Senator Grimes is listening carefully then. I trust that he has also read the Donovan report on the Tasmanian economy. Senator Grimes —I did. Senator NEWMAN —I hope Senator Grimes sees the seriousness of the situation to which his government has subjected our State. The Premier of Tasmania has drawn this report to the attention of business leaders and trade union leaders in our State. He has also drawn it to the attention of the Federal Government. It is these matters which are being taken into account by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in assessing our needs. In order to help Senator Walsh understand better the workings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, I refer to the 1981 report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in which the role of the Commission is clearly set out so even Senator Walsh can understand it. I ask leave to incorporate this rather than take any further time of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Grimes —No, leave is not granted. The honourable senator did not do what most senators in this place do, and this is pay the common courtesy of asking us to have a look at it. I know that she is a new senator but she has had an opportunity to do that in the past and she has not done so. The PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator NEWMAN —I claim to have been misrepresented. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator sought leave to incorporate a document in Hansard. Senator Grimes —If she is asking to incorporate a paragraph, that is fair enough, but she asked to incorporate a document. If it is only a paragraph, I accept that. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I am happy to read it into the Hansard if the Minister would prefer that. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Newman, what do you seek leave to incorporate into Hansard? Senator NEWMAN —I seek leave, as I previously asked the Minister courteously, to incorporate a marked passage on a page of the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Leave granted. The paragraph read as follows- 8.44 The Commission wishes to add that the question whether its assessments are to be adopted, and if so the manner and timing of the implementation of assessments, appear to it to be essentially political matters for decision by the Commonwealth after consultation with the States. The same may be said of a number of associated questions which were adverted to during the course of the inquiry but were not seriously addressed because they were the Commission's terms of reference. These included proposals such as: increasing the total tax sharing entitlements of the States so as to ensure that no State would receive less in money terms than under the previous relativities; providing a guarantee similar to that given in 1976 that no State would receive less in ensuing years than in the year prior to the new factors being adopted; giving interim relief to States which would be disadvantaged by the new factors or allowing them some prescribed means to seek supplementary grants for special financial assistance; phasing in the operation of the new factors over a period of time in anticipation of further reviews; or providing for a continuing examination of the matters which influenced the new factors. Senator NEWMAN —Thank you, Mr President. I am not wishing to take the time of the Senate unnecessarily tonight but in view of the interruptions by the Minister and by some of his colleagues I do not intend to be pushed into making my speech shorter than I had originally intended as this is a matter of great concern to my State. Senator Walsh had misrepresented the purpose of the Tasmanian Premier, who has not been asking Canberra for more. He has been asking Canberra to honour agreements-to be phased in as adjustments and agreements as to a 2 per cent real increase in Commonwealth funds for each State. The States' budgeting plans have been made on the basis of these agreements. Senator Walsh used figures in the Senate in answer to Senator Sibraa which were misleading and irrelevant to the question of equity among the States. He said that Tasmania receives $2,034 per head and that this was $660 more per head than the six-State average. He neglected to mention that the Northern Territory receives $6,456 per head. Those figures conceal the important fact that Tasmania's needs have been assessed with those of all the other States and found to require an additional 37.6 per cent per capita of Commonwealth assistance compared with the average of all six States. We in Tasmania are tired of being the butt of savagery from this Government. Ten years ago-- Senator Crowley —Brace yourself. Senator NEWMAN —Senator Crowley should listen very carefully. Senator Crowley —We are all ears. Senator NEWMAN —Good; I am glad to have the audience. Ten years ago Sir Bede Callaghan was commissioned by the Federal Government to inquire into special problems of Tasmania relating to its economy, industry and employment and to make recommendations. Senator Cook —I raise a point of order, Mr President. My point of order is that the senator is reading her speech. She just turned over the page which was visible from this side of the chamber-I saw the honourable senator turn over the page as she read down it. It is clear from the way she is presenting her speech and the way in which she is reading it from the desk top that it is a read document and therefore is against Standing Orders. I suggest that the honourable senator speak to the subject but not read her speech. Senator Collard —I rise on the point of order. Mr President, as well you know, it is late at night and we are getting a little thingy on both sides. I am one of those who in general principle agrees with Senator Grimes that the sooner we get back to speeches that are not completely read the better. However, in this instance we have an Opposition senator who is quoting people who have said things in her home State. She is quoting a lot of figures about her home State. It is obvious that she would have to have those quotes and figures written down on a piece of paper for her to do justice and so that she would not misquote what other people have said or misquote figures. Senator Grimes —I would like to speak on the point of order. I can understand Senator Cook's problem, but the good Senator Newman is incapable of making her speech unless she reads it in the way she has. She is making remarks about people in this chamber, and she has to be careful about it because she has received those remarks from information she has received in the past from her spouse. I think we do have to put up with this, if we are to have to put up with this person-- Senator Walters —On a point of order-- Senator Grimes —Sit down. I am speaking to my point of order, you stupid twit. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, I am in charge of the proceedings and I would ask you not to speak to honourable senators like that. Senator Grimes is taking a point of order and I would ask Senator Walters to resume her seat. Senator Grimes —Therefore, I say that it is very late at night, let the good senator do what she will. She will make her reputation on what she does in this place. Why should we argue about it? Why should we be concerned whether she reads it or not? Therefore, I ask you, senator, to ignore the matter. Senator Walters —I wish to speak on the point of order-- Senator Grimes —Sit down, you drunk. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask the honourable senator to withdraw that remark. Senator Grimes —I withdraw. Senator Walters —I seek leave to make a personal explanation on Senator Grimes's last comment. Senator Grimes —No. The PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator Walters —I claim to have been misrepresented. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the honourable senator might seek leave to speak after Senator Newman has concluded her remarks. The honourable senator cannot claim to have been misrepresented when she has not spoken in the debate at this stage. Senator Walters —Even on interjections? The PRESIDENT —That is so. Senator Watson —I wish to speak on the point of order. Obviously Senator Newman's comments have cut the Labor Party to the quick. Labor members seem to be taking a mean, retaliatory measure in view of the fact that Senator Newman is a new senator. I would stress the point that she has relied on copious notes, she has quoted extensively from the Grants Commission report, and she has quoted a number of statistics. In those circumstances it is necessary to quote accurately, otherwise these people would come back and claim that Senator Newman had misrepresented their position. I believe that she has represented their position quite accurately. There is no point of order. Senator Newman has had copious notes. I believe that she is doing a first class job and that she has severely embarrassed members of the Australian Labor Party. The PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes has already taken the same point of order. I drew Senator Newman's attention to standing order 406 at that time and I asked her to ensure that she referred only to copious notes. I draw the honourable senator's attention to my earlier ruling. Senator NEWMAN —I am referring to my copious notes, but even they have to be turned. I draw attention also to the fact that the Callaghan inquiry was initiated 10 years ago by the Fraser Government. That inquiry introduced tremendous changes for Tasmania, based on an orderly review of its problems. During that review facts were obtained and there was co-operation between the State Labor and Federal Liberal governments-something which seems to be very difficult to arrive at these days when the positions are reversed. The program introduced under the Callaghan report was introduced under the supervision of senior officials of both the State and Federal governments and a Federal Minister was appointed to oversee the implementation of the Callaghan report. Eight years down the track those recommendations were gradually being finished. We are now at a stage where the Tasmanian economy is once again very vulnerable, due to a Labor government for the second time, and we need an updating of the Callaghan inquiry. I call on the Federal Government to stop acting in this manner which is prejudicial to Tasmania, to get together with the State Government and introduce a review of the Callaghan inquiry so that decisions can be made for the Tasmanian economy which are based, not on prejudice and bias as we have seen from Ministers in this House, but on proper, impartial observations of the social as well as the financial situation in Tasmania. Tasmanians have already suffered a cut of $20m last year and we recognise the fact that Australians everywhere will have to make sacrifices in the nation's good. But we do not consider that Tasmanians should pay a double penalty to get this Government out of its strife. We have already pulled our belts in a notch; we do not want to pull them in too much more. Although we are a hard working and a proud people, we expect to get a fair go and we have not had it from this Government. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.39) —The arrogance of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), his disgusting behaviour, and his denigration of both Senator Newman and her husband are a disgrace to this Senate. His behaviour in the Senate has always been a disgrace. He commented that I was drunk. Mr President, you asked him to withdraw that remark. I take grave exception to that comment. Senator Grimes —Hic! Senator WALTERS —Judging by the Minister's comment now, I can only take it for granted that he has been attending a last night party. I have not been consuming alcohol at all, and anyone who knows me back home or up here would vouch for that. There is no doubt that the Minister will sink to any depths at all in this place in attacking anyone on this side of the Senate. He has lost control of himself completely. He cannot take the stress that his Government has suddenly come under. It is he who cannot stand the heat in the kitchen, to use a great saying of his. The Minister should try to pull himself together because he is a disgrace to his Party as well as to the Senate. He is a disgrace to the-- Senator Crowley —Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator WALTERS —To the country. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator WALTERS —He is a disgrace as a Minister of the Crown. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes —Let it ride. Senator Crowley —I know that the Minister says: `Let it ride'. However, I must say that I take exception to the many number of times that the honourable senator has called the Minister `disgraceful'. I think that is most unacceptable in this chamber. Senator Grimes —I am not concerned about it. Senator Crowley —I am, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw the remark that the Minister is a disgrace to the Senate. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I do not feel like withdrawing that comment that the Minister is a disgrace to the Senate because I believe he is a disgrace to the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask the honourable senator to withdraw her remark that the Minister is a disgrace to the Senate. Senator WALTERS —I am afraid I cannot do that, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! I name-- Senator Grimes —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes will resume his seat. I have asked Senator Walters to withdraw a remark. Senator Walters on two occasions has refused to withdraw. I name Senator Walters. Senator Watson —Mr President, can I speak- The PRESIDENT —Order! There shall be no debate on the matter. I have asked Senator Walters to withdraw a remark. She has declined to do so on two occasions. Therefore, I have no alternative but to name Senator Walters, which I have done. In accordance with standing order 440, I call upon Senator Walters to make any explanation or apology she may think fit. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr President, I am afraid I cannot withdraw at all that I believe that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) is a disgrace to the Senate. I honestly believe that his remarks tonight and his remarks on previous occasions in this place do make him a disgrace to this Senate. I believe that people who have listened on previous occasions-I am not referring to tonight-would support the fact that he is a disgrace. He is a Minister of the Crown and, as such, he is expected to gather unto himself respect from the people of Australia. He does not do that. He succeeds only in disgracing the Senate. Mr President, under those circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot withdraw from something I so firmly believe in. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement on the matter raised by Senator Walters. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —In the 12 years I have been a member of this chamber I have never ever asked anyone to withdraw any statement made about me, and that includes statements made by Senator Walters. I believe that this place is the centre of democracy in this country in which people sometimes make statements in the heat of the moment that they may regret later. I have apologised for making statements in this place but I have never asked anyone to withdraw something that has been said about me-never ever. I am sorry about the situation that has arisen tonight. Had I had the opportunity I would have asked that Senator Walters not be asked to withdraw her statement because, over the years in this place, in the heat of the moment, she and I have made statements about each other which I think have probably offended most honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. Therefore, tonight, when she made an outrageous statement, I tried to ensure that she would not be asked to withdraw. I have never asked anyone to withdraw what has been said about me. However, Senator Walters has now been named twice. She has refused to withdraw something she said. It is the first time in the many clashes between Senator Walters and me that either of us has refused to withdraw. If she will not withdraw, I suppose she wants to bear the consequences of that refusal, and she realises that she will get her headline in the Mercury tomorrow. I suppose that is what she is about. I think this is a place of vigorous debate, where people make unfortunate remarks about each other. I have had remarks made about me which I have never asked to be withdrawn. Mr President, if Senator Walters refuses to withdraw the remarks that you asked her to withdraw she may bear the consequences, but she is only bearing the consequences so that she can get her headlines in the Mercury and in the Examiner. Good luck to her; fair enough. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have heard what the Minister for Community Services has said, and I have already instituted a course of action in accordance with standing order 440. In view of what the Minister has said, I again invite Senator Walters to consider my request that she withdraw. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr President, you make it very difficult for me because I have a tremendous respect for you. I have none for the Minister opposite-the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). I do not believe that I have used language unbecoming to the Senate. I believe I have only said that the Minister is a disgrace to the Senate. It is something that has been said before on many occasions in the Senate. I have always withdrawn- The PRESIDENT —Order! That matter is a matter for the Chair. I regard that which Senator Walters has said as being a personal reflection on a member of the Senate, and that is not in accordance with standing order 418. Senator Walters, again I ask you to withdraw. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I am sorry but I cannot. The PRESIDENT —Order! I call on the Minister to move the appropriate motion in accordance with the standing order. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Mr President, Senator Walters has created an impossible situation. In terms of upholding the dignity of this place and the dignity and honour of the Chair, I move: That Senator Walters be suspended from the sitting of the Senate. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Aulich, T. Foreman, D. J. Black, J. R. Georges, G. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. (Teller) McKiernan, J. P. Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M. Cooney, B. Sibraa, K. W. Crowley, R.A. Vigor, D. B. Devlin, R. Walsh, P. A. Evans, Gareth Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M. Baume, Michael Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Kilgariff, B. F. Grimes, D. J. Collard, S. J. Richardson, G. F. MacGibbon, D. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr President, I apologise to you for the embarrassment that I have caused you. At the time that I refused to withdraw, I had no idea that we would have the numbers. I had no idea that Government members would have gone home. I apologise to you for the embarrassment that I have caused you. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.54 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of a Ministerial Determination authorised under section 106aa, dated 21 May 1986. Public Service Act-Determinations 1986 Nos 37, 39, 41. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 763) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 December 1985: (1) Has the Attorney-General's Department been asked to provide information or advice to the authorities on Norfolk Island, the Department of Territories, the Australian Federal Police or Australian intelligence organisations in relation to the stay of the yacht Ouvea at Norfolk Island after its return from New Zealand; if so, when did this occur, who sought the advice or information, and what was the subject matter of the request or requests. (2) What was the advice or information provided, and on what factual material was it based, in general terms. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The authorities on Norfolk Island and the Department of Territories were given advice by the Attorney-General's Department on 15 and 16 July as to the basis on which extradition could be granted of fugitives in Norfolk Island to New Zealand. That advice was that a request for the extradition of a fugitive to New Zealand would be dealt with pursuant to Part III of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966. Part III of that Act permits a warrant of arrest issued in New Zealand to be executed in Australia or one of Australia's external territories such as Norfolk Island if that warrant is endorsed for execution by a Magistrate in Australia or one of Australia's external territories. On 16 July 1985 three persons from the yacht Ouvea were detained on Norfolk Island for questioning pursuant to section 9 of the Police Offences Ordinance on suspicion of having committed an offence of having explosives in possession. Police investigations revealed that there were no explosives on board and the persons were then released. Close liaison was maintained at all relevant times with the New Zealand authorities. (Question No. 791) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Health received a copy of a submission to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations from the National Council of Health Organisations in relation to Nursing Manpower Planning; if so are any officers from the Minister's Department part of an Inter-Departmental Committee formed to report on the submission. (2) What other action is being taken in relation to the submission. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. My Department is not represented on the interdepartmental committee. (2) My Department has contributed to a co-ordinated response being made on behalf of the Government by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Action is already proceeding on a number of the issues raised in the submission through the Commonwealth/State Nursing Labourforce Sub Committee and the National Nursing Consultative Committee, the latter of which includes representation from the National Council of Health Organisations. (Question No. 828) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 10. (2) Australia Council, Australian Film and Television School, Australian Film Commission, Australian Heritage Commission, Australian National Gallery, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, National Library of Australia, National Museum of Australia, Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. (3) The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Ombudsman Act 1976 apply to all statutory bodies for which the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment is responsible. All are subject to Federal and State Courts jurisdiction and the Freedom of Information Act 1982. In addition the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service are subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (4) The Attorney-General's Department has advised that unless an authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course of their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. For example, incompetent driving would probably be tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on the advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious, but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. In addition, the following statutory authorities are bodies corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and ``may sue or be sued'' in their corporate names, pursuant to the provision indicated below: Australia Council-Section 8 Australia Council Act 1975 Australian Film and Television School-Section 4 Australian Film and Television School Act 1973 Australian Film Commission-Section 4 Australian Film Commission Act 1975 Australian National Gallery-Section 4 National Gallery Act 1975 Director, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service-Section 15 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority- Section 9 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 Australian Heritage Commission-Section 11 Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 National Library of Australia-Section 5 National Library Act 1960 National Museum of Australia-Section 4 National Museum of Australia Act 1980 None of the authorities listed in answer to part (1) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) 4. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has advised that there is a delay of approximately 6 weeks between the listing of a case and its hearing. (6) Not applicable. (Question No. 887) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: Will the Attorney-General investigate commitments made on radio 2CN between 8.45 a.m. and 9 a.m. on 12 February 1986, to determine whether Mr W. Mandle's comments or comments of telephone callers to the program at that time, were in contempt of court, especially those comments which related to Mr Justice Murphy and advise on the outcome of the investigation. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have taken advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions who has advised that in so far as the comments relate to Commonwealth prosecutions there has not been a contempt of court. The Director does not express an opinion of the comments relating to the other persons referred to in the broadcast as they are not matters of Commonwealth concern. (Question No. 996) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: What steps have been taken by the Government to initiate prosecutions arising from the conclusions or recommendations contained in the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts report number 236 entitled `Medical Fraud and overservicing'-Pathology. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Following receipt of the Public Accounts Committee report, I directed my Department to review the current pathology arrangements with a view to advising me on options for revised arrangements which would address the identified problems. As a result of that review, the Government has announced that changes are to be made to the current pathology arrangements, and legislation to give effect to the changes was introduced into Parliament on 8 May 1986. The legislation is designed to rationalise the present administrative arrangements concerning pathology and to introduce new initiatives to curb abuses of the present system. In the circumstances no prosecutions have been initiated based on the adoption of the conclusions or recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts Report No. 236 on pathology. However, the Health Insurance Commission has referred three investigations to the Australian Federal Police for further investigations with a view to prosecution. The matters which have been referred to the Australian Federal Police were the subject of investigation by the Commission before the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts issued its report in August 1985. (Question No. 1052) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: (1) Has any consideration been given by the Australian Government to implement the recommendation of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission that new laws should be introduced to make it an offence for jurors to receive payment for disclosing information about their deliberations, in the judicial areas under its authority. (2) How widespread has been the suspected selling by jurors of their deliberations. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The question whether it should be made an offence for a juror to receive payment for disclosing information about jury deliberations is only part of the broader issue as to whether there should be a prohibition on jurors' disclosures generally. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission in its Discussion Paper on `The Jury in a Criminal Trial' has tentatively proposed that there should be some restriction on disclosure by jurors of jury deliberations and that publication of such disclosures should be an offence with certain limited exceptions. The Commission has alternatively suggested that it may be necessary only to prohibit paying or offering to pay a juror for his or her ``story''. The Australian Law Reform Commission in its Discussion Paper on `Contempt and the Media' has provisionally proposed that it be an offence for any person to solicit, harass or seek to induce a juror to disclose details or jury room deliberations of for any juror to solicit publication of jury deliberations for the principal purpose of financial gain. Both the New South Wales Law Reform Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission have invited public comment on issues arising out of their respective Discussion Papers before making any final recommendations. The Government will be giving careful consideration to the final recommendations of these Commissions when they become available. (2) Neither my Department nor myself has any specific knowledge or information in respect of jurors selling details of jury room deliberations. (Question No. 1033) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 29 April 1986: (1) Can the Minister for Community Services report on arrangements that the Department of Community Services is making to accommodate the funding problems of child care centres in isolated communities, where income levels and cost of living combine to make the new fee system difficult to implement on the same basis as in more populated regions. (2) Will the Minister protect the needs of parents and children in remote areas. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the problems faced by communities in isolated areas. In order to better understand these problems my department is compiling information on the costs associated with operating child care centres in various locations. I have given an assurance that the difficulties of services in remote areas will be taken into account. (2) Yes. I gave an assurance in a press statement issued in December last year that the difficulties of services in remote areas would be taken into account and that the needs of parents and children in these areas would be protected. (Question No. 1070) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) What role does the Government believe methadone treatment programs have to play in the Drug Offensive. (2) What action is the Government taking to increase funds for such programs. (3) What action is the Government taking to encourage the expansion of such programs by State authorities. (4) What action can be taken to ensure reliable supplies of methadone so that the expansion of methadone treatment programs can be encouraged, in view of recent severe shortages of methadone in Australia. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The role of methadone programs in the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse is fully explained in the ``Guidelines for the use of methadone in the treatment of opiate dependence'' issued following the Special Premiers' Conference on Drugs on 2 April 1985. A copy of the guidelines has been provided to the honourable senator and a number of copies have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. (2) In 1985-86 an amount of $1,809,592 was approved, by the States/Territories and the Commonwealth governments, under the NCADA 50:50 cost-shared programs, for methadone programs. This amount has been increased by 48% to $2,676,814 in the 1986-87 proposed State/Territory and Commonwealth 50:50 cost-shared programs approved by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy held in Sydney on 2 May 1986. (3) Under the NCADA cost-shared program, primary responsibility for determining funding priorities rests with the States and Territories, although proposed programs require approval by the Commonwealth. It can be seen by the increase in funding by 48% from 1985-86 to 1986-87 that the States and Territories have responded to the community's demands for increased methadone programs. (4) There are no shortages of methadone to supply patients on the various methadone programs. Senator Gareth Evans —On 14 February 1986 (Hansard, page 384), Senator Walters asked me as the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question without notice: Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General name the active members of the Human Rights Commission? Are there any inactive members and, if so, why? The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Human Rights Commission currently consists of the Chairman, Dame Roma Mitchell, D.B.E., who is a part-time member, the Deputy Chairman, Mr Peter Bailey, O.B.E., who is a full-time member, and 5 other members who are part-time members. These other members are Professor Manuel Aroney, O.B.E., Mr Marcus Einfeld, Q.C., Mrs Norma Ford, Mrs Eva Geia and Ms Elizabeth Hastings. Professor Peter Boyce, who was also a part-time member at the time of Senator Walters' question, has since resigned his appointment. All of the present members of the Commission participate in the work of the Commission. There are no ``inactive'' members of the Commission. Senator Walsh —On 30 April 1986 (Hansard, page 2082), Senator Elstob asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. Senator Elstob's queries were based on an article in the Australian on 23 April 1986 and he asked: (1) Is the Minister aware that Italy's top millers were reported to have been critical of the level of contamination in the Australian wool clip, and to have called for a dramatic improvement in the classing standards for the clip? (2) Does the Minister accept these allegations of excessive contamination? (3) Does the Minister believe they will adversely affect the export performance of the industry? (4) What action will the Minister consider taking in this regard? (5) Is the Minister satisfied with the classing standards administered by the Australian Wool Board? The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: (1) Yes, I am aware of the article which appeared in the Australian on 23 April 1986. (2) Quantification of the level of contamination in the Australian wool clip is extremely difficult. The objective of the Australian Wool Corporation (AWC) is to see it minimised and if possible completely eliminated. On the one hand, clip preparation and avoidance of contamination by the large majority of growers is good. But the frequent and widespread publicity by the AWC, brokers, press, etc seems to have little effect in reducing the relatively small incidence of problems. On the other hand, complaints from mills are few in number, but persistent. Most are well balanced and well justified, but one or two mills may use the technique, as was suggested in the initial response to this question, as a bargaining stance. There is no question that a small quantity of contaminant, such as polypropylene twine, passing undetected through machinery processing wool, can give rise to costs of thousands of dollars. This can be in the form of mending costs to the final fabric, or losses if the material has to be sold as a downgraded product. At times contaminants in wool can cause quite costly damage to processing machinery. (3) Again this remains a matter of opinion. To the extent that contamination causes mills problems and gives rise to additional costs, the image and value of the product must suffer. Ultimately, such costs are borne by the grower in one form or another. (4) There is a continuing program of action to seek to ensure that contamination will not adversely affect the export performance of the wool industry. The ``Keep the Clip Clean'' Campaign was initiated by the AWC 18 months ago and since then over 300,000 pamphlets, posters and car stickers have been distributed to growers and classers. In addition, a video film ``Keep the Clip Clean'' has been widely shown and shed rubbish bins highlighting the problem have been distributed. The AWC operates a trace-back system on complaints from mills and this information is presently being gathered from the overseas offices for analysis. Complaints are investigated by AWC staff wherever possible and, if confirmed, the errant grower and classer concerned are notified and warned of the potential danger to the industry and advice given to prevent a recurrence. (5) From July, 1986, the classing standards will be those agreed by the whole industry, as embodied in the new Code of Practice for preparation of Australian wool. The Code sets the framework for better industry self-regulation than has been possible in the past. The AWC has arranged for a printing of 250,000 copies of the Code for distribution throughout the wool industry during June.