Friday, 22 August 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otway forests, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, e.g. petitions, by the formation of a committee to represent public requests. by Senator Vallentine (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We feel a deep concern about Christopher Boyce's allegations of intrusions into Australia's domestic affairs by the Central Intelligence Agency of America. We feel disturbed by the knowledge that the U.S. base at Pine Gap is a C.I.A. operation. We deplore the secrecy surrounding the functions of the U.S. bases in Australia. We therefore pray that the Australian Government will authorize a full, impartial public inquiry into all and any roles the Central Intelligence Agency of America has undertaken in Australia. We pray that this inquiry will allow the Australian public to make an informed decision about the future of the U.S. bases in Australia. by Senator Vallentine (from 93 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that:* Uranium mining and processing is dangerous to the health and well-being and ecology of the Earth and its citizens. By-products of uranium are toxic for periods of up to 500,000 years, and are an intrinsic part of the production of nuclear weapons. Existing safeguards are inadequate, and are not properly monitored. The policy of the Australian Government permits the entry into Australian territory of vessels and aircraft without the assurance that they are not nuclear powered or armed. Such vessels pose a threat to both the security and well-being of Australia and its citizens. The presence of foreign military and communication bases on Australian soil seriously endangers the health and well-being of Australia and its citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable Senators will take cognisance of the above and take immediate action to remove the above dangers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: whereas the Federal Government is spending increasing amounts to alleviate damage done to human lives by family break-up, desertion by spouses, divorce, children in ``latch-key'' situations, juvenile crime and drug addition, it is most inconsistent for that Government to lessen in any way the support that Australian families need to help them to survive. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. reject any proposed cuts to the support now provided to families by way of family allowance; 2. reject any proposal to introduce a ``flat-rate'' allowance, but rather keep family allowance fully proportional to family size; and 3. reject any proposal to abolish or diminish the dependent spouse tax rebate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 95 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That certain Trade Unions are currently forcing employers and employees to join union-controlled Superannuation schemes through industrial blackmail, thereby extending the Unions' economic power and at the same time infringing individual rights. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: (i) Guarantee that Occupational Superannuation is a matter of individual choice. (ii) Declare illegal industrial standover tactics which force people to join superannuation schemes controlled by, or sponsored by trade unions. (iii) Protect those companies and their employees who establish their own superannuation arrangements at the enterprise level. (iv) Ensure that union or industry-based schemes are not disguised pay rises by providing that employees must also make contributions. (v) Provide that control of the funds of such schemes is vested in the elected representative of the contributors to those schemes. (vi) Oppose any backdoor attempts at achieving compulsory unionism. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap may be terminated by either Government on one year's notice from 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. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated one year from 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 Vallentine (from 41 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 Jones (from 211 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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: The Senate reject the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because the Bill will Restrict our rights to those listed in the Bill Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this or any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject the Bill of Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners most humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government pass on the full benefits of lower international oil prices on March 1st, 1986; and (ii) that the Hawke Labor Government does not increase or extend fuel taxes; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that WHEREAS: (1) Identification cards and numbers severely threaten our freedom to live unfettered by excessive bureaucratic surveillance; (2) the Government has been unable to present any realistic justification for the introduction of ID cards and numbers; We humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should reject any proposal to inflict ID cards and numbers on the freedom loving people of Australia. by Senator Haines (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. that the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural and small business sectors, which will severely affect their long term viability. that the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament, full details of which still had not been revealed after it had legally been in operation for more than six months, has caused confusion and hindered farmers and small business people in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax Legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Senator Michael Baume (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament Assembled, will reject the proposed Bill of Rights as Australian's rights are already protected by the traditional system of common law and urge that any proposal for a Bill of Rights should be put to the Australian people through a referendum. by Senator Chaney (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because- We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to be belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 322 citizens) and Newman (from 81 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. 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 youth have fled apartheid in 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 Crowley (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and senators in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear-armed warships makes a priority nuclear target of ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that the following warships, all capable of launching nuclear weapons deployed in the British or United States navies, will be visiting Sydney between 29 September to 13 October-HMS Illustrious, HMS Beaver, HMS Fort Grange, HMS Manchester, HMS Amazon, HMS Olmeda, USS Missouri, USS Paul F. Foster, USS Oldendorf; and that these warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons will be participating in the 75th Anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy We therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear weapons; and to require that foreign warships participating in the anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy not be carrying nuclear weapons in Australian territorial waters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 804 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 welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy, expanding gold mining industry that the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations that the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and therefore will cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia humbly pray that the Federal Government join with the Tasmanian Government and institute an independent review of the Callaghan Report into the Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Newman (from 367 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 some unions of employees are holding up to contempt statute laws and decisions of courts of law and sections of the International Labour Organisation Agreement which is ratified by Australia. Specific actions by unions of employees and the ACTU have led to the destruction of a number of sole trader and small family business enterprises and a denial of natural justice to the parents and the children in the small businesses concerned. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should totally reject all moves that may be made by the ALP Federal Government to deem any small business entrepreneur be he or she a truck owner driver, a farmer, a building contractor, a plumber, a carpenter or any other unspecified class of self employed, contractor or subcontractor, to be employees. Your petitioners also humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should introduce legislation to provide basic rights of individuals into industrial relations. 1. The unqualified right to work. 2. The right to work hard in a chosen profession. 3. The right to pay one's way in all matters. 4. The right to provide for one's family. 5. The right to provide a secure job or enterprise for the future of one's children. 6. The right to freedom, democracy and dignity. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from five citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name, relating to Defence Determination No. 19 of 1986. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1987 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, the Particu-lars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1987 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1987 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1986 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the Committees consider Proposed Expenditure and Departmental Expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate of 22 February 1985. (4) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Friday, 17 October 1986. Motion (by Senator McIntosh) agreed to: That the time for presentation of the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee Report on Land Acquisition in New South Wales by the Australian Army be varied to provide that the Committee report as soon as possible. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, the Senate appoint Senator Robertson to be a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies on and from 23 August 1986 and that he continue as a member for a period of 3 years from that date. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 16 September 1986 at 2 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the day and/or hour of the meeting so determined be notified to each senator. Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every senator of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat senator. Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this resolution. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.09) —I wish to thank the Government for incorporating that which is normally moved as an amendment. I acknowledge that and I think that this procedure is a sensible way of saving a little time. I, too, shall save a little time by sitting down. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 387 Mr President, The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled `A Bill for an Act relating to certain remuneration and allowances', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has agreed to Amendment No. 2 made by the Senate, and has disagreed to Amendment No. 1 set forth in the annexed Schedule, and for the reasons shown therein. The House of Representatives desires the reconsideration by the Senate of the Bill in respect of the amendment disagreed to. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That consideration of the message in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(9.10) —I move: (1) That the following Special Reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for consideration and, if necessary, report thereon- (a) the Cotton Case Involving the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; and (b) the Industrial Sugar Mills Case involving the Department of Defence. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, all reports presented by the Commonwealth Ombudsman pursuant to section 17 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 stand referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, without any Question being put, for consideration and, if necessary, report thereon. Under section 17 of the Ombudsman Act 1976, the Ombudsman is empowered to present to the Parliament copies of his special reports upon investigations into alleged misconduct by a department or a prescribed authority. The Ombudsman has exercised this power only twice. In September of last year he presented Special Report No. 1, the Cotton case involving the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In May of this year, he presented his second special report concerning the Industrial Sugar Mills case involving the Department of Defence. Thus far the Parliament has not responded to either of these reports. The only parliamentary deliberations which have occurred, did so at the instigation of one of the members of this Committee-Senator Puplick. The Committee is concerned at the lack of parliamentary response to these special reports. The Ombudsman transmits a special report to the Presiding Officers of the Parliament only in very exceptional circumstances. Under the Ombudsman Act, he reports to the Parliament only after adequate and appropriate measures have not been taken by the relevant department or prescribed authority within a reasonable time, and he has reported to the Prime Minister. The Ombudsman's ability to present a special report to the Parliament under section 17 is his ultimate sanction. If the Parliament does not pay sufficient heed to his special reports one may well question his devotion of resources to taking such an exceptional step. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee considers that the Ombudsman's first two special reports have languished on the table for too long. Special Report Number One was presented 11 months ago. Special Report Number Two was presented three months ago. Accordingly, we seek this reference in order to provide the Ombudsman with an opportunity to speak to his reports, to provide him with a forum. Additionally, the Committee is concerned that-I say this in deference to some inquiries made by honourable senators last night-without in any way derogating from the right of the Parliament to debate a special report of the Ombudsman, quite independently of its consideration by the Committee, there should be some procedure whereby such reports are automatically directed to the Committee for its consideration. The terminology adopted is the same as that under which the President automatically sends annual reports to the appropriate committee, and this motion, if passed, will do no more than ensure that the report is put into the hands of one of the committees of the Senate. It does not take the report out of the possession of the Senate. Of course, any honourable senator is entitled to take it up in this chamber. Overall, we believe that the carrying of this motion will lead to a better appreciation by the Parliament of the considerations which have led the Ombudsman to take the exceptional step of presenting special reports to the Presiding Officers. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.13) —I support the motion and I thank Senator Tate for his elucidation. I had thought, upon reading the notice of motion, that it may have limited the opportunity for debate in this chamber. I am now convinced that it will not do so. Therefore, I support the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 21 August, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Peter Baume had moved by way of amendment: At end of 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 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'. upon which Senator Knowles had moved by way of amendment: At the end of the words proposed to be added, add: `, and (vi) will further erode business confidence at a time of national economic crisis which was not properly addressed by the 1986-87 Budget'. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(9.15) —I do not intend to take up all the time available to me as I realise that we have a long speakers list and it is important that the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 be passed as soon as possible. I do not intend to cover the legislation in any comprehensive way, because that has already been done very effectively by my colleagues Senator Coates and Senator Crowley, but I do want to highlight some of the points which have been raised with me in the community in the lengthy period in which the subject matter of this Bill has been open to public comment. First, I would like to speak very briefly about the need for the legislation, because some speakers opposite have denied that there is a need for affirmative action. In spite of the improved position of women, following the passage of the sex discrimination legislation, women are still much over-represented in the lower paid occupations and under-represented in higher paid occupations, particularly those which have traditionally been male preserves. Even in the areas where women predominate, such as retailing, the better paid decision making positions are mainly held by men. I ask honourable senators to look around the first class compartment of an aircraft next time they fly; to look at the proportion of women the next time they address a meeting of, say, engineers, architects or lawyers; to look at who are the forepersons the next time they visit a factory; and to look around this chamber-even when there are more people here. Of course, it would be very simplistic to suggest that the attitudes of employers, personnel officers and others who make decisions regarding employment, promotion or opportunities for training are the only reasons for this imbalance. The attitudes of parents who want their daughters to be nurses rather than carpenters or their sons to be engineers rather than kindergarten teachers, the attitudes in some schools and employment agencies and the sexist attitudes in the wider community all play a part, of course. But this legislation addresses what is perhaps the major bar to equal opportunity in the work force. This legislation is the logical extension of the sex discrimination legislation which became law early last year without, I must say, any of the dire consequences that were predicted then and are now predicted again by some for this legislation. The Bill seeks to break down sex stereotyping in the world of work and to provide equal opportunity for women in work, in training, in promotion-that is, in privately owned work places; it already exists in the Public Service-and in higher education. I stress that this Bill is about equality, not about giving something more to women than is available to men or is at the expense of men. Affirmative action will mean that women will know that they can apply for a job or a promotion on equal terms with men, that they will succeed on their merits, and not be rejected because of prejudice or ignorance about the ability of women to perform the job, assumptions about women's role in society and where they should be at different stages of their lives, or conditions of employment which automatically exclude women. Some speakers opposing the Bill have claimed that it will help only middle class or professional women. This is not so. It will help the factory hand to become a foreperson in the same way as it will provide opportunities for women with professional qualifications. In many work places there are unseen or unacknowledged barriers to promotion for women, such as those occurring in some retail stores, where male school leavers become trainee storemen or even trainee managers while female school leavers become counter hands regardless of their ability. Under this legislation males and females will have equal rights to jobs and to training so that promotion will depend on merit, not on the plumbing that one is born with. Affirmative action also will lift the self-esteem of women, who will now know it is worth while to apply for the job for which they are qualified with the same chance of success as a male would have. This increased confidence will in turn make them more valuable workers, secure in the confidence of their ability to do the job. The whole community in turn benefits when the skills of both sexes can be fully utilised. More job satisfaction for women also is likely to mean more stability of staffing because frustrated workers often move on. So employers benefit too from affirmative action, as does the whole community. Some opponents of the Bill, here and elsewhere, have raised the issue of child care as being more important than affirmative action in enabling women to enter or re-enter the work force. Child care is really a totally separate issue and one which this Government is tackling simultaneously with equal opportunity legislation. In fact, this Government has a proud record in the provision of child care and is expanding the number of places available in child care as rapidly and equitably as possible. In the three years to June 1988 we will have provided 20,000 more child care places. I think it was Senator Hill who said the other day that if the Opposition won government it would favour the provision of child care through taxation rebates. I remember that that proposal, which would be of no benefit to low income earners or single parents, to whom he referred, because they are not liable for tax anyway, or else very little tax, was given a lot of publicity by the Liberal Party in the 1983 election campaign. Undoubtedly, it was one of the factors which led to a record vote by women for the Australian Labor Party in the subsequent election. I commend the companies and tertiary institutions which took part in the pilot affirmative action program. I hope that they will publicise the provisions of this legislation, as I am sure the Government will. During the pilot program I found that women in country areas in particular were often unaware that the company they worked for was part of the program. I know that there have been similar difficulties in some Government departments. The best will at senior levels does not always percolate down to the branches. There needs to be a major effort to inform all women about affirmative action-particularly those women who work for large organisations and who will therefore be in the first group to benefit. Unions and professional organisations should also make sure that their members are aware of the benefits that may become available to them when the legislation is implemented. Companies must ensure that the whole organisation is aware of affirmative action and must be prepared to make sure that it is implemented at every level. Senator Hill correctly pointed to the need for women to be, as he put it, `in the know' if they are to benefit from the legislation. However, that is not a valid argument against the Bill, as he seemed to imply. We must ensure that all women are in the know. We in this chamber can do a great deal to make sure that that happens. The only real concern about this legislation that has been expressed to me by women is the belief that it should go further and that it should be implemented more quickly. Women have waited a long time for the reforms which this Bill seeks to bring about. Their impatience is understandable. However, we have to face the realities of the situation. Introducing affirmative action by stages, after the operation of the pilot scheme, will help to ensure that the process is educative and entered into in a co-operative manner with the minimum of real opposition. It can be seen that this Labor Government has achieved an amazing advance in the status of women over the last 3 1/2 years when we consider the long history of male dominance in the work place as well as in the power structures of society. This achievement is partly due to the fact that we have hastened slowly; we have consulted widely, we have been prepared to discuss the issues out in the community and we have carried out an educative process along the way. It has been interesting to hear some of those people who vehemently opposed the sex discrimination legislation two years ago saying now that they are all for equal opportunity but that affirmative action is going too far. I am sure that in another two years they will accept affirmative action, too, as have the companies and institutions that took part in the pilot program. Therefore, I believe that phasing in the legislation will be successful. I hope that it will be so successful that those who will not be covered by this legislation, that is the companies employing fewer than 100 people, will see the benefits of affirmative action and become affirmative action employers themselves. I certainly very much hope that this eventuates, as some of the most exploited women workers are those in the small work places, particularly those in areas of work which traditionally are regarded as male. I was pleased to note in the Budget Papers that the Government intends to legislate for equal opportunity in Commonwealth statutory authorities, as is already taking place in the Public Service. This legislation will not bring a rapid end to policies and practices in the workplace which have denied to women the right to realise their potential on the same terms as men, but it is certainly a major step towards equity in employment and towards the day when employers will no longer regard the gender of the applicant as relevant to the appointment. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(9.25) —The other day I mentioned the enormous costs that could be incurred by both business and individuals under the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill. I had gone into quite extensive detail of what the Bill would cost in terms of the Budget, and I asked whether we should continue to allow $1.2m to be spent on such a project. Further to my remarks about the undesirable regulation of business being the only major defect in this legislation, of far greater concern is the fact that, through the use of numerical forward estimates, the potential has been created for the downgrading of merit and excellence in employment in both tertiary institutions and the private sector. Just as I would champion the principle of equality of opportunity, I am totally opposed to any project that aims for equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. I am amazed that the provisions of this legislation are directed towards the final achievement of equality of outcomes. Equality of outcomes is an objective that can be achieved in the long run only by discrimination. Belief in equality of outcomes is underpinned by an anti-individualist view that looks to the distribution of goods or jobs on the basis not of individual merit but of group entitlement. It is a crude aspect of collectivism or socialism that depends on a false reading of human nature, for it relies on the assumption that were there no discrimination of any kind, all groups in society would enjoy a proportional distribution of society's rewards, as though talents were uniformly distributed throughout the human race. Such thinking would never admit the possibility that some occupations will always attract a higher proportion of men, just as other jobs continue to appeal to women. Equality of outcomes can never be an indication as to whether there is a genuine equality of opportunity in employment or in any aspect of life. To produce equality of outcomes, merit must be sacrificed, and genuine equality of opportunity thus disappears. I do not say that this Bill seeks to enforce equality of outcomes through the imposition of employment quotas. Mind you, I think if it could, it would. If the Government thought it could get away with it, it would do so. I am saying that a so-called forward estimate, which may be expressed in numerical terms, according to clause 8 (3), is the thin end of a wedge whereby the effectiveness of affirmative action programs will be judged through a statistical examination of employment outcomes. Only two days ago, Senator Coates-a Government senator-said that if this did not work out, obviously in the future things would have to be toughened up. That is exactly where the concern about the thin end of the wedge arises. Once any stress is given to numerical outcomes, there will be pressure on an employer to modify selection procedure, not simply to ensure equal opportunity but to produce the desired outcome. I find such pressure absolutely and utterly deplorable. The way would be open to the relaxation of standards to fulfil the desired goal and hence the diminution of the merit principle. It is not good enough to say, although Australian Labor Party and Australian Democrat senators say it, that because quotas are not contained in the Bill and because goals, targets and forward estimates-call them what you will-are not the same as quotas, there can be no risk of the injustice that we associate with quotas. Quotas simply involve the reservation of a set number of jobs for a favoured group, regardless of qualifications, sex, age or anything else. With goals, applicants must be qualified and the employer need fill only as many vacancies as there are qualified members of the favoured group available. While I agree that targets or goals are less damaging than quotas, to a degree they still require the selection of people on criteria other than individual excellence and suitability for the job in hand. It comes back to my earlier point that the modifications to selection procedure to secure the target will entail modification of the merit principle. If one believes, as I do, that our universities require the best possible teachers and researchers and that private enterprise is entitled to have the best possible executives, no weakening of this principle can ever be acceptable or even entertained. For this reason equal employment opportunity should be divorced from the numerical targets for which this Bill provides. Of course, I recognise that sub-clause (4) of clause 3 declares: 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. However, the fact that employers are not compelled to act against the merit principle does not constitute a sure defence against its weakening through the insidious pressure of numerical targets. Employers will tend to relax the merit principle should the Director of Affirmative Action lay stress on the fulfilment of targets. It is most pertinent to recall that in the United States, where quotas have now attracted just condemnation, they were not originally imposed by law in this form. Rather, they developed as a convenient short-cut by employers under pressure from zealous bureaucrats administering what were initially voluntary affirmative action plans. Therein lies the danger for Australia. We could be more convinced that this Government intended to stand by the merit principle if it had inserted in this Bill a clause prohibiting any recourse to quotas by an employer as part of affirmative action policy. As it is, the door is left open to the possibility of equal employment opportunity degenerating into reverse discrimination, which is another threat that should be avoided at all costs. It is very relevant to this debate to consider the operation of affirmative action in New South Wales, where in 1980 an affirmative action handbook was issued under the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977. This document shows a clear bias towards a collectivist equality of result. It argues the dubious principle that past discrimination requires remedial programs for affected groups, a concept that is irrelevant to the notion of individual justice and that is used to justify the idea that two wrongs make a right. It is stated that improvements in equality of opportunity should be visible in outcomes and the redistribution of minority groups and women in personnel statistics. Also, programs must have goals and targets evaluated in terms of their redistributive effects. This terminology makes it obvious that collectivist outcomes should override the stated principle of equality of opportunity. Clearly, merit has to be sacrificed when a government agency, through this handbook, declares that in the end the success or failure of affirmative action depends on statistical results. How will the Government assess the success of that legislation? Confronted with this demand, an employer who has to explain why a numerical target has not been met is in a situation of reverse onus of proof. We should be under no illusion that requirements of this kind will result in de facto quota systems, with qualifications being lowered, if need be, to ensure that women and minority groups are reflected in final numbers. In short, we are confronted by an ominous precedent in the New South Wales experience, and I must emphasise the hard fact that nothing in this legislation will prevent the same kind of enforcement procedure in the future. While this kind of hard affirmative action is a threat to the freedom of choice of private employers, it can have an equally serious effect on tertiary institutions where governments have far greater direct leverage. We already have a precedent for this in New South Wales, where in September 1983 the former Premier announced that tertiary bodies would have to comply with Part IXa of the 1977 Act that covers equal opportunity in the public sector. Applying the unfair criteria of the numerical representation of women or minorities in teaching positions, universities will come under pressure to modify qualifications to achieve some arbitrary statistic. Inevitably this in turn results in the appointment of people who may not be unqualified, but who are less well qualified than other applicants. Not only is this harmful for senior teaching positions, but neither should it be applied to such positions as research assistants where it is essential that an applicant should fit in well with an existing team. I make no substitute for the ideal that universities are responsible for the extension of knowledge, not to initiate what the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) calls `corporate social action'. If the Minister wants universities to become instruments of social engineering, we cannot be confident that she will support the merit principle against numerical requirements of affirmative action. No doubt because of the greater control that governments can exercise over universities and colleges of advanced education, this Bill insists that they should be the first to develop affirmative action programs, commencing next August. I warn the Senate that the merit principle is already being eroded by numerical requirements in our tertiary institutions. We have the example of the South Australian College of Advanced Education where, through affirmative action, the staffing committee must examine the percentage of male and female staff on contract when considering tenure. There can be no question that by stressing outcomes in this way, people will gain tenure on the basis of their sex rather than their qualifications or proven teaching ability. Nothing in this Bill will preclude this insidious development, that will threaten both academic excellence and genuine equality of employment. Certainly we should be aware that influential elements within society and within the government sector are anxious to promote a far harder concept of affirmative action than we have seen in the pilot program. This attitude appears in a paper delivered in June 1984 by Dr Peter Wilenski, Chairman of the Public Service Board. He noted that `few organisations can claim to be multicultural in any sense though we are expected to regard Australia as a multicultural society'. We should question the attitude that organisations, both public and private, should somehow reflect the composition of society rather than fulfil their functions as effectively as possible. It is one thing to ask that organisations allow genuine equal employment opportunity, and another to wish to reshape them according to some desired objective of social engineering. We must take warning from the statement made by Canberra law lecturer Margaret Wallace, in the Australian Quarterly, when she defined discrimination as `requiring unnecessary academic or other achievements women in general are unlikely to possess'. The moral is clear: Standards must be lowered if necessary to fulfil the desired end results of affirmative action. We owe it to the women of Australia not to lower qualifications in order to give them positions they would not gain through merit, but rather to give them the training they need in order to compete on equal terms. While this may take a bit longer, it is surely the fairest means of securing true equal employment opportunity. Because we in the Liberal Party may be critical of this Bill for its unnecessary regulation of business, and for its future implications, we will be accused of opposition to the advancement of women. I make no apology for reiterating that weakening the merit principle for the short term promotion of women is demeaning and harmful for the prospect of long term equality. To reject the notion of equality of outcomes is to safeguard the principle of true equality of opportunity. While voluntary programs of equal employment opportunity can benefit employer and employee alike, bureaucratic social engineering can only be damaging. Women should be given the greatest employment opportunities confronting them today without the need for such legislation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.40) —The trouble with this Government when it attempts to deal with equality for women is that it really does not have the foggiest idea of what true equality means. If we look at the Government's history we find that it introduced a Sex Discrimination Bill. How many amendments had to be made to that Bill? Finally, the Government had to re-write the whole Bill. It realised that, with Senator Ryan's interpretation of equality for the sexes, the Bill was a complete disaster. Now we have the `National Agenda for Women' which I think is positively degrading for women. I list the suggested topics for discussion that this Government believes women should be interested in-I stress `should be' interested in: Health, for example, contraception, stress, abortion, repetitive strain syndrome, arthritis; child care; sport and recreation; income, for example, wages, equal pay, pension, superannuation and maintenance; jobs, for example, part time work, non-traditional work, trades, self-employment, sexual harassment and trade union membership; welfare; domestic violence; special needs; and politics, for example, women in parliament. What a narrow idea of what women in this country are really interested in! Where is the economy mentioned? Where is defence? Where is trade? I have never in all my life seen such a degrading list of suggestions-put forward by a group of people who have no idea of what true equality means. This was underlined by the agenda drawn up by Liberal women at Federal Council when they were talking about all the other issues that the people of Australia are interested in. The list of topics on the `National Agenda for Women' is indicative of the low esteem in which this Government holds women. The Government thinks that there will not be true equality until there are equal numbers of women and men in the work force, until women are entitled and, indeed, expected to lift the same weights as men, until their little daughters are forced to compete athletically against boys of the same age. What a debacle was an amendment to that effect, put by Senator Haines, to the Sex Discrimination Bill. We now have the Human Rights Commission making special exemptions because it was found that little girls could not compete against boys in swimming races. They were not winning any races, and because they were not winning they were deciding not to swim. They were keeping out of the races. But, because a group of Labor women and Senator Haines think that little girls ought to be able to compete against boys, the amendment was passed and the Human Rights Commission had to make a special exemption so that girls could compete amongst themselves. That is just blind fanaticism; nothing else. It is not equality. It is just fanatical feminism. True equality, put simply, gives every women the right to choose the type of life she wishes to live. She may choose the traditional role of wife and mother, she may choose to follow a wonderful career, she may choose the combination of a traditional role and a career or she may choose the traditional role and just another job, either full time or part time, to earn the extra money that she believes would be of great help to her family. She may chose to do some part time work just because she likes to accomplish something but wants to fit in with her family arrangements. Of course, the emphasis is on choice. If we look at the research in the book Beyond the Stereotypes we find that overwhelmingly women if given the choice would choose part time work. By far the largest number of women, 31 per cent, would want part time work. If we add those women to the women who would choose paid work from home, we find that 43 per cent of women would want to do a little bit of work to fit in with their family responsibilities. The full time mothers, the women who want to run a home full time, and those doing unpaid voluntary work represent 31 per cent of women. Therefore, the majority of women by far, adding those two groups together, want to do work that fits in with their traditional family responsibilities. But we have the continual rubbish coming from Government senators who say that women earn only 78 per cent of average male wages. What absolute rubbish! It is what women choose to do that is the important thing. It is what women want to do that is important, not what Labor women think they should do. Because women earn only 78 per cent of men's wages, the Labor women shout: `What discrimination!'. Is it any wonder that women flock to vote for the Liberal Party of Australia and keep away from the Australian Labor Party? One has only to look at the polls to point that out. It never occurs to the Labor sisterhood that many women want to work part time and are not interested in being forced into the higher echelons of employment. We are told by the Labor sisterhood that women are forced into part time work-that they are forced there because they have such a dreadful burden in bringing up children. What a burden it is! I do not think anything makes my hackles rise more than being told that, and we are told that regularly by the Labor sisterhood. They simply do not understand that the majority of women would not miss for quids the opportunity to bring up our children, and that that is something that we enjoy doing. We would not miss it for the world. Indeed, we believe that men miss out on a lot in missing those early childhood years through having to be away from home so often. We are told continually that women outnumber men in the part time work force and what a discrimination and a disgrace that is. We are told repeatedly that, as women represent over 50 per cent of the population, 50 per cent of the members of this place should be women. Again, how many women would find that this job, and the way of life involved with having to come to Canberra so often, would fit in with their family commitments? It is their choice that they do not stand in large numbers for selection to the Senate. I entered the Senate only when my children were grown up. That was my choice. Other women choose differently and they can arrange their family affairs to suit them perfectly. But the majority of women choose part time work. The majority of women would not choose to spend so many hours, days and months away from their families. The Labor sisterhood is not satisfied with that because it believes that it can tell women what they should do. The psychological pressure put on our young people which makes them feel guilty unless they are in the paid work force is a tremendous tragedy. What a tragedy it is that our young mothers should feel that they are not fulfilling the most important job in Australia-that of bringing up our future generations in a stable and loving atmosphere. Many young women try to do both jobs but they end up doing neither properly. They are just dog tired and frustrated because of the psychological pressure put on them to be in the work force. Let us look at the name of the Bill-the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. According to all English interpretations the words `affirmative action' mean to give preference to women. As Senator Peter Baume has already said, this Bill relies on merit. I will come to the word `merit' a little later when I move my amendment. To whom does this Bill apply? It applies to higher education institutions and employers who have 100 or more employees in Australia. It does not include the Commonwealth, State or Territory governments. This measure will be gradually phased in over a period. Supposedly this legislation will be effective from 1 August, though I gather that the Government will be moving an amendment to alter that date. Companies employing more than 1,000 employees will be required to commence their affirmative action programs by 1 February, companies employing over 500 but under 1,000 employees will be required to commence their programs by 1 February 1988 and companies with over 100 but under 500 employees will be required to commence theirs by 1 February 1989. So these programs will be phased in for those employers who have to write reports. What will be the cost to the taxpayer of this measure? For starters-that is how the Government has put in its affirmative action explanatory memorandum-the legislation is expected to come into operation in the 1986-87 financial year and the first bids will be based on the staff numbers of 25 employers in Sydney whose expenditure is $1.5m. This is happening at a time when the Government says that we are in a crisis, that we are at war. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said that we may become a banana republic, and this morning we had the news that indeed we are a banana republic because we are listed in a report as the very last country expected to have an economic upturn. Although we are in that situation the Government is willing to spend another $1.5m-for starters, based on first bids-on this rubbishy legislation when affirmative action can be achieved in a voluntary way. It is not the way the Liberal Party would go about it. We have quotas. Indeed they are called forward estimates because they are voluntary. However, if a company does not fulfil the forward estimates it has to make a written explanation. The difference between voluntary forward estimates and quotas is just a sleight of hand. There is no doubt that a company which says that it will employ X number of women over the next 12 months has to make a written explanation if it does not fulfil that number. There is no doubt that these estimates are quotas. The Bill also states that unions have to be consulted. Let us look at what the unions have said. A motion passed at the special union conferences on affirmative action in October 1984 states: That in the event that a company involved in the Government's affirmative action pilot project fails to properly consult with the appropriate union on that company's program, the ACTU will assist those affiliates involved to mount a campaign to ensure that adequate consultation occurs. It goes on to give priorities to unionisation of those work places covered by the project in which eligible employees are not members of the appropriate union. It says: In their submission to the Working Party on Affirmative Action, the ACTU specifically indicated that they saw this as `an industrial relations issue' . . . The Government is buoying up the unions for more industrial relations activity, creating additional problems in the work force. The Bill allows for education and research; I shall be dealing with that at the appropriate time in Committee. Let me liken that to the human relations legislation. In that respect, too, there was the opportunity for education and research. I refer to what was said in one of the booklets put out by the Human Rights Commission. It refers to setting up a classroom and is a document given to teachers with suggestions as to how they should set up such classes. The document is headed `Teaching for human rights' and is by Ralph Pettman. It has been distributed to schools and teachers. He said: In the first few weeks of the school year the teacher can challenge some of the learned behaviours that do not seem to encourage children's rights as individuals, and by careful selection, expose the children to a wide and varied range of positive thinking about themselves and others. Children come to school with some fairly set ideas. A lot of these are sex-role stereotypes. A lot of work has to be done with non-sexist education with the class to begin the Human Rights Integrated Approach. This should be done in the first four weeks of the school year. So they grab the little kids at kindergarten, and a lot of work has to be done on those children in the first four weeks of the school year to change the thinking their parents may have taught them at home. This is how they go about it. It says that to stop these stereotype roles no one plays with cars from the play corner unless there are equal numbers of boys and girls willing to play with them. No one plays with the paper dolls; they are not allowed out unless there is at least one boy in the group. So the little girls cannot play with the paper dolls unless they can talk one boy into playing with the paper dolls with them. This is human rights; this is the education approach. Senator Grimes —From where is the honourable senator quoting? This is interesting. Senator WALTERS —I hope that Senator Grimes is interested. If he would like a copy of it, I should be happy to give him one. It is entitled `Teaching for human rights', by Ralph Pettman. Senator Grimes —Who is he? Senator WALTERS —I thought Senator Grimes would know. He is on the Human Rights Commission. He put out all this rubbish to be taught in the schools. I sincerely hope that the clause on education and research will not be taking similar lines to that indulged in by the Human Rights Commission. The Opposition believes, as I have already said, that we should implement an affirmative action program by way of a voluntary system. We had a 12-month pilot program. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) thought that the program was pretty good. Indeed, he stated: The project is comprehensive, voluntary and it will in a very real way steer us towards the best way of permanently ensuring that women are given equal job opportunities with men in our society. I agree entirely with the Prime Minister. It is the best way to go about it. If one goes about it voluntarily, if one is not forced to do something, the commitment is very much greater. Of course, it would save at least $1.5m of taxpayers' money, at a time when money is so precious, and, as the explanatory memorandum to the Bill has indicated, that is only for starters. There would be a cost to the business community. Again, this Government is putting costs on business. Has it not learnt that it cannot keep adding costs to business and still expect business to be able to compete? If it has not learnt that, it will learn pretty soon. The Government has already said that it does not believe that the balance of payments figures will improve in the foreseeable future. Can anyone doubt that when the Government keeps putting on these additional costs? According to Mr Allen of the Business Council of Australia, the cost will be quite considerable. He said: It will require specific appointments of staff. It will require a specific set of statistical collections and reportage. He stated that a new government agency, staffed by public servants, will monitor what is going on. The threat of naming companies in Parliament is such that business will have to spend additional money on the appointment of staff and statistical collection. So the Government is once again adding to the costs of business. It is about time that it learnt that this is not possible, if it wants the balance of payments figures to be reduced. It is about time that the Government got off the backs of business and allowed it to get on with helping the Australian economy. We know what the Business Council sees as the effect of this legislation, because Mr Allen stated: . . . regardless of its stated intent- that is, the Affirmative Action Bill- could have the effect of positive discrimination in favour of women, thus challenging the notion that all employees should be treated as individuals according to their skills, qualifications, aptitudes and potential, without regard to gender. Compliance with legislation and the requirement to justify performance in quantitative terms to a specialised agency can easily become a numbers game rather than promoting qualitative change through a genuine commitment to the ideals of equal employment opportunity for women. Of course, that is the crux of the situation. We are told repeatedly by female government members that it is all to be done on merit. Indeed, some of the more radical women's organisations have objected very strongly to the fact that it should be done on merit. The Women's Electoral Lobby has stated that the legislation has no teeth. But the point is that once a business has given a commitment to employing a number of employees over the period of 12 months, whether one likes it or not, because the business must answer a `please explain' at the end of that time if it has not done so, women will be employed who do not have the same merit for the job as another employee who is applying for the job. At a time when the Budget says that we are in for a period of higher unemployment, less business investment, less housing investment and the continuation of our disastrous balance of payments problems, this is what the Government is doing to business. I cannot stress that too much. At a time when we are supposed to be at war, the Government says that we need more money spent by business on this rubbishy sort of legislation. I should like to foreshadow an amendment which defines merit and to which the Government has agreed. The Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of the word `merit' is: Quality of deserving well. That is not what I always understood `merit' to mean. I do not think that it is the Bill's intention that, so long as someone is `deserving well', he or she should be employed under this legislation. I believe that `merit' should be what we all believe it to be and should apply to the person with the best qualifications for the job. If only the Government would allow the pilot project-which we all have said is very successful and which the Prime Minister has said is the best way to go about this change-to go forward in a voluntary way, the longer term commitment by employers would lead to better results for women generally. It is a pity that the Government needs to expand its services and departments once more by adding yet another layer of bureaucracy through this silly Bill. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.07) —I support the purpose of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill, although I have a number of worries about it. I must emphasise that, although I have these worries, I have no quarrel with the concept of equal opportunity in employment. It is vital to the economic revival of this country that we make full use of our available talents, regardless of sex. It would be a gross breach of human rights if women who want to do particular jobs for which they are qualified by physique, intellect or training were denied them purely on the ground of sex. We have made great progress in overcoming many of the disabilities that affected women in past years. There has been a gradual implementation of equal pay for equal work and the opening up of almost all kinds of work for women as well as men. This concept works not only for women but also for men-a point which is often overlooked. There are more women engaged in engineering and manual labour than in the past now that jobs are more readily available for women. But men have also gained access to new work areas, such as nursing and secretarial work. I should stress that it was not always employers who stood in the way of women getting jobs regarded as men's. For a long time, unions barred women working alongside male builders' labourers. The tramway union in Melbourne always allowed women conductors to shoulder their way through the rush-hour crowds at peak times on trams to collect fares, but, although one had to be a conductor before one could be a driver, only men conductors were considered for the perk job of being a driver-a comfortable seated job, sitting up in front of the tram-as though it required a penis to drive a tram. That sort of discrimination went on for many years. We are gradually and steadily changing that. Perhaps the most important provision in the Bill is in clause 3 (4) which says: 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. That is a vital provision. Anything less would be both unfair to individuals and very damaging to the efficiency of our national economy. So far, so good. Now I must turn to my worries. My first problem is the title of the Bill-`Affirmative Action'-which is given a special definition in this Bill, a definition which is quite different from what most people usually understand affirmative action to mean. My second worry is that I do not understand the logical reason for the Bill to be so sexist. Why are we providing equal opportunity for women only? Why not for men too? My third problem is perhaps more fundamental. I do not understand why we have the Bill at all. To modify an old saying: There are things that are good, and things that are new; what is new is not good, and what is good is not new. My fourth worry is that the new procedures seem likely to be very expensive administratively-another heavy charge on industry at a time when we are trying to make our industry more competitive. The new procedures also hold the seeds of danger in converting what are beneficial targets into de facto quotas. I would like to examine each of those concerns in turn. My first problem was the title of the Bill. The Bill defines an affirmative action program as `a program designed to ensure that appropriate action is taken to eliminate discrimination by the relevant employer against women in relation to employment matters; and that measures are taken by the relevant employer to promote equal opportunity for women in relation to employment matters'. That is fine. The problem is that that definition of affirmative action is not what is usually thought to be meant by affirmative action. In this Bill it appears to imply no more than the removal of discrimination. I think all of us would agree with that, but many people do not see affirmative action like that at all; they see it as a process going much further than prohibiting discrimination. They see it as involving the establishment of quotas in hiring to be filled exclusively by individuals from groups identified as victims of past discrimination practices. This is, of course, a negation of selection on merit, and everywhere it has been tried it has been a catastrophe. In order to cure one problem, people have imposed a much worse cure than the disease. We must resist this at all costs. We must not get locked into this disastrous idea of quotas. That being so, and with what most people understand by affirmative action, there is no need for the words, `Affirmative Action' in the title. In fact, they are misleading. I will be supporting the amendment to delete these words from the title of the Bill. My second worry was the sexist terminology in the title of the Bill and, indeed, in the whole thrust of the Bill. Why the phrase `for Women' in the title of the Bill and the constant reference to `equal employment opportunity for women'? Surely equal employment opportunity is for everybody, not just for women. There have been well recorded cases of discrimination against men in certain jobs such as nursing, some office work, reception work, airline stewardship, and so on. My third problem was why have the Bill at all. If the Bill is intended merely to remove discrimination, then legislation to achieve that is already in place. We already have a Sex Discrimination Act which quite adequately deals with all forms of discrimination against women and minority groups in the community in relation to employment. So what is the reason for the Bill, if the merit principle is to remain the sole foundation for employment? This Bill is really only about creating non-binding programs which employers may or may not carry out and about creating a new bureaucracy-the Director of Affirmative Action. If there is really nothing more behind it, the Government has indeed laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse. That brings me to my fourth worry-the costs and the lurking dangers. There will be considerable costs as a result of this Bill. The cost to the bureaucracy has been estimated at $1.5m a year, and this at a time when the Government is supposed to be seeking to cut expenditure. To the employers the costs are much higher. In one company the cost of the voluntary affirmative action pilot program was $750,000. Overall the cost to participating companies in the voluntary affirmative action pilot program-the trial for this program-was between $5m and $10m, depending on the measurement of executive time. Sydney University is another example which was brought in under the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act; and that cost it $450,000 a year. Is that worth it? Are we getting value for money? What do we get for this? We will not be introducing quotas for affirmative action; we will be introducing only goals, which in this Bill are renamed objectives. What is the difference between a quota and an objective? A quota system involves reserving a predetermined fixed number of vacancies for women without regard to the individual qualifications of the applicants, and may therefore result in the selection of unqualified applicants. An objective system, on the other hand, is not binding and does not require the selection of unqualified applicants. So provided we are prepared to accept the bureaucratic and business overheads-and the overheads and costs are very substantial- involved in setting up and monitoring objectives, I do not suppose they will do any great harm. They could actually be beneficial if they forced employers regularly to review their recruiting procedures to see that they are truly non- discriminatory. Whether we are getting value for money though is a quite different question. But quite apart from that, we must be constantly vigilant to see that these non-binding objectives are not converted into de facto quotas, which would be an abuse of natural justice and would be very damaging to our economic efficiency. I repeat, everywhere these binding quotas-putting people into jobs, regardless of their qualifications, merely because they are a disadvantaged group-have been tried-it has resulted in a catastrophe. We must avoid that at all costs. Yes, we must provide fair opportunities, equal opportunities in employment, non-sexist opportunities, but we must not creep into having quotas. As an example of the sorts of dangers I foresee, there is a proposal at Melbourne University at the moment that there must be at least one woman on each selection panel, whether that woman is suitably qualified or not. This is definitely a quota, and I suspect other universities have similar requirements for women's representation on selection panels and departmental boards and so on. This is a form of quota. I repeat over and over again that we must resist the quota system at all costs. It has been tried in a number of countries and has always been a catastrophe. I do not think anyone in the Senate, as far as I am aware, has been arguing for a quota system, because of the manifest defects of such a system. I think we must constantly watch to see we do not slip into a quota system under another name. I have a final worry. There is the possibility that the achievements of many women who have, through merit, attained a particular office might be devalued. The question will always arise in the minds of many: Did the woman get the job because she was the best or because she was a woman? Because if other things such as qualifications and previous experience are equal, there is nowadays considerable pressure for employers to appoint women to particular jobs. I will conclude by saying that two out of three of my personal staff are women. I chose them on merit alone. I can only say that I am sure that they would want to be persuaded and convinced that I chose them for their capabilities and not because they were women. I support the Bill but I do have worries. I sincerely hope that they turn out to be groundless. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.20) —The Senate is debating the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. I say from the outset that I am totally and absolutely opposed to this damnable legislation. The sadness in society these days is that when one is opposed to legislation of this nature a clear inference is placed in the minds of many that one is opposed to having women in the work force and supports some type of bias against them. That is not right; the contrary is the truth. I believe, as do the vast majority of reasonable people in the community, that women are entitled to pursue whatever career they wish. The factors which should determine whether a person gets a job are willingness and the competence that will be applied to the job and the concurrent assessment by the employer that the person is able to perform the job and is the most suitable candidate from those available-one who has the capacity, competence and ability, irrespective of sex. There ought not to be any arbitrary restrictions preventing males or females pursuing their chosen career. In addition to the rights of women to join the work force, women ought to be at liberty to be wives and mothers. There should be no inference that a woman who has chosen to raise children has in any way let herself down or has failed to achieve her potential. Some people at the moment seem to suggest that women who choose to be full time wives and mothers are fulfilling less than their capacity or ability. There is an attempt to undermine the confidence of these women, to leave them feeling inadequate and feeling that they have not fulfilled a complete and absolute role in the community. I find no more admirable role for a woman than that of being a wife and mother and being an intrinsic part of the traditional family unit as many of us understand and accept it. It is a source of great distress to me that many women who seem actively and vocally to promote the role of working women feel the need to denigrate those women who make the conscious choice to assume the role of wife and mother. Perhaps that reveals a certain vulnerability amongst these women and a lack of understanding towards the feelings of mothers who are devoted to their husbands and children. Let us examine the Bill before the Senate. It is not about achieving equality for women. It has been introduced in the guise of equal opportunity legislation but in reality it is not designed at all to secure equality for women. It is perhaps designed to secure a short term and temporary advantage, but it will be to the long term detriment of women. In attempting to secure an advantage for women over men the Bill will demean the achievements of women who have already succeeded in the work force. In so doing, the Bill will undermine the principle of achievement based on merit. It will not guarantee that jobs will go to the best applicants but inevitably it will result in jobs going to inferior applicants. In the United States, which has had similar legislation containing quotas-that is what this legislation will provide, de facto quotas-many minority groups have been promoted in the work force beyond their skills and qualifications. They simply stagnate at a level above that to which they ought to have been promoted. The legislation will impose costs on business for no good purpose. The first of these costs will be the cost of complying with the legislation. Business will have to produce yet more paper for government. The second cost will be that of having to carry people who are not necessarily the most suitable for the jobs available. As this Bill at least in theory attempts to enshrine the principle of appointment based on merit, one may well ask how the Bill will enshrine affirmative action legislation rather than simply equal opportunity legislation. This question arises because of the peculiar nature of this Bill and the way it enables the affirmative action program to be administered. I will now examine some of the provisions of this Bill and indicate why I have reached the conclusion that there is far more to this legislation than meets the eye and why it would have the harmful consequences I have predicted. At the outset, it is worth noting that the Government has very skilfully drafted this Bill so that it has power to deal with employment when the Commonwealth is not given any specific power under the Constitution to deal with it. There was never any intention that the Commonwealth have power to deal with employment, but the Government has attempted to gain power by limiting the operation of this Bill to employment in areas under Commonwealth jurisdiction such as banking beyond one State and interstate trade and commerce. For good measure the Government claims to be giving effect to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. In this way it hopes to take advantage of the incorrect and unjustifiably wide powers given to the Commonwealth in the Tasmanian dams case. The Government has been prepared to twist and, in my view, pervert the law to its own advantage in an effort to attract unto itself powers which it was never intended that the Government should have. This Bill will require employers of more than 100 employees to commence an affirmative action program. The Bill alleges that an affirmative action program is a program designed to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women and ensure equal opportunity in employment. It is further defined that employers are required to announce to employees the commencement of the program, to appoint an employee to supervise the program, and engage in consultations about the program with employees and, of course, trade unions. As a final and most important requirement the Bill requires employers to set objectives and forward estimates. It is these two terms which constitute the most sinister and dangerous clauses of the Bill. The definitions of these terms are as follows: ``forward estimate'' means a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time; ``objective'' means a qualitative measure or aim, expressed as a general principle, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time. The Bill goes on to appoint a Director of Affirmative Action. The functions of the Director are to advise employers on their affirmative action programs, to issue guidelines to employers and to evaluate programs. Employers are required to submit both a public and a confidential report to the Director about their program. The Director then reports to the Minister about any matters connected with her function-presumably the director will be a female- Senator Townley —Why should it be? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I do not know why it should be. It is positive discrimination in favour of one sex against the other. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.31) —The Opposition was anxious to start the debate on the Budget this week before the Government scurries off for three weeks endeavouring to sell it to the Australian people. When we come back in a month's time, I suspect that the Budget will be so irrelevant to what is happening in Australia that we will be debating other issues of more immediate significance. The sad reality for Australia is that the Government has brought down a Budget of despair. I call it that because it does not address, and certainly will not solve, the problems we face. It is not the Opposition saying that we have fundamental problems, it is the Government itself which has described our economic situation as being a state of crisis. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that we are in a crisis akin to war. He has turned around and claimed that this is a Budget for hope. Yet, if we look at what the Government is predicting in this Budget we see no signs of the hope that the Prime Minister sought. It promises more of the same or worse for Australia. If one looks at the Government's own predictions in the Budget one sees that we will have higher unemployment, for example. It says that we will have the same dramatic balance of payments crisis as has bedevilled us over the past 12 months. We will have another balance of payments deficiency of probably more than $14 billion. The Government tells us that we will have declining investment, and that, of course, is the surest sign of the failure of its economic policy. We have had now three quarters of declining investment. We are told that we have another year of declining investment ahead of us. We have a high rate of inflation-8 per cent is tipped by the Government. That is 16 times the inflation in Japan, and it is many time the inflation rate of our trading partners. The Government itself predicts a lower rate of growth. Given that that is the Government's own prediction, Mr President, I ask you: How can this be described as a Budget of hope? Surely it can better be described as a Budget of despair. The Prime Minister started off in government with what he described as a crisis. He said in his address to the nation in 1983: `We started with an economic crisis'. In the same address to the nation he said: `Well, here we are, three years later, and we have a crisis which is just as bad'. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Much worse. Senator CHANEY —I am glad for the assistance. I happen to agree that it is a much worse crisis because in 1983 we had the difficulty of a world recession and a drought. We have none of those excuses available to us today. The question that has to be asked is: Could the Government have offered an answer to Australia's crisis? Is there a way out? The Opposition believes very firmly that there is a way out. In the House of Representatives last night, in a speech I commend to all honourable senators, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, made the point in the opening of his speech that there are six major reforms and changes of direction needed if there is to be any hope of the Australian economy being turned around. He said that reforms have to be made to reduce government spending, to reduce taxation, to reduce union power, to provide incentive for employees, to encourage overseas investment, and to improve our transport and communications systems. I respectfully adopt those six points as being points which, if this Government pursued them, would see a quite different set of predictions being made about what the future holds for Australia. Clearly, what has to be done, what is needed at the moment, is that we have to overcome our fundamental problem of buying more than we can sell. That really is the basic problem that Australia has. Everything else is either a cause of that problem or a symptom of that problem. The cure of that problem is to sell more abroad and to make more of what we use in Australia. We do not do that for the very simple reason that in too many areas others are doing better than Australia. They can produce things more competitively and cheaply. So the questions have to be posed: What can the Government do about that, what can we do about that, and how do we reverse that situation? We have no choice but to produce our way out of our difficulties, to produce more and to produce more efficiently. This Budget does nothing to achieve that. The one thing that this Budget sets out to do-on paper it does that, although I do not believe that on analysis it will achieve it-is to promise a lower deficit. But the outcome of that promise is quite dubious. The lower deficit seems to be designed for only one purpose and that is to satisfy the money market. Already over the few days since the Budget, it seems pretty clear that that purpose is failing. The Budget growth forecasts have been soured because, as the Australian Financial Review reports this morning, there has been a negative response from the financial markets, and the trade-weighted value of the dollar fell again yesterday from 50.5c to 50.3c. Already the single objective that is discernible from the Budget seems to be faltering if not failing. I suppose the Government might say that in the search for a lower deficit, it was also seeking to reduce interest rates and that that would contribute to helping Australia produce and sell more. But again, the early indications are that the prospects for that do not look bright. Again, we have had an early market reaction which is poor. I pose the question: How can you expect interest rates to improve, how can you expect the money market to be firm in a situation where the Government itself is saying that we can expect another year of 8 per cent inflation and that we can expect another year of about $14 billion of a current account deficit? It seems to me that those two facts guarantee high interest rates in Australia, certainly interest rates will be well in excess of our trading partners, and from our competitive point of view that is very damaging. If the lower deficit that the Government is promising does not deliver a more stable dollar and lower interest rates, of course the Budget is a complete failure. It is perhaps instructive to look through the Budget Papers to see what the Government thinks will happen to interest rates. It is normal that it should not try to predict the position of the dollar, but certainly we find that the Budget Papers are silent on interest rate prospects. I suspect that that was a very wise position for the Government to adopt because of the fundamentals that this Budget puts down. With this deficit prediction are doubts, not only about whether it is accurate but also about the way in which the deficit reduction is to be achieved. The Opposition was, of course, seeking a reduced deficit. We believe that that is an important step for the Government to achieve if we are to have economic recovery, but we argued that that deficit should be achieved by reducing expenditure. It will find that instead of achieving that reduced deficit by reducing expenditure, it will simply have increased taxes. It has added another $1.4 billion of new taxes in this Budget. It has also cribbed another $650m by delaying the cuts it promised to the Australian people in income tax as part of the income tax package. So there is more than $2 billion of this deficit reduction which can be accounted for by increases in taxation. That is one of the fundamental reasons why this deficit has not been well received by the people of Australia and not well received by the markets which are both marking down our dollar and marking up our interest rates. The markets have made their judgment adversely, but even if we get a situation where interest rates ease-one would express the hope that we do-individuals and businesses will see any benefits from lower interest rates removed by higher taxes and charges. I have already stated that the Government itself is saying that it accepts that there is no recovery as a result of this Budget. It is predicting less investment, it is predicting more unemployment and it is predicting lower growth. As individuals, Australians face higher taxes, more unemployment, and the same endless concern about the dollar because of our balance of payments. The fundamental flaw in the Government's position in August 1986 is that it seems to have forgotten that the Budget is only one element of what is required if the position is to change for the better. If we are to get economic recovery it requires a renewal of investment and activity. It requires the people of Australia to work harder and more effectively. In fact, the Government has left in place all the obstacles which exist to those ends. A person who might be contemplating starting a new business, a person who might be contemplating expanding an old business, a person who might be wanting to make something new or make a product which will better compete with the imports which are flooding into Australia, or making a product that could be sold overseas, needs to see all these things happening. However, for those people all the negatives of recent years are still in place. Indeed, in many cases they have been made worse by the Government. We have made no secret of our view in regard to the range of issues which have to be tackled if those problems are to be removed and the economy is to assume a growth path. For the guidance of the Government, as much as for the Australian people, we set out in our document entitled `Policies for Business' a summary of the broad requirements which we say would lead to economic recovery. They express in a slightly different form the six points made by John Howard in his Budget address last night. We said that taxes must be substantially reduced and restructured, and in order for this to be possible government spending must be cut at the Commonwealth, State and local levels. We said that the level and cost of regulation of business activity and decision making must be reduced dramatically and across the board. We said that trade unions in general and some trade union leaders in particular must be brought back within the rule of law and monopoly privileges of trade unions must be curtailed. Finally, we said that business input costs, especially those resulting from government taxes and charges, must be reduced wherever possible. Those are quite simple prescriptions. They are clear prescriptions for what needs to be done if Australia is again to be a good country in which to invest and do business. That is a pre-condition for economic recovery. The tragedy is that this Budget on the face of it does little, if anything, to advance even one of those four requirements. It might be argued that in total there is some minor reduction in government spending, although, in fact, once again this is a very high spending Budget. It is a Budget which will spend more of the gross domestic product than any of the Fraser Budgets, for example. Of course, the Budget is also a very high taxing Budget. Therefore, we have a situation in which the Government has not responded to what is evidently needed. The surprising thing about this situation is that within the Government there has been an acknowledgment of virtually every point that the Opposition has made. If one looks particularly at what has been said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, over the last three years, and certainly over the last year, one will find in his speeches and interviews an acknowledgment that these are reasons why the Australian economy cannot grow and why we cannot get manufacturing industry into better shape in Australia. But the problem is that the Government has not responded to that acknowledgment. It has not delivered on what it has acknowledged is required. Today I must, as I have done elsewhere on other occasions, repeat my complaint that Senator Button has analysed our problems and yet continued to be part of a government which is either unwilling or unable to solve those problems. That is not just an Opposition view. Yesterday I noted in the Australian Financial Review an article by Mr McGuinness, writing from the distance of London-perhaps distance lends clarity in this case-saying: There is nothing in the Budget to indicate the Government has taken practical steps to deal with the serious situation it has acknowledged. The Budget's failure is epitomised in the absurdly inadequate proposed discounting of wage indexation. Mr McGuinness actually goes on to pay a compliment to the Government. He says in the article that this Government, better than any of its predecessors, understands where the problems lie. However, that is sad because he goes on to say of the Government: It just does not have the resolution, or the political base, to offer real cures. I think that that is the tragedy of the situation. There appears to be a capacity within the Government to analyse the problem, to understand it and to express it, but a total lack of capacity to do anything about it. In a very real sense 1986 is a year of opportunity. It is a year in which the Government could act in a resolute way. In this Budget, as in the address to the nation of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Government clearly is incapable of resolute action. Probably the most important area to be tackled if we are to change the scene in Australia is in reform of the labour market. That is outside the strict confines of the Budget, but certainly what is required should be acknowledged in the Budget and a direction should be set for the guidance of the Australian people. In the last few weeks we have seen a whole lot of very well advertised examples of what we mean when we say that there are things wrong with the labour market in Australia. We are not talking just about wages, because the argument is not really about whether we should be a low wage country; that is absurd. The argument is whether we should be an efficient country. I refer honourable senators to the sorts of silly things done in our labour market and publicised over the last few weeks in relation to Robe River Ltd in the course of its dispute with the unions. That company has reported to us that it is faced with a situation in which unions insist that five employees have to be available on the site for the operation of a machine designed to be operated by two persons. What chance has Australia got when it is required that five people operate a machine that needs only two? Also we find that in order to replace a discharged fire extinguisher after normal hours, somebody has to be called out and paid for four hours at double time. It costs $80 to replace a fire extinguisher. One could go on and on. The only other example I want to cite in the long list of the ridiculous work practices plaguing that single enterprise is that the company is required to have trucks watering the roads to keep down the dust even when it is raining. Those examples are typical of why this country is failing and why it is going down the tube. It is typical of the sort of thing that this Government should be trying to root out and about which it is doing little or nothing. Every Australian knows that Australia is littered with this sort of insanity. Such practices are far more significant than even the stoppages which enrage the population when they see once again our economic future being frittered away. In the removal of those work practices, it is of course true that management has a key role in working with the work force to get rid of them. It requires a common commitment from employer and employee. However, the point I am concerned about in respect of this Budget is that the Government has not even given a decent lead. Look at the history of the last two weeks. When Robe River management tried to bring these work practices to an end, it really set about doing that in a very vigorous way, and a lot of people were stood down. The Government immediately condemned Robe River for being peremptory. Yet when in the same period elements of the work force hijacked and took over a rig on the North West Shelf we heard not one word of condemnation from this Government. That is typical of the stupid way that this Government behaves in trying to deal with these matters. The Government is quick to condemn management for moving quickly in trying to remove ridiculous work practices; it is silent over the action of trade unionists in taking over an off-shore platform on the North West Shelf. It is quite true that the Government has acknowledged this problem, just as it has acknowledged so many other problems. It is also true that it has taken some minor steps to do something about it. I want to touch on that matter because it is typical of where the Government is failing. Let us look at what it has decided to do about heavy engineering. The Government is providing $60m worth of assistance to the heavy engineering industry. One of the conditions of that assistance is that over the next three years there has to be a removal of restrictive work practices that prevent the industry being competitive. In other words, the Government is saying to the industry: `Go away and, over the next three years, work at removing those practices and we will put in $60m of taxpayers' money to help you along'. What sort of future has Australia got if we have to spend three years working out and removing restrictive work practices from one narrow segment of Australian industry and paying taxpayers' money as a bribe at the same time? We cannot afford to buy ourselves out of this insanity in that way. We have to get on with the job and abandon the sort of piecemeal approach which is being adopted by this Government. It is absurd to have to pay taxpayers' money to achieve common sense. The critically important thing in 1986 is that the Prime Minister has told us that we are in a crisis akin to war. In a war one does not have time for year after year of negotiations; nor does one have the money to put down as government subsidies to achieve efficient work practices across Australian industry. This is a job that has to be done quickly and dealt with urgently. We need a sense of urgency from the Government. Earlier this week I was talking with Simon Crean on a radio program. What I found in him was a commitment to a process of negotiation-not between employers and employees but between employers and trade union officials. What I was particularly struck by was his general emphasis on trade unions and on the idea that we have endless time to negotiate away these problems. The Opposition believes that we have to get away from the situation in which institutional trade unions, which have no particular interest in the success of a particular venture, are involved in decisions which affect the very survival of both the business and the jobs it provides. In this absolutely vital area it is almost impossible to get a serious and sensible debate in this chamber because the Government always tries to polarise any debate which is brought forward by the Opposition. It is impossible to get a civil, and it is certainly quite impossible to get a thoughtful, response from the Government when these issues are raised in this place. I draw the Government's attention again to the concerns raised by Mr Charles Fitzgibbon in his papers to the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Productivity Promotion Council of New South Wales, in which he has made it clear from his ex-trade unionist viewpoint that the system is unlikely to improve until the incentive structure is changed. In this debate I suppose one could quote 100 passages from Mr Fitzgibbon's two papers because they contain so much good sense; they contain so much urging of the Government to look at the problem of incentive in the Australian work force. Let me quote a few lines: There are a number of practical steps to be made to improve productivity, but the most important is the development of a concept of positive incentives and a positive sharing of responsibility at the enterprise and/or industry level. We find in the Opposition's papers a clear commitment to that sort of principle. Can honourable senators remember when a Government Minister or a Government senator last responded to our concerns in this area by dealing positively with that principle? Where do we find any recognition of it in the Budget? There is none. We have a vital issue here that is central to our economic recovery, but the Budget is totally silent on it, just as the Government is pursuing it in a leisurely way but generally it is woefully inactive. I repeat the point which I think is central in August 1986: We do not have 10 years in which to solve Australia's problems. We face another $14 billion deficit this year and we face a $100 billion plus foreign debt by the end of this year. These are not the reckless predictions of an Opposition seeking office; these are the predictions of the Government itself in its Budget statement. We are, in the Prime Minister's words, in a situation akin to war, and we do not have 10 years in which to negotiate. The other vital issue-again it is impossible to get a thoughtful response from the Government on this-is the structure of business taxation. When we talk of business dismay at the fringe benefits tax the only response we get in the Senate is in terms of abuse of fringe benefits by high income earners. The Opposition has never denied that there have been abuses of fringe benefits. We make the point that those fringe benefits received by high income earners could be assessed by the Commissioner of Taxation under the present law, and they should be. But the position of the Government is that it responds on this issue by concentrating on that point alone. I have yet to hear in the Senate a Government Minister or a back bench senator address the concerns of employers such as Mount Isa Mines or the other employers in remote areas of Australia who face crippling new burdens which are going to make them uncompetitive in a very difficult international trading environment. I do not hear a single honourable senator acknowledging the deep concerns of those essential producers in Australia, and I do not hear any concern expressed by Government senators about the fact that Australians who are trying to export services-engineering services, for example-now have to pay a fringe benefits tax on the cost of putting an Australian engineer, for example, into a foreign country. That is an economic absurdity, but I never hear it acknowledged or addressed by the Government. What we have from the Government is a cheap political response, even though Australian Labor Party leaders at the State level have joined the Opposition and the business community in crying out for relief. If we are to have a Budget of hope, we have to find a resurgence of entrepreneurial spirit and drive in this country. It is absolutely absurd for the Government to be saying that it wants a resurgence of entrepreneurial spirit and drive and at the same time to be imposing a new capital gains tax and a new fringe benefits tax. It is absurd for the Government to be imposing the highest taxing Budget we have seen ever. More than a quarter of our gross domestic product is being taken by the Government in taxation, and this is the third year in a row that it has achieved that record. It is pathetic to think the Government could expect a more positive business response, but of course the Budget acknowledges in relation to the declining investment that it does not expect a positive response. The Government itself is telling us that business investment will decline. The fourth area we identify as needing government attention is that of regulation. Once again, the Government's rhetoric acknowledges the problem. It has again taken some small steps. It has set up a business regulation unit. That is doing some valuable work in co-operation with private enterprise; we support and encourage that. But during the same year as that Business Regulation Review Unit has been operating we find that the Government is passing amendments to the Trade Practices Act and additional amendments to the Companies Code; it is adding to the weight and burden of regulation. It has done that over the objections of the Opposition, and in this Budget we get no promise of any turning back. The tragic aspect of the failure of this Government and of its policies, both in the Budget and in related areas, is that the supposed economic rationalists among the Ministers have all acknowledged the reality of the points I have made today in criticism of this Budget. They seem to be incapable of developing a coherent strategy which would enable them to overcome the difficulties we face. That is a criticism which has to be laid particularly at the feet of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, who is responsible for manufacturing industry. As I said earlier, he has been quick to identify problems, but it is a matter of great regret to us that he has been incapable of getting the Government to take his concerns into account. What we have seen in this Budget is simply a repeat of the sorts of sorry reversals of industry policy that occurred during this last year. One of the features of the Budget as far as business is concerned is that the Government made decisions on bounties; it made some across the board reductions in bounties. I point out to the Senate that Senator Button has been stating that a principle on which his industry policy is based is that there should be a more neutral industry structure, there should be predictability, and there should be gradual change. What do we find in the Budget decision? We find a decision which I think was obviously embarrassing to Senator Button, if honourable senators recall his demeanour in Question Time yesterday. He admitted that the reductions in bounties were a pure revenue decision; it was just a way of raising more revenue. It had nothing to do with having a coherent industry strategy. It was not based on the principles the Minister has put forward. If it had been based on them, we can assume that at the same time as the Government cut bounties it would have cut tariffs across the board in the same way. But no, it is only in the area where the Government can make an expenditure saving that it has made a cut. In areas such as tariffs, where it raises taxes, industry has been left in the same position. So what we have in this decision is an exacerbation of the disparities in assistance to industries, and we have a flying in the face of the Government's supposed support for bounties as a valuable method of assisting industry. When Minister Button introduced a bounties Bill earlier this year he said: The Government has attached and will continue to attach considerable importance to bounties as one of the key elements in its industries assistance policy of providing direct support to industry against import competition. Of course, the Budget decision makes a mockery of that. It flouts the intention of section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act, which states that these matters should go to the IAC for examination and report before the decisions are made. In the view of the Opposition, this decision will put back the agenda for bounty assistance by 20 years. Producers will want tariff protection because they have now seen the vulnerability of bounties to ad hoc action by government. Bounties are preferable to tariffs because they do not distort prices and their cost is visible, but the latter point is now being exploited by the Government. It has managed to save a little money at a cost to industries which had been told that they would be given consistent treatment by this Government. At a time when we seek to encourage manufacturing industry I say that the Government cannot expect industries to respond to the lower deficit outcome, if that is achieved, if it shows that the principles of its industry policy are without authority. I believe Senator Button's word will not again be accepted so readily in the business community, in light of that decision. It is exactly the same as the undermining of the Government's industry policy with respect to motor vehicles. The fringe benefits tax introduced by the Government has clearly damaged the Government's vehicle plan. We have another example of the Government having a policy moving in one direction which is undercut and subverted by another. Before finishing my speech I want to touch on what I think is the other major deficiency in this Budget, that is, its total failure to address the issues of social policy which are fundamental to our recovery as a country. What I find about this Budget when I search for some sense of social direction is not that it is setting a bad direction but rather that it is setting no direction at all. I do not think it would be possible to read this Budget and to determine what attitude this Government has to the sort of society we should have in Australia and what the social impact of this Budget will be on individual Australians. (Extension of time granted). There is no social direction achieved in this Budget. Indeed, if one looks at it from the point of view of the individual, the only thing one can find in the Budget is that it is a Budget about trimming living standards. The Government says in the Budget. `This Budget trims living standards'. So I suppose one could say that is one of the social impacts. My concern is that in a situation where the Government is predicting an even more difficult economic situation for individuals, it is highly necessary that the Government should express some view about what support it is prepared to offer the families of Australia, which represent the best protection for individuals against the difficulties of change and economic hardship that this Government is imposing. I express particular concern about the way this Government has continued to whittle away the position of families. Because I do not wish to delay the Senate let me merely quote from some of the information which was sent to us all by the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission under the heading `A Fair Go For Families'. It makes the point that in the last 10 years the amount of income tax imposed on a family with four children living on average weekly earnings has increased by 435 per cent, while wages have increased by only 135 per cent. It goes on a little later to say: The deteriorating economic position of Australian families is also clearly seen when one compares over time the disposable share of earnings enjoyed by families. In two years time an average weekly earner with a dependent spouse and five children will have nearly 9 percentage points less in disposable share of earnings than an average earner with the same number of dependants had in 1977. In contrast, an average weekly earner with no dependants will have 2 percentage points less in disposable share of earnings, and a taxpayer with no dependants earning three times the average weekly wage will have 3 percentage points more in disposable share of earnings. We have a situation-this has been much debated in the Senate over recent years-where the economic position of families relative to income units in the community without family responsibilities continues to decline. I support the view which the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission has put forward and the Opposition supports the view that the family is the primary unit of support and nurture for individuals and that it is the family which deserves some attention in this and, indeed, in other Budgets. We find in John Howard's Budget reply a clear acknowledgment of the need for the tax system to differentiate in favour of families. I challenge this Government to consider the declining position of families and to consider what impact that will have on the operations of Australian society. I believe that the health of Australia goes beyond the growth of our gross domestic product. It also involves looking a little more closely at the situation of Australians who are trying to maintain their own standards of living and their dependence within a family structure. We believe that Australia can be restored to prosperity. We believe, as John Howard said at the end of his Budget speech last night, that this can occur only if there are substantial changes to existing institutions and attitudes. John Howard went on to say: This is the hope for all Australians. We can offer hope through a greater commitment to individual freedom, through a greater commitment to greater individual choice and through a greater commitment to greater individual incentive. The tragedy of this Budget is that it offers hope to no one. The Government, having analysed Australia's ills, stands condemned for having totally failed to deliver a solution to those ills. I believe that this is a thoroughly bad Budget which is completely inadequate for Australia's current needs. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(11.05) —Australia is heading for disaster unless there is an immediate and dramatic change of government policy. The radical free marketeers who currently dominate the Australian Labor Party have brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy. Spending in this Budget has been slashed in education, health, welfare and general services. The domestic economy is being strangled in an attempt by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to please his new constituents-the overseas money markets. The Budget calls for a domestic surplus of $800m. The last time we had a domestic surplus in this country was back in 1981-82. It led to massive unemployment, followed by an 11.5 per cent inflation rate. In 1981-82 we vigorously opposed the policy of the government of the day in taking money out of the Australian economy and we vigorously oppose the same policy in 1986-87. If Australia is to regain control over its own destiny it must start to manage the economy. The Labor approach is simply this: Let market forces reign supreme. The Australian Democrats say that this is a recipe for disaster. The concept of managing the economy in the interests of all Australians was criticised yesterday by Senator Michael Baume as being old fashioned. As we all know, the prophet of the market forces philosophy was no less a person than Milton Friedman. I well remember his first visit to Melbourne and his first lecture in this country. I was invited as a guest, along with the Treasurer of the day, John Stone and other distinguished representatives of the Treasury. Milton Friedman expounded his monetarist theory. All we had to do, he said, was to control the rate of growth of the money supply and everything else would follow. `Do not worry about anything but controlling the rate of increase in the money supply. Do not worry about controls in the economy. Do not even worry about the trade union movement. Regulate the money supply and everything else will follow'. It was so simple it is no wonder that the Treasury fell for it, hook, line and sinker. It appears that Senator Michael Baume has not yet caught up with the fact, and obviously neither has the Labor Party, that responsible universities around this country are now telling their students of economics that Milton Friedman has been exposed as a charlatan. The University of Edinburgh carried out some fundamental research on the monetarist theory and found that the data on which that theory is based was fudged, made up by Milton Friedman so that he could go around the world trying to persuade governments to go back to the concepts of the early nineteenth century-the laissez-faire concept, the survival of the fittest. `Do not interfere under any circumstances with those who are making money.' I suggest that those who are out of date are Senator Michael Baume and the Labor Party-150 years out of date. Last night Mr Howard committed the Opposition to further reductions in government spending and the encouragement of overseas investment. I ask: How does this policy differ from that of the Labor Party, which Party no doubt will allow Nicholas Kiwi Ltd to be taken over by the Sara Lee company? Nicholas Kiwi just happens to be one of Australia's most successful international companies. In the Australian Parliament now we have the `Liborals' and we have the Democrats. The Democrats are not a socialist party, as we have been criticised for being by the Liberals. We believe that capitalism can work-providing it is managed. The Democrats are the only party that has come up with a carefully costed alternative Budget. We do not jump on bandwagons. We have carefully thought out our alternative strategy. Our proposed Budget shows how these policies could be implemented. The Democrats' policies would stop the stampede of financial institutions to invest anywhere but in Australia. It would stop tanker loads of orange juice being imported from Brazil at subsidised prices while our oranges are falling to the ground in the Murray Valley. The Democrats' policy would ensure that precious capital available for investment is invested in productive wealth creating industries and is not being squandered on consumer products. We would strengthen the activities of the Foreign Investment Review Board to safeguard those Australian industries we still have left in this country from being sold at bargain prices while our currency is so depressed. Australia's problems did not start in March 1983. The Hawke Government has made the problems worse through its total sell-out to the international financial community. Basically, Australia is trying to solve its problems and survive as an industrial country with Third World trade patterns. Increasingly this has become impossible. Since the beginning of 1984 our terms of trade have declined by 15 per cent. This has cost the nation $4.5 billion in constant terms. The prices of our exports have plummeted in line with the glut of energy, the slow growth of the major Western economies and the flooding of world markets with subsidised agricultural products from Europe, the United States of America and Brazil. The problem is that our exports are predominantly agricultural products and minerals and our imports are manufactured goods the prices of which have remained constant. Less than 20 per cent of our exports is made up of manufactured goods while in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries the level of manufactured goods exported is between 60 and 80 per cent. While we stick to this pattern of exporting predominantly agricultural and mineral products we are destined to live in a cycle of boom and bust. Clearly we are now at the end of the bust cycle. The Labor and Liberal parties are putting forward the same solution. In a word, it is austerity. I should call it a response rather than a solution because austerity budgets have never solved anything. Austerity budgets are a knee-jerk reaction of conservative governments to difficult situations. They are based on an ideological fervour rather than on rational plans to turn the economy around. The Government says that we must cut our consumption and increase our savings. This, the theory goes, will reduce our demand for exports and help us develop import replacing and export orientated industries to ensure that we pay our way in the world. Consumption will be cut; there is certainly no doubt about that. However, it will be cut in a very inequitable manner. There will have to be increases in indirect taxes and that, of course, will affect everybody. The tax cuts have been delayed but on top of this wage earners are being asked to accept further discounts and social security recipients are being asked to take a cut in living standards. The Government's approach is to screw down the whole economy to reduce the economy's hunger for exports. In essence, the Government is attacking the economy instead of attacking the problem. This type of austerity will not encourage investment in this country; rather, it will have the opposite effect. Government investment and spending will decline, private spending will decline and private investment will decline. It is clear that there are major institutional barriers to productive investment in this country and the Government has not been and is not now prepared to address them. We have only to look quickly at some statistics. Profits as a percentage of gross domestic product are higher in Australia than in any comparable Western country. In 1984 the share of profits in the Australian economy was 27.8 per cent. In Japan the comparable figure is 24 per cent, in West Germany it is 22.2 per cent, in the United States of America it is 19.1 per cent and in Sweden it is 18.5 per cent. There is nothing wrong with the profit share; the trouble is that productive investment in Australia is lagging. In 1985-86 investment in plant and machinery in this country fell by 7.1 per cent in real terms. However-and this is the crux of the problem-the money soaked up in takeovers jumped alarmingly. In 1984 takeover funds totalled $1.2 billion. In the first half of 1986 $7.7 billion was used in the takeover battle for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd alone. Goodness knows what the final figure will be for this year when we add the Repco takeover and the attack on the ACI company, to name just a couple, to the takeover attempts on BHP. Where has all this money gone? Almost certainly it has gone back into the share market and not into productive investment. In the last 12 months the turnover of the share market has almost doubled. If the stock market were to collapse suddenly all that paper money would be lost. We would have nothing to show for that investment in this country. On the other hand, if the investment had gone into productive areas, irrespective of what happened to the stock market productive capacity would still be available to be used in this country. Unfortunately we are applying more and more of our resources to the paper economy and starving the economy of real productive investment-investment in wealth creating industries. Takeovers are the most obvious manifestation of this bias towards paper investment. The whole system is tilted in favour of takeovers. Under present laws a raider can always beat the market. The reason for this is very simple. If one buys a new machine one pays tax on the income that machine produces. If one expands by buying a company the income from that company, the dividend it pays to the raiding company, is tax free. In other words, due to the avoidance of sections 46 and 50 of the Companies Act one does not have to offset interest charges on the money that was borrowed to buy shares against income from those shares. This means there is an enormous disincentive to productive investment in Australia and taxpayers are subsidising the incentive to move towards paper investment and speculation. The Government has not attempted in this Budget to find a solution to our investment problems. It has not tried to address any of the serious structural problems hindering industry development. It has merely stuck to the old, tired theory of crowding out, that is, the theory of the radical free marketeers. It simply says cut back on government expenditure and this will make room for private sector financial investment. People will be able to borrow money and invest in industry. This crowding-out strategy is so obviously flawed that I am amazed that any government subscribes to it in this day and age. Those who subscribe to the crowding out theory claim that government debt is too high. A quick look at the figures shows how ridiculous this approach is. In the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s total government debt in Australia was equal to well over 100 per cent of gross domestic product. Today it has fallen to 44 per cent of gross domestic product. So our problem is not government debt; our problem is the misdirection of private investment. Investment is in paper profits and not in productive areas. There is obviously plenty of room for private investment. The problem is that that investment is not well directed. It is the Government's responsibility to give a lead to the private sector and encourage investment but the opposite is taking place. Government outlays have fallen from 15 per cent of total outlays in 1976 to 7.5 per cent of total outlays in 1985-86. Therefore, the Government is allowing the infrastructure to run down. We cannot afford to do this. In the long term we will suffer if our roads, ports and railways are allowed to deteriorate. We will not be able to compete in international markets if we cut back on education and training. We will not prosper in the 1990s if we have run down our health system and have spent enormous amounts of money trying to salvage it when it is too late. We listen to the free marketeers at our peril. They are saying: `Divert valuable public resources from long term development to short term gain for individuals'. I hope we will not leave this legacy, this criminal attitude, to our children. The Australian Democrats propose a better solution, one that is more equitable and one that attacks the problem more directly. We say that taxes should be levied on luxury imports, such as food, alcohol, motor cars and hi-fi equipment. Demand for imports would be slowed, our balance of payments would improve, local industry would be encouraged to expand and the burden of restructuring the economy would be more evenly borne if we directly restricted or discouraged the level of luxury importation items. Resulting price increases would be quarantined through wage discounting. The Government could then run a responsible, but not a contractionary, Budget policy. The money raised by an import tax could be used to provide low interest loans to export-orientated manufacturing industries, grants for research and development, and also for overseas marketing of Australian goods. We are not suggesting that this money should be given to industry with no strings attached. Industry would have to pledge itself to committing its own resources and unions would have to give assurances on increasing productivity through the scrapping of restrictive practices and the like. Right now this country is being bled dry by the Labor Party's inspired deregulation of the financial system. Despite the fact that our terms of trade have declined by 15 per cent in the last 20 months, the value of our currency has plummeted by 45 per cent. The Labor Party did not float the dollar; it sank it like a stone. Every time the speculators send the value of the dollar down, of course our problems increase enormously. Our foreign debt grows, our balance of payments gets worse and we enter a downward spiral, driven by the paranoia of the money markets. The Government has reacted to this problem simply by pandering to money markets and to the prejudices of those markets, rather than by developing a strategy to get us out of this situation. To protect the currency and increase investment, the Government must restrict superannuation funds from moving off-shore. Right now, a total of $8 billion-an enormous amount of money-of superannuation funds has been invested overseas. The AMP Society has plans to shift a further $1 billion off-shore in this financial year. If the Government is serious about encouraging savings to be invested in this country, it should not allow superannuation funds, which represent the savings of all Australians, to be moved off-shore. In essence, the new direction that the Democrats are advocating is to manage our economy, to encourage savings and to encourage productive investment. The policy is quite simple and very straightforward. But if we do not follow it, we will be doomed to bankruptcy. How can we encourage Australians to save more and spend less on wasteful investments? One way it could be done is to follow what was done in Japan. The Japanese Government simply told individuals: `We will allow interest on your savings in savings accounts tax free up to a certain level'. That is a very simple approach. What happened in Japan? Immediately there was an enormous increase in the amount of savings in the community. That gave a base for the Japanese economy to borrow money overseas, invest dramatically in its industries and expand its productive capability. We must export. We must develop industries that are internationally competitive. Has the Government given any real lead in this direction? The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, has made certain suggestions about how we can go about encouraging our export-orientated industries. My criticism of the activities of Senator Button at this point is that we have seen very little action. I have listened to Senator Button espouse his plans for industry. I have yet to see them being put into action. We must do something about employee parti- cipation. We must encourage an environment in which employees can use their abilities, and are encouraged to use their abilities, during the eight-hour working day to improve the efficiency of the industries in which they work. It can be done, but it means a fundamental change of attitude in this country. We must break down the confrontation between management and the worker. We must get rid of the idea that the boss says `You're being paid by me to do what you're told,' while the worker says `I'm not going to use my brain power to make money for the boss'. We must achieve a co-operative attitude. As I mentioned once before in this place, the Toyota company last year processed no less than 1.9 million suggestions from employees. All of those suggestions were processed by small group activity-small groups of people of 10 or less, during working hours, who considered the suggestions and made recommendations to management. Management in the Toyota organisation acted on 90 per cent of those suggestions. The greatest genius of all time could not come up with 1.9 million suggestions to improve the efficiency of an industry. That sort of co-operative approach, that worker participation, that involvement of the work force in how companies are being managed, is absolutely essential if our industries are to become export-orientated and efficient by world standards, so that this country can stand on its own feet. Japan had a problem after the war. In 40 years it has built an industrial machine that is the envy of the world. It now produces more motor cars than the United States. It produces 56 per cent of the steel used in the United States. We can do it in Australia. But we will not do it unless the Government manages the economy and says that it has a responsibility to co-operate with industry, to give it a lead, to find out the best and most cost effective ways in which industry can be developed to export to the world. Industry should look at the world as being its potential market. I was recently in Tasmania. I looked over the Repco Bearing Co., which is a very efficient organisation. I have no doubt that if there were government assistance, and round table discussions between government, industry leaders, the trade union movement and the workers in that plant, they could come up with a very cost effective strategy to export the products from that factory in Tasmania all around the world. It requires very little to become a little more competitive, to achieve a price structure that enables organisations to export. We are very short of foreign currency. What has the Government done in discussions with the tourist industry? Queensland possibly has the capacity to double its tourist intake in a very short while. That would be a very quick way of earning foreign currency. Has the Government sat down with the leaders of the tourist industry in Queensland to find out what is the most cost effective way of doubling the tourist industry in that State, and in Western Australia? Senator Button —Why don't you ask some of these questions at Question Time and then you would get an answer, instead of asking rhetorical questions? Senator SIDDONS —I always get an answer. But my comments today are directed at the Government for inaction. We hear the rhetoric. We are told about the plans the Government has, but there is no action. We are debating the Budget today. In this Budget no money has been allocated to encourage employee participation. No money has been allocated for technology transfer. There is no suggestion about how the Government will tackle our balance of payments problem, short of screwing down the whole economy so that our demand for exports will drop. This will make the whole community suffer. The Government is attacking the economy as a whole rather than attacking the problem directly. The approach which the Australian Democrats advocate is not novel. The Japanese economy has always been managed yet I do not hear the Liberal and National Party members accusing the Japanese economy of being socialist. Every time I say in this place that there has to be co-operation between management, governments and workers, I am accused of being a socialist. I am simply saying that we cannot sit back and let market forces run the country. Unbridled capitalism is the most destructive force one can imagine. The power of undirected money impinges on the poor and weak. That is a cruel approach. If individual enterprise is encouraged and given the opportunity to expand, it will save this country. The individual entrepreneur and the person with an idea that can be developed and sold around the world are what Australia needs now. They have not had encouragement. We shall never have that encouragement unless the Government changes its fundamental approach and is prepared to accept a change of philosophy and say: `We have to pick winners in industry. We have to find which industry has the best potential dramatically to increase its export activities.' When those industries are identified, the Government has to sit down with them and say: `Right. What can we do to ensure that this potential is dramatically increased?' We are in an emergency akin to a state of war. In 1943 and 1944, the Government was forced to say to those manufacturing industries that had the capacity to increase defence production: `How can we help you to double your output? Do you need this machine tool? Do you need that raw material?' When agreement was reached, the Government made sure, through low interest loans and by other means, that those potential industries could expand quickly. That must happen now. No single broad brush policy can develop our export industries quickly. But there is a fundamental principle-co-operation among government, industry and employees with round table discussions so that the Government moves into what is most cost-effective. If the Government does not do that-there is no sign, and certainly not in the Budget, that it is about to do so-Australia is doomed to bankruptcy. A contractionary budget, such as the one we have just had, will exacerbate the problem, screw the whole economy down, create massive unemployment and increase interest rates. The cut in government spending will discourage investment in the private sector. Although from time to time we hear some fine plans from the Government, I am afraid that the Government's fundamental policies are such-the Budget is an example-that no action will be taken. Limited reserves of foreign capital are available. Unless we husband those reserves and ensure that they are used to develop our export-oriented industries-manufacturing, farming, mineral and service-and ensure that our scarce capital resources are directed towards productive ends, Australia's future is bleak. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.34) —I listened with fascination to Senator Siddons's comments on the Budget. We heard for about 10 minutes how he thought that private industries should be protected, although he did not put it quite that way. It was fascinating, while recognising that the honourable senator is in that business, to hear him say that the Government should sit down to talk with private industries and look after them. I would prefer our industries to be lean, efficient and subject to market pressures. Many industries have survived and many will survive. Our biggest problem is that there is too much government involvement in the economy and the private sector, indirectly through government charges, imposts and regulations. I am sure that Senator Siddons's industry and most others would be better off if the Government got out of their board rooms-where the Government now is, albeit indirectly-and their pockets. We are discussing the Budget which was handed down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the night of Tuesday, 19 August. With all the hype, PR and propaganda, it is almost like Christmas-the whole nation seems to come to a halt waiting to hear the Budget. There are good reasons for that, of course. A budget is a blueprint that sets out a government's policies and economic management problems for the ensuing fiscal year. It has to do many things, taking into account the current position. With that in mind, I shall consider some of the problems facing this country dealing first with the economic problems. Our current account deficit is increasing by $1 billion a month. Our total overseas debt has doubled since Mr Hawke and Mr Keating took over the treasury bench-from $36 billion to more than $80 billion. We have the largest budget deficit that this nation has ever had. What does it all mean? I suppose that the figures are pretty large and that, to the ordinary man in the street, they are almost so large as to be meaningless and incomprehensible. It is hard to come to grips with a sum of the size of $80,000m. Senator Lewis in a previous speech gave a good example. It is like an average family living in suburbia that decides that it wants a better standard of living. It goes to the various finance companies to borrow money. It puts in a pool and spa, landscapes, buys a new hi-fi set, air conditions the place and puts in a billiard room. The family then sits back and says: `Boy, this is really living. Why were we not doing this all along?' At the end of the month, letters come from the finance companies: `Your payments are due.' The family then sits down and thinks: `Gee. We are not even earning that much.' So the chickens quickly come home to roost. The high standards of living which they desired lasted only a little while. The family then has to sell off their goods, send people out to work, work extra time, and so on. That is what is happening with our nation. Just as that family was living well beyond its means, so is our nation. One of the big problems is attitude. In Wednesday's debate I said that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, had built up in the minds of the Australian people the belief that Australia was a utopian country and that they could have their piece of utopia without exerting too much effort. Unfortunately, when he became Prime Minister that utopian dream was still in people's minds. He did nothing to dispel it. In other words, one can have it all without much effort. An Australian employer has to contend not only with salaries but with conditions, on costs and work practices the likes of which no employer in any other nation has to contend with. It is estimated that on-costs add up to about 80c for every dollar paid in wages. There has been a drawing back from that as employers have started to say: `Whoa. That is enough. We cannot afford it. If you want jobs, we have to sit down and make better arrangements.' I agree with Senator Siddons that, if we keep the Government out of it though, there should be better discussions between the work force and management. We have had the Mudginberri, Dollar Sweets, Broken Hill and latterly, of course, Robe River disputes. I do not have to go over some of the silly practices that have come to light at Robe River-practices which nobody in his right mind should contemplate, let alone even think that a firm or a nation could afford. We have become known as the land of the long weekend. We seem to like to have those three-day holidays every chance we get. I instance Australia Day, which is supposed to be the great patriotic day for Australians. It so happens that it fell on a Sunday this year. That was not good enough. We were not really celebrating Australia Day, we wanted a long weekend, so we had the Monday off. That was an extra cost to employers and to the nation. We have our inevitable sickies. I doubt whether there is a country in the world where the sickie has become such folk lore. In a major industry in the last few weeks, at the same time that an employee's application for sick leave appeared on his supervisor's desk there appeared a photo in the local newspaper of the employee competing in a marathon run. He wondered why he was called in and asked whether he wanted to resign or be sacked. The sickie has become part of the folk lore of this nation. We are a trading nation that is not competitive. That is probably a contradiction in terms, but in fact that is what we are. We are an unreliable, high cost, low productivity trading nation. It is a contradiction in terms, and we cannot survive if we go down that track forever. The Government makes much of the accord. I give the Government one point for the accord because it has stopped the excessive wage increases that would have occurred had it not been in place. However, I also take points off for the fact that the accord has sheltered the wage and salary earners of this nation from the reality of a broken economy. The accord has meant that wage and salary earners have received wage increases as the consumer price index has gone up. It is no wonder that employers, and John Howard last night, have called for a wages freeze. The accord has sheltered the people from the realities of the economic downturn in this country. We have two problems-the economic problem and the attitudinal problem. The attitudinal problem, of course, is very long term. One of the main failures of the 1986-87 Budget is that it is seen by the Government as the only answer to our problems. We have had nothing from the Government which demonstrates that it recognises that there are other problems and that it is looking at a co-ordinated strategy. When the Prime Minister fought the 1983 election he campaigned on many things, but one of those was that he had a special relationship with the union movement and that, as such, he would have an influence with the labour movement that the Liberal and National parties did not have. That special relationship has not borne much fruit in respect of the attitudes of the union movement. Indeed, we have seen that attitude displayed by the Ministers in this Government. It was only a few weeks ago that they took to the newspapers to press their cases to the public on what they thought they should get out of the Budget. That attitude has gone right up into the top section of this Government. I suppose we have all heard of the Boston Tea Party. It would not take much of an Einstein to come up with a theory of relativity on the Canberra cake party-that one cannot have larger slices out of an ever diminishing cake. Yet that is what the Ministers were after. It is no wonder that the Treasurer made his banana republic outburst. I firmly believe that he said that not so much for the public as to get over to his Ministers, with their insatiable appetites, the idea that there was an ever decreasing cake and they could not continue down the track they had been going down until then. Interestingly, when the Prime Minister returned he literally took over the economic spokesmanship from the Treasurer for a while. It was not too long after that that we had our call to arms as he saw his economic world crumbling around him. One of the other problems about the attitudinal situation is that our education system is pretty incestuous. We have people there who have not experienced the real life of industry or farming or whatever. So we have students coming out of that system who think that the world owes them a living. Senator Chaney in his comments indicated how the Budget debate was restricted. Unfortunately, this is something we have seen to a greater extent since this Government came to power, and never more so than this session, when a two-week sitting period was set down but has been reduced to one week. I agree with Senator Chaney that there is not much time for debate in this forum, where the matter should be debated, when we return after this one-week sitting. There will be plenty of other legislation around our ears. The reason for this one-week sitting is that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer want to get around the country to sell the Budget. All I can say is that the Prime Minister had better be a better salesman for his Budget than he was when he was a part owner of Bourke's Store or ACTU Travel. I give the Labor Party points for the fact that it designed the Budget Speech to be an impact speech. In other words, it was a speech designed to make an immediate impact and get headlines the next day, before people woke up to the reality of it. The Government has done that before and it did it well this time. Even on Tuesday night one of the first things mentioned in the Treasurer's speech was the reduced deficit. The money market eased up, but within an hour, after we saw how that deficit would be arrived at, the market started to ease down again. One has to acknowledge that a reduced deficit of $3.5 billion is a laudable objective. The Opposition does not take the Government to task for the way it goes about it. The reduced deficit will mean reduced government borrowings, and that should ease the pressure on our already high interest rates. But that reduced deficit has been arrived at by a $2.6 billion profit from the Reserve Bank of Australia and, as other speakers have said, including Senator Chaney and Mr Howard, by increased taxation. There has been an increase of 11 per cent in the Government's total tax take-up by $7.1 billion. That is now 28 per cent of gross domestic product. Last year it was 27.7 per cent of GDP. Interestingly, the average of the tax take to GDP for the Fraser-Anthony years was 22.5 per cent. That $7.1 billion could have been better used for productive purposes and private investment instead of being ripped out of the wealth creation part of the country and put into the stultifying public sector. A closer analysis of the figures, which is what some of the economists are starting to do, gives quite a different story. The late Sir Phillip Lynch coined the term-he probably wished that he never had-`rubbery figures'. Mr Keating has given the term a whole new meaning. In the last Budget the dollar was forecast to be 68 on the trade weighted index. In reality, it dropped to 50. In the last Budget the GDP was forecast to grow by 3.7 per cent. If one takes out the Government sector, the non-productive sector, the private sector has shown a minus 0.4 per cent growth since the Hawke-Keating Government came to power. Interestingly, the total government sector as a percentage of GDP is now running at about 42 per cent when most economists say that an ideal figure is 25 to 26 per cent. Of course, the government sector is not just the Commonwealth Government, it is also State and local governments. Private non-fixed investment was forecast to grow by 5 per cent. In fact, it grew by 2.6 per cent. The current account deficit was to be $10 billion. It was actually $13.7 billion. No wonder analysts, economists and business are all questioning this Budget's figures and showing concern. During the Fraser-Anthony years debt servicing accounted for 8 per cent of our total export income. It is now running at 36.6 per cent and at the end of June 1987 it is expected to be 39 per cent. Those percentages, as well as our total overseas debt, really put us into third world status. The third largest outlay, of course, is public debt interest. It is behind only social security and payments to other governments, the States, et cetera. Ten per cent of this total Budget is for public debt interest-$7.5 billion. There has been a promise to reduce the Public Service by 2,000. Interestingly, over the last three years since the Hawke-Keating Government came to power there has been an increase of 25,000 in the number of Commonwealth wage and salary earners, and the Government has promised to reduce it by 2,000. That, of course, does not take into consideration all those employment and job creation schemes to bolster the Government's employment figures which are, of course, funded by the taxpayer. At a very conservative estimate there would be over 100,000 employed in those various schemes. Despite all that, the Government is acknowledging that we are looking at a higher unemployment rate. It has made much of its income tax reduction. That was mooted some time ago. That has already been deferred from 1 September to 1 December, but of course it will really be negated when we take into consideration the tax bracket creep, the fuel excise and all the rest. It is interesting to note that the fuel excise has increased by 140 per cent since March. For every litre of fuel that is bought, 23.9c goes to the Federal Government. That alone will mean an increase of 0.4 per cent in our inflation rate. That alone is more than the increased inflation rate of Japan or West Germany, two of our trading partners. It was Mr Keating who accused the Fraser-Anthony Government of making every petrol bowser a tax collection point. I bet he is rueing the day he ever said those words. The Fraser-Anthony Government was only an amateur. We now have sales tax on such things as flavoured milk and fruit juices. Whenever we go out to buy our lunch or our children go to a school tuckshop, we are all doing our bit to try to keep this Budget deficit down. There is a 10 per cent increase in sales tax on luxury cars. Of course if there is going to be such a tax we cannot decry the fact that it is to be levied on luxury items, but how do we define a luxury car? There is no definition of that. All we have is an arbitrary figure of about $30,000, and of course that figure does not really bear any relationship to the cost of production or whatever because a lot of the cars, especially the most innovative cars, that are coming into this country are already loaded up with import duties. Indeed, I think we must recognise that if most cars were not coming in we would probably have a pretty poor type of car here that was not open to the world market situation. I can remember when our great manufacturers here were putting on the market powerful V8s with drum brakes, not really good suspension and cross-ply tyres. It is only because the continental cars particularly, and lately the Japanese cars have been coming in, with their innovative safety designs, improved economy, fuel injection, electronic ignition and all the rest, that the Australian manufacturers have sat up and tried to meet the market. As I said, I am not against sales tax on luxury cars, if there is to be one; but this is purely arbitrary. It is based on a dollar figure and it does not take into consideration the fact that those import duties are already there and already hurting the most innovative car manufacturers in the world. It would be interesting to see how many rewrites there have been of this Budget and the Budget Speech in the last few weeks. Senator Chaney —Not enough. Senator COLLARD —Obviously not enough. But we can imagine that, as the economic indicators started coming in and the Government's world started crumbling around it, the midnight oil would have been burned very late many times as the Government went through many rewrites. Senator Button —You are not wrong, Senator. That is the first correct thing you have said. Senator COLLARD —I knew that the honourable senator would be honest enough to acknowledge that. But the Government still has not got it right. As Senator Chaney said, there have not been enough rewrites. As the Right Honourable Ian Sinclair said, it is an Helena Rubinstein Budget-all cosmetic and too damn expensive. So we get back to the fact that we have this two-fold problem-an attitudinal problem and an economic problem-and unfortunately this Government still has not got past treating, albeit pretty shallowly, the symptoms and not the disease. It is now in the hands of the Government, with its special relationship that it claims to have. I think it is really the responsibility of all of us, when we get around the countryside, to convince the people of Australia that Utopia, if it was ever there, is certainly not there now and that if they want it they will have to work damn hard for it. If we are going to keep going the way we are, our standard of living will suffer. We are a trading nation, and the Budget has been no help. Not one financial measure has been brought in since this Government came to power that has not hurt the productive, investment, manufacturing or export sectors of this country. It is like a horse trying to run in the Melbourne Cup with hobbles on. Both Senator Chaney and Mr Howard in their speeches have outlined the way we see that it should go, so I will not go down that track. We have put policies in place and there are more coming out. The basic thrust of them is that we should get out of areas that the Commonwealth Government should not be in. We should be assisting those sectors that can revive us. If one is a dairy farmer and has a cow producing 7,000 or 8,000 litres and testing 4.2 per cent butterfat, one does not starve her; one looks after her and breeds from her. Yet what have we found with this Government? The very sector that can get this nation out of its problems has been starved and has been hurt. We have to reduce the Government's involvement. We have been told: `Man the trenches; put on our tin hats'. What is the use of being out in the front line? I do accept the fact that, if the people of Australia are given a proper challenge, if they are told where they are going and told what the problems are and if they can see daylight at the end of the tunnel, they will be prepared to man the trenches and put on their tin hats; but that is of absolutely no use if there are no logistics backing them up, if they are way out in the front line and there is nobody to supply them with what they need. What is more, in the supply area there would probably be somebody on strike anyhow. I will say one thing for the Government: At long last it is recognising the problems. We do not now hear the claim that we have a strong and growing economy. It is recognising the problems, but unfortunately it has not come to grips with anything that might attack those problems. We still have the compliant attitude to the trade union movement. This was a Budget of despair, not hope, and it certainly was not a blueprint of good economic management. Australia will suffer further as a result of it. Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Vigor, and read a first time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.00) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Introduction It gives me great pleasure to present to the Senate the first Bill for the effective self-government of the Australian Capital Territory. Since the passage of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act in 1910, control of most decisions relating to the A.C.T. has rested with a Minister of the Federal Parliament in whom the power to make Ordinances resided. This Bill seeks to vest that power effectively in the people of Canberra through a freely and democratically elected representative House of Assembly. Effective self-government The Australian Democrats want to see effective self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. In drawing up the terms of this Bill, we have consulted widely with the residents of Canberra and stuck closely to the principle that the national parliament should have as little opportunity to interfere in local decisions and events as possible. I believe that the outcome meets square-on the fears and reservations of Canberrans, particularly in relation to finances and to the quality of administration. There is an understandable apprehension that somehow the transfer of powers will cause greater bureaucratic empire-building as local politicians seek to increase their prestige, at least among their peers. Let us be quite frank. Such wastage can always occur. By the same token, if the people of Canberra elect to their Assembly candidates of high quality who want to clean up current inefficiencies, a lot of good work can be done. That is the nature of democracy. What is needed however, and what has been lacking to date, is a model which maximises Canberra's chances of carving out an effective voice for its residents, and minimises the chance that the current waste within administration will grow. The contrast is between appropriate and effective self-government as the Australian Democrats are promoting, and a half-hearted Clayton's self-government, without local input, being touted by the government. Essential features of effective self-government for the A.C.T. There must be no large cost increases for Canberrans which means there must be a fair financial deal, a deal not easily susceptible to the more outrageous political whims of beleaguered national governments. There must be a fair electoral system. We have chosen a quota preferential system with three electorates of seven members, with no by-elections. There must be a staged transfer of powers. There must be a thorough review and complete overhaul of the outdated legislation at Commonwealth expense. The Assembly itself must be an effective voice for Canberrans, and not a body neutralised by illogical restrictions and out-dated or inconsistent legislation as in the government proposal. The Assembly must be the genuine voice of all Canberrans, and not the plaything of any particular section of the community, or the bauble of any dominant faction within some political party. The Bill being introduced by the Australian Democrats meets all of these requirements and has the additional virtue that it has arisen from a process of consultation with the local Canberra community. A staged introduction We are proposing an orderly handover of powers to the people of the A.C.T. in three stages, so that after 1 January 1992, Canberrans will be to a large extent masters of their own destiny. At each stage, we want to make sure that the people of the A.C.T. have the resources to manage these powers effectively. We also want flexible administrative structures which open up options in decision making, rather than restricting them. All decisions are to be freely-made at the local level and not dictated from elsewhere or by outside influences. At the end of this process, we will leave the Commonwealth only the power to legislate in the national interest, but not to interfere capriciously in the running of the Australian Capital Territory. This will ensure that Canberrans are able to set whatever agenda reflects the community direction that they wish to take. We are resisting in legislation the forces which have seen to it that well-thought-out recommendations of previous enquiries into self-government have been ignored. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, of which Mr Howard was a member, released a report on ``Self-government and Public Finance in the Australian Capital Territory'' late in 1974. Its members set aside narrow partisan advantage and achieved a remarkable degree of agreement on how the A.C.T. should be run. In March 1975, Mr Howard made these remarks in the House of Representatives: ``I express the view that at all stages the Committee's deliberations on the form of self-government which should be adopted for the Australian Capital Territory were approached in a non-partisan way and in a non-political fashion. This exercise was perhaps the first time since Federation when a committee of any Parliament of Australia had had the opportunity, as it were, of starting from scratch and drawing up an outline of the form of self government for a part of the Australian Commonwealth.'' Similarly, in 1984 the members of the Craig Task Force on Implementation of A.C.T. Self Government concluded their extensive public enquiry and reported unanimously on the nature of A.C.T. government, financial arrangements and the electoral system. The then Minister for Territories and Local Government promised a government White Paper during the first half of 1985 when tabling the Craig Report in the Parliament. This did not happen, nor was there any effective local Australian Capital Territory input when the Hawke government started considering the matter and rejecting any proposal which left Canberrans with more than a pretence of a say in how decisions affecting their lives would be made. The Hawke government produced a half-hearted proposal with thirteen single-member electorates, very few powers, limited privilege, and over-riding power of veto by the Minister. The package which emerged from Cabinet's deliberations was rightly greeted with indignant derision almost universally throughout the A.C.T. The Canberra Times, a noted proponent of self-government, thundered: ``A belief, however firm, in the absolute necessity of self-government is not alone enough to engender support for the government's package. The package, in truth, is not self-government at all. It is simply another scheme of A.C.T. management, primarily by outsiders, dressed up to give the appearance, but not the reality, of local participation. It bears no resemblance to the different reasoned proposals which have emerged from various quarters over the past 73 years-even from the Labor party itself.'' Since that time, the ``insulting imposition'' in the form of a ``half-hearted system . . . almost designed to fail'', has been buttressed by nine pages of amendments which the government circulated too late for the Senate and House of Representatives to have any hope of reaching agreement. That Bill has not been brought on for debate in the Senate, and yet the government is already talking about setting up an appointed Advisory Council. This would set the clock back before 1930 and undoubtedly attract the attention of the Human Rights Commission or its attenuated successor. They were obviously trying to fool the people of Canberra. It is high time to question the Hawke government's bona fides in this whole process, and the Australian Democrats are doing so by offering a comprehensive constructive alternative. All the evidence suggests that the ALP really want to control the A.C.T. in perpetuity with only 40% support, and that significant sections of the Cabinet want the people of Canberra to be unable to make any important local decisions without outside interference. Specific features of the Australian Capital Territory Effective Self-Government Bill. Jervis Bay included The 1974 non-partisan report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory stated categorically that ``Jervis Bay come under the Authority of the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly''. All committee members agreed that it ``would be hard to justify the creation and administration of a separate body of law for such a small community''. Yet in a time of national crisis, and major cuts in government services, we have a proposal to sever the Jervis Bay Territory for the first time since 1915. The Defence Department is already wasting thousands of dollars on environmental vandalism and plans to turn the area into a major nuclear port. This process should be halted immediately and attention turned to the northern parts of Australia which need better surveillance and other useful defence facilities. This Bill includes Jervis Bay in the Australian Capital Territory. Assembly functions I have already mentioned that the Assembly must be capable of discharging its duties effectively. It needs a legislative clean slate and proper financial resources. It also needs internal procedures which enable it to address Canberra's problems quickly and effectively. It must not be allowed to wither as an ineffectual body which has lost all community support because it can't achieve anything. The Assembly will have to develop a reputation for doing things properly. We have given it the best chance possible by making membership full-time and ensuring that members concentrate on their public duties. We shall not, as in the government Bill, exclude large numbers of residents from candidacy on frivolous grounds. Self determined committees and standing orders We shall not set arbitrary limits on how the Assembly conducts its business, and what powers its committee shall have, nor shall we seek to qualify the privilege with which members speak, or otherwise hamstring the operations of the Assembly. Members will answer to the people of the A.C.T. for the manner in which they discharge their responsibilities: they will not be able to shelter behind the claim that they inherited an iniquitous system from the national parliament. Full powers by 1992 The Australian Democrats believe that from 1992, the Assembly should have potentially plenary powers to legislate for the `peace, order and good government' of the A.C.T. The Commonwealth should basically be restricted to legislating in the national interest, as is essential under the Constitution. This means that the Commonwealth will always be in the position of having to show how rather than relying on various powers of disallowance of laws or dismissal of the Assembly. Health, education and planning by 1990 At the start of 1990, both the health and education functions will be transferred, along with the financially vital one of planning of land use and the development of land in all areas except those areas set aside by regulation because they have an over-riding national aspect. As a consequence, the National Capital Development Commission Act or its successor will have to be further revised at about that time. Municipal powers immediately From the election of the first Assembly, all of the usual municipal powers except those of planning will be transferred to the new body. Each such power is individually assigned by schedule. Financial guarantees This orderly transfer of powers will be matched by the wherewithal to manage them through the financial guarantees written into the legislation. Every three years, the Commonwealth Grants Commission conducts a comprehensive review of A.C.T. finances under terms of reference which allow it to take full account of both Canberra's national capital status, and its very important regional role. For instance, nearly one-quarter of hospital bed use is made by people who do not live in the Australian Capital Territory, and there are other significant examples where the A.C.T. authorities provide services to a very large surrounding area. The Commonwealth Grants Commission will also have regard to the sums that the Commonwealth makes available to the States and local government in determining the minimum amounts, in total, and in relation to functions transferred to the Assembly at that time. An indexing formula is applied for the two years between every re-evaluation and re-appraisal of the Commission's methodology. A.C.T. residents are only too aware of how unreliable the word of this Government is after the sale of the Belconnen Mall. All Canberrans will welcome these fair financial guarantees being written into the legislation. They will then have time to organise if any threat of unreasonable federal action arises. Review of all legislation All Ordinances made after the inauguration of the House of Assembly will be presented to the Senate and House of Representatives along with a fair summary of the Assembly's views on the matter. It will be harder for Commonwealth Ministers to continue to treat the A.C.T. with the undisguised contempt they have shown in recent years. For instance, in May 1985, on my motion, the Senate disallowed the hefty and unjustified increases in penalties imposed for trading in unauthorised hours. At the time, Senator Ryan conceded that the offending Ordinance had created even more anomalies, and that it would have been better to completely overhaul the Trading Hours Ordinance 1962. That is what the now-defunct House of Assembly wanted to happen. Despite the numerous inquiries and the years of public controversy, nothing of substance has emerged on this question since then. Another example typical of the snail-like pace with which overhaul of A.C.T. legislation has occurred is the Tobacco Ordinance 1927, the subject of revision and current manoeuvres by the Tobacco Institute it was to have been completely overhauled several months ago. Case after case of this process can be cited almost at will. Sunset clauses on all out-of-date legislation The people of Canberra deserve a fair go at the start of self-government. The Assembly shouldn't have to devote a large part of its scarce resources to examining and restoring outdated legislation. This Bill ensures that the Commonwealth will provide the resources necessary to complete a comprehensive review of all current A.C.T. Ordinances and applicable N.S.W. and Imperial Acts in the first five years of self-government. All existing Ordinances and Acts will automatically expire at the end of that period unless they have been previously repealed or properly revised at Commonwealth expense. Under the legislation, the Assembly will be able to lay down the guidelines for any revision project through resolutions, and then act upon the report or draft law produced as a result. There will undoubtedly be a long-overdue substantial shake-up of the A.C.T. administration carried out in parallel with this process, and this will enable resources to be deployed much more effectively. No current arrangement will be sacrosanct. The Assembly will be able to carry out programs of reform without having the past inactivity or incompetence of successive Ministers and Departments as an albatross around its neck. This must be paid for by the Commonwealth and approved by the new Assembly. Assembly members I have previously indicated that full-time membership of the Assembly is essential if that body is to properly perform its scrutiny functions. We propose that members wishing to engage in paid employment outside the Assembly first obtain the approval of the Assembly. Those with an interest in an A.C.T. public contract will have to declare the interest and refrain from voting on that matter. Public respect for the Assembly will be improved by these strict standards. The legislation includes strong re-instatement rights for those A.C.T. public servants who resign, rather than obtain leave of absence without pay, and who fail to be elected to the Assembly. In this way, and because we are proposing a fair electoral system that will put only candidates with community support into the Assembly, we will encourage people of high standing in the community to nominate for election. Quota preferential system A.C.T. residents have had more than thirty-five years of experience with proportional representation as the electoral system has been tied to that of the Senate since the first Advisory Council was established in 1930. Both the Craig Task Force and the earlier Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory unanimously endorsed proportional representation in their major reports on self-government. The government proposed a system of single member electorates in their retrograde bill. The all-party Committee made these comments about proportional representation in 1974: ``It also significantly lessens the redistribution problems of other systems. It does not, as some suggest, necessarily fail to achieve representation of localities within the electorate and electors should be able to identify a member of the Assembly who resides in, or in the vicinity of, their own locality.'' More choice for voters We shall assist the public, firstly by including on the ballot paper the suburb in which each candidate lives. We shall also rotate the order of names within a particular group column on the ballot paper so that each endorsed candidate has the same access to the best places in the column. This rotation has been used with great success in Tasmania since 1979. The absence of party regimentation has benefits both for voters and for parties. A wide diversity of candidates are endorsed. This means much greater choice for the voters while ensuring that there are no damaging factional brawls over who gets which positions on the ballot paper. Representation of the people We are proposing three seven-member electorates for the A.C.T. This will allow reasonable scrutiny of the executive and of administration. In each electorate, any candidate with 12.5% of the vote will automatically be elected. A group with a majority of the votes will win a majority of the seats. Consequently the Assembly will very closely mirror the wishes of the people. A group which receives around 45% of first preferences will stand a reasonable chance of taking four seats out of seven if it tops the poll. Much will depend on the range and quality of the candidates endorsed. No party will be able to ignore large areas of the A.C.T. or large sections of the community. The Craig Task Force set out three essential features of any fair electoral system in which the wishes of the majority prevailed, significant minority community views were reflected in the legislature, and a workable and stable government resulted. These were: the closest possible adherence to the principle of one-vote-one value equity in opportunity to exercise a meaningful vote and to have that vote recorded equity in opportunity in all other respects particularly to nominate for office and to campaign for election. In the unanimous view of the Task Force, a multi-member proportional representation system achieves this best of all. Mixed systems were criticised severely for their artificiality and complexity, the two different classes of members, and the potential for distortion of the voters' wishes in the single-member districts. The Task Force concluded that they were `impractical and unnecessarily complex'. One practical effect of the three seven-member districts is that redistributions will be very infrequent, even with the reduction to 5 per cent in the discrepancy allowed in average enrolments per member. Voters will enjoy the stability in representation that comes when boundaries remain unchanged for long periods. No by-elections Another important practical effect is that casual vacancies will be filled by a re-examination of those papers not for sitting candidates. This straightforward procedure is similar to that in Tasmania, but it maximises the number of voters who achieve direct representation in the Assembly at any given time. Costs to the taxpayer are minimised at the same time, and there is no diversion of government nor are there wild promises made in the hope of securing a seat. There will certainly not be the half-a-million dollar waste created by the holding of 11 by-elections in New South Wales in a period of little more than 18 months. Conclusion It is of course disappointing that the government, with the vast resources at its disposal, produced such a pitiful package. The Australian Democrats want effective self-government for the people of the A.C.T. I am therefore proud to bring up a Bill which protects the interests of Canberrans and those of the nation. This Bill will give the people of the Australian Capital Territory a good framework for self-government in which they can make local decisions about their community and its resources. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.02) —We are debating the diabolical and draconian Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. Senator Button —I was just admiring your flowery start, if I might say so. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It was a frank, factual and fair description. As I have said, this legislation will not provide equal opportunity. It will lead to the conferring of an advantage. This will occur because of the nature and function of the Director of Affirmative Action and because of the requirements to set objectives and forward estimates. By any measure quotas, by another name, will be imposed. To what extent these aspects of the Bill will make it an affirmative action Bill rather than an equal opportunity Bill will depend very much on the person appointed to fill the role of Director of Affirmative Action. The prospect that this legislation may become an affirmative action instrument involves the possibility that the Government will be prepared to lean on people based on the recommendations which the Director of Affirmative Action makes about employers' compliance with the Director's views of what is a satisfactory affirmative action program. The Director is required to report to the Minister. As there is no prescribed penalty for failing to comply with any standards set in the Bill, what is the purpose of requiring employers to report to the Director who in turn will report to the Minister? Without any apparent penalties in the Bill how does the Government intend to cope with an employer who suggests, assumes and takes the position that the Bill is a ridiculous waste of time and who has no intention in any way, shape or form of setting any objectives or forward estimates? Does the Government intend this legislation to be a toothless tiger? I think not. I am certain that this will not be the case. I believe the Government intends to bring pressure to bear upon employers who do not fit into its little social models and its attempt at social engineering. The Government will do this, as it acts in most cases, in the most insidious way. Rather than being open and honest and putting penalties in the Bill, the Government will use the approach that it has used before when it does not have the courage to legislate openly. It will lean upon any employer who fails to toe the party line. Past examples to which one might point include the case of sportsmen who had the courage, commitment and audacity to seek for financial gain or reward sporting contracts and contracts with South Africa. What did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) say? He said that he would scrutinise very carefully their tax returns. What did the Government do in its legislation on the Builders Labourers Federation? Senator Button —That is something that you could not stand. I know that close scrutiny of any returns would not be anathema to you. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I do not mind close scrutiny of tax returns. I thought that that was the normal function of the Australian Taxation Office. What did the Government do to employers if they did not comply with its code of conduct concerning the Builders Labourers Federation? It did not legislate; it just threatened them. Ignoring for a moment the merits of the high principles of the government in such instances, there are examples of the Government bringing pressure to bear on people by misuse of the various arms of government in a particularly evil and, in my view, frightening way. Senator Button —It worked though, didn't it? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, it worked. Governments are able to intimidate the average John Citizen. How many people can beat the bureaucracy and beat delinquent governments which are prepared to intimidate people and stand over them? Senator Button —Do you think employers should have been allowed to go on bribing builders labourers? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I do not. I would give no marks to the employers that did so. Senator Button —Then what are you talking about? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am talking about the employers who were not prepared to comply with the Government's code of conduct. Those employers were not outlawed, the Government simply said that they would not receive any more government contracts. Senator Button —That's not a bad idea. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Why did the Government not legislate for it? Senator Button —You probably would have opposed it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Button knows me better than that. I would have supported it. I am no lover of employers' conduct in recent times concerning employees. It takes two to tango. Under this legislation, because the reports will be made public, employers who do not comply will be held up to public ridicule. There will be enough pressure to ensure that they buckle under. Having established that the Government will be able to coerce employees to comply with the wishes of the Director, how might the Director's powers under this legislation be used to implement positive discrimination? This will occur through the requirement that employers establish objectives and forward estimates. In plain English, these terms mean the setting of quotas on the numbers of women to be employed. There has been an entirely unsuccessful attempt in the literature which surrounds these terms to distinguish these terms from quotas. It is suggested that quotas are in some way fixed, whereas these terms imply voluntary compliance and therefore are in some way variable. That is incredibly contradictory. The literature continues to indicate that an example of a forward estimate-the quantitative term-would be an employer aiming to have a certain percentage of positions at a certain level staffed by women within a certain time. Even if it is not compulsory to comply with these estimates, the mere fact that employers are forced to resort to some arbitrarily imposed figure for the employment of women indicates a departure from the merit principle. The imposition of objectives requires an attempt to eliminate work practices which allegedly would have discriminating effects on women. Such practices might include the imposition of a minimum height requirement, for example, in cases where it is determined that the height requirement is not really necessary. The best person to make that judgment and the necessary stipulations is the employer himself, or herself, and not some outside Director of Affirmative Action who might set foot in the employers' premises only once in 20 years, if ever. Despite claims of the voluntariness of the scheme under this Bill, the scope for pressure to be brought to bear to ensure that an employer complies with the Director's view of what are the objectives and forward estimates which an employer should reach under this Bill is sufficiently wide for these settings to be as mandatory as if they were fixed by law. As I have said. I am quite sure that the Government does not mean to stand impotent in the face of an employer who refuses to comply with the legislation. Owing to the imprecise words used in the Bill it is impossible to foretell exactly the effect that this Bill will have. In large part it will depend on the mood of the person occupying the position of Director of Affirmative Action. In trying to estimate the likely effects it might be useful to examine the trends which have occurred in discrimination legislation and from this environment attempt in part to predict what the mood of the Affirmative Action Director might be. Although the non-discrimination principles might have started out as something with which few reasonable people would disagree, they have been pushed and perverted by the more radical elements. It is now to a greater extent the target of completely justifiable derision. We ought to consider a couple of examples from the New South Wales Equal Opportunities Tribunal. The first is Troy Morrison v. the Gallipoli Legion Club Newcastle Ltd. In this case, the complainant, Troy Morrison, was a homosexual who entered the defendant club dressed in women's clothing. Earlier the same evening, there had been an incident where a similarly dressed man had entered the women's toilet. Troy Morrison was refused service by the barman, who did not want trouble in the club-quite properly. The Tribunal said: Whilst it is conceded the Bar Attendant acted as he saw fit in the best interests of the Club, the Tribunal accepts the submission of Counsel for the complainant Ms Simpson that in refusing to serve the complainant the Bar Attendant made the kind of stereotyped assumptions that the Anti-Discrimination Act is directed towards. The fact that the members of the club may have been offended by a man dressed in such fashion or that they, the owners of the club, did not wish to have homosexuals in their club were matters the Tribunal was unable to take into consideration. Another example of the perverse extent to which these types of laws are being pushed occurred in the case of Shane Edmund Burke v. Peter Tralagan and Spence Real Estate Pty Ltd. It is a case I am sure we all know about where the doctor refused to rent his home to an unmarried couple because he believed that this would amount to his profiting from a relationship, which according to his Christian principles, he considered to be immoral. For the practising of his Christian views, the doctor was fined. The Tribunal said: If a person is a member of a religious order whose doctrines promote marriage as essential for persons wishing to live together, this belief may not be imposed upon persons wishing to obtain accommodation, as a criteria for obtaining such accommodation. The doctor was undoubtedly of the view, as most Australians presumably would be, that as he owned the home-a reasonably significant factor, I would have thought-he should be able to rent it to whomsoever he choose. The Australian Capital Territory school system has been moving towards positive discrimination within the school system to ensure what the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority regards as sufficient representation of women, Aboriginals and disabled people throughout the levels of the schools system, irrespective of ability or merit. This is the growing level of fanaticism directed to the community at present where the principle of appointment by merit has been disregarded. Dr Peter Wilenski, the Chairman of the Public Service Board, was reported in the Australian of 3 April 1985 as saying that the merit principle was a tool of those in power who maintain the status quo. He said: Standards of merit, either deliberately or unconsciously, often were based on the values, style and priorities of the dominant male group in the organisation. We all know that this Government has no belief in merit or excellence. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has said this on many occasions. I put it to you, Mr Deputy President, that these examples are an indication of a growing level of fanaticism surrounding the anti- discrimination issue in this country. It is now being pressed to the point that it overrides people's religious beliefs, the right to determine who are appropriate people to be admitted to clubs and even to the point where it is questioned whether it is appropriate for people to be appointed on merit in the first place. In this environment, I ask the Senate: Can we realistically expect that the Director of Affirmative Action will have an adequate regard for the rights of employers to choose the staff which they determine are appropriate for the positions which they have available? Can we expect the Director to have any consideration for business realities, or will these be treated with the same contempt which has been shown for private property rights and the right to practise one's religion? I believe that the Director will form her own preconceived opinions about whether there is an appropriate level of employment of women in each respective business. Inevitably, this will lead to the same situation which now occurs in the United States of America. In that country when employers impose certain minimum requirements upon employees such as educational standards, height or strength standards which may be more difficult for women to satisfy than men, the courts can now examine whether they consider that the requirement is justified having regard to the employers' business. The onus is placed on the employer to show why the requirement, which is imposed, is justified by business necessity. This has even applied to requirements of minimum standards of education. In Griggs v. Duke Power Company, the United States Supreme Court held that the requirement that janitors employed by the company have a minimum standard of a grade 12 education was, in its opinion, unjustified for the position and therefore unlawful as it discriminated against blacks because a lower percentage of blacks had year 12 education than had whites. Other aspects of the American affirmative action experience are less subtle. The Civil Reform Act 1978 requires Federal Government agencies to recruit so as to eliminate the under-representation of groups when compared with their numbers in the community. The legislation is therefore requiring the representation of groups such as women, blacks, et cetera, in proportion to their numbers in the community, irrespective of merit. I believe that this will be the result of the affirmative action legislation now before this chamber. Such a result is wrong for many reasons. The first of these is that it requires the involvement of a person outside business to evaluate the hiring programs of businesses. In my view, this is immediately unjustifiable. The hiring practices of employers are matters for those employers and have nothing to do with any government bureaucrat. It is totally unrealistic to assume that any one member of the affirmative action inspectorate will have the knowledge to evaluate the merits of the employment practices of the many hundreds of different types of businesses which may be examined. How can any bureaucrat-frequently, one can assume, Canberra based-have the knowledge to accurately assess what is an appropriate level for the employment of women in industries from Port Arthur in Tasmania to Port Hedland in Western Australia? How will the Director of Affirmative Action know what actually constitutes merit in a particular industry? Will the Director simply assess merit on academic achievement without any assessment of personality, initiative and drive, which is so important in the recruiting of good employees? The fact is that this legislation is asking a bureaucrat to make assessments about employees in industries which can only be properly made by the employer who is on the scene, who knows what the job demands and who knows how well an employee would fit in with his existing work force. The final reason for opposing this Bill is that it is the greatest condemnation which can be levelled against it. Rather than improving the status of women in the community, this Bill will undermine it. The Bill is an enormous insult to all women. It is tantamount to the Government saying it recognises that women will not be able to succeed in their own right, but rather they would only be able to do so with government help. The Bill will be of great assistance to all those incapable women applying for jobs. It will be of no assistance to those who are capable. It will enable incapable women, incompetent women, to get jobs which they would not normally get if they were forced to rely strictly on merit, irrespective of sex. In my view, affirmative action legislation is a threat to all those many talented women who have already obtained positions on their merit. The question which, of course, will be asked after this Bill is passed is whether a woman is holding a position because of affirmative action legislation or because of ability. The Bill will undermine the achievements of many women. It will also lead to resentment by men when they see a woman holding a position because of legislation and not because of capacity or competence. The damage to the status of women in the work force is immeasurable. This Bill is yet another attempt at social engineering by this Government. It is of the same vile stock as the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and as such it should be cast out of this place for the betterment of Australia and Australian business and for the betterment particularly of Australian women. If it is, men and women will both succeed and be seen to succeed on their merits and not as a result of such paternalistic and demeaning legislation as this Bill and as this Government would wish it to be. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.20) —Today we are debating the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. The title of this Bill reminds me somewhat of the Virginia Slims advertisements that one sees in many magazines. The caption at the bottom of these advertisements, as many honourable senators would know, reads: `You have come a long way babe'. Generally there is a picture of a woman of the 1800s era doing some sort of 1800s-type of activity, contrasted with a woman of the 1980s. There are a number of reasons why the title of this Bill and, in fact, its substance remind me of those Virginia Slims advertisements. Firstly, the substance of the Bill reminds me of just how far Labor has come away from what it originally wanted and how far this legislation is from what some women expect of the Government. In my view, to call this affirmative action legislation is to overstate the case in the extreme. As the Minister for Education and Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) well knows, the legislation is not setting goals or targets and, most importantly of all, it protects the merit principle in employment. Therefore, one asks oneself why this Bill is titled the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill and why it is not called what it really is, an equal opportunity Bill, with the affirmative action part of the title dropped. Well, it is a case of political pragmatism; it sounds good. The title has appeal to some in the general public who I suppose, like most Australians, do not read the detail of every Bill that comes before them. Most Australians go on the headlines that sub-editors put on articles. Therefore, calling this Bill the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill creates an impression of something much greater than an equal opportunity Bill. When one looks to the substance of the Bill to see whether it matches the title, one sees that it does not. In my view it is a deliberately misleading package. The legislation should be called the Equal Opportunity Bill. Along with other senators and the Minister, in April I attended the Women's Electoral Lobby conference as part of this Government's National Agenda for Women program. At that conference the Minister reminded the women there just how far women, and she in particular, had come since 1972. The Minister informed the group present that she remembered coming to that campus in 1972 when there were tents on the lawns and everyone was having a gay old time. She reminded women that in 1972 the surroundings were much less salubrious than they were on that day in April this year. The good Minister indicated to the group that she was reminded of just how far women, and she in particular, had come when she was being driven to the conference that morning in her ministerial car. The Minister may now regret those remarks, because I assure honourable senators that, as the Minister undoubtedly will remember, they went down like a lead balloon. I assure the Minister that, in my view, she should not be concerned by the fact that the sensible portion of her contribution was not warmly received, because my own sensible contribution was not warmly received at that conference either. However, Senator Haines made a contribution that was very warmly received at the conference. I agree with the Minister's description when she said that Senator Haines received acclamation from a geriatric cheer leader. Of course, the reason Senator Haines received that warm reception was that she promoted a line at that meeting-a line which she promotes at a number of meetings-to the effect that this Government and, of course, the coalition do not have the interests of women at heart and that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are all for business but not for the poverty-stricken women of Australia. She instanced, as she has on a number of occasions, the example of business people being allowed to deduct for taxation purposes a very long list of expenses as operating costs. She mentioned that that included, of course, the cost of electricity for running factories. Senator Haines said, however, that the people at the conference were not permitted to deduct electricity expenses for running the home. Of course, this went down very well with the throng at the conference that day. I am very pleased to raise the subject now because as Senator Haines is now Leader of the Australian Democrats I look forward to her introducing some Bills into this Parliament that will put the power she now has where her mouth has been for so many months. However, I return to the lead balloon comments concerning the ministerial car. It took one Olive Murphy, a Torres Strait Islander whom I understand the Minister has appointed to the National Women's Consultative Council-I congratulate Olive Murphy on that appointment and, for that matter, the Minister for making it-to get up and tell the throng at the conference that she did not have a ministerial car or an air-conditioned office. In fact, what she was telling everybody was that not all women had come as far as some other women-certainly not as far as the Minister. We therefore have to ask just who has come a long way and who is going further. Of course, the Office of the Status of Women has moved a long way. In my view it has moved away from the Public Service role of privately advising Ministers into one of making public political comments. Senator Giles and the Minister know full well the situation to which I am referring. I make these remarks to reinforce the words of my colleague Senator Hill, who spoke in this debate in this chamber several days ago, when he said that this Bill will only help a number of women. I am pleased that the Government is paying at least some attention in this respect to a particular group of women. The legislation will help those women. It will help a group of women who need help and who need to overcome prejudices. From my point of view, at least, there is no denying that. Let us, however, keep the acclamation for this legislation in proportion. Let us acknowledge the small group of women that the legislation will help. It will help women in the bigger businesses. It will not help the check-out operator in the small local supermarket to proceed to a higher position. It will not help the sales clerk at the local electrical store to get a small management position over and above her male colleague. It will not help the female technician in a small, high technology manufacturing firm. Certainly it will not help migrant women who work in small, sweaty garment factories in inner Sydney or inner Melbourne. It will not help the women who take laundry at home or who go out to clean for the high-flying professional careerist or the high-flying femocrats. It certainly will not help women who work for trade unions. Certainly it will also not help women who are locked out of permanent part time work as a result of the rigid labour market. These are the women who will be helped on the return of the Liberal Party to government. Of course, there is another group of women whom the legislation will not help. I refer to the Labor Party female aspirant to the South Australian Legislative Council. For the benefit of honourable senators present and listening who are not familiar with this sad story, I will relate what happened in South Australia so that every honourable senator is able to see whether Labor practises what it preaches. Senator Crowley knows full well what I am referring to. At the last South Australian State election a woman on the Labor Legislative Council ticket very sadly missed out on election by one position. The Minister will know that it is a common practice of both political parties to stand women for election to positions which they may make if they are lucky but, in all probability will not. Of course, this is what happened to the woman in South Australia. She did not make it. However, as luck would have it, at that very election a legislative councillor stood for a lower House seat and won it. The day after the election he resigned, thus creating a vacancy. Here was an opportunity for the Labor Party in South Australia to show that the next person on the list-the woman who could get in if she were lucky and who was chosen shortly before to stand in that election-could move up and take that Legislative Council position. What happened? She did not move up and take that Legislative Council position. She was given the dump. The Labor Party put in a man. Senator Crowley comes into this chamber wearing a cloak of equal opportunity and affirmative action. However, she does not wear that cloak in her own Party. I ask her to come into this chamber at some time and answer for what she did to assist that woman in South Australia to gain the position which she should have got. If Senator Crowley worked as hard as she could have to get that woman up on that occasion it shows just what little influence Senator Crowley has in her own State. Senator Crowley has made an error. She has been corrected. The error she made was in referring to a recent national Liberal Women's Conference held in Adelaide. Senator Crowley purported to represent two resolutions, which had been passed a number days apart, as being in conflict with each other. I have read the Hansard, and Senator Walters has pointed out to Senator Crowley her error. The motion passed by the Liberal Party Federal Council was passed on a States rights basis. There is no Liberal of whom I know who does not agree with the principles of equal opportunity. The motion that was passed one or two days later at the National Liberal Women's Conference supported the principles in equal opportunity legislation. To my mind those two are not inconsistent, but Senator Crowley has had this error pointed out to her and I trust that she will not therefore inadvertently misrepresent the situation again. I support this legislation. Along with most other Liberals, I believe that equal opportunity legislation is a proper function of government. I admit that if the coalition parties were in government we perhaps would have done it differently. We might have extended the voluntary program. Let us not forget that much depends on what people are prepared to do for themselves. The Government cannot do for women what they will not do for themselves, and it cannot do for business what business will not do for itself. To that end I was interested to read in a publication put out by the Liberal Women of South Australia called Equal Opportunities an article written for that magazine by Dr Leonie Still entitled `The Position of Women Executives in Australian Business'. I will quote just a small portion of that article to back up my point that women must do some things for themselves, as business must do some things for itself; we cannot rely totally on the Government to do everything. I quote: The fight for access to management has only just begun and needs to be conducted on two levels: access to management and access within management (up the hierarchy). While progress has been made in the first area, the other has hardly been addressed. The results of any change will depend largely on women themselves and how determined they are to improve their management status. So much for the role that women themselves can play. I have said that I agree with the principle behind this legislation and acknowledge that the Government is entitled to choose the implementation of the policy which will put the principle of equal opportunity into practice. There is, in my view, bipartisan support for that principle. I have a number of concerns with the legislation. I have mentioned the first already, and that is the misleading title. I think it is a pretty cheapskate arrangement, but I need not repeat my remarks in that respect. Secondly, I have a concern that it is an imposition on business. In these hard times-these times of adversity that our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) tells us equal those of war-it seems a little inconsistent to be moving now to put a further burden on business. The Government is seeking to add this burden on business on top of other burdens such as the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and, particularly in relation to my State, the 20 per cent wine tax. When the wine industry has had only one year to adjust to the imposition of the tax in the first place this Government seeks to double that tax. I also have a concern that the Government is using this Bill to get a foot in the door and, having a foot in the door, it will attempt to step up the provisions of the Bill and move it from what I now believe to be an equal opportunity Bill to an affirmative action Bill. Of this Bill the Prime Minister says: . . . it seeks to foster the development of affirmative action programs in an atmosphere of consensus and co-operation between government and employers. This approach is also reflected in the only sanction provided in the Bill: The Director's power to name in a report to Parliament any employer who fails to lodge either report or who fails to provide further information on request. The Prime Minister lists that as the only sanction, and I certainly hope it remains that way. In introducing this legislation, the Prime Minister called it a milestone. He spoke most loquaciously; he oozed concern and sincerity. When I read his comments I thought back to a book I had read by Blanche d'Alpuget on the Prime Minister just before he made that speech. You need have no fear, Mr President; I will not go into any of the passages in the book-I would not waste the Senate's time with such matters, and they are public knowledge anyway. As I was saying, I read the Prime Minister's comments, and I remembered Blanche d'Alpuget's book. My perception was that this man, our Prime Minister, had been through a dramatic change in his attitude to women. He, too, along with the Minister for Education and many other Australian women, has come a long way. Almost like St. Paul on the road to Damascus, our Prime Minister appears to have been converted, unless of course it was a Clayton's conversion for the benefit of Hansard. As I said, the Prime Minister pointed out that this legislation was a milestone. For some Australian women it is; for business I fear it is going to be a millstone around its neck. In conclusion, I support very strongly the principle of equal opportunity and therefore support this legislation. If the coalition were in government it would have proceeded towards the same goal but in a different and less intrusive manner. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(12.37) —The facts about the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment for Women) Bill 1986-what it is intended to achieve, its goals and its implementation-have been canvassed over and over again in this debate, and it is pointless to waste precious time rehearsing them. I hope I will be able to make some points in conjunction with what has been said during the debate-comments, assertions and so forth that have been made by a wide range of speakers, some of whom have shown a sensitive appreciation of the Bill and its goals. That sensitivity and that appreciation have not been confined to this side of the House. I would like to express my gratitude to those members of the Opposition who have taken the trouble to find out just what this Bill is about, to give it some objective consideration, and to be prepared to be constructive about what many of us believe to be an extremely important matter and an extremely innovative and progressive move on behalf of this Government. I would like to challenge an assertion that was made by Senator Haines very early in this debate that this was one of the few commitments to the electorate that have been fulfilled by this Government. Indeed, in relation to our commitments to women I think Senator Haines will find that our record is very fine indeed. This, I would suggest, is one of the crowning accomplishments in that range of progressive measures. I am sorry that Senator Haines fell into a trap that many other members of the Opposition parties were not able to avoid, and that was to stress the fact that the Bill as it is drafted and as it will be administered initially will not apply to the majority of women in the Australian work force. That is to ignore the structure of the Australian work force, to fail to recognise that amongst the largest enterprises are a majority of Australian working women. They will of course be covered from the beginning of the operation of this legislation, which covers employers of more than 500 employees-not more than 500 women employees, may I hasten to add-which of course widens the range considerably again. I was a little disappointed to discover that members of the National Party of Australia, even after some years in Federal Parliament in some cases, did not seem to have learnt a great deal. Senator Bjelke-Petersen, for example, seemed to be right out of her depth. It was on the day she asked a question about navy beans, and my notes suggest that she should keep to those issues with which she is obviously very familiar. She worried about pushing women artificially up the ladder and simply failed to acknowledge the fact that for very many women there is no ladder at this stage and that unless we take measures to create ladders which women can genuinely scale there will be very little change, and whatever change there is will be very slow. An analogy that might be useful here is the Haulpak truck, the vehicle that is in common use in the iron ore industry to cart ore. It is not difficult to drive. What is difficult is to get on to the bottom rung of the ladder to climb up into the cab, which is very high in the air. One needs to be a tall or agile person just to get on to that first rung. It has nothing to do with gender. It should have nothing to do with whether one has very long or very short legs. As far as I am aware, long legs are not an inherent requirement for a reliable driver of a Haulpak truck. Senator Bjelke-Petersen used a rather cliched adage that time is the changer of all things. That is absolutely so, but how much time do we have? It is very nearly 200 years since Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women. It is well over 100 years since John Stuart Mill wrote about The Subjection of Women. It is over 80 years since Australian women and many Western European women won the vote. Without extra measures being taken to overcome the inherent disadvantages of being a woman in a male dominated world, changes, as we have seen, will happen very slowly. To quote Alison Ziller, the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment in the New South Wales Government: Unfortunately, one of the by-products of a discriminatory system is that a sense of urgency and purpose tends to be lacking among the ranks . . . She is referring here to majority group managers. I might widen that description and include the majority of politicians and other senior members of our national institutions. Alison Ziller goes on to say: Perhaps this is because they- she is referring, once again, to managers- rarely perceive a need for such a program assuming, as many do, that they have reached their own positions on the basis of merit and genuine competition. We know that in most cases this is simply not so. The competition has been a very closed competition until very recently and, in many cases, that is still the case. I was disappointed that Senator Hill, who supports the Bill, also managed to avoid some of the realities of the Australian work force and the way in which those realities would be addressed by this Bill. He insisted that it would have an effect only on the better educated and upwardly mobile women. That is patently ridiculous when one considers the fact that, as I said previously, the legislation will apply to enterprises with 500 employees or more in the first instance and will be phased in to smaller establishments as time goes by. Even if the legislation were to apply only to better educated women, let us not avoid the fact that very many well-educated women are currently holding down jobs which are way below their capacities. I was in a position to say to the vice-chancellor of one of Australia's largest universities on the eve of his retirement that probably one of the greatest benefits he could award his institution before retiring would be to make it possible for the women who were in the secretarial positions in that university to apply genuinely, with a chance of proper consideration, for administrative jobs-women who in many cases had gone into those secretarial positions with not very impressive qualifications but who, as a result of years of experience, had become very competent administrators and who in many cases were practically running university departments. That is not a set of circumstances foreign to the experience of many of us. If one looks at the clothing trade in Australia, an industry which employs an enormous number of women, including many migrant women and women without formal qualifications, one gets an idea of exactly what the scope of this legislation will be. Amongst the biggest employers of women in the clothing trade are Pacific Dunlop, with a staff of 5,020; Lintrad, with a staff of 7,460; Bonds, Coats, Patons, with a staff of 4,451; BNCK, with 4,000 workers; Sportscraft, with over 1,000 workers; Stafford Ellinson, with 500 plus; and Fletcher Jones, with over 500. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Gietzelt will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Gietzelt in relation to his portfolio, or to those he represents in the chamber, should be directed to Senator Grimes. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to his public statement, reported on 14 August, that there will have to be a renegotiation of at least the wages aspect of the accord. Does the Minister agree that the 2 per cent discounting proposed by the Government is not sufficient to preserve the competitive advantages of the devaluation? Further, is it not also a fact that, quite apart from the devaluation effect, the Budget Papers predict a 0.5 per cent addition to the consumer price index because of indirect tax increases and that there are likely to be other increases in the CPI caused by the Budget, for example, the inflation of health care costs? Will the Government give consideration to arguing at the next national wage case for a higher level of discounting than proposed in the Budget to take into account the Budget impact on the CPI? Senator BUTTON —In terms of wages and other matters which fundamentally affect the economy, this Government has always taken the view that it is desirable to obtain results by a process of negotiation if that is possible. The Government has indicated in the Budget Papers that it will seek a 2 per cent discount in the next national wage case but it has also indicated, through various statements by Ministers, that we will seek negotiation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions about those matters later this year. It is true that I suggested renegotiating the accord as it stood on 14 August. It is important to note that, I think yesterday, the ACTU after meeting with its President, Mr Simon Crean, expressed a willingness, as I understand it, to negotiate some of those matters. I do not want in anything I say in the Senate to prejudice the conduct of those negotiations. Frankly, I think that would be crass. Senator Chaney —Crass? Senator BUTTON —It is a good word-and prejudicial to the negotiations which might take place. Having said that, in a sense I decline to answer the remainder of Senator Chaney's questions which relates to the CPI effect of indirect taxes and so on because the points he is making are subsumed in the broader question of the extent to which wages should be negotiated in the next wage case. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I acknowledge the Minister's desire not to interrupt or to interfere in any way with discussions with the trade union movement but I must ask him whether he agrees that the impact of tax changes on the CPI is appropriately a matter for consideration when assessing what wage rises should occur during this Budget period. Senator BUTTON —Any matter which affects the CPI, whether it be indirect taxes or anything else, is an appropriate matter for consideration when one considers the appropriate wage discount or adjustment which should be made to wages. I concede that point, and I do not think I am doing anything particularly remarkable by making that concession. Any of these factors which impinge on the CPI have to be taken into account. Having said that I emphasise what I said earlier. It has always been a source of extraordinary surprise to the Opposition. Question Time after Question Time in the last three years the Government has been asked: `What are you going to do about wages in the next quarter?' Given the circumstances prior to the current disastrous downturn in the current account, satisfactory results were obtained by the Government. There is no doubt about that. All I asked members of the Opposition to do, on numerous occasions, was to possess their souls in patience and we would provide an answer. However, there is no point in putting all of these things on the public record in the Senate. It might be very enlightening to honourable senators but we will not be there when the negotiation process takes place. Senator McKIERNAN —Will the Minister for Education inform the Senate whether any education decisions in the recently announced Budget will ease the high cost to country parents who need to send their children away from home for their education? Senator RYAN —I am pleased to answer Senator McKiernan's question by saying that, yes, there are measures in the Budget which will be of particular benefit to country parents and country children. I know that Senator McKiernan, who represents a State which has many such families, will be pleased to learn this. The main form of assistance to individual students is the assistance for isolated children scheme, which has been revamped. Expenditure on that scheme will be increased by 16.4 per cent in the next financial year. The net effect of these increases will be to improve opportunities for those students who have to leave home to go to school. As Senator McKiernan knows, the AIC provides financial assistance to the parents of children who, because of geographic isolation or disability, must study by correspondence, must live away from home to attend school or must live in a second family home which provides daily access to schooling. The scheme will be changed next year to make it more consistent with Austudy, the new student assistance scheme through which financial support will be paid according to age. The most substantial increase in benefits will go to isolated students aged 16 and over. Students aged 16 and 17 can now get a maximum benefit of $73.28 a week and students aged over 18 can get up to $80 a week. The income test applied to parents to determine students' eligibility for assistance will be substantially relaxed-it will be relaxed by a factor of 15.6 per cent-and there will be a guaranteed minimum payment of almost $1,000 a year regardless of family income. As well as these income support measures for students and families we have decided to fund the loan video scheme for another three years. Honourable senators who have isolated areas in their States will be well aware of that very successful program that assisted students living at home in remote areas. An amount of $1.3m has been allocated for this purpose. To further demonstrate our concern to improve and upgrade our programs for country areas and country children, I have announced a major review of rural education by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. In order that that review have the direct input of parents of isolated children a representative of the Isolated Children's Parents Association, Trish Mitchell from Queensland, has been appointed a member of the Commission. In terms of higher education, the Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin, and I will be setting up a review of agricultural colleges that train young people to work in rural industries. It is clear that the Government's income support and assistance to isolated families programs and increased emphasis on the needs of country students at all levels of education will lead to a great improvement in educational opportunities offered in country areas. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. The Budget Papers reveal that there will be a reduction in real terms of funding under the heading of law and order. In particular, the Australian Federal Police allocations will be cut 2.7 per cent in real terms. Will the Minister advise whether the Government will be completing its program of increasing AFP numbers by 300 by 1988 and whether the reduction funding will result in any reduction in the fight against crime and drug trafficking generally? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have about three pages of notes which state how terrific the AFP is and how terrific it will continue to be as a result of the budgetary provisions. I am not exactly sure whether I am precisely answering Senator Archer's question. It will take an awfully long time for me to read the notes. I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- AFP Resources and Achievements While focusing strongly on the need to impose tight financial discipline, the Government remains committed to the maintenance of its law and order programs. In this regard and in line with the strong public committment made by the Prime Minister during the 1984 election campaign, the government has increased the real level of resources available for the Australian Federal Police in 1986-87. Since taking office the Government has increased AFP manpower by 462 which represents an increase of approximately 18%. Certain routine guarding functions have been removed to other agencies (Australian Protective Service). In addition, the effectiveness and professionalism of the AFP has been significantly improved through a number of organisational and administrative changes implemented as a result of the joint management review and the resources review, both initiated by this Government. In August 1985 the Government issued the AFP with a new charter of objectives and priorities recognising its development as a federal investigative body. In accordance with its priority tasks of countering drug trafficking, organised crime and large-scale fraud against Commonwealth revenue, AFP resources have been redeployed to effect very significant increases in staff resources devoted to drug investigations, fraud and general crime, and intelligence. A five-year deployment plan has been developed to ensure the most efficient use of the resources available, in terms of the Government's objectives and priorities. Some of the more important achievements of the AFP are: Major drug seizures Major fraud investigations Improved domestic and overseas liaison and intelligence-gathering capabilities Better co-operation with other Commonwealth agencies Improved terms and conditions of employment for AFP members New accommodation in Canberra for majority of AFP headquarter staff. AFP-MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS SINCE 1983 Significant seizures of heroin, cannabis resin, cocaine and other narcotics through combined efforts with other Commonwealth and State agencies. Major drug seizures include: 2.25 tonnes of cannabis resin located in a container at a Sydney Wharf. 120 kgs of heroin imported from Thailand. disruption of a syndicate responsible for importing between five and seven tonnes of cannabis resin of which approximately one tonne was recovered (Operation Lavender). Major fraud investigations include: a scheme to defraud the Australian Taxation Office by manipulation of Sales Tax payable on imported or wholesale merchandise, involving an amount in excess of $6 million. a conspiracy to defraud Australia Post of stamps valued at over $428,000. a $250,000 fraud committed against the Department of Social Security by one person using multiple false identities. a major conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth of approximately $20 million by the use of a commodities futures scheme. seizures of $4.9 million in counterfeit Australian $50 notes together with materials used in their manufacture. extensive medifraud investigations. Improved domestic and overseas liaison and intelligence gathering capabilities by: stationing liaison officers in the U.S.A., U.K. and in key South East Asian countries. maintaining close liaison with the Australian Customs Service, State Police Forces, Joint Task Forces and the National Crime Authority. Several important achievements, in the area of terms and conditions of employment for AFP members, have flowed from Government initiatives undertaken during the current term of office: the thirty eight hour week; the working party appointed to review the terms and conditions of service applicable to the AFP from which flowed; the 4.5% equitable base salary increase; the detective/investigator's allowance; the first overall review of the level of AFP allowances since 1980; and a complete review of the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal Determination which detailed terms and conditions of employment of members and included new conditions such as, parental leave, leave for adopting parents, flying disability allowance. The establishment of the Industrial Relations Branch within the AFP. The majority of AFP Headquarters staff in Canberra will move into new accommodation in Northbourne Towers in December 1986. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to cuts in the special purpose education programs, particularly those which concern the ethnic community. Can the Minister inform the Senate why so many programs of direct value to the ethnic community have been cut? Senator RYAN —I think all honourable senators will be aware that the Commonwealth Government has made substantial and lasting improvements in the educational opportunities for migrant children since the time of the Whitlam Government. Our contributions in those areas will continue to be substantial. In terms of special purpose programs, special teacher training, teacher development and review of curriculum materials to make them more appropriate for migrant children, the Commonwealth has and will continue to play a major role. However, as part of our budgetary restraint, we have been obliged to make some cuts in special purpose programs, some of which directly concern the ethnic communities. It is important to put those cuts in the proper context. We have reduced funding for the English as a second language program, but we have also indicated at the same time that State governments can move further into that field. We will provide the States with the assistance to do so by making it clear to them that if they wish to nominate ESL provision as a target for the additional funds available under the resource agreements, the Commonwealth will certainly agree to that. I remind honourable senators that funds provided for English as a second language to new arrivals-the most needy group of migrant students-have not been cut at all. That program will continue at the same level. But additional funds for the ongoing element of the program may be sought under the resource agreements. Also, we have had to decide against any further growth in the ethnic schools program. That program had burgeoned at a very dramatic rate in recent years and is now at a level that the Government is finding some difficulty in sustaining. However, we will sustain it at its present level. I point out to honourable senators that under the ethnic schools program, not one student or school currently in receipt of assistance will be disadvantaged. The Commonwealth had funded through the Schools Commission a small program called the multicultural education program. That has now been phased out. The reason is that it is now time, we believe, for schools in both state and non-government systems, to incorporate the multicultural perspective throughout the curriculum and make it part of the mainstream, not simply a small add-on approach to education. Of course, the development of most interest to ethnic communities in the education area is the development and finalisation of a national language policy. We have almost finalised that very complex task and funds have been allocated in the Budget for early implementation of the national language policy. It should be remembered that all of the special purpose programs which most directly alleviate disadvantage have been preserved-that is, the disadvantaged schools program, the participation and equity program and basic learning in primary schools. Those programs are of benefit not only to mainstream disadvantaged students, but also, of course, to those migrant children who live in disadvantaged areas and attend schools targeted under the disadvantaged schools program. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. It arises obviously from the excessive length of the Minister's answer. The Minister is either making a statement or debating the question. Those seem to me to be the two choices. She has certainly gone well beyond simply answering the question. I ask you to call her to order. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Chaney would know that the Chair has no control over the length of a question or an answer. I have pleaded with questioners to reduce the length of their questions. This week I have pleaded with Ministers to reduce the length of their answers. I again make that plea and ask Senator Ryan to heed my remarks. Senator RYAN —Yes, Mr President, I will happily co-operate with you. In conclusion, the major programs of assistance to ethnic students will continue and the special needs of students from non-English speaking backgrounds will be given additional emphasis in all of the programs which the Commonwealth funds. Senator ROBERTSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I will be very happy if the answer is brief. The Minister mentioned the national language policy. Can she advise when this policy will be presented? Senator RYAN —I should have available a penultimate draft document by November which will be the subject of further consultation with the ethnic communities and other interested parties. Senator HAINES —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy, and preface it by reminding the Minister that last Wednesday, in reply to a question by Senator Sanders in relation to uranium sales to France, he said that Australia would now seek to capture 25 per cent of the French uranium market and that this would open up opportunities for `Roxby Downs and new suppliers'. Does this mean that the Government anticipates that new uranium mines will be opened in the future in addition to Roxby Downs? If so, are Jabiluka, Koongarra, Ben Lomond and Yeelirrie among the likely new mines, and what are the names of any other prospective new mines? Finally, can the Minister say whether the Government will issue export licences for any new mines apart from Roxby Downs, or is it simply laying the groundwork for a future coalition government to do so? I would prefer it if the answer were not incorporated in Hansard. Senator GARETH EVANS —Obviously, neither Senator Haines nor Senator Sanders, who put out a very feverish Press release later that afternoon, were listening very closely to what I said the other day. I stated: . . . in the context of the market for all practical purposes now being opened . . . it is therefore possible for Roxby Downs and new supplies- not `suppliers'- coming on to the market to now actively pursue the French market in a way that was not possible during the currency-- Senator Haines —Hansard says `suppliers'. Senator GARETH EVANS —Hansard got it wrong. I am very happy for Senator Haines to listen to the tape, if she has any problem with that. Obviously, that is what I intended because very shortly afterwards, in response to a question from Senator Kilgariff, which tracked over exactly the same territory as Senator Haines has got herself in a twist about today, I stated: The Australian Labor Party policy on limiting to three the number of mines from which uranium can be produced and sold remains, I assure the honourable senator and everyone else, quite intact. I said that about five minutes after I had answered Senator Sanders's question. There is no question of any change of policy in that respect so far as the Party is concerned. I was simply making the obvious point that in relation not only to the material coming on to the market from Roxby Downs, itself a new supplier, but also the new material coming forward from Nabarlek and Ranger, the French market would be open to both of those existing suppliers with their new supplies, in a way which was not previously the case. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of the recent tragic accident in which two school children were killed while travelling in a school bus in south-west New South Wales? Does the Commonwealth have any jurisdiction over safety regulations concerning bus travel? If so, does the Government intend to review those regulations so as to improve safety? Senator GRIMES —I have discovered the brief given to me by the Minister for Transport about the accident which occurred on 12 August in which a semi-trailer collided with a small bus at Balranald. All the indications are at the moment that the crash was caused by human error rather than problems with the maintenance or design of either vehicle. The report indicates that the school bus drove across the front of the semi-trailer. A range of safety features for trucks and buses is covered by the Australian design rules called up in State and Territory legislation. Operating safety requirements, however, are essentially matters for State and Territory administration. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety reported in June 1986 on passenger coach safety and found that passenger coaches are in general a safe form of road transport. The Committee made a number of recommendations for additional safety items. These are under consideration preparatory to a formal response in Parliament. The vehicle standards committee of the Australian Transport Advisory Council is currently working on incorporating the latest overseas developments in braking for trucks and buses and looking at seat belts for front-row passengers and improved seat strength requirements in buses. None of those, though, would have had any effect on the results of the Balranald crash. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether reports that, first, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the Australian Council of Churches have been giving money to the FLNKS terrorist group in New Caledonia and, secondly, the Catholic Church in Australia has been funding the Philippine Communist Party-which has committed terrorist acts through the New People's Army, its military arm in the Philippines-are true? If so, why is the Government not enforcing the law which makes those in Australia responsible for this funding liable to 10- to 14-year gaol sentences under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no idea of the factual foundation of Senator Sheil's question. I shall have the matter checked and respond accordingly. However, I doubt very much from the information he has given that there could be any question of a breach of that legislation, even if his premise is true. But I shall check and let the honourable senator know. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will he confirm that the 1986-87 Budget shows a decrease of $7m in our bilateral food aid commitments and a halving of Australia's contribution to the world food program? If so, does that mean that this year the Australian Government will reduce its purchases of Australian grains? Will the Minister assure the Senate that these cuts will not affect our aid to major food shortage areas on the African continent? Senator GARETH EVANS —As recorded in the relevant Budget Papers, the 1986-87 Budget provides for a decrease of about $8m in our bilateral food aid commitments. As for the world food program, there has been a halving on paper which stems from the fact that no provision has been made in the 1986-87 Budget for a contribution to the next-1987-88-WFP biennium pledging period because the level of Australia's pledge has not yet been decided by the Government. That matter will be considered in due course in conjunction with an overall review of the food aid program, which is being conducted as a follow-up to the Jackson report of the review of the Australian overseas aid program. The reduction in the food aid budget for 1986-87 will mean a reduction in grain purchased in Australia in wheat equivalent tonnages from 455,000 in 1985-86 to an estimated 320,000 in 1986-87. The reduction, which has been acknowledged as significant, in the size of Australia's food aid budget must nonetheless be viewed against the background of a difficult budgetary situation in which the aid program had to bear its share of the restraint necessary. The reductions in the food aid program have been made possible not only by deferral of a decision on any new commitment to the 1987 and 1988 biennial program of the WFP but also by a significant easing of the food crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, where improved conditions have resulted in a reduction in the number of countries critically affected by the emergency from 21 in 1985 to six in 1986. Within the 1986-87 food aid budget, provision has been made for Australia to fully discharge its current-1985-86-pledge to the WFP and, at similar levels to those in 1985-86, to provide for refugee situations such as those in Pakistan, Somalia and Thailand and for displacement of vulnerable groups in those key African countries which are still suffering the effects of drought. Senator ALSTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Despite the fact that the United States of America is moving to a lower corporate tax rate of 34c and with corporate rates of 35c in the United Kingdom, 33c in Singapore and 18c in Hong Kong already in place, the Government is about to go against the general international downward trend by introducing a higher corporate rate of 49c. Therefore, I ask: Is it a fact that the only countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with a higher tax rate on distributed profits are France and Ireland, with 50c rates? Does the Government acknowledge that its proposed higher rate has been overtaken by events and will further decrease the rate of return to Australian business and actively discourage overseas corporations from seeking direct equity investment in Australia? Senator BUTTON —We must at the moment concentrate on firms' pre-tax profits rather than after-tax profits. I would argue that the more serious issues in relation to this country's current problems concern pre-tax rather than post-tax profits. I come to the specific point of the question. It is true that, according to newspaper reports, the taxation environment is changing internationally, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States. I think that more sophisticated observers of the United States corporate tax proposals would not be deluded by the optics of what is happening there. I cannot provide an analysis at the moment but more sophisticated observers have. In fact, a dramatic decline in corporate tax rates in the United States is not taking place. The United States taxation system has been riddled with enormous concessions of one kind or another to businesses. As I understand it, the proposal is that many, if not all, of those concessions are to be abolished to obtain the optic effect of a 34 per cent corporate tax rate. What that means in real tax terms has to be analysed carefully. Corporate tax rates in Australia are affected by, for example, a generous depreciation allowance-a five/three depreciation allowance-which by next year or the year after will, I think, cost revenue more than $1 billion. There is also a generous allowance in respect of research and development and a number of other such allowances which affect the direction of industry and ultimate corporate tax rates in a wide range of industries which are very important to this country. I do not know what the particular comparative point about Singapore is. That point has been made for years, under all governments. Singapore not only has a relatively low nominal corporate tax rate but, for many years, it operated an economy which provided tax holidays of five years' duration to companies to attract them to invest in Singapore. The 18c rate in Hong Kong is not in any sense one that would be regarded as a comparable rate in an economy that is totally different and subject to totally different circumstances. The honourable senator said that France and Ireland had rates of 50 per cent. I do not know about them. I would be surprised if real corporate tax rates in Germany and Sweden were not higher than in Australia. Certainly, an altogether different picture is painted if one adds the other burdens imposed on corporations in those countries, such as the 93 per cent on-wage costs in Germany. The point which I am trying to make-I am not in any sense trying to detract from what may be a valid point in the honourable senator's question; I concede that-is that many of these comparisons must be carefully examined before we can reach a particular conclusion about the Australian tax structure. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister elaborate on the details of the changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, so as to prevent any misinformation by the Opposition? Will he specify, in particular, the details as they relate to the chronically ill and measures to ensure that such people will not be unnecessarily financially burdened? As the dispensing arrangements for the contraceptive pill have been changed so as to double the supply per prescription and, therefore, maintain current costs, is there any possibility of similar changes in other prescriptions so as to keep costs down for the chronically ill? Senator GRIMES —The new pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which as Senator Crowley knows will come into effect on 1 November, was introduced by Dr Blewett and the Department of Health in consultation with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the aim being to develop a more equitable scheme and also to provide for the chronically ill protection that does not exist under the existing scheme. The new scheme provides a safety net for those most in need who have to purchase large numbers of prescription drugs. From now on, an individual or a family, including concessional beneficiaries, will have to pay for no more than 25 pharmaceutical benefits prescriptions, after which they will receive them free. Pensioners and their dependants who at present receive prescriptions free will continue to do so. The cost to general beneficiaries will go up from a maximum of $5 to a maximum of $10 but the average cost under the new scheme will be about $7.20 or $7.30. There will also be an increase for concessional beneficiaries and their dependants, who will now pay $2.50 as distinct from $2. The safety net will run for 14 months from 1 November 1986 to 31 December 1987. After that it will be based on a calendar year. People will be able to obtain a prescription record voluntarily from their pharmacist. They will enter on a form the record of their prescriptions and, after 25 entries, the chemist will issue the family with a pharmaceutical benefits entitlement card, which will allow them to receive prescriptions free for the remainder of the year. In the case of oral contraceptives, as Senator Crowley has said, people will not have to pay more under the new scheme because the number of supplies per prescription will be doubled. In fact, the cost of oral contraceptives per year will remain at about $30. I have no knowledge as to whether Dr Blewett wishes to extend that provision to other drugs on the pharmaceutical list, but I will obtain that information for Senator Crowley. The Pharmacy Guild and the Government are convinced that the new scheme will provide protection for the chronically ill and is more fair and equitable than the previous scheme. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and follows on somewhat from the question Senator Zakharov asked a while ago. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that studies done several years ago in countries such as Finland and Sweden, and a more recent study in Canada, have shown that the rate of accidents between two or more vehicles is reduced by about 20 per cent simply by requiring drivers to leave their lights on during daytime driving. In fact, when it was first introduced in Finland, in the first four years the accident rate dropped 27 per cent. I ask: Does the Minister agree that if this system were adopted in Australia, it could save some 500 or 600 lives per year? Will he therefore ask the Minister to investigate the matter and perhaps suggest to the States that it be incorporated in legislation? Senator GRIMES —I have no direct brief on this matter. I have certainly seen the system in operation in Scandinavia and I know that the accident rate has been reduced in the Scandinavian countries. Interestingly enough, I went through the phase in the United Kingdom where drivers did not turn their driving lights on at night but just drove with parking lights. I remember the hoo-ha there was in England when the Government tried to get drivers to turn their lights on at night. I am afraid that the same thing would happen here. As Senator Townley knows, any suggestion that one should turn one's lights on or put one's safety belt on is likely to be considered a breach of civil liberties. I think it is a sensible suggestion and I will refer the matter to the Minister for Transport and get a considered response from him. Anything we can do to reduce accidents of any type and to reduce the considerable cost to the community, as well as the distress to individuals and families, is worth while. I will take up his suggestion in that spirit, refer it on and get a decent reply. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to criticism over the past few months of the Federal Government's contribution to tertiary education in Queensland? If so, are these criticisms justified and, in particular, can the Minister explain how tertiary education in Queensland will be affected by the 1986-87 Federal Budget? Senator RYAN —The claims made by the Queensland Minister for Education, Mr Powell, about unfair treatment for Queensland in terms of higher education places are absolutely wrong. On many occasions I have pointed out to the Senate and to the media how wrong they are. Mr President, in deference to your wish that Ministers should not make long answers, I briefly remind the Senate of the situation with regard to higher education places. Since our Government has been in office we have seen a growth in higher education places, which by next year will be a growth of 14 per cent. The number will go up by nearly 40,000 places to just on 300,000 places, which is an increase over that period of 14 per cent. In this time the number of places we have allocated to Queensland has grown by a massive 22 per cent-that is, 8,000 extra places. So while the overall growth has been 14 per cent, Queensland's growth in places has been 22 per cent. As well, it is our intention to continue to give preferential treatment to Queensland-- Senator Boswell —Hear, hear! Senator RYAN —In terms of the allocation of higher education places because, indeed, Queensland was very seriously behind when we came to government in 1983. I am glad that Queensland's Senator Boswell acknowledges that. Since we have been in office we have been overcoming that backlog by giving Queensland a much higher number of higher education places than the national rate of growth. We are pleased to continue this strategy, but I only wish that the Queensland authorities and, in particular Mr Powell, would acknowledge what we are doing. I remind the Senate as well that in the Budget this week we have allocated foundation grants for one of the few new higher education institutions we are funding at this stage, the Gold Coast College of Advanced Education. That CAE, along with the Western Institute in Victoria, are the only two new institutions to be started next year. Without taking up undue time, the facts simply do not sustain the view put by the Queensland authorities that Queensland is being badly treated. The facts sustain my claim that Queensland has been getting preferential treatment and will continue to do so. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the answers given by the Minister yesterday to Senators Parer and Watson regarding the fringe benefits tax. I now ask whether the Minister can clarify specifically whether ex gratia payments made by a company to an employee or associate, as defined in section 136, paragraph 40, are subject to fringe benefits tax? There has been a specific request for this information. If the Minister is not able to supply it, I wonder whether he could arrange for an early statement to be made by the Treasurer. Senator WALSH —If I recall correctly, I did say yesterday that I would see whether the Treasurer had anything to add. I am afraid that I do not have anything now. I apologise for that. I will try to get the information for the next sitting day. Senator COATES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. As it is Senator Grimes today, it is especially appropriate that I direct my question to him because he is from Tasmania. Has he seen the letter published in today's Hobart Mercury, signed by the Liberal member for Denison, inviting the Minister to abuse him as much as he likes, and making sweeping allegations about the Government's financial treatment of Tasmania? What are the facts about these matters, especially the Government's funding of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme? I ask him whether there is any relationship between the context of the letter of the honourable member for Denison and another letter in the same newspaper today from a long-standing member of the Liberal Party, in which she admits that the Liberal Party State Council: . . . is certainly not the place for heavy intellectual input . . . We just meet to have a good time and see each other. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Coates says, it is a vintage day in the Hobart Mercury today, with letters from Liberal Party members of parliament and long-standing members and delegates, I gather, of the Liberal Party in Tasmania. Mr Hodgman's letter is, I suppose, in the form of a Press statement attacking the Federal Government's treatment of Tasmania, and I thought it was familiar. In fact, when we go back through the records, except for the short period when he was a Minister, he used to put out this sort of statement no matter who was in Federal government. Senator Withers —At least he was consistent. Senator GRIMES —Yes, very consistent. For years he used to put out statements complaining bitterly that the Federal Government had cut back the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, cut back on expenditure and heavens knows what. I suppose the best example of the sort of tactic he uses is the example of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. He says we have reduced it by more than 12 per cent in real terms in the past two years. The only change that is to be made to the scheme will in fact be made this year when there will be a reduction in the fees that are paid for goods that are carried in trailers and pantechnicons. In fact that was a recommendation of the independent public inquiry into the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme which was carried out by the President of the Inter-State Commission, Mr Justice Everett. He made that recommendation because in fact freight charges for goods carried in these units has fallen on average by about 25 per cent, or about $470, since the last review in 1985. As the cost of that transport is less, then so will the estimated costs to the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme be less, by about $200,000, which is considerably less than one per cent compared to the 12 per cent Mr Hodgman talks about. Mr Hodgman is carefully ignoring the fact that the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme and the payout on that scheme is dependent on the amount of costs of transport. If the level of transport increases, the costs go up. If the level decreases, they go down. The figure in each Budget each year is an estimate of what will happen in future years. The figure for the payout of the previous year is an exact measure of the amount of transport. Some years it goes over the estimate and some years it goes under the estimate. But it is driven not by the amount of money made available by the Federal Government, but in fact by the amount of transport which goes across. That is an old trick of Mr Hodgman's, a trick which is recognised by bodies such as the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries, and I do not think most people in the State take much notice of him. Similarly his calculations in other areas are equally false. I agree with Senator Coates that the letter which has been written by Mrs Lord is extraordinary. She says that the meeting of the State Council of the Liberal Party is just a chance for people to meet one another and occasionally hear a speech by a politician. She praises the speech made by Senator Sir John Carrick this year, although she is a bit disappointed that the media did not think much of it and did not print any of it. But she is certainly right when she says that the State Council of the Liberal Party in Tasmania is not the place for heavy intellectual input. Everyone knows that. The journalists report it that way. As she says: `We just meet to have a good time, to meet each other and to talk to each other'. Fair enough. I hope they continue to do that and have their nice social occasions. Then no one will take them seriously, just as they do not now. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is he aware that for the 1985-86 year the Medicare levy would have needed to be set at 2.8 per cent of income in order to meet the cost of medical and hospital benefits as the amount of general revenue needed to supplement the levy equalled a further 1.8 per cent of the levy? How can the Minister support the Treasurer's claim that an increase in the levy to 1.25 per cent will enable Medicare to be self-financing, when the Government plans to spend nearly $4,000m on medical and hospital benefits in 1986-87 and the levy is estimated to raise only $1,795m over a full 12 months? Would the Minister therefore explain how a truly self-financing Medicare program could have less than a 2.8 per cent levy of personal income? Senator GRIMES —One thing about the Senate and the present Opposition is that some things never change, and some things never change in the tactics that are tried by members of the Opposition. There has never been any suggestion by Dr Blewett, by Mr Hayden when Medibank was introduced, or by any Treasurer or Minister for Health on this side of the House, or by any Treasurer or Minister for Health on the other side of the House, that the levies that have been imposed by both parties to fund health insurance in this country would ever pay totally for the cost of health services in this country. That has never been suggested. It has never been a claim made by anybody. If Senator Knowles would like a long lecture on the exact figures in the past of universal health schemes that have been supervised by both coalition parties and Labor parties in this country and the difference between the amounts raised by the levy and the funding of health in this country, I will give it to her. I am sorry I do not have the exact figures here. I would hate to mislead the honourable senator. All I can say is that I will refer her to almost identical questions which have been trotted out in this place by members of the Opposition year after year, even when they were in government, to their own Ministers, who gave the standard reply. I will not bore honourable senators now or I will have Senator Chaney getting up taking points of order on me. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. The Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, in his speech in reply to the Budget last night, reneged on all the coalition's spending promises with the exception of abolishing the assets test. Can the Minister advise the Senate of the expenditure promises the Opposition has abandoned? Is the Opposition's promise to eliminate the deficit now credible on the basis of this change to the coalition's fiscal policy? Senator WALSH —I have noted the statement Mr Howard made. One of the more bizarre events of contemporary Australian politics is that at a time when the nation is facing very serious economic problems the Opposition's formula for overcoming those problems is to resume paying pensions to millionaires and to bring back the free boozy business lunch. That is about the depth of its contribution. However, I suppose I should be grateful that after having personally attempted for many months to get Mr Howard to come clean on the $2 billion of additional expenditure he has been running around the country promising everyone, he has now cut that down to a bit more than $150m in additional outlays. There is a great deal more of course on tax expenditures or revenue foregone. These are some of the promises-incidentally the list is not exhaustive-which Mr Howard last night repudiated: The promise to underwrite sugar at $240 a tonne. Let it be noted by the National Party of Australia and by everybody in Queensland that last night Mr Howard repudiated that promise formerly given by the Opposition to underwrite sugar at a price of $240 a tonne. That has gone right down the gurgler. I hope that when the National Party tries to speak with the other fork of the Opposition tongue, the other prong of the forked tongue with which it normally speaks, it will be noted and accurately reported in Queensland that in fact Mr Howard has repudiated that undertaking. He repudiated the promise to pay a full excise rebate on fuel used by farmers-that is $137m. He repudiated the promise of full freight equalisation-another $110m. He repudiated the promise to provide greater funds for rural adjustment. He repudiated the promise to remove the excise on brandy. He repudiated the promise to abolish export inspection charges. He repudiated the promise to restore tax benefits on income equalisation deposits and to remove the sales tax on oils and lubricants. That is just a sample of the promises that were repudiated by Mr Howard last night. Mr President, as you will have noted, all those promises deal with the rural sector. It was the National Party's shopping list of political goodies that he repudiated last night. I have not even started on the Leader of the Opposition's own list of political goodies which he repudiated last night. Mr President, in view of your exhortation to keep answers short I will not go through the whole list of promises repudiated last night. I will save that for the future. Notwithstanding the fact that the Leader of the Opposition repudiated almost $2 billion worth of promises that he had been racing around the electorate for the last 12 months gladly handing out to every pressure group he met, the Treasurer yesterday costed the Opposition's list of tax expenditure promises-these are not outlays but they would blow the deficit out-to $5.9 billion. In addition, if Mr Howard's policy on wages were implemented, pay as you earn tax collections would fall by $400m. His Medicare policy would also lead to a very significant increase in net outlays as would the vague recommitment to have compulsory work or training as a prerequisite for the unemployment benefit. When all those things are put together the bottom line is a blowout in the deficit to more than $10 billion. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the House to come to order. I want every honourable senator to appreciate that Senator Walsh is being generous in co-operating by giving a short answer. Senator WALSH —I promise that I will be very short. Even though the Leader of the Opposition repudiated $2 billion worth of sacred promises and undertakings which the Opposition had given, the bottom line, if his policies were implemented this year, would be a deficit blowout to more than $10 billion-even more than the one he left behind for this Government to cope with. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister for Education to the intended administrative charge, as I believe the Government likes to call it, on university students. First, was the dollar value of the charge plucked from the air as being some sort of symbolic collection of administrative costs, set purely by reference to political pragmatism or has the Government made a conscious decision in principle to recoup all or a proportion of administrative costs? Secondly, if the latter is the case, what percentage of administrative costs on average, or roughly, does the charge represent? Thirdly, has the Government set firm criteria for what can be classified as administrative costs by a university? If so, will the Minister make those criteria available to honourable senators? Senator RYAN —The $250 administrative charge which some categories of students in colleges of advanced education and universities will be required to pay does not represent a specific proportion or percentage of administrative costs. Although the Government looked at the possibility of working out the level of the charge in that fashion, the administrative costs of institutions vary very widely according to the size of institutions, their age, the extent to which they enrol external part time students and so forth. There really is not an average figure which would fairly generalise the administrative costs of institutions. If Senator Vanstone is interested to know the breakdown between administrative and tuition costs in institutions my best advice would be to direct her to the annual reports of institutions which set out quite clearly their academic salaries bill, expenditures on libraries and so on. I am sure that Senator Vanstone is familiar with those reports. If she reads a few of them she will see that there is an enormous variation in the extent to which costs other than those directly related to the employment of teachers and research staff are incurred. The figure represents no particular proportion of the costs. The advice I received when this matter was being developed was that between 8 per cent and 20 per cent of an institution's costs are administrative. As Senator Vanstone will note, that is a very wide variation. So the charge does not represent a percentage of a particular cost. Rather, it represents the Government's view of what would be a fair contribution from students and what level of charge would very clearly delineate it from the cost of tuition fees. We did not want there to be confusion in the minds of students or institutions about our intentions. Our intentions are very clear. We require the better-off students in higher education institutions to make a contribution at a flat rate determined by us as being fair and reasonable and about which we have announced our future intentions; that is, that the $250 will be indexed according to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission index of institutional costs that we use for the cost supplementation of grants to institutions. There is no more precise basis to the charge than that. I conclude by saying that in our view and I think in the view of many people that is a fair and reasonable contribution to expect from students who, after all, are benefiting to the extent of $6,000 up to $14,000 a year by way of the place they hold for which no tuition fees are payable. Senator VANSTONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand from the Minister's answer that the charge has been set at a small amount relative to the expected costs of, say, tuition fees so that there is no misunderstanding in students' minds as to the Government's intention? Given that that is the case, will the Minister give an undertaking that in the next Budget the Government will not- The PRESIDENT —Order! The second part of the honourable senator's question is out of order. It is seeking additional information. With respect to the first part of the supplementary question, does the Minister wish to answer? Senator RYAN —I do not think that there is anything to add. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Finance to the comments that the Opposition Leader, John Howard, made on this morning's edition of the radio program AM in relation to the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. Can the Minister give an indication of the current estimated costs of any such proposal and whether the Opposition Leader's position on this issue is consistent with that of the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party Government? Senator WALSH —This was one of the Opposition promises, reiterated as recently as three weeks ago at the Country Liberal Party conference in Alice Springs by the undertaker-by the National Party Leader-which I should also say that Mr Howard this morning repudiated. That promise was to build a railway from Darwin to Alice Springs. I think that Mr Howard actually said this morning-I do not have a transcript but this is my recollection-that the Northern Territory Government has a proposal for a private railway and that the Opposition supports it. Mr Howard had to be boxed in before the interviewer could get that much out of him. He did not want to talk about the repudiation of the Northern Territory railway but the interviewer jammed him a bit and in the end Mr Howard said that it was a proposal for a private railway and that he supported it. Senator Walters —We will not sell uranium to France. Senator WALSH —It is called a proposal for a private railway by the territorial- Senator Button —Senator Walters made a whole series of new promises. They are not going to sell uranium to France. Senator WALSH —I did not hear that. It was called a proposal for a private railway by the Northern Territory Government but hidden away in that private railway proposal was a capital grant from the Commonwealth Government of $150m. So if the Leader of the Opposition says that he supports that proposal, he supports the $150m capital grant to go with it. It was claimed by the Northern Territory Government that the railway was viable on the basis of a very shonky economic study which firstly ignored the capital cost of the line and secondly assumed a very optimistic level of freight growth. It further assumed that all freight moving between Darwin and Alice Springs would be carried on the railway and nothing on the road, and assumed that all freight would travel the full distance from Darwin to Alice Springs without any being dropped off at Katherine or any of the other places along the track. Then finally for good measure it added on so-called external benefits to the rest of the Australian railway system because of the goods that would be carried on the rest of the system from Alice Springs to wherever it might go to. To the extent that those benefits exist, they exist whether the link between Alice Springs and Darwin is by road or rail. Finally, this demonstrates, as the Sydney Morning Herald said this morning, that Mr Howard's rhetoric is fine, but the specifics and the details of what he proposes to do make him unbelievable or put him in danger of not being believed, and I am sure he will not be. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday, Senator Vallentine asked me about the nuclear safeguards arrangements applying to Australian uranium in France, and how the requirements of the Government's nuclear safeguards policy are actually met in respect of this nuclear material. I am happy to now supply, as promised, some fuller information to supplement that which I gave yesterday. I seek leave to have that information incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Yesterday Senator Vallentine asked me about the nuclear safeguards arrangements applying to Australian uranium in France and how the requirements of the Government's nuclear safeguards policy are actually met in respect of this nuclear material. Assurance that uranium supplied to France by Australia would be used for strictly peaceful purposes stems from the requirements of the Australia/France and Australia/Euratom nuclear safeguards agreements and application of nuclear safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Euratom to nuclear material supplied to France for peaceful purposes. Australia's bilateral safeguards arrangements with France are based on international legally-binding undertakings and obligations. They provide that Australian uranium will not be diverted to military or nuclear explosive purposes nor used for research thereon; and that Australian uranium and derived nuclear material will be covered by IAEA safeguards to verify compliance with this. The bilateral safeguards agreements, together with France's `voluntary offer' to accept IAEA safeguards on nuclear material in peaceful use provide the basis for applying safeguards entailing the accounting for and control of Australian origin nuclear material in various stages of the fuel cycle. Australian origin nuclear material in France is also subject to Euratom safeguards. The Euratom safeguards system verifies by inspection and accounting procedures that nuclear material supplied for peaceful purposes is not diverted to military or nuclear explosive purposes. Under the Administrative Arrangements to Australia's bilateral safeguards arrangements a system of records and reports has been established by which the Australian Safeguards Office is kept informed of Australian origin nuclear material in its various forms in bilateral treaty partner countries. This information provides the basis for periodic reconciliation of accounts kept by the ASO with those kept by its counterpart organisations. These accounting procedures confirm that Australian uranium in France remains in exclusively peaceful use. Further information on the way in which the ASO accounts for Australian uranium is set out in its 1984-85 Annual Report which I tabled in Parliament earlier this year. Senator Vallentine fails to appreciate that in accounting for Australian uranium supplied to France it is not necessary for this material to be physically separated from uranium provided by other countries. National origin is attributed to nuclear material on the basis of equivalent quantities rather than particular atoms of nuclear material. This is the basis of nuclear accounting and is a well established approach in a number of other domestic and international commodity areas where there is a mingling of material from various sources. A rough analogy may be drawn with banking: we do not expect to withdraw the vary same notes and coins as we have previously deposited but we do ensure that the value is the same. In the same way we are concerned to ensure that the requisite quantities of nuclear material in France are identified as of Australian origin and accounted for in accordance with our nuclear non-proliferation requirements. Each country which is a nuclear weapon State has a separate fuel cycle for production of high enriched uranium for weapons production purposes. In the case of France, this weapons grade enriched uranium is produced at the Pierrelatte facility. The civil nuclear enrichment facility to which Australian uranium is transferred is located at Tricastin. For operational reasons, including that of nuclear criticality, it is not possible to produce high enriched uranium, in a civil plant. This physical separation at one of the most sensitive stages of the fuel cycle provides an additional measure of assurance. Data made available to the ASO confirm that the quantities of Australian origin nuclear material anticipated to be present in the French civil nuclear fuel cycle do actually exist, are precisely accounted for and are clearly labelled with the obligations which Australia has imposed by virtue of its nuclear safeguards agreements with both France and Euratom. In addition to IAEA safeguards applied to Australian uranium in France this material is at all times subject to safeguards measures prescribed by Euratom and is available for inspection by Euratom Safeguards Directorate inspectors. It is the imposition of these obligations on Australian uranium that ensures that it is not diverted into nuclear weapons fuel cycles. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Last night in the adjournment debate-recorded on page 295 of Hansard-the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) said that I had made a scurrilous attack on the previous Australian Labor Party speaker. That was a matter he also referred to in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) some time ago relating to changed arrangements and the calling of divisions or quorums during that period on Thursdays when, by agreement, that sort of activity should not take place. I raise this matter now because the suggestion that I made a scurrilous attack on the Labor speaker involved is simply untrue. What I said was that there was a decline in the standards in Parliament. I went on: The decline of standards I refer to in regard to the speech just concluded relates not simply to the content, which is appalling and nonsensical, but to the fact that the speech was totally read-and, I might say, read badly. If a senator does not know enough about a subject to get up in this place and talk about it without having to read his speech, he should not get up at all. We are supposed to be people of competence in this place. The word scurrilous, according to the Oxford Dictionary-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is making a personal explanation, not giving me a lecture on the English language. I ask him to restrict his remarks to a personal explanation. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The use of the word `scurrilous' when describing what I said is false, as is evidenced by the Oxford Dictionary, which describes scurrilous as grossly or obscenely abusive. There is nothing in anything I said that is grossly or obscenely abusive. As a result I ask the Minister to withdraw the word he used. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —I seek leave to make a very brief statement on the same subject. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —Mr President-- Senator Tate —It is a waste of time. Senator GRIMES —Yes, it is a waste of time, particularly when I am not going to withdraw anything. I am pleased, I suppose, that I get under Senator Michael Baume's skin so much. I well remember the day when I was not the only senator in this place and I well remember the reaction of honourable senators to Senator Michael Baume's remarks, firstly, about the content of the person's speech; secondly, about the way the person read the speech; thirdly, about the way he delivered it; and, fourthly, about the senator's general capacity. As a result of that we made a few remarks to Senator Michael Baume. I will repeat what I have said any number of times: I do not get stuck into people just out of the blue. I make no bones about it. I do so in response to the sorts of remarks that Senator Michael Baume made that day. If he does not want the sort of response he got that day, I suggest he should temper his remarks and then I will be quiet and so will people on this side. I am sorry if my use of the word `scurrilous' does not coincide with Senator Michael Baume's use of the word. What I meant was that the honourable senator made a disgusting, unnecessary, and demeaning attack on an honourable senator on this side. He got back from me the same sort of thing. He will get it back again. The only thing I will say is that I will never ask the honourable senator or any of the other people who are sitting with him over there to withdraw anything they say about me in response to something I say, unlike the honourable senator, who has to get up and bleep, cry and weep like a little child every time someone says anything unkind about him. I suppose that is just different standards. The PRESIDENT —I present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. The report deals with the Committee's consideration of the 1986-87 estimates for the Department of the Senate. The report also proposes changes in the printing of the Notice Paper which will be implemented after five sitting days unless the Senate otherwise determines. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present a report on the 1984-85 annual report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the remarks I was about to make. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The eighth annual report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman was prepared and presented to the Parliament by the inaugural Ombudsman, Professor Jack Richardson. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Richardson for the way in which he discharged his duties. The rigorous standards which he applied both to his own office and to the Commonwealth bureaucracy are responsible for the respect in which the Ombudsman's office is held. Professor Richardson's departure was announced on 29 June 1984. However, it was not until 10 April 1985 that the Government announced its selection of Geoffrey Kolts, O.B.E., Q.C., as his replacement. Mr Kolts has outstanding qualifications for appointment as the second Commonwealth Ombudsman. He was First Parliamentary Counsel for over five years and has had a long involvement in administrative law. The Committee wishes him well in his new office. I hope that the delay in selecting a successor Ombudsman is not demonstrative of any waning of executive support for this important office. Senator TATE —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I table the report of the Australian delegation to the seventy-fourth conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Ottawa, Canada, in September 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate a statement concerning that report in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The 74th Conference of the IPU was held in Ottawa, Canada, over the period 2-7 September 1985. The Australian Delegation comprised myself as Leader, the Hon. Ian Wilson, MP as Deputy Leader, Senator Margaret Reid, Senator Kerry Sibraa, and Mr Peter Baldwin, MP and Mr Peter White, MP of the House of Representatives. From the outset, I wish to commend the Delegation for the work which they undertook in Ottawa as representatives of the Australian Parliament, and to thank them for their co-operation and assistance throughout the period of the meetings. The Conference was attended by 459 Members of Parliament from 94 countries. With respect to the attendance of countries, I wish to place on the Hansard record, as has been similarly done within the text of the Report, the fact that at these meetings Papua New Guinea was admitted to the IPU as a new national group. It is with considerable pleasure that I report that the Deputy Leader of the Delegation, Mr Ian Wilson, and I had the honour to be the first to congratulate the Leader of their Delegation, Mr Speaker Bonga of the National Parliament, on the admission of his Group. The topics discussed at the Conference were a reflection of the close links which the IPU has forged with the United Nations over past years. Given that the UN had designated 1985 as International Youth Year, it was fitting that there was an item on the Conference agenda which concentrated on youth, and their problems and needs in a most complex national and world environment. It was appropriate that to this item was attached a further subject dealing with the role of Parliaments in combatting illicit international drug trafficking. I found the debate on this joint topic to be most constructive and worthwhile. It was one to which all national groups contributed in a most humane and positive manner. The fact that the Conference unanimously adopted a constructive and far-reaching Resolution was most gratifying to me, to Members of the Delegation and, I am sure, to all participating national groups. Given that 1985 marked the 40th Anniversary of the United Nations, it was fitting that the work of the UN concerning its efforts towards decolonisation was listed as another topic for debate. The Australian delegation participated fully in the consideration of this item. As Honourable Senators might suspect, it was not the most harmonious of debates. Australia contributed significantly in the Committee deliberations on this item, intervening on a number of occasions to preserve the decorum of the Committee's proceedings and to ensure a balanced debate. It is appropriate that I indicate to the Chamber that the Delegation was not happy with its outcome. Whilst the final resolution put to the Conference was adopted by a substantial majority, its passage was not achieved with Australia's support. The Delegation was unable to support in full the contents of the Resolution because in the opinion of the Delegation it lacked balance in several significant areas. Of particular concern was the fact that the Resolution singled out certain countries for mention, making specific attacks on their policies, which could not be substantiated or which, equally, could be levelled at many of the nations making the accusations. A further item considered at the Conference related to the burden of foreign debt, particularly as it affects developing countries. Although this subject was a complex one and one in which many contrary views were expressed, it is pleasing to note that the Resolution as finally agreed to by the Conference was achieved by a unanimous vote. Each of the three subjects are dealt with in detail in the Report and I suggest that Honourable Senators will find many aspects of the Report and the Resolutions passed by the Conference to be of interest. As Leader of the Australian Delegation for three Conferences, I have given some consideration to the role of the IPU and the part played in it by Australia. I believe that when Parliamentarians meet together for the purpose of discussing topics of mutual interest to their Parliaments there are great opportunities for many positive contributions to be made and these can only improve understanding between nations. As I have said in my preface to the Report, however, the Australian delegations that I have led have questioned seriously the subjects which continue to be placed on the agenda with the support of certain national groups. These, essentially, are divisive topics and rarely achieve positive results. Unfortunately, this practice is becoming more frequent and such topics tend to appear on the agenda year in and year out. I would prefer that future topics be more constructive and ones that an organisation such as the IPU can more effectively and profitably deal with. As Leader of the Delegation at future conferences I will be attempting to draw to the attention of other Leaders in appropriate forums the need for the IPU to recognise its potential in these areas, and that it should address the harm it is doing to its effectiveness and reputation. I will be developing this thought further in the Delegation's Report arising from the Mexico Conference held earlier this year. In conclusion, I again thank my Parliamentary colleagues who accompanied the Delegation to Ottawa. I thank the organisers of the Ottawa Conference for their most hospitable and warm welcome, and the efficiency with which they ran the Conference. I thank in particular the Australian High Commissioner to Ottawa, Mr Laurie, and his excellent and most capable staff for their help, assistance and support to the Delegation whilst we were in Ottawa. The tireless efforts of the Secretary to the Delegation, Mr Tom Wharton, and the Department of Foreign Affairs' adviser, Mr Geoff Crawford, must be also recorded. All members and accompanying persons were grateful for their assistance. The report which I have just tabled provides an account of the deliberations of and conclusions reached at the 74th Conference of the IPU held in Ottawa, Canada, with particular reference to the contributions made by Members of the Australian Delegation. It contains, as Appendices, the principal resolutions agreed to by the Conference and the speeches made by the Australian Delegation. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.07) —In relation to the report of the Australian delegation to the seventy-fourth conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Ottawa, I recommend to honourable senators that they read the statement which Senator Colston has just incorporated. I attended a meeting which took place at the same time but which, not being precisely a part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, is not incorporated in the report. It was a meeting of women delegates who attended the conference. For that reason I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a motion which was passed by the women parliamentarians at that meeting and to table a number of other documents, letters and papers dealt with at the meeting which, in the circumstances, I will not go through in detail. I seek leave to table some documents. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator REID —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the motion which was passed at the meeting. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Inter-Parliamentary Conference Conference interparlementaire 2-7 Sept. 1985 ORGANISATION FOR CONSULTATION AMONG WOMEN PARLIAMENTARIANS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL CONCERNED about the small number of female parliamentarians in IPU delegations. NOTING the limited participation of female parliamentarians in leadership positions in IPU. CALLS on all parliaments to ensure that female parliamentarians are part of every IPU delegation. URGES IPU to give greater recognition to female parliamentarians by nominating women to leadership posts within IPU structure. CALLS UPON all IPU delegates to give greater prominence in future IPU agendas to the impact on women of the issues being discussed. Senator REID —There are things which need to be said about the IPU and which I hope to say on another occasion and not today, in view of the fact that honourable senators seem to be in a great hurry for some reason. I wish to refer to the Executive of the IPU of this Parliament the motion passed in relation to the representation of women at IPU conferences and the details of that motion. I wish to refer to that Executive also the details set out in a letter amongst the documents I have tabled which suggest that all parliaments look at the status of women in their delegations. That letter refers to a motion to the effect that, similarly, women parliamentarians should always be included in delegations to the inter-parliamentary meetings organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and regional inter-parliamentary organisations. Also I want to refer to the Australian High Commission, to which Senator Colston referred in his report on the IPU meeting-- Senator Colston —In our report. Senator REID —Very much so. I want to mention Ruth Barber, who looked after us to a considerable extent. She has worked for the Australian High Commission in Canada for over 40 years. Last year she was made an honorary member of the Order of Australia. She came to Australia last November to receive the award from the Governor-General. All of us who met her in Canada were, I think, very pleased to find that she had been honoured in this way. We were pleased to be associated with her during the tour. In particular, she organised some events for me which, to me, coming from a national capital, were of great interest. She arranged for me to meet the mayors of Hull and Ottawa. I visited the National Capital Commission, the Archives, and the regional government, and I was able to gain a comprehensive and informative view of the way Canada runs its national capital. That also is a matter I had intended to speak about today in more detail. However, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the fifteenth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Debate resumed. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(3.14) —In the debate on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill before the lunch break I was describing how poorly qualified women who are employed in the clothing trade. I should have included in that description women working in the textile and footwear industry as well. These women constitute a very large proportion of the female work force. There are no fewer than seven extremely large enterprises whose employment total is about 25,000 workers. These workers will be involved in the first stage of our affirmative action program. We hope that the opportunities for women in those industries will be greatly enhanced by the genuine and prompt adherence of their employers to the requirements under this new legislation. Another point about the clothing, textile and footwear industries is that less than 10 per cent of the employees in those industries have trade or other qualifications. Of that less than 10 per cent, 90 per cent are men. It is absolutely clear that an enormous amount of disadvantage is being suffered by women in those industries. I might add that at present an enormous amount of restructuring and rationalisation is going on. There is also an appreciation by employers, assisted and encouraged by the unions, of the need to provide education and training on the job to enhance the qualifications and opportunities of the women in those industries. We hope that the affirmative action legislation will be arriving at just the right time to add a boost and a fillip to the opportunities of those women. Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill Senator Boswell's contribution to the debate reminded me of what a very prominent Queensland woman said at a meeting of business and professional women not very long ago. She said that at first she had been hostile to the concept of affirmative action. This woman, Sallyanne Atkinson, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, went on to say that she had felt initially that the idea of affirmative action was rather patronising of women. That idea has been served up on a number of occasions in this debate. However, a few days prior to the particular meeting at which she had made this statement she had been required to employ a public relations officer. Naturally enough, she had selected the best qualified of the applicants. Subsequently, her judgment was questioned-`A woman? In an important position like that?'. As Gloria Steinem would say: `Click'-meaning that moment at which one's personal experience sheds light on a previously poorly understood philosophy. That click is yet to happen amongst many members of the Opposition in this place. I know, for example, that the leadership of the Country Women's Association is still in the dark. The click has not occurred to them. I do not wish to sound critical; I am simply suggesting that they have yet to be exposed to such experiences. Having chaired the Western Australian Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation for several years, I can cite dozens of cases from city and country, large and small enterprises, primary, secondary and tertiary industry that demonstrate the need for this legislation. In 1986 women are still being denied the range of opportunities available to ordinary men simply because they themselves are not men and are ordinary women. Within the last few weeks I have had an experience in regard to the mining industry in the Pilbara. A group of six workers had been employed there on a temporary basis. This group included two women. They were working on a promise of consideration for permanent jobs as vacancies arose. The four men were given jobs; the two women were left languishing. As a result of working with those particular men, the women knew that their qualifications were equally good for the jobs that were being offered. When I made inquiries of the management of that particular company I was told: `Oh yes, if we are looking for drivers of course we want people with years of experience, not those who have just acquired their B class driving licence'. It had not occurred to that management that there are other qualifications required of drivers besides years of experience. Twenty years of holding a driving licence does not necessarily qualify one to be classified a crash-hot driver, nor does it mean that one is able to cope with the tedium, the boredom, and the hours and hours of repetitive work that is required for the sort of driving which these people were going to do; it does not necessarily mean that one will turn up for work on time; it does not necessarily mean that one will do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. These are factors that we are asking be taken into consideration, for a change, in relation to the selection choices still being made in many industries. Senator Knowles's contribution was somewhat academic. It was not unfamiliar to those of us who have read the work of Dr Gabriel Moens, which is described by Marian Sawer of the Social Justice program of the Australian National University as a `slip-shod, second-hand and repetitive case for the status quo'. There was much reference in the honourable senator's speech to the downgrading of excellence and merit. Of course, nothing is further from the truth as far as this legislation is concerned. We believe it represents an opportunity for the upgrading of skills, for the identification of merit and for the encouragement of excellence amongst women, not just amongst males. We had a whole lot of references to things such as collectivist outcomes and other terminology with which Dr Gabriel Moens generously fills out his publications. Once again it is jargon that has no relevance whatsoever to this legislation. We simply have to acknowledge that there is a group of people for whom there is a philosophical objection to equal opportunity. I quote further from Dr Sawer's critique of Gabriel Moens's Affirmative Action: The New Discrimination: While Moens waxes eloquently on the injuries done to `innocent persons' through affirmative action programs, he is curiously silent on the injuries done to `innocent persons' when private corporations decide to move their capital elsewhere, or to replace workers by robots. Injuries can only be inflicted, apparently, by public policies designed to improve employment equity, not by `market forces'. Much of Moens's work is designed to play on the prejudices of those who are opposed to equal opportunity for women. They will go on at great length about how they really do believe in equal opportunity, but obviously there is that deep-seated objection which they are no longer-perhaps this is an improvement-prepared to acknowledge. Senator Peter Baume —They have been the same people for 100 years, haven't they? Senator GILES —I would think that is quite accurate. The same sorts of people tend to take that attitude towards managerial prerogatives as well. We could argue until we were blue in the face and we would not change their minds. There still are managers in this country and elsewhere who believe that they have no social responsibilities whatsoever. I am glad to report that those numbers are diminishing and, in the face of the lead that is being given by this Government through this and other legislation, we hope there are not too many by the year 2000. Senator Walters managed to spend about 10 minutes criticising other women; I would not stoop to do that. I think her position can be described most accurately as unreconstructed Neanderthal. I am very disappointed about that because I thought that as a result of exposure to some more progressive arguments in the last two or three years she might have managed to change her mind. I would not bother to discuss her intervention except for the fact that she was completely inaccurate, and I believe deliberately so, about the National Agenda for Women, which is now nearing the end of its period of consultations within the Australian community. The whole point of the National Agenda for Women, of course, for anybody who takes the trouble to find out, is to consult Australian women. I am very interested to hear Senator Walters's criticism that from what she has seen of the Agenda it has tended to concentrate on those issues which are closest and of most immediate importance to women. The whole point of the Agenda is to ask women what their priorities are. The pamphlet, copies of which have gone out very widely in some tens of thousands to Australian women, is asking them to nominate their priorities. If they wish to include issues such as taxation, transport, housing and international affairs, nobody will be more delighted than I. I hope-indeed I trust-that over the last few years there have been more women who are inclined to take a wider view of their position in the world rather than just their position in Australia or in their local communities. It is interesting to note that internationally the conservative view is that women should confine their participation to matters which affect them immediately and directly. That is not our view in Australia. Our activities in the last few years have been directed towards opening up the minds and imaginations of women beyond their immediate spheres. I find it also very strange that Senator Walters believes it is perfectly okay for women on average to be earning only about three-quarters of what men are earning on average. This means quite clearly that women do not have access to the better paid jobs. I think that is appreciated by Senator Walters, but her insistence that women choose lower paid jobs is quite extraordinary and defies even my imagination, which I think is possibly a little better than hers. The jobs that are available to women are those that are lower paid, stereotyped, and concentrated in a few occupations. The justification for our legislation is clearly laid out in the appendices to the second volume of our publication on affirmative action. I would urge Senator Walters to expand her knowledge just that little bit, which would give her that sort of understanding. I find it very sad to hear her putting this point of view, emphasising differences between women, instead of working on the similarities. We all know that typically a woman's life is one of phases. If she combines a career with child bearing and rearing she will be in and out of the work force, looking at some stages for part time work and at some stages for full time work. This has been recognised within the women's movement and within the Australian Council of Trade Unions for some time now. A great deal of effort has been put into making accessible part time work with a range of entitlements for women, ensuring that other measures are put into place to make it possible for women to combine a career with their domestic responsibilities to give them something like the chances that men have always had in this society. One of the contributions from the Opposition mentioned the stagnation of women promoted beyond their levels. I ask honourable senators: Do only women stagnate if promoted beyond their levels? That level of debate completely ignores the fact that many men are in jobs which are beyond their capacities. Out there in the community there are many women in jobs that are below their capacities. Senator Vanstone gave us a list of women who she believes will not be helped. She made some of the same mistakes Senator Crichton-Browne made, in referring to the fact that she believes that migrant women, women in part time employment and so forth, would not be at all assisted. Measures of this nature have a flow-on effect to everybody in the community. They start off, we hope, by sensitising management-not just the management of large enterprises but also management who will see from the point of view of their own enterprises that it makes good managerial sense to provide a range of opportunities, training and encouragement across the whole of the work force, not just for that small group of males towards whom it previously had directed its aspirations. In addition to the sensitisation of management, we have those other effects-the opportunity for women to show that they can do jobs that had previously been considered beyond their capacities, too stressful or too demanding. Those women act as models and provide encouragement to other women-young women or older women who may see that there are some possibilities for them at the age of 40, 45 or even 50 to retrain, to expand their opportunities and to use their potential. Women also become gate-keepers. The concept of gate-keeping is an extremely important one, and it is particularly easy to identify within the education system, where in the past the inspectors, all males, have been the gate-keepers, the ones who opened the gate for promising young males. What we are saying is that there are promising young middle aged and maybe even more mature females waiting to be identified, to have their skills developed. This can be only an advantage to Australia in a macroeconomic sense and to individuals in a personal sense. We are not just about women as managers, as seems to have been assumed by Senator Vanstone and others; we are about women being given the opportunity to develop their skills, to move into whatever sphere of activity they are capable of doing, given the chance. It may be that a secretary is able then to join the administrative stream. It may be that a clothing trade worker who has been on a machine for years is given the opportunity to become a cutter or a forewoman or to train for another job. It may be that a nursery worker is given the opportunity to study horticulture and to expand his or her opportunities. We are about horizontal and vertical equity. Much as I would like to continue for the other five minutes to which I am entitled, I am aware of the constraints on our time. I am very grateful for the support we have had from many honourable senators and am very satisfied to know that this important piece of social reform will be with us and in operation before very long. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(3.31) —As Senator Peter Baume said on behalf of the Opposition when opening the second reading debate on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 in this place on 12 June, the Opposition will support the passage of this Bill. The reasons for our support have been outlined by Senator Peter Baume, and by the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, in the other place. We have, however, made it clear that our support is given with some significant reservations. As Senator Peter Baume has said, these reservations include the additional burdens to be imposed on employers, the additional government bureaucracy, the additional regulation and the additional cost. These are all matters that are quite contrary to the thrust of the Opposition's whole approach to government. For that reason we have reservations about this legislation. The strength of our reservations varies from one member of the Opposition to another. My personal reservations are strong. I will explain them and my reasons for them in the course of my remarks today. Let me make it absolutely clear at the outset that I totally support the goal of equal opportunity for all. I support equal employment opportunity for all because, as Senator Peter Baume said in his speech, it is a fundamental Liberal goal to seek to empower people in their lives. My reservations to this Bill are several. They relate to the question of whether the objectives of the Bill, which I have just outlined, can be achieved by the type of action that is now being foreshadowed in this legislation. As I said a few moments ago, the additional regulation and bureaucracy, the burden on employers and the additional costs cut across the thrust of my Party's approach to government. As coalition parties, our policies are directed towards less bureaucracy, less regulation, fewer burdens on business and less cost. I will return to some of these points later in my remarks. My other reservations about the Bill relate to whether it will genuinely enhance equality of opportunity. If I thought it would, I would wholeheartedly endorse it, subject only to my cost and regulatory reservations. I doubt, however, that it does. If the Bill were to reflect genuinely the aspirations and needs of Australian women, I would support it; but I doubt that it does. I would argue that this legislation, in fact, works against these principles. Despite the Bill's rhetoric of equality of opportunity, in practice it is likely to favour a counter-principle of equality of outcome. The Bill represents a significant element of the Government's National Agenda for Women. But, when the Australian Labor Party talks about women and the needs and aspirations of women, it does not mean the majority of women in Australia, or the majority of women in the work force and certainly not the majority of women in the home. Rather, it tends to mean a small section of radical feminists who are not representative of the majority of Australian women. It is said by the supporters of this legislation that it is going to alleviate sexism. In fact, by forcing employers to consider individuals as representatives of their sex, it will perpetuate the very sexism it seeks to counter. The Bill's concept of the merit principle is at best ambiguous. It can be argued that the underlying concept of merit in the Bill is not necessarily the best person for the job but, rather, the person who is just good enough, the person with the minimum qualifications. The amendment which has been circulated on the definition of merit in the Bill does not seem to me to overcome that quite basic difficulty. Dr Marian Sawer, a well known supporter of this Bill and a leader of the feminist movement in Australia, has described the merit system as a fable. She has said: Merit has historically been an extremely inflexible concept and generally operated to exclude those who differ in significant ways by organisational gate keepers. As the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women and the undisputed founding figure and caretaker, perhaps, of this Bill, it is illuminating to look at Senator Susan Ryan's views on this subject. Whilst adamant that the Bill will not violate the principle of merit, Senator Ryan, too, holds the implicit assumption that to date it has yet to be genuinely applied. She says: The concept of merit and the application of the principles in individual situations is fraught with difficulties . . . the concept is so important and yet capable of so many and varied definitions. The implicit conclusion endorsed by this Government is that employers, by and large, have employed people not on the basis of merit but on the basis of their sex. The merit principle is regarded as having yet to be used. Only a Bill such as the one before us will allow for its genuine operation, say the proponents of the legislation. That is an attack on Australian employers. It is saying that it is not the talents, aptitudes or levels of education, training and experience that have been uppermost in the minds of Australian employers in selecting employees, but rather that candidates are considered as representative of their sexual group. We might ask ourselves: If the concept is so important and yet, at the same time, so capable of so many varied definitions, why did the Government not seek to define `merit' in the Bill? Most of us would understand the merit principle as being the selection of the best or most competent person for a job. The best applicant is selected in a procedure that requires an assessment of candidates on the basis of their formal qualifications and individual characteristics which are genuinely relevant to the job. This Bill will result, I believe, in an erosion of this principle and will invite reverse discrimination because in practice employers will be required to consider individual candidates, not necessarily on their merit but rather as representatives of their sex. Let me give the Senate an example. The South Australian College of Advanced Education, which was selected by the Government as a pilot for its voluntary affirmative action scheme, states in its affirmative action policy explanatory notes: Staffing Committee (shall) be required to examine the percentage of male and female staff on contract, both academic and general, and take the relevant percentages into account when considering tenure. In other words, whether a man or a woman will be given tenure is not to be determined by his or her merits and achievements, but rather by something over which he or she has no control and which is unrelated to his or her merits and achievements, namely, the effect that it will have on the male-female ratios in the institution. Another illustration of this trend is the announcement last year by the New South Wales Department of Education that, from the beginning of 1986, 40 per cent of all vacancies for promotion must be filled by female teachers. The Department did not even bother to include anything at all about promotion on the basis of merit or even seniority. By forcing employers to take into account the sex of candidates for positions in their businesses and institutions, this legislation runs the very serious risk of perpetuating sexism-something that we are all trying to get away from. We should be aware that, if this Bill is enacted, as it will be, a high proportion of all organisations with more than 100 employees will be getting the female-male ratios right. Employers will be required to reassess, and perhaps lower, their standards. I will provide a very illuminating example from Professor Lachlan Chipman. At his university the professor of geophysics had a vacancy for a lecturer in his department. It just happened that his entire staff was male, this being a field in which men have traditionally outnumbered women. He sought permission to advertise for a lecturer, stipulating the requirement, which is quite common today, that inter alia the successful applicant should have a PhD in geophysics. The equality of opportunity officer asked him two questions, having seen the advertisement being processed through the system. The first question was: Are there significantly more men than women with a PhD in geophysics? The answer was clearly yes. He was told that the PhD requirement was clearly discriminatory because it was a criterion that significantly more men than women satisfy. The second question he was asked was: Is it absolutely necessary to have a PhD in order to be capable of performing the duties of a lecturer in geophysics? The strict answer was that it was not. There have been distinguished geophysics lecturers who have never completed a PhD, although their numbers are small. On this basis, the professor of geophysics was informed that he could not include a PhD requirement in the advertisement but he should specify a level of qualification which represented the minimum standard necessary to be capable of performing the job competently and that was likely to be the `least indirectly discriminatory'. The professor replied that such a standard would be a good honours degree in geophysics and remarked in passing that if the best applicant had a PhD he would recommend that person's appointment. The equal opportunity officer at the university retorted: You certainly can't do that as this would involve discriminating on the basis of qualifications not specified in the advertisement. The lesson of these examples is clear-that is, reverse discrimination has already been practised under the auspices of the pilot program. The Bill now before us contains no provisions to stop it; indeed, it implicitly endorses it. Proponents of the Bill have repeatedly denied that it involves the setting of quotas. However, the objectives and forward estimates required by the Bill are, in effect, likely to be the same as targets and quotas. They will be centrally determined outcomes which are dependent upon the ideology of the policy makers of the day rather than the individual views and judgments of employers and employees. The Australian Labor Party's dangerous dream of imposing an egalitarian blueprint on Australian society will be advanced one step with the passage of this legislation. That blueprint calls for equality not just of opportunity-surely equality of opportunity is something with which no Australian would disagree-but also of outcome. Down that path lies mediocrity and the demise of the pursuit of excellence, and it has the dreadful greying effect of bringing people to a common denominator, regardless of their strengths or weaknesses, their interests and aptitudes, and their sex. That is what socialism is all about-the greying of our society. If anyone doubts that that is the approach of members of the Government let me quote a recent address from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, one of the architects of this Bill. She stressed the importance of the availability or supply of suitably qualified women, an importance with which I agree. She stated that the success of affirmative action programs: . . . needs to be preceded by equality of opportunity and indeed, more importantly, equality of outcomes in education. Supporters of the Bill have made the correct observation that statistically women are under-represented in the work force. However, from this they have drawn the conclusion that this proves sexual discrimination. I think that is very dubious reasoning. Under-representation does not, in itself, represent or demonstrate sexual discrimination. This conclusion is rarely discussed. It is assumed that it is so obvious that little need be said in its support. However, there are a number of reasons to explain the statistical under-representation of women in the work force. They go far beyond educational opportunities, employment opportunities or employment practices. Numerical imbalances result from a range of complex cultural factors including individual choice, differences in aptitude and interest, determination to succeed in and develop a career, parental investment in children, which can vary, and chance or sheer accident. Looking at the statistics of representation can be a very dangerous and misleading path to follow. Scant regard has been given to the damage that this legislation will do to those women who have and will gain positions on their own merits. For successful women doubts must always remain. Was it their sex that got them their job? In most cases the answer would be quite categorically no, but imposing these sorts of objectives and targets, particularly if they lead to quotas-which they may well do down the track-does great damage to the position of those people. This Bill is yet another instance of the Government's misunderstanding of and hostility to the functioning of a free market. If an employer persistently hires labour on criteria irrelevant to the job his business will be a very inefficient enterprise and the market will judge him accordingly. Even so, there is a surfeit of existing government equal opportunity agencies and commissions overseeing employment practices in Australia. At least these have the virtue of judging discrimination on an individual basis, not as a collective phenomenon. If discrimination occurs our various equal opportunity agencies have sufficient power, and rightly so, to penalise the offending employer. The last thing business needs is another layer of regulations that entangle enterprise in more bureaucratic red tape and impose additional costs. It is thought by some that because the Bill does not include legal sanctions for failure to go along with its provisions it should not be opposed and there are no grounds for concern. Such a view is naive. It implies that employers consider breach of legislation as unimportant. It implies that the business community pays scant regard to the due processes of government, that being named in parliament has no impact on one's standing in the community. The Government has argued that the business community supports this legislation. However Australian businesses partook in the pilot program, under the auspices of the Office on the Status of Women, on the understanding that voluntary schemes are the way to tackle the issue, not proposed prescriptive legislation. On the last count they are sticking to this view. There is not support for this legislation in the business community. This legislation represents a considerable burden on business. It has been described to me and to others as a bureaucratic nightmare. For example, large companies which have a large number of subsidies-there are many such companies-will be required to reformulate employment data for incorporation in their reports to the new agency at great cost. They will be required to explain why mines in northern Australia, metallurgy departments in Thomastown, apprentice intakes and so on do not reflect the particular industry average. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his second reading speech argued that the costs of this scheme will be minimised by the small size of the administrative agency and the avoidance of unnecessary paper work. The estimated initial cost is put at $1.5m per annum in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. That includes the expenses of the Director and 25 staff at the Office of Affirmative Action. However, history is replete with instances of agencies, once established, generating their own growth and momentum. There is no indication that this scheme will be contrary to historical record. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that history will well and truly repeat itself. Senator Walsh —Not while I'm around, it won't. Senator SHORT —I hope Senator Walsh is right. But listen to some of the arithmetic because, to me, it is simply not feasible for 25 people adequately to assess and monitor a total of 4,538 establishments. The Office of the Status of Women has informed me that, of those 4,538 establishments, 65 are universities and colleges of advanced education, 516 are private enterprises employing over 1,000 people, 525 employing between 499 and 1,000 people, and 3,443 employing between 100 and 499 people. Each of those establishments will be required to submit two written reports-one for public consumption and the other confidential-annually. That is a total of 9,076 reports. How on earth can 25 people adequately handle this mountain of paper? Quite clearly, they cannot and quite clearly, therefore, the pressure will be inexorable-even, I believe, on Senator Walsh-for ever increasing expansions in that capacity. In addition to that requirement are the other functions of the agency-research and community education activities, and monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of programs. That ignores all the other costs such as those I have already mentioned-for example, those relating to the business sector. As Professor Mark Cooray pointed out recently, this Bill, in the tradition of the Australian Labor Party social legislation, contains no provision for aggrieved persons to seek judicial determination regarding allegations of wrongdoing. The reason for this is clear. If the courts are given such power, concepts such as merit will have to be decided through a process of rational argument. By opting for the political enforcement of the legislation in the person of the Director of Affirmative Action, the Government has given itself the freedom to interpret the law according to its own political persuasion. In summing up, there is no doubt that this legislation will have far reaching social and economic consequences for Australia. Some of those consequences may well be seen by many people to be adverse, despite the commendable overall objective of the Bill. Whilst not opposing the Bill, the opposition, though, believes that it has serious deficiencies. It will move a series of amendments in an attempt to correct some of these deficiencies. I believe that these amendments deserve the support of this Parliament because we, as a parliament, ought to be aware that we are dealing with what is a very significant piece of social legislation for this nation. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(3.54) —I think it is entirely appropriate that I take the opportunity in the debate on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 to congratulate Senator Janine Haines on her election to the leadership of the Australian Democrats. It was an historic election. She has taken her place as the first women to lead a political party in this House. She did it all without the benefit of affirmative action or equality of opportunity legislation. Indeed, many people associated with this chamber have achieved eminent positions on their own merit without the benefit of this legislation. I refer to Senator Lady Bjelke-Petersen, who sits beside me in the chamber, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle who sits in front of me, and yourself, Madam Acting Deputy President. I refer also to Miss Anne Lynch, who is one of the four members of the top echelon in the office of the Clerk of the Senate. All of these ladies have achieved their positions without the benefit of any such legislation. I took the trouble to look up the origin of affirmative action. It was a term that was introduced during the administration of the late President John Kennedy in America. It was intended under his Administration to mean that any legislation that was passed had to take into account the effect of the legislation on minority groups in that country. Of course, in very short order, certain viragos, termagants and shrews saw the opportunity of using that kind of thought in determining how they could twist this legislation to their advantage. They declared, for a start, that women were a minority group, which had nothing to do with the meaning of affirmative action. They then twisted the legislation again so that it was not merely a matter of taking into account the interests of minorities, but it had to favour the minority. Of course, they declared women to be a minority. Certainly, if legislation is used in that way, one is trying to cure discrimination by creating more discrimination, which is rather similar to trying to cure a snake bite by giving a person another snake bite. Members of the National Party of Australia who have spoken before me have shown that they are entirely opposed to this legislation. Our policy, particularly in Queensland, is entirely opposed to affirmative action. The title of this Bill is a misnomer. The legislation is sneaking in as an affirmative action Bill, whereas in effect it is ostensibly an equal opportunity for women Bill. If one looks at the text of the Bill, one sees that it is intended to change the attitudes of people. This kind of government administrative decree has been tried in various countries around the world. I do not know why we do not take notice of what has happened in other countries. I refer, for example, to what happened in Iran when the late Shah of Iran tried to emancipate the women of that country to some degree, particularly in regard to education, job opportunities, dress, and marriage laws. He caused such a revival of Islamic fundamentalism that the whole country was turned upside down. A similar set of circumstances occurred in Japan when that country tried to change the attitudes of its people-that is, men and women-to the way in which women lived in that community. There has been a return to fundamentalism in Japan. That came about because of the attitude of the women. I have had experience in working under legislation that incorporated equal opportunity laws. They were a complete failure because the way in which people work with each other depends on their attitude to each other. These attitudes do change over the years. For example, in the days of our grandfathers it would have been the philosophy of the family to educate the men and domesticate the women, because that is the way the world worked at the time. But when my father had his family, all members of the family were educated to the same degree. I have two sisters who are graduates and two brothers who are graduates. We all work and have happy relationships with each other and with the community. So there has been a gradual change. But legislation was not needed to bring about such changes. When we introduce legislation such as this, there has to be an administration to run it. The Government is crying poor mouth trying to streamline the operations of government, to make it more efficient. But it is introducing a bureaucracy which has nebulous powers and no teeth with which to administer its department. It is just creating another expensive bureaucracy which will grow. I remember when measures such as legal aid were introduced. We were told that legal aid would cost just a little bit to start with. But the assistance began with a much bigger budget than had been expected and expenditure escalated sharply. I am sure that this legislation will be the same and that staff numbers will increase as well. The Bill will introduce more controls and restrictions. It will give the unions another stick with which to bash employers, as though employers are not already under enough union dominance. Here is another union arm which will restrict employment flexibility. Here is the Government saying that it wants to free up the work force and trade unions, but this legislation will be another way of making the work force more inflexible. Honourable senators have mentioned the two types of report which will have to be produced every year-one public, one confidential. That will be another reason why employers will not feel like employing people any more. I do not want to rehash the debate, but the question has been asked: Will a woman who has achieved a position of some eminence feel that she has done so on her own merit? She might suddenly realise that she has obtained her position because of affirmative action. She might be just a token appointment. The framers of the legislation deny that. They say: `No, the legislation will not have that effect. People must be appointed on merit.' Who will say in the report at the end of the year: `There were no women good enough to be put into this position.'? Which employers will be brave enough to say: `This year, there were no women worth promoting.'? I am sure that, if many women were promoted, there would be no problem. But if, for some reason, not enough women were promoted, an employer might feel that he had better promote some women so that he did not fall foul of the affirmative legislation. A stigma may even be attached to women because they were appointed under the provisions of this affirmative action Bill. The National Party of Australia is completely opposed to affirmative action in all its forms. As this is an equal opportunity Bill and not an affirmative action Bill, it seems that we will go along with it, although I see it as a toe in the door for social engineering which should never be contemplated in a free democratic country of ours. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.03) —The Opposition supports the thrust of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill. Our understanding of that thrust is such that we wish to ensure that the legislation is not misinterpreted as being `affirmative action' in the quota sense in which that expression has been used currently and some years ago in other countries, particularly in the United States of America and especially by women's movements. We so understand the thrust of this legislation to be equal employment opportunity that we wish to amend the Bill's title from `Affirmative Action' to `Equal Employment Opportunity'. The Government hopes that by calling something which has bipartisan support `affirmative action' it will somehow be able to placate the extreme advocates in Australia and overseas, particularly in the women's movement, with the idea that it is achieving some of the goals of affirmative action and quotas which are not acceptable to the Opposition. Following various arguments, those goals are now not acceptable to the Government. There is something of a pea and thimble trick and some misleading of the public in the Bill's title. The Opposition and I contend that it is only a slogan and that the genuine and substantial thrust of the legislation is towards equal employment opportunities for all Australians. We support that thrust. For decades, it has been the Liberal Party's conviction that we need values that maximise fairness and freedom of opportunity for all alike. The Liberal Party's political philosophy is based on freedom of the individual. It was my sorry observation, particularly during my first years as a senator, that my Party did not sufficiently live up to that clear principle, which my colleagues and I and our supporters had always upheld. My Party has had a dialogue with many women, in particular, but I must not exclude the various articulate men who welcome a considerable revolution in values and social expectations. We have deliberately determined, therefore, that we will put into practice and reality the achievement of the principles which we have espoused for decades. While there has been that transition from theory to practice amongst Opposition members, there has been a similar percolation of views in the Labor Party. But there has been also an extreme movement, which the Government does not now support, based on the old meaning of `affirmative action' and the achievement of quotas. Senator Peter Baume, the Opposition spokesman on community services and the status of women, in his speech during the second reading debate, accurately set out the Opposition's views. He carefully set out the Opposition's principles and practical goals as well as some of the history of women's achievements in Australia. He relied on a great deal of material-`pace setting', if one likes to call it that-showing the outcome in my State of South Australia. I do not need to repeat those points which Senator Peter Baume so accurately and carefully addressed. He referred also to those matters to which we object which relate to the slogan `affirmative action'-a slogan without content. We intend to amend the Bill thoroughly to substitute `equal employment opportunity' wherever `affirmative action' is written. We intend also to limit the unnecessary cost to industry and the educational institutions and the bureaucratic machinery and to abolish the need to report, which is proposed in the Bill. We do not welcome the fact that a new statutory authority is to be set up to monitor what is a voluntary program that builds on the successful work of the pilot project, which we have all so favourably observed. We want to take out the slogans and overstatements. To that end, in Committee we propose moving 40 amendments, 20 of which are substantial, the other 20 being contingent on the major change to emphasise equal employment opportunity. I wish to refer especially to higher education institutions. Honourable senators by now have heard me on many occasions talk about education matters, not the least higher education matters, and one of those matters to which I have referred a number of times in recent years has flowed from a Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts inquiry into the tenure of academics. I had the honour to chair that inquiry. In that report, which was put down in the Senate in September 1982, there is a specific section on the employment of academics in our universities and colleges which relates to equal opportunities for men and women alike. The sorry situation is that, whereas 45 per cent of higher education students were women, only some 20 per cent of higher education employees and staff in those institutions were women. It is a sorrier story when we see that in 1981, the last time for which figures were available to the Committee, only 2 per cent of professors were women; only 4 per cent at the associate professor and reader level were women; 9 per cent at the senior lecturer level were women; 18 per cent of all lecturers were women; and about 40 per cent of tutors were women. The average number of women on staff in universities was 16 per cent, whereas 45 per cent of all students in our universities were women. In the colleges of advanced education there is a similar pattern whereby those at the senior level, the most responsible teaching and researching roles, are small in number, with some higher proportions, but still less than 50 per cent, at the lowest level. The average for all our colleges of advanced education, on the last occasion these statistics were developed, was 22 per cent. It was the goal of the Senate Education and the Arts Committee in reporting to the Senate some years ago that a number of proposals we recommended be put in place so that the sad outcome for opportunities for women could be redressed. To this end in our report to the Senate we addressed some five factors that we felt had led to this poor outcome. On pages 88 and 89 of the Committee's report we referred to those five factors. The first was that, being realistic, until quite recently women had underestimated their own abilities. Whereas a smaller proportion of those who undertook and completed honours year studies went on to higher education, the highest degree they undertook was mostly a masters degree and not a doctorate degree, despite the fact that of those who undertook first and second grade masters degrees more than 70 per cent of those graduating were women; in those highest grades only some 40 per cent were males. Women have a capacity for achievement, ability and excellence. It is evident from those statistics that women have the capability to do very well with a masters degree, yet only a very small proportion actually enrol for a doctorate, the highest research studies. The second factor was a lack of mobility and, of course, family responsibilities that are the lot of many women. There has been too slow an acceptance in Australia of both men and women alike being responsible for the care of children, especially small children in the home, and domestic duties. Until recent years that great burden has fallen almost exclusively upon wives and mothers rather than upon husbands and fathers. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.15) —It is not my habit to speak on the adjournment, particularly when people are anxious to leave Canberra, but it is my understanding that the Government intends to vote against the adjournment motion and, indeed, has the support of the Australian Democrats in doing so. That means that the Senate will continue to sit. Again, I understand from discussions between the Whips and between myself and the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes) that this is for the purpose of completing the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986, which is currently being debated. We are seeking to amend that legislation to entitle it the Equal Opportunity in Employment Bill. I wish to express in the strongest possible terms the objection of the Opposition to what the Government proposes. The suggestion that we sit tonight is a suggestion which was made only today and it is just the latest of the actions which demonstrate that the Government not only cannot handle the Australian economy but cannot handle the Parliament either. The situation is that, having demonstrably failed this week to bring down a Budget that could win any public acceptance, the Government cannot run the Senate program with any efficiency at all. I suggest that, if we are to be kept here, the Government should organise a chook raffle. That will show that it is not capable of doing even that. The unfortunate situation we have is that the Government apparently has organised the numbers to keep us sitting, without warning, after it had reduced the first period of sittings from two weeks to one week. Opposition senators were notified initially that there would be a two-week sitting period in the month of August. Subsequently the Government determined that it would reduce that sitting to one week, with a three-week break before we come back for a further parliamentary session. We have already had our arrangements significantly messed about, but to have them messed about with the amount of notice we have had today is completely unconscionable and really does nothing at all for this institution. Quite apart from anything else, the Parliament no doubt will be put to additional expense. A great number of arrangements will have to be broken. I know that many senators have already had to cancel engagements they had entered into. Additional transport costs will be incurred and no doubt additional costs of running this Parliament will be incurred-and why? It is because the Government believes that it is in some way important that we should deal with this affirmative action legislation as a matter of urgency. I do not think there would be very many people in Australia who would regard the extension of parliamentary sitting hours to Friday night as being necessary in that particular cause. If we were to deal with some legislation that was going to do something about the extraordinary interest rates in Australia, about the rising level of unemployment the Government is predicting, about the fall in private investment, about our diminishing standards of living, there might be some virtue in it. Instead, we have a government which is determined to debate issues which for most Australians, I am sure, are peripheral to their central concerns. This legislation is being given priority at this stage, and at very great inconvenience to everybody concerned. I must say that I am missing Senator Chipp already. Senator Chipp was not always predictable in these issues, but I have to say that on the issue of extending parliamentary sittings he had some rather strong views. I do not think he would have been very impressed with the idea that we had to extend the first week of sittings in a new session. I am sorry that his successor has not shown a bit of character in this matter and is prepared to put everybody to this inconvenience. If one looks at the way this week's business has been dealt with, the Opposition ran one matter of urgency, which took a couple of hours of parliamentary time. We took less than the amount of time we were entitled to in General Business, and we did not seek to debate the South African statement that was put down. The great bulk of this week has been devoted to Government Business. It is not the fault of the Opposition that the Government saw fit to give priority to legislation bringing the Commission of Inquiry to an end and the legislation relating to parliamentary remuneration and the reduction of parliamentary salaries. It was not the Opposition's doing that these matters took priority over the affirmative action legislation, which originally had been listed as the Government's own priority. On the list that was circulated last week that was put forward as the Government's priority. In fact it was not given priority in the legislative calendar of this week, and again that is a mark of the Government's lack of organisation of its program. Even at this late stage I would ask the Government to reconsider the inconvenience that it is imposing on everybody, quite unnecessarily, and to no good effect. I believe that the Senate should adjourn now. I think we have done the work for which we were summoned here this week. It is the Government that has said that we should not be back here next week. I think it should maintain the hours that it predicted when it called us back to this place for this week of sittings. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Siddons, J. R. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Jessop, D. S. Cook, P. F. S. Withers, R. G. Elstob, R. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Georges, G. Archer, B. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Knowles, S. C. Sibraa, K. W. Boswell, R. L. D. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.29) —Before the debate was interrupted I was referring to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on tenure and our references in a section of that report that called for equal opportunity in employment in higher education institutions. Having set out the statistics of a lamentable outcome for the proportion of women employed at various levels in our institutions, I was addressing the reasons why this had happened. I referred first to the unfortunate underestimate that many women have made of their abilities in their preparation for such employment, many having taken masters degree studies rather than doctoral studies, so excluding themselves from competition with those men who have taken the higher qualifications and gained the broader skill and experience. Secondly, I was referring to the lack of mobility and opportunity that has arisen by women more than men feeling the burden of family responsibilities. Whilst I have been aware very much in the last five years that increasing numbers of men have recognised this and are moving towards taking a equal share of domestic responsibilities including the care of young children, it is still very much the case that this is the biggest factor that has distracted women from gaining a fair employment opportunity in higher education institutions. I know a family in Adelaide of which one member is a senator. For the last 10 years priority has been given, following quite conscious and well discussed decisions, to the ability of that senator to perform his role not only here in the chamber but also throughout South Australia and about the country. The wife in that family is equally capable and equally able to make a contribution to the local and wider communities. She is equally well prepared as a result of background study and training as a teacher. Yet even after that senator has been in this place for eight years she is a part time teacher and the senator works full time. Whilst that situation is often the case we do not have enough self-awareness, however carefully thought out and shared the decisions may be. Too often men have priority of outcome concerning the contribution they make and the way they make available their abilities, expertise or experience to serve in their profession. Senator Peter Baume —Not least in politics. Senator TEAGUE —Not least in politics. I have a special admiration for those women amongst us in the Senate and the House of Reps. I have an equal admiration for their spouses who have reversed the roles that I have just outlined. This placing of priority on family responsibility and on lack of mobility-- Senator Robertson —Oh, a PhD such as you talking drivel. Senator TEAGUE —I see that the Senate Whip on the other side disagrees with my assessment. I believe that those values are too infrequently stated in this Senate. In this debate on the second reading of an important measure I will demonstrate that there are senators who want to take up this matter. Senator Robertson can have his turn in a moment. Senator Robertson —I was simply saying that a man with a PhD talking such drivel is an insult to our education system. Senator TEAGUE —I believe that the values about which I am talking are important. I am ashamed that a senator in this place does not share those values. A fourth factor that has led to the outcome which I have lamented is the vicious circle resulting from promotion panels and appointment committees in higher education institutions too often being even exclusively made up of men; they have had insufficient representation by women. This problem is being addressed. One of the thrusts of this Bill is to improve these matters. In the closest university to me in my State, the University of Adelaide, there has been some pace-setting towards achievements to this end. To some extent this has been encouraged by the sorts of views that I have just tried to summarise and that we have urged in the Senate Committee report. Attention has been given in that university to the findings of the Senate Committee. Finally on this matter, I refer to the lack of women representatives in the tenured levels of universities. I have already said that some 40 per cent of tutorial positions are held by women but the figure is only some 2 or 3 per cent for professorial positions. In the most tenured areas there are few women; in the less tenured and contract positions there are more. It is not a solution, and the Senate Committee did not see it as a solution, to tenure tutors so that they can have more secure and permanent employment within a university. The solution must not be to change the definition of tutor but to ensure that there is genuinely equal opportunity for women to gain the existing tenured positions in the more responsible teaching and research areas of universities and educational institutions. As to the solutions, the Committee pointed not only to an awareness of these disabilities and the loss of resources to our higher education institutions but also to the need for specific measures to overcome the problems. As we have said more generally about this Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill, the specific measures do not introduce coercion by quotas. They are not to put in place unnecessary bureaucracies or set up statutory authorities. They are not to have costly reporting and monitoring procedures. By direct decision we can see new flexibility in the way men and women are employed in our higher education institutions. More opportunity to have extended leave without pay should apply to tenured fractional appointments, as well as flexibility, especially for men and women who are caring for young children. I will expand on that briefly. At the moment it is possible to be tenured in a university or college if a person is full time. Why cannot half time positions also be tenured so that a person has the same security of employment and the same commitment and over a long period can build experience and expertise in teaching and research? This could take into account people's family responsibilities or any other legitimate community responsibility. I am convinced that if there were half time tenured positions the factors that I have outlined would be better addressed and overcome. Regarding extended leave without pay, it should be possible for lecturers or senior lecturers-whether they be men or women-who have young children to seek from a higher education institution leave without pay for a four- or five-year period. During that time when they are preoccupied with the care of small children they could voluntarily, because they have tenured positions and know that after a period of years they will return to the same work, periodically, even weekly, come back to the department of which they are a member, remain the recipients of all the usual journals, newsletters or other materials on what is happening in their department and even attend seminars or give an occasional lecture to keep in touch, while choosing the option of taking extended leave without pay. On return to work they can go back to the commitment they had in that higher education institution. It is these kinds of solutions which we set out in the recommendations of that tenure report. If I have spoken a little at length on this matter it is for two reasons: First, this Bill directly addresses all higher education institutions in Australia; secondly, the Government has not yet responded to the Senate Standing Committee's report on tenure. If it is seen that this Bill is to some extent an indirect response by the Government to what we called for in the Senate Committee, that is a degree of Government response. But I understand that this year, after some advice from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, there will be a formal Government response to the Senate report on tenure. In the thrust of the legislation before us, I believe that there is a move-more than words-towards concrete aspirations and goals in achieving some of the aims we have set out, and to redress the lamentable decades in which women in particular have seen reduced opportunities for such employment. I refer now to two other matters before the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) replies to the second reading debate-merit and flexibility of employment. The principle of merit is enshrined in an early clause of the Bill. Clause 3 (4) states: 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. This is the distinguishing feature of the Bill and means that it is not an affirmative action Bill, in the sense that most people have understood that term, but it is an equal employment opportunity Bill. No one who gains employment in Australia should feel the sense of inferiority or even guilt that they have gained such a position because they are part of a quota, or because although they lack the merit they were given the chance just to even up the numbers. It is demeaning and it does not make the grounds for that person to have the confidence, to have the ability, to achieve the work, the goals and the tasks for which that position has been created. The only way for a person to have confidence and ability to achieve in a position of any employment is for that person to know that he has applied for a job on an open basis and that he was the best person available. The question of merit is to us in Opposition the distinctive aspect of this Bill that has led those of us who most strongly support its thrust to gain support for it, nevertheless, with our amendments. There is an explicit rejection of quotas. There is no appeal to mediocrity, but rather to excellence. Whilst not supporting prescriptive legislation, or any new statutory body, or any form of employment quotas, the Opposition supports the thrust of this legislation because it is, by this principle of merit, equal employment opportunity. The Opposition also supports any initiative for a voluntary program on equal employment opportunity for women. The Opposition supports the removal of discriminatory and restrictive legislation, and discriminatory and restrictive regulation. The Opposition supports improved educational opportunities for women, and voluntary action and incentives. Some of my colleagues have, perhaps at too great length, noted those matters of bureaucracy, regulation, costs, and interference which are matters in this Bill which we will seek to remove by amendment. Regarding flexibility, I have already spoken of extended leave and of tenured part time work. I make the same remarks more briefly about job sharing, about part time work in every respect, about flexible hours and even flexible leave in certain seasons of the year. The flexible arrangements for employment called for are much more facilitated by the industrial relations policy of the Opposition than by the inflexible aspects of the accord. I am sure that Government senators will agree with me that the accord has for too long stayed with the orthodoxy of not allowing sufficient flexibility for shared work, for part time work, and for flexible hours. The Opposition's industrial relations policy will greatly assist that. In all, we support the thrust of this legislation because we want to see fairness in outcomes and in social values in Australia. We want to move towards that by education, not by regulation; by aspiration and goal setting that is voluntary, not by quotas or bureaucratic mechanisms. When we reach the Committee stage, those aspects to which we object, when amended, will make the thrust of this Bill more effective. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(4.48) —I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to this very important social reform Bill which, when in place, will provide better work opportunities for all women who work in the private sector and in higher education institutions, and all women who aspire to work in those sectors. Because the reform is such a major one it has provoked a number of differing responses from honourable senators in this place. I acknowledge that a reform of this character will not have exactly the same measure of support from every person in the place. Nonetheless, I think it is a remarkable fact that the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 is being supported. (Quorum formed) Before the quorum was called I was on the verge of concluding the second reading debate and thanking honourable senators for their contributions, diverse as they were, and noting that it is a very important fact that the legislation is supported by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats. I thank them for their support. I also place on record my gratitude to Senator Peter Walsh, who represented the Liberal Opposition on the working party, which is the basis of this legislation. Senator Peter Baume —That is almost as good as Senator Brownhill. Senator RYAN —I am sorry-Senator Peter Baume, who represented the Liberal Party on the working party and who made a very constructive contribution. As the concerns of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats are set out in their proposed amendments for the Committee stage, I will not take the time of the Senate in commenting on specific concerns now. The second reading amendments moved by the Opposition are not acceptable. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Knowles's amendment to Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Kilgariff, B. F. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Withers, R. G. Tate, M. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R. Richardson, G. F. Knowles, S. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Boswell, R. L. D. Devlin, R. Vanstone, A. E. Cook, P. F. S. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Kilgariff, B. F. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Withers, R. G. Tate, M. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R. Richardson, G. F. Knowles, S. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Boswell, R. L. D. Devlin, R. Vanstone, A. E. Cook, P. F. S. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.01) —I begin by indicating that the Opposition has 41 amendments to the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill, but it is our hope that, with the agreement of the Committee, we might consider the first 18 amendments together since they all address the single question. Our first amendment is to the title of the Bill and the next 17 amendments are consequential to that title. Therefore, I seek leave to move the amendments together. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (1) Title, leave out the title, insert the following title: `An Act to promote equal opportunity in employment matters, to establish the office of the Director of Equal Opportunity, and for related purposes'. (2) Clause 1, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: `1. This Act may be cited as the Equal Opportunity in Employment Act 1986.'. (3) Page 2, clause 3, sub-clause (1), definition of `affirmative action program', leave out the definition of insert the following definition after the definition of `employment matters': `equal opportunity program', in relation to a relevant employer, means a program designed to ensure that- (a) appropriate action is taken to eliminate any unjustified discrimination by the relevant employer against women in employment matters; and (b) measures are taken by the relevant employer to promote equal opportunity in relation to employment matters;'. (4) Page 2, clause 3, sub-clause (1), definition of `Director', leave out the definition, insert the following definition ` ``Director'' means the Director of Equal Opportunity;'. (5) Page 4, clause 5, sub-clause (4), leave out `affirmative action program', insert: `equal opportunity program'. (6) Page 5, heading of Part II, leave out the heading, insert the following heading: `PART II-EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS'. (7) Page 5, clause 6, sub-clause (1), leave out `affirmative action program', insert: `equal opportunity program'. [not necessary if (28) is agreed to] (8) Page 5, clause 6, sub-clause (2), leave out `affirmative action program', insert: `equal opportunity program'. [not necessary if (28) is agreed to] (9) Page 6, clause 8, sub-clause (1), leave out `affirmative action program' (thrice occurring), insert: `equal opportunity program'. (10) Page 7, clause 8, sub-clause (2), leave out `affirmative action program', insert: `equal opportunity program'. (11) Page 7, clause 9, sub-clause (1), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: `(1) There shall be a Director of Equal Opportunity.'. (12) Page 7, clause 10, sub-clause (1), paragraphs (a) and (d), leave out `affirmative action programs' (twice occurring), insert: `equal opportunity programs'. (13) Page 7, clause 10, sub-clause (1), paragraphs (e), (f) and (h), leave out `affirmative action to achieve' (thrice occurring). (14) Page 8, clause 13, sub-clause (1), leave out `affirmative action program' (twice occurring), insert: `equal opportunity program'. (15) Page 9, clause 13, sub-clause (3), sub-paragraph (b) (i), leave out `affirmative action program', insert: `equal opportunity program'. (16) Page, clause 14, sub-clause (2), leave out `affirmative action program', insert: `equal opportunity program'. (17) Page 10, heading of Part V, leave out the heading, insert the following heading: `PART V-DIRECTOR OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY'. (18) Page 13, clause 31, sub-clauses (1) and (3), leave out `affirmative action programs' (twice occurring), insert: `equal opportunity programs'. One of the requirements for the success of this legislation is that it receive community acceptance. One of the features which have already appeared during the debate and which have been referred to, erroneously, on a number of occasions, is that people argue that this is an affirmative action Bill. This may come down to semantics, but people have believed that this an affirmative action Bill as affirmative action is generally understood. I go back to the analogy I drew in the second reading debate involving a running track with two lanes. One lane has hurdles, the lane marked `women', and one lane has no hurdles. As I understand it, an equal employment equity measure would remove the hurdles from both tracks altogether. Affirmative action, as many people in society understand it, is a measure which would move some of the hurdles from the women's track to the men's track. In other words, it would make it harder for men to catch up. That is as many people understand it. Many people define affirmative action as giving preference on the basis of gender. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) made clear in her second reading speech, as is clear from the legislation and from what she has said since, that she has no intention of giving preference on the basis of gender. I come back to clause 3 (4) of the Bill where the principle of merit is enshrined. But I say to the Minister that it is the name of the Bill that causes difficulty particularly in some of the more conservative groups in this society. They are the people one would like to see supporting the legislation and they believe that this is an affirmative action measure, as they understand that term, which involves gender preference. The Government has redefined affirmative action to mean equal employment opportunity. That is a kind of Gareth Evans semantic nonsense. To define affirmative action, which means one thing out in society, to mean something else is fine if one is just using words, but if one is trying to talk about getting legislation which people will understand and appreciate for what it is and which they may then wish to support for what it is, it is not unreasonable to look at the title carried by the legislation and to say that that title may affect the degree of acceptance which the legislation has. There is a general community understanding that affirmative action involves some kind of preference for a disadvantaged group and that when it is affirmative action for women it involves some gender preference. It is our belief, and the Minister has confirmed this on many occasions, that she is talking about a Bill for employment equity. In seeking to have the title amended the Opposition is proposing to do nothing more than to have the name of the legislation reflect what it is. There is nothing wrong with our proposal to have the Bill renamed, as proposed in our first amendment, to call it an Act to promote equal opportunity in employment matters. There is nothing wrong with that because that is what the Minister has been saying in all her speeches. That is what she is about. We are asking nothing more than that she should allow an amendment to call the Bill what it is rather than to call it a Bill to promote affirmative action. I believe that one of the reasons why the term affirmative action has been used is as a sop to members of Labor's own radical wing who wanted an affirmative action Bill. Senator Haines, who is not in the chamber at the moment and who I understand may not wish to support the amendment, called the Bill soon after it appeared an affirmative non-action Bill. In terms of affirmative action, as she understood it, this is not an affirmative action measure. I have spoken to a number of women concerned about affirmative action and they do not regard this Bill as an affirmative action measure. It is not. It is a Bill about employment equity. Perhaps it is quaint and old-fashioned, but we are supporting the measure and want to see it called what it is. Opposition members believe that if we call this legislation what it is-that is, a Bill about employment equity-many more people will understand it for what it is. A lot of unnecessary community concern will be put to rest and it will be much easier for people such as I moving within the Liberal Party, moving within the liberal people, even moving within very conservative groups in society, to promote the virtues of this legislation if it is called what it is rather than, as Senator Haines said, an affirmative non-action Bill. As it is not an affirmative action Bill, it is entirely logical to name it what it is. The other 17 amendments we propose merely go through the Bill step by step and reflect the words `equal opportunity in employment' throughout the Bill. We are suggesting that the title be changed and that appropriate consequential changes be made to answer the very criticism made by Senator Haines and by many women who spoke to me when this Bill first appeared. I make these comments against the background that we support the legislation, but the task we have of winning community support for the principles of the legislation is made more difficult by a title which has been designed to appease a more radical group of women but which has not appeased them and which is doing great harm and causing great misunderstanding among some more conservative groups that could be great supporters of the legislation. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(5.11) —I do not accept the arguments put by Senator Peter Baume. I certainly appreciate his desire to have legislation which is properly understood and accepted by the community, particularly by women in the community for whose benefit it is designed. Our Government has used the term `affirmative action' from the outset to describe a policy of systematically removing discrimination against women. I think during that time there has been a process of community education to ensure that our policy is understood and widely accepted, although it does have some critics. The term `affirmative action' was used by the affirmative action working party from the outset. The short title was in a form recommended by the working party, of which Senator Peter Baume was a member. There seems to be no reason to change the title at this late stage. I think in a sense it would be breaking faith with all those bodies, not only the working party but also the 28 corporations, the higher education institutions and others, who co-operated with the exercise from the outset. The meaning we attach to `affirmative action'-the systematic removal of obstacles to employment equity for women-is, I believe, now broadly understood, and no good purpose would be served by a change of name at this stage. The Opposition's amendments also seek to remove references to women at certain points. The Government does not agree with this proposal. (Quorum formed). Question put: That the amendments (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Kilgariff, B. F. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Withers, R. G. Tate, M. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R. Richardson, G. F. Knowles, S. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Boswell, R. L. D. Devlin, R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Cook, P. F. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.22) —I understand that it is probably more convenient if we proceed with the Opposition's amendments and then with the amendments of the Australian Democrats. This means that we may not do all the amendments in sequential order but will come back to the Democrats' amendments later. I move: (19) Page 1, after clause 2, insert the following clause: `Purpose of Act' `2a. It is the purpose of this Act to promote equal opportunity in employment matters for all employees.'. This amendment, which has been circulated in my name, inserts after clause 2, a new clause 2a to specify the purposes of this Act. There is a need or there would be some advantage, in our view to explain this legislation and make its purpose clear. This is especially so in view of the refusal of the Government to accept what was absolutely logical and pick up Senator Haines's argument-an argument which she advanced in public but did not support in the chamber when it came to a vote-that this is not an affirmative action measure but an employment equity measure. As the Committee has determined that it will not change the title of the Bill, it seems appropriate that there should be within the legislation a clear statement of the objectives. Therefore, we propose that there should be inserted a clause 2a which sets out that the purpose of this Act is to promote equal opportunity in employment matters for all employees. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is quite correct when she makes it clear that this Bill refers only to women. We would like the Bill to refer to all employees in terms of equal employment matters. In my speech at the second reading stage I made it clear that I had no doubt that there had not been employment equity for women, but surely the purpose we are seeking here is employment equity for everyone. That should be the Government's purpose. If it is not, if the Government is determined only to seek employment equity for some people, I would be interested to hear it say so. There were several ways in which we could have moved and sought to make clear in the legislation that this is a Bill about equal employment opportunity. The Committee has seen fit to reject the first and most logical way to make this matter clear and to put a purposes clause in the Bill which is consistent with what is done in many other Acts of Parliament where a purposes section is included. The purposes clause that we have proposed here is entirely consistent with the rhetoric of both the Minister and the Government and with the views expressed in the second reading debate by me on behalf of the Opposition, by some of my colleagues, and by Senator Haines on behalf of the Australian Democrats. It is also entirely consistent with the agreed views, even of those who do not like this legislation because they think that this is an affirmative action Bill. If we were to include the statement that the purpose of the Act is to promote equal opportunity in employment, we will be doing no more than putting into the Bill a purposes clause which states accurately, and in a manner which has been agreed by all parties, the purpose of the Bill. It will put that clause into legislation and have the effect of promoting proper community discussion and understanding of the purposes of this Bill. It is about employment equity and the promotion of equal opportunity, and it seems to me that it would help in terms of presentation and understanding of the legislation if this clause were inserted in the Bill itself, as has been done with other pieces of legislation. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.26) —Senator Peter Baume is certainly correct in saying that during the second reading debate, prior to that and since then I have referred to this piece of legislation as being `essentially defective' to the extent that it is not as strong as many people want it to be. The title itself has come in for the odd pot shot from me on the grounds that, while it claims to be an affirmative action Bill, in effect there is not a great deal of action in it. It is certainly not the sort of affirmative action style of legislation that applied in the United States, where quotas were set absolutely, and that has left quite obnoxious memories with most people. Those memories have led people to believe that any Bill called an affirmative action Bill, whatever might or might not be in brackets afterwards, is indeed a Bill leading to quotas rather than being, as Senator Peter Baume quite correctly points out, a Bill which promotes equal opportunity in employment matters for all employees regardless of sex, marital status, pregnancy and so on. In effect I believe that it states for the first time in legislative history that merit should be the main criterion. To return to the comments of Senator Peter Baume on this clause, it might not be such a bad idea to leave `Affirmative Action' in the title and just let people realise that it does not mean quotas and established percentages of people who have to be in any situation. Certainly, while I think this legislation is weak, it is important to women, important enough for us not to delay its implementation for yet another month by fiddling around with the title or by inserting clauses like a statement relating to the purpose of the Act, however accurate that statement might be. The implementation of the legislation itself, I would hope, would indicate more surely and more definitely than any statement in the Bill that its purpose is to promote equal opportunity in employment matters for all employees. Senator Baume is wise and experienced enough to know that what is in an Act is not always taken by the community at large as being a correct description. Simply stating that something is so in an Act does not always make it so in the community's mind and does not always lead people to believe that it is so. Getting this Bill out of the Senate, on to the statute books and into operation as quickly as possible without delaying it another month is a far more effective and sure way of making the community aware that- Senator Walters —But don't you have amendments? Senator HAINES —I will come to that, Senator. As Senator Baume says, this legislation will promote equal opportunity in employment matters for all employees. Senator Walters interjected and asked me whether I had any amendments. I most certainly do. They are amendments that will essentially strengthen the legislation. Senator Walters —Won't they delay things? Senator HAINES —Since the Opposition is not supporting them and neither is the Government, there is no point in my proceeding with them and prolonging this farce any longer. I will certainly raise the concerns that I have about the question of special attention being paid to Aboriginal women, migrant women and women with disabilities. I shall also raise the question of whether tertiary institutions should be allowed to put in confidential reports and so on, but since I have had an absolute indication from the Government that it is not prepared to support these amendments and since as recently as this morning I was informed by the Opposition shadow spokesman through my Whip that there would be no support from Opposition members on any amendment other than the one on subsidiaries, there is no point at all in my proceeding with these. Even with my conviction that this Bill is desperately weak I certainly will not put in jeopardy legislation, which I suppose can be best described as better than none, by delaying its implementation for another month. For somebody like me who, unlike Senator Chaney, has a commitment to getting this legislation on the statute books and to making it clear to employers that the community and the Parliament will not tolerate the unequal treatment that has been meted out to women in the past and who does not, like Senator Chaney, see the legislation as peripheral to the dealings of this place, something less important than the economic matters he has said he would be happy to have this chamber continue to discuss by sitting past the adjournment hour, it is important that the legislation be put into place now. However, that does not make me any less angry with this Government for messing up its own program so that we are confronted with a farcical situation tonight which means that I have to act in this way and not proceed with amendments that I think would improve matters and would significantly embarrass a government which says it would not support them. I really have no choice if the women in Australia, who have been waiting for this legislation for far too long, are ever to get any benefit from it at all. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.33) —Senator Haines has just suggested that she will not support any amendments because she believes that will delay the legislation, and she does not want the legislation delayed. I put it to Senator Haines that our duty in this place is to deal with legislation on its merits. It will not matter if this legislation is amended and receives royal assent sometime in September. It will not affect adversely the women of Australia. If this Committee, in fulfilling and discharging its functions, improves the legislation it will have assisted women in Australia. The honourable senator said to the Committee: `Forget the merits of anything that is being proposed; I want the legislation through, and I am willing to let through defective legislation'. That is unbelievable! There is one amendment which will ensure, for example, that a great class of women presently not able to take advantage of this Bill will be able so to do. Senator Haines suggests that in order to save three weeks she may not consider that amendment on its merits. I suggest to her that we are here to examine the merits of the matter, and if this amendment that I have proposed is defective, let her say why it is defective. To argue the matter on the basis that the legislation has to go through quickly is simply not good enough. The reason that we are in a rush is that the Government has not scheduled enough parliamentary sitting time. This is my thirteenth year in this place and it is the first time I can recall sitting for one week only at the beginning of a Budget session. We could have sat next week. We could have had the legislation through next week, had normal procedure been followed. The Government, for political reasons, has lifted the Parliament. Is Senator Haines now saying that as the Government has lifted the Parliament she will lift whatever obligations there are to improve the legislation? I say to the honourable senator now that when I said to her Whip this morning that we were not disposed to support any of her amendments I had not seen them in their full form. That may well be my problem, but I have now looked at them. I give no undertaking that we will not support some of her amendments if she can convince us by argument and if they are worth supporting. I am going to proceed as a supporter of this legislation to try to get the very best Bill through the Parliament to help achieve the Bill's purposes. If the Bill passes through the Senate with an amendment or two and if Senator Ryan then has to go out and say to people that it will not actually receive royal assent until mid-September-having had to be dealt with only by the House of Representatives-and only then will it come into effect, no bad effects will flow from such a three weeks delay at this stage. After all I am not against the legislation; I am for the legislation. I want to see it through, but I want to see decent legislation through. The argument that the Democrats will not consider amendments simply because they do not want to exercise their task in this chamber of review is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard. I hope that the amendments will be taken on their merits. We will certainly take Senator Haines's amendments on their merits and we will see what happens. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.35) —I think I ought to respond to that little homily from Senator Peter Baume by reminding him that his Party as a whole does not treat legislation on its merits and defines certain legislation as being untouchable. (Quorum formed) Senator Baume pointed out the importance of dealing with legislation on its merits, come what may. I suggest to Senator Baume and to others in his political camp that his Party regularly fails to deal with legislation on its merits if it defines that legislation as being a Budget Bill. So apparently it is all right for Senator Baume's Party to come up with a category of Bills which it chooses not to deal with on their merits but promise at the end of the speeches made just before its members vote with the Government in the division that it will repeal the legislation when it gets back into power, but it is not all right for me to say that this Bill is okay as far as it goes, I think it is weak, it could be better, but I am not holding up matters for the sake of strengthening legislation which, once it is in operation, presumably can be tightened up as needs must. As far as Senator Baume's amendment is concerned, since the title of the Bill reads `Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill', I fail to see why we need to put in a purpose of the Act any more than we need to put into any other piece of legislation whose title reasonably accurately describes its purpose a clause specifying it. As for Senator Baume's comment about this chamber letting through defective legislation, that has happened on more than one occasion in this place either because some of us on all sides of the chamber have not been as vigilant about clauses as we should be, which is why we get so many amending Bills before us, or because times change and they have to be altered in any event. As far as I am concerned, this Bill is defective only in the sense that it does not go far enough. What it does it does adequately enough. Therefore I guess it is not in any real sense of the word defective in that it is inoperable or particularly anomalous. To me it is simply weak, it could go beyond what is does and certainly Senator Baume's amendment does not improve in any way at all either its functioning or its implementation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.42) —It appears to me that Senator Haines is saying-I would like her to tell me whether I am right-that she would agree with our amendment if the legislation was not going to be held up. Senator Peter Baume's amendment is in the following terms: It is the purpose of the Act to promote equal opportunity in employment matters for all employees. It appears that while Senator Haines believes that the amendment is accurate she thinks it is superfluous and she does not want to hold up the Bill for a month, et cetera. As I understand it, the Bill will be held up for a month because I have an amendment-the next one coming up-with which Senator Ryan has already agreed. Senator Ryan —No. Senator WALTERS —Senator Ryan would admit, though, that when I asked her whether she would agree to that amendment she said that it would be acceptable to her. That is exactly what happened. I took the amendment to Senator Ryan prior to the last parliamentary recess and asked her whether the amendment I was putting forward met with the intention of the legislation. She said yes, I asked `Would you accept my amendment?', and she definitely said that she would. I will be very surprised if she is blatantly saying at this stage that she did not do so. I would be most interested to hear her reply. Senator McIntosh —On a point of order, Madam Temporary Chairman: We are having an argument about an amendment that is coming up after this item has been dealt with. For goodness sake, let us stick to this item. Senator Peter Baume —On the point of order, Madam Temporary Chairman: Although we have an amendment before the Chair we are considering the Bill as a whole. I would like us all to keep in good humour if we can. Senator WALTERS —I was relating the fact that, Senator Ryan having said she would agree to this amendment, the Bill would have to come back to this place anyway. It would have to go to the House of Representatives. That is why I was dealing with just that section. I am not dealing with my amendment as yet. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —Order! Senator Walters-- Senator WALTERS —Well, as I said, I am not dealing-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, I would like to deal with the point of order, if you would be so kind as to allow me. Senator WALTERS —That is what I did. I said that the only reason I am dealing with the- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Would you allow me to rule on the point of order? Senator WALTERS —Oh, fine, Madam Temporary Chairman. I thought you indicated that you had not heard my point. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I have not said anything yet. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to stick to the amendment before us. I acknowledge that Senator Haines was roaming a little widely around the question, but she was explaining her position in relation to this and other amendments. It seems to me that we will get through this legislation with the least trauma if we deal with amendments sequentially. Senator WALTERS —Madam Temporary Chairman, I am dealing with this amendment. I was trying to be helpful to Senator Haines by telling her that we will have to come back anyway, and that therefore I did not see that as being a problem to her. We will see what Senator Ryan has to say when she rises to speak. I do not think there would be any disagreement with the proposition that the Bill provides, and certainly should provide, for equal employment opportunity for all employees. That is certainly how the Government has drafted it, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has stressed that appointment will be only on merit, that there will be equal opportunity for the person with the best capacity to fill a job. As such, I am very surprised that the Government will not accept the very obvious purpose of the Act. A Bill usually has a purpose for an Act. The Government, by refusing to accept this amendment, will only encourage the people who are looking at the name alone to believe that the purpose of the Act will not be to have equal employment opportunity for all employees. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.46) —If it helps Senator Walters in any way, let me say that there was never any intention on my part to support this Opposition amendment. I wish to make it clear that my failure, if you like, to support this amendment is simply predicated on the basis that I do not think it is a particularly useful amendment. It adds nothing at all to the Bill and is itself of no particular intrinsic worth. The only amendments from the Opposition-I am saying this now in response to a comment that Senator Walters made during her speech a moment ago-that I had any intention of looking at fondly were the ones relating to the application of the Bill to Federal statutory authorities and the reporting of subsidiary companies. I think I gave some indication to Senator Peter Baume months ago that those were the only areas where we were even remotely of like minds. I am somewhat mollified by assurances that have been given to me by the Minister-I presume that they have been given also to Senator Baume-with regard to the applicability to statutory authorities of legislation or regulation of some sort. The only area about which I will feel mildly foolish for not proceeding is the question of subsidiary companies and, quite frankly, that to me is a small enough price to pay to get this blasted Bill on the statute books. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.48) —It appears that Senator Haines's arguments against the bona fide amendment put forward by the Opposition are, firstly, that it may delay the operation of the Bill and, secondly, that it is not useful. I therefore ask the Minister to address those two matters directly as I wish to hear the Government's view on this matter. The Government may be quite neutral with regard to delay because there are amendments being put forward by the Australian Democrats that the Opposition may well support. Therefore, I believe that this chamber should rightly and responsibly look at every matter on its merits, take into account the arguments for the various proposals and then make the decision. With regard to the amendment not being useful, I address myself to clause 8 of the Bill. Sub-clauses (1) (f), (1) (g) and (1) (h) directly outline what the affirmative action program is to do. One requirement is for the employer, in matters of employment policies and practices, to identify any patterns or lack of equalitive opportunity in respect of women, to set objectives and make forward estimates and to monitor and assess these objectives. It is possible for some to interpret those three sub-clauses as amounting to an opportunity for quotas to be imposed. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister explicitly and uncontroversially stated that the purpose of the Act is not to allow those ambiguities in clause 8 of the Bill. They are useful in describing the specific purpose of this legislation. I ask the Minister: Firstly, what is the Government's view on the possibility of the legislation being delayed a few weeks in the event that it has to go back to the House of Representatives? Secondly, what is wrong with the words that are in the Opposition's amendment No. 19? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(5.51) —The reason why the Government cannot accept the proposed amendment is that it is unnecessary. I remind honourable senators opposite that it is no longer the practice of parliamentary counsel to draft object clauses. This practice has been dropped and the purposes of the Bill are now set out in its long title. This is the case with this Bill and all Bills coming into the Senate. It is not that I or the Government has any argument with the intention of what the Opposition has put but rather that it is totally unnecessary, as Senator Haines has pointed out, because the objectives intended to be achieved are covered in the long title of the Bill. Amendment negatived. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.52) —In my speech at the second reading stage of the debate I foreshadowed that I would move an amendment to ensure that the word `merit' in clause 3 (4) is properly interpreted. I move: Page 3, sub-clause 3 (1), after the definition of `higher education institution', insert the following definition: ` ``merit'' means the suitability of a person for the discharge of duties of the kind to be performed in a capacity in which that person is employed or is proposed to be employed, and does not include preference for a person by reason of the sex, marital status or pregnancy of that person;'. The first description of the word `merit' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is `quality of deserving well'. I sincerely hope that that is not what the Government means by the word `merit'. The commonly accepted meaning of the word `merit' is the person who has the best capacity to perform a particular job. However, we are not dealing here with what is commonly accepted; we are dealing with legislation and the word `merit' is described as the `quality of deserving well'. Madam Temporary Chairman, that could mean that a woman deserves a job more than a man deserves it purely and simply because she is a woman-for no other reason. Indeed, one would expect that the word `merit' would be described in this Bill in the exact way that the Concise Oxford Dictionary describes it-the quality of deserving well. If that is the case the people of Australia have been hoodwinked in the most decisive way that has ever occurred because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that there will be no sexual preference; a person will get a job purely on merit. Yet the word `merit' has not been defined in the legislation. When one looks at the dictionary one finds the first meaning of that word is not the best person for the job-there is no such description at all-but the person who is the most deserving. Of course that person could be a single parent and have several children but not have the performance record or capacity to do the job compared with someone who has all the capacities to do it. As I have already indicated, the Minister assured me unequivocally before the last recess that she would accept this amendment. I approached the Minister. I went to her office. I met her in the corridor-she will remember it well-and I said to her `Will you accept that amendment?' and the Minister said unequivocally yes. Senator Ryan —I will explain. Senator WALTERS —There is no explanation because that is exactly what the Minister said. The Minister unequivocally said that she would accept the amendment. If the Minister backs off from that answer which she gave to me-I sincerely hope that she will not deny that that is what she said-I can only presume that she is finding that meaning of the word `merit' a very handy meaning, that the Minister has said to herself: `It is not what Caucus would have let through. It is not the interpretation that the Party would have given or allowed to go through but it is a very handy one to have in this legislation'. I do not believe that that was the Minister's intention at the time I spoke to her and I will be very interested to hear her answer, she having unequivocally told me that she would support my amendment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(5.57) —The Government does not accept Senator Walters's amendment and I would like to explain the misunderstanding which has arisen in Senator Walters's mind. Senator Walters —There is no misunder- standing. Senator RYAN —Perhaps Senator Walters would listen to the explanation since she has sought one. Certainly I have no argument with the interpretation of the word `merit' Senator Walters put forward in her amendment. I have made it clear, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made it clear and various other members of the Government have made it clear from the outset that the word `merit' means capacity to do the job and that preference will not be given on the basis of gender. Senator Peter Baume, Senator Walters's leader on this matter, has also understood and acknowledged that point from the outset. So there has been no misunderstanding as to our interpretation of the word `merit' or the concept. It means the person best suited to do the job. That has been acknowledged at all stages of the debate, by the working party and so on and it is the intent of the legislation. My response to Senator Walters when she approached me about her interpretation of the word `merit' was something along these lines: I agree with the interpretation. That is what we mean. I said that I would accept no amendments to the legislation, but that when Senator Walters raised the matter at the Committee stage I would give her the assurance-as I am now doing-that her interpretation is indeed the appropriate interpretation. It is an interpretation that does not involve gender preference but involves employment equity. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.00) —That is not true. Indeed, I have with me the amendment I handed to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and the Minister read the amendment and said: `I will support that amendment'. There was absolutely no other interpretation at all. The Minister did not mention that the Government would not accept any amendments; she did not mention that she would stand in this place and give me an assurance. She read the amendment that I handed to her and said that she would support it. For her now actually to face me in the chamber and tell me that she did not say that is quite extraordinary. I am appalled, because there is no way in the world that the Minister made any sort of statement which could possibly get her out of her comment to me that she would support my amendment. There were no ifs and buts; there was absolutely nothing. For the Minister now to stand in this place and face me and tell an untruth really does surprise me. (Quorum formed) I would like to find out how Senator Haines and the Australian Democrats feel about this word `merit'. I think Senator Haines was outside the chamber when we were discussing the interpretation of this word. I ask Senator Haines and the Democrats whether they are prepared to support the interpretation of the word `merit', as I am quite sure they believe that it should be interpreted, as the person who has the best capacity to perform the task, instead of the interpretation of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is `the quality of deserving well'. I wonder whether the Democrats would care to speak on that. I challenge them to give their interpretation of `merit' and to say whether they believe that it is important to have the word that I believe is the crux of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill defined in the correct way; in the way the Government intended it to be defined, according to Senator Ryan's description. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Walters's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Kilgariff, B. F. Cook, P. F. S. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Archer, B. R. Tate, M. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sibraa, K. W. Knowles, S. C. Richardson, G. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Devlin, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.10) —I move: (1) Page 5, sub-clause 6 (3), leave out `80', insert `90'. Honourable senators will be aware that the amendment I have just moved is identical to amendment No. 1 circulated by the Australian Democrats. This amendment seeks to deal with the case of those employers who, having been relevant employers, have a diminution in their work force. It simply determines the level at which the Act would cease to apply to them. I say to Senator Haines that this amendment that the Democrats have circulated has some merit in the eyes of the Opposition. In order to ensure that it is placed before the Committee, I have moved it as being an appropriate amendment to the Bill and one which, while it does not go as far as we wanted, is an appropriate compromise. I congratulate Senator Haines on having placed it before the Committee and on having circulated it, and I have moved it accordingly. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.12) —If Senator Peter Baume thinks that he will upset me unduly by moving a series of my amendments, I am afraid he is very sadly mistaken. If I have to say every time he does so that to me and to the Party the establishment and implementation of this legislation is more important than the fine tuning, I will say it every time. I certainly believe that we have more right on our side in allowing this piece of legislation to go through on the grounds that we support it as far as it goes-we would like it to go further, but are not prepared to hold it up-than Opposition members have in allowing various tax measures and other Bills to go through, having howled about them in the House of Representatives and again in this place, on the specious ground that they are Budget Bills and that they will repeal them when they return to government. I say to Senator Baume: Do not preach to me tonight. It will not work. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.13) —I understand that it will not work. But I want it to be clearly on the record that the Australian Democrats circulated in this chamber, for the information of honourable senators, a set of amendments which they proposed to move. Now we are giving them the chance to vote for their own amendment. We will take it to a division. Senator Haines and her colleagues may then vote against the amendment if they wish. That amendment was circulated by her Party as being an appropriate amendment to this legislation. We support the amendment. I hold the Democrats in contempt, because they would not have submitted this amendment to the Committee had they not thought that it had some merit. They have obviously considered it as a group and have agreed that the amendment is worth supporting. But when it comes to the test, the Australian Democrats not only will not move their own amendments but also they will not vote for their own amendments. The Australian people should understand that the Australian Democrats went to them, seeking a mandate to let them be the keepers of public morality. I seem to recall the phrase: `Keep the bastards honest'. But when it comes to the point-- Senator Siddons —Come off it, Senator. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Siddons does not like it. I will watch Senator Siddons vote against an amendment circulated in this chamber by his Party; an amendment which, I suggest, he is not now prepared to move, an amendment which we have moved to give the Democrats an opportunity to vote for their own amendment. If it had sufficient merit when the Democrats drafted it, it had sufficient merit when it came before the Committee. But there is a big difference between what the Australian Democrats say-what they indicate they will do; the promises they make to the public-and what they deliver. Increasing numbers of the public have contempt for them as a party. If this is the way in which they are going to be led by Senator Haines, I suggest they will have a very short-lived existence under her leadership. I suggest to Senator Haines that these amendments were to have been moved by her in the Committee of the Whole. We have moved the first one. I indicate that Senator Haines was quite right when she drafted it. It has considerable merit. We wish to support it and to see it passed. I will now explain why. One of the less satisfactory features of the Government's legislation was its decision that a certain level of employment, in this case, 100 employees-and we will have more to say about that in a technical way later-should qualify an employer to come into the program. We do not argue with that. That is an adequate provision. But the Government has determined that some employers could possibly play a little game to reduce their numbers of employees, say, to 99 employees, thereby seeking to avoid inclusion in the provisions of the Act. I think that is an accurate expression of the concern that the Government has. It does not want people playing games in that borderline region. The Opposition has a view that employers do not work in that way and that they will not design their employment policies to avoid the provisions of this legislation. We had proposed that the Government's clause, which actually proposes that an employer, having gone into the program, does not get out until the number of employees is down to 80, was unduly onerous. We had proposed simply to oppose that sub-clause. The Democrats, on the other hand, with the wisdom of Solomon, said: `Surely there is a middle road'. Not only did they think there was a middle road, they composed an amendment and were willing to put it forward until it looked likely that it might succeed. So great is the morality and probity of the Democrats that when their own amendment has been moved, they are now-if I understood Senator Haines-not supporting it. I think it is pathetic. They are pathetic as a party. We shall be interested to see what happens to this amendment. It is a very good amendment because it provides that employers will not be able to commit a sin which the Government was worried that they could commit. Yet the solution which is proposed is not as onerous as the solution which the Government has proposed. It provides an answer which lies somewhere between the Government's position and the Opposition's position. It was a very good amendment. It still is a very good amendment. It deserves the support of the Committee. I suggest to Senator Haines that, if she says she will not vote for it, she should try to justify that action having regard to the merit of the amendment. She should tell us what is wrong with voting for the amendment, because that is the test, surely, which even the Australian Democrats will apply to whether or not they vote for it. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.19) —We will not join in Senator Peter Baume's cute little games, for all the reasons that I have outlined. It has not sunk into his head that my interest is in expediting a piece of legislation which, even though it does not go as far as we would like, is in the interests of women. Those same women will not thank me one bit for holding this up in order to play around with numbers, which I may well have been, and was, prepared to do, had there been time available. Now there is not, and that is the simple fact. I say again that the Bill as it stands is all right, as far as it goes. I would prefer it to be improved. I will say that again. If it makes Senator Peter Baume feel any happier to know that I would like it to go further, fine; and he will, I suspect, then with enthusiasm support the private member's Bill that we will introduce on the first day back in September, which contains all these amendments. So in fact we can have the Bill implemented and then upgraded if necessary. I suggest to Senator Peter Baume that at least that is a far better way of behaving than Liberal senators did when promising to repeal a lump sum superannuation Bill that they in fact did not oppose in this place. Despite the fact that the Opposition thought it was, in total, outrageous, it defined it as a Budget Bill. If Senator Baume is going to start plumbing the depths of whatever he is trying to do, he should look to himself first, because with him there is no match. He has supported the Government measures in a wide range of areas over the years that he has been in opposition. Indeed, he has voted with the Government when we have called divisions on legislation which he has expressed outrage over and which he said would severely damage sections of the community. Yet when it has come to the vote, despite having made those claims-I cite the 1984 wine sales tax legislation as a case in point-he has voted with the Government to pass it. I am at least saying that the legislation as it stands will not be as good as it could be. But at least it is of benefit to a section of the community that requires assistance. I will not remove that benefit by attempting to amend the legislation to improve it when there are other ways I can go about that. If the honourable senator wants to go through the 10 amendments I have here, he may go his hardest, but I am afraid that it will not cut any ice with those women in the community who want this Bill to go through in the form that it is in-who would have liked it improved but who came to me and said: `While we want it improved, we do not want this legislation held up in order to improve it, and only in order to improve it, because we would like it on the statute books in its present format and we can take action thereafter'. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.22) —I seek leave of the Committee to have incorporated in the Hansard record the three pages that set out the 10 amendments that have been circulated with the title `Amendments to be moved in Committee of the Whole by the Australian Democrats'. Leave granted. The document read as follows- (1) Page 5, sub-clause 6 (3), leave out ``80'', insert ``90''. (2) Page 5, sub-clause 7 (1), after paragraph (a), add: ``(aa) in the case of a relevant employer who participated in the program known as the Affirmative Action Pilot Program-1 August 1986; and''. (3) Page 7, sub-clause 10 (1), after paragraph (f), insert the following paragraph: ``(fa) to promote the development of special programs to meet the particular needs of women of Aboriginal descent, women from non-English speaking backgrounds, and disabled women;''. (4) Page 9, sub-clause 13 (3), after paragraph (a), add: ``(aa) information on action taken by the relevant employer in respect of each of the matters set out in sub-section 8 (1); and''. (5) Page 9, sub-clause 14 (1), after ``relevant employer'', insert ``, other than a higher education institution,''. (6) Page 9, after sub-clause 14, insert the following clause: ``Reports by subsidiaries ``14a. Notwithstanding sub-section 3 (2), where a corporation indicates in a report under section 13 or 14 that a corporation which is a subsidiary of that first-mentioned corporation is to lodge a separate report under that section, and the subsidiary corporation lodges such a separate report relating to employees of the subsidiary corporation, the first-mentioned corporation is not required in a report under that section to provide any information relating to the employees of the subsidiary corporation.''. (7) Page 10, clause 18, after ``provide'', insert ``, within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice,''. (8) Page 10, sub-clause 19 (1), after paragraph (b), insert: ``or (c) fails to meet forward estimates made in accordance with paragraph 8 (1) (g),''. (9) Page 10, sub-clause 19 (1), leave out ``the Director may'', insert ``the Director shall''. (10) Page 15, after clause 32, insert the following clause: ``Grants to States for higher education institutions ``32a. In exercising a discretion under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 to make available to a State financial assistance in relation to a higher education institution, the Minister shall have regard to the extent to which that institution has complied with this Act.''. Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Committee. The point is that the matter to which Senator Peter Baume referred is only the first of some 10 amendments that have been circulated by the Australian Democrats. On the excuse that Senator Haines has just outlined, she has led the Democrats to abandon dealing with the legislation on its merits. The expediting of this Bill, even a Bill that has been described by Senator Haines as being reasonably close to what might be seen as the best legislation, is to be achieved by the abandonment of debating this legislation in this chamber on its merits, and the open and flagrant declaration that the Democrats are doing so. We have the time ahead of us to hear all of the arguments in favour of these amendments and Senator Peter Baume has, quite rightly, summarised substantially why we can support this amendment before us. I have already asked the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to address the question of delay and she chose not to make any comments whatsoever about that question. The question came up with regard to amendment No. 19 which the Opposition was moving, and whilst the Minister did address the necessity or otherwise of there being a declared purpose in the Bill-I acknowledge that-she did not in any way take up the other substantial matter that Senator Haines has mentioned and which I directly referred to and asked her to comment on; that is, whether there would be any loss at all as a result of the proclamation of this legislation being delayed by three or four weeks. If an amendment before us is passed tonight, of course it must go back to the House of Representatives and only after the House has agreed to that amendment would it go on for proclamation. So I ask the Minister to address directly the question of whether one, two, three or four weeks delay will make any difference to this legislation. For the life of me I cannot see how it could. Some dates have been mentioned in this Bill which have gone past us already. There is a reference to 1 August in the Bill and here it is, 22 August. If proclamation were delayed a few weeks more, I do not see that offence or embarrassment creates any particular problem. I refer again to the consideration of legislation on its merit, something which the Democrats have abandoned despite the fact that this Bill talks about employment on merit. Will the Democrats abandon the principle of merit even in the Bill itself by saying that 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the opportunity is good enough for them? Will they adopt the principle of merit that they have tried to expound tonight as their definition of merit within the Bill? I have not completely given up on the other members of the Australian Democrats who are here; they have not spoken yet. Senator Siddons is sitting here and there are other Democrat senators about. I put to them this case: If they have in their Party discussions already seen merits in amendments to this legislation and we could have those amendments put, using the full capacity to see them adopted, why should they not support what they believe in? Why should they not be conscientious and responsible, for only the sake of a few weeks? I also ask the Minister about this question of delay. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(6.29) —It is of utmost urgency to complete the legislation tonight. Three or four weeks may not seem a long delay to Senator Teague; it is certainly a long delay in terms of setting up appropriate administrative arrangements for the higher education institutions. We want the higher education institutions to start putting their programs into place as soon as possible. Another academic year will be coming up before very long and Senator Teague knows very well that institutions tend to work on a calendar year basis. They tend to employ staff at the beginning of an academic year. There are very good administrative reasons why a few weeks delay in the proclamation of the Act could mean many months delay, or even more than that, in terms of getting programs into place in institutions. The Democrats, I am very grateful to say, recognise this. Also, of course, the corporations are already approaching the interim affirmative action agency seeking advice and assistance in the preparation of their plans. We are in some difficulty in establishing the agency securely and permanently without the legislation in place. Senator Haines understands this very well and, for this reason, has co-operated with us. I just say that what might be a few weeks of unimportant delay to Senator Teague may make a very real difference in terms of the opportunity for the women who will be the beneficiaries of this Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.30) —Sir Humphrey Appleby could not have given a better answer. In fact, in one of his books he lists `administrative reasons' as one of the reasons one gives when trying to snow a Minister. I do not know what administrative reasons there are, but I am not worried. The fact is that the Minister wants the legislation through and the Minister has taken certain steps. We are in a mood to be receptive, but the Minister has given no really convincing reason why three weeks matters. The date set down for higher education institutions, the Minister would be aware, is 1 August 1986 or such later date as is prescribed. That is no problem. The Minister is aware that the new academic year is some time away, and she and I are aware that what matters is to get the legislation in and to get it right. The Minister has given us a non-answer, but that was something we enjoyed hearing. It took us back to Yes, Minister all the way. Senator Haines's position gets stranger and stranger. I have never seen anything like this. I cannot ever recall in the Senate a political party circulating amendments, then indicating that it will not move them, and then indicating that it will vote against them. I think this is a first, and I believe it is a real statement of the morality of the Australian Democrats. It is absolutely pointless for Senator Haines to say that it will be all right because she is going to move a private senator's Bill in the next session. She knows, we know and everyone knows that her private senator's Bills are publicity stunts which have no possibility of success, even if they pass through this chamber and even if they have the support of the Opposition. She knows that. I ask Senator Haines to tell us how recently one of her Bills went through the Parliament and got royal assent, to tell us about the myriad of nonsense Bills that people like Senator Vigor put down to suit some single issue populist group that the Democrats are trying to buy off. Senator Haines has to answer this question from the electorate: Having the capacity here tonight to use her vote to improve the legislation, and not being willing to use it, does she really expect anyone to take her seriously when, having passed up that opportunity, she then says that she is going to introduce a private senator's Bill later on? That, of course, is merely a publicity stunt to salve what must be a quite bruised conscience. Senator Haines was elected to the Senate to exercise review. She told us tonight that, for the reasons she set out, she chooses not to exercise review. I am going to tell the women in the Commonwealth Public Service that Senator Haines has the capacity tonight, with her vote, to help ensure that women in Commonwealth statutory authorities enjoy the same protection under this Bill as private employees, and if they do not have it, it is because the Australian Democrats-we have yet to see what happens-have indicated that they will not vote for it. They have a capacity to fix and improve this legislation but they tell us that they elect not to do so. I think it is the most pathetic demonstration I have ever seen of their incapacity and the greatest abdication of their responsibility as they have stated it. I think it is probably a sorry day that Senator Chipp resigned and left this rabble as they are. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.34) —Senator Haines may say that she is doing something for women tonight by not making them wait three weeks, but I can assure her that she has set back the cause of women considerably. She is the first woman leader of a Federal party and her very first action in the first few days of her leadership is to put down an amendment, then decide not to put it, and then when it does come up, decide to vote against it. I have never heard such logic. She leaves all women open to the abuse that so many men heap upon us. She leaves all women open to that comment we hear so regularly from men that women have no logic, and that, I think, is a disgrace. Women are told so often by men that we can never make up our minds-that common old saying that it is a woman's privilege to change her mind. I object to that very strongly, and yet Senator Haines tonight has demonstrated to every man who voted for her as Leader of the Democrats that she is one of those women who have no logic, who do change their minds. Senator Haines put down an amendment that the Democrats believe in strongly. They not only withdraw the amendment, but when the amendment is put up, with no reason, they indicate that they will vote against it. They still support the intention of the amendment because we are told that in another three weeks time they will raise it in a private senator's Bill, which as Senator Peter Baume has said will not see the light of day. They are not willing to put that amendment which they supposedly believe in so much; they are not willing to support it so that it can be passed into legislation. Senator Haines has done the greatest disservice to womanhood in the Federal Parliament that it is possible for any woman to do. On behalf of my sex, I take strong exception to the fact that she has disgraced women and their ability to act as leaders of Federal parties. I take great exception to it. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.37) —I just make one more point and that is that Senator Peter Baume's quite correct description of the step by step progress of the Australian Democrats intra-contradiction makes their actions appear one more step curiouser. By the light of day tomorrow the Democrats will realise that, while they thought it was a good idea at the time to bring in a private member's Bill, they must reject it. I will be greatly surprised if, when we come back in three weeks time, there is anything at all to be heard of a private member's Bill from the Democrats. I will be greatly surprised if such a private member's Bill is introduced. We will see yet a further change of mind and a complete confusion in the Democrats' performance on this matter. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(6.38) —I wish to place on the record my approach to handling this legislation. I am determined to take a totally responsible approach to it. I realise that to some extent it is an inconvenience to honourable senators, although in a very fine cause, that we are sitting tonight. Therefore, I do not intend to respond to every attack or below-the-belt criticism from the Opposition against me or, indeed, the Australian Democrats. I would like to place on the record that I have the greatest possible appreciation of the responsible role that the Democrats, under the leadership of Senator Haines, have taken in supporting this legislation. Senator Haines does understand the matter of urgency, as I do. Senator Haines, like me, is determined to act responsibly in this matter and not simply waste the time of the Senate in childish and unnecessary political attacks. We are both much more interested in the outcome of this legislation than in any political scuttlebutt that might occur on the way through. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.39) —I think it is worth while reminding the Committee that Senator Haines has indicated that she wishes to introduce a private senator's Bill later to include matters which are contained in her amendments. Senator Haines may recall that on 16 May 1985 she spoke in this Senate on another private senator's Bill, moved on that occasion by a Liberal Party senator. She made some comments then about private senators' Bills, and I am sure that she would like to hear them. She said: I would like to support Senator Messner's Bill in the Parliament today if only to prove to these people-- that is the Liberals-- just how useless that action would be. There is no way that supporting Senator Messner's Bill in the Parliament today, or a month or so ago when he first introduced it, will have any effect at all on what is currently bothering the farmers . . . Senator Haines got it right when she said that supporting a private senator's Bill, if we introduce it, would be a useless operation because it would not pass. Yet she dares to say that in abdicating her responsibility to review legislation tonight she may be able to salve her conscience or retrieve her reputation by introducing a private senator's Bill down the track. She is damned by the words she uttered in this chamber some 15 months ago. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.41) —I was just wondering whether the excuse Senator Haines has given tonight concerning a private senator's Bill will indeed be supported by the Government. Will the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) tell us whether in three weeks time she will be supporting the private senator's Bill that Senator Haines is proposing to put up, bringing in her own amendment that she is voting against tonight? Will the Minister let us know whether she intends to support the private senator's Bill? Senator Ryan —The question is out of order. Senator WALTERS —I do not think that the question is at all out of order. It really is quite pertinent to the matter. It is very important that we know whether the amendment that Senator Peter Baume has already put in this chamber tonight, that Senator Haines originally put and is now going to vote against, has a chance of getting through in three weeks time. I think the question is very pertinent to the amendment being put, and I would like the Minister to answer. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(6.43) —Now that Senator Walters has made it clear that her interest is in the amendment before the Chair, my answer is also clear: No, we do not support this particular amendment now and we will not support it in three weeks time because we consider the number that we selected-80-does give the maximum certainty and flexibility while not imposing any appropriate requirement on small business. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.44) —I make one more appeal to Senator Haines not to let the side down. For heaven's sake, she should act as a leader. She is a woman and she is on trial here at the moment. She is the first woman leader of a Federal party. She should not let the side down and allow every man to say that women do not know what they are doing and they are not capable of carrying out leadership. For heaven's sake, she should let them realise that she is capable of carrying out leadership and that the first time she is put on trial she does not vote against her own amendment. For heaven's sake, the honourable senator, should not let the side down. Let us prove that we as women are as capable in this place as any man. Question put: That the figure proposed to be left out (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. MBaume, Peter Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Cook, P. F. S. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Archer, B. R. Tate, M. C. Knowles, S. C. Sibraa, K. W. Boswell, R. L. D. Richardson, G. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Gietzelt, A. T. Devlin, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.50) —by leave-I move: (21) Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``authority'', leave out the definition, insert the following definitions: `` `authority of the Commonwealth' means- (a) a body (whether incorporated or not) established for a public purpose by or under a law of the Commonwealth, other than a higher education institution; (b) the holder of an office established for a public purpose by or under a law of the Commonwealth; and (c) an incorporated company over which the Commonwealth or a body referred to in paragraph (a) is in a position to exercise control; `` `authority of a State or Territory' means- (a) a body (whether incorporated or not) established for a public purpose by or under a law of a State or Territory, other than a higher education institution; (b) the holder of an office established for a public purpose by or under a law of a State or Territory; and (c) an incorporated company over which a State or Territory or a body referred to in paragraph (a) is in a position to exercise control;''. (22) Page 3, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``relevant employer'', leave out all words after paragraph (b), insert: ``and includes an authority of the Commonwealth, but does not include the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory, an authority of a State or a Territory, or a voluntary body;''. I thought that moving amendments Nos 21 and 22 together might save a little of the time of the Committee. These amendments seek to apply the provisions of this Bill to Federal statutory authorities. If there is one thing about this Bill which is totally unsatisfactory, it is that a large group of women in the Australian work force employed by very large employers will not be covered by the legislation and will not enjoy the benefits which it confers. It is within the capacity of this Committee to give to those women the same protection as is being given to women in the private sector. I will now explain to the Committee how this situation has come about. Honourable senators will be aware that the Public Service Reform Act, Act No. 63 of 1984, instituted new provisions for those employed under the Public Service Act. One of the parts of that Act, section 22b, laid down certain provisions which ensured that equal opportunity programs were put into effect throughout the Public Service. However, as honourable senators would all be aware, many employees of Commonwealth statutory authorities are not employed under the Public Service Act and are not covered by the equal employment opportunity provisions of the Public Service Reform Act. That Act actually provided a capacity for such employees to be included and to be covered. In section 22b (13), which appears at page 9 of the Public Service Reform Act 1984, it is stated: . . . regulations may provide-- I emphasise the words `may provide'; it is not that they shall provide- that this section shall apply to and in relation to a Commonwealth authority and, where the regulations so provide, this section applies to . . . the Commonwealth authority as if- the Commonwealth authority were a Department; In other words, the Labor Government built into its apparatus, through its regulation-making power, a mechanism for promulgating regulations to include the employees of Commonwealth statutory authorities and to give to them the same rights, entitlements and benefits as were given by this Act to officers of the Public Service. What could be fairer? What could be more admirable? I think the Commonwealth was quite right to provide for that regulation-making power. I say to the Committee: By their acts shall ye know them. The people who run the Commonwealth Public Service may have been lumbered with this Act, but those who run Commonwealth statutory authorities had no intention of having their employees caught by it. So while this section provided that regulations may be made, the test is: How many regulations were made? On the last occasion that I consulted with the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, about six or eight weeks ago-- Senator Ryan —Two weeks ago. Senator PETER BAUME —No, on this matter. The last time I consulted with the Minister on this matter not one Commonwealth statutory authority had had regulations made to give to its employees the benefits given to officers of the Public Service by an Act to which royal assent was given on 25 June 1984. Senator Ryan —No, you pointed out the error of our ways. Senator PETER BAUME —I certainly pointed out the error of the Government's ways. One could ask why this was the case. The answer is, of course, that some of the people in senior administrative positions within Commonwealth statutory authorities have no interest in equal opportunity, in employment equity. I would have thought that they would be at the forefront of seeking to have the regulations extended to their employees, but not one single authority has sought that. It is always within the capacity of the Government to move by regulation to include some Commonwealth statutory authorities. I would be interested to have the Minister tell us which authorities have been included so far. I turn next to the final resolutions on the affirmative action legislation issued by the National Agenda for Women Conference, convened by Marian Sawer and Meredith Doig. Although it is not dated, I imagine they were passed within the last six months. One of the resolutions adopted by the National Agenda for Women Conference on the affirmative action legislation, resolution No. 7, reads: That the Federal Government ensure that its statutory authorities are required by legislation to introduce affirmative action and that at least Telecom, Australia Post, the Commonwealth Bank, TAA, CSIRO, and Qantas be covered by 1987. That was passed by consensus. As I understand it not one of those organisations is covered under the provisions of the Public Service Reform Act. If they are-I would be interested if the Minister could tell me-that will have occurred in the last two or three weeks. I point out to the Committee that at least some of those authorities are very large employers of women. Even if women make up only a minority of the work force of those authorities, why should they have less protection and less rights than women working anywhere else? The Commonwealth Bank of Australia employs a large number of women. If there is any section of the work force where equal employment opportunities and employment equity matters need to be raised, surely the banking industry is it. The airlines are very large employers of women, in terms of both their ground staff and their aircrew-though not on the flight deck, I hasten to add, where women have had a tremendous fight to be employed. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is a large employer of women. Does the Bill we are discussing tonight remedy a problem that has been apparent since 1984? I refer to the fact that the Government has had a capacity, which it has not used, to give to women appointed within its own statutory authorities the rights it has given to officers of the Public Service. The way in which the Government has drawn up the definitions in clause 3 of this Bill specifically excludes Commonwealth statutory authorities from the provisions of this Bill. Can anyone tell me why? What logical reason could there be for Commonwealth statutory authorities being excluded? Let me take the Committee through this. The Government has determined, properly, to exclude the Commonwealth Public Service because the Public Service has adequate provisions in this area contained within the Public Service Reform Act. We have no objection to the Commonwealth Public Service being excluded. As to State statutory authorities, whilst the Commonwealth is not noted for its federalist tendencies it might well argue that proper constitutional practice would indicate that the statutory authorities of a State are for that State to administer, and that State should be responsible. But why should Senator Susan Ryan, who is known as a champion of employment equity, bring into this Parliament a Bill which, in its definitions, precludes its protection from being conveyed to large numbers of women employed within Commonwealth statutory authorities. What logical reason is there? I suggest that it happened because the senior people at Trans Australia Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, the CSIRO, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Telecom Australia and Australia Post, and particularly probably the last two, will do anything they can to weasel out of the employment equity provisions. Indeed, if there is any section of Australian employers that requires to be made part of the employment equity practice, it is those large employers. Yet Senator Ryan is asking the Committee tonight to agree to provisions in the Bill which exclude any possibility of women working in Commonwealth statutory authorities from enjoying the protection of the Bill. The Minister has been gracious enough to indicate to me privately that it is her wish and intention that those women should be covered. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Minister may say that she intends to bring legislation in. I, too, have been a Minister and I, too, have intended to bring in legislation. The Minister may well wish to tell me that the Government has taken a decision. Well, that is wonderful. But I know the kind of delay that occurs between the taking of a decision in Cabinet and the drafting of legislation and that legislation hitting the Parliament and being enacted. It is not insignificant. Large numbers of women will be disadvantaged specifically because of the definition that has been used. There will be chauvinists and people not in favour of employment equity within Commonwealth statutory authorities who will be able to say: `Well, we have won another round. We have avoided having ourselves made subject to equal employment opportunity. We have in fact built in a bit more delay'. It is entirely possible to overcome that defect. The Opposition has proposed an amendment which recognises that State authorities should be left alone. The Opposition does not intend to pursue the Public Service, which is covered adequately. In the two amendments that I have moved, we have pursued a new set of words that separate out Commonwealth statutory authorities and will prevent those Commonwealth statutory authorities from being exempted from the provisions of this Bill. Why should they be exempted? What earthly reason is there for the women in those authorities to have less protection than women anywhere else? I say to the Minister that she may, with the very best of intentions, give us an assurance that she will introduce legislation. But I am sorry; we have been there before. She can fix it tonight. We can have it fixed in three weeks time. When she responds, I would like the Minister to tell us how she intends to protect those women in Telecom and Australia Post and to give us the names of all the other statutory authorities in respect of which regulations, as laid down in the Public Service Reform Act of 1984, have now provided that equal employment opportunity programs shall apply. If she has taken some action in the last few weeks I will be pleased, but it is not action that will help those other large bodies. Our amendments will allow them to be protected from the moment assent is given to this Bill. There is no earthly reason why these amendments should not be agreed to. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(7.05) —Senator Peter Baume will be very pleased to hear that the Government's response to his timely reminder that women in statutory authorities need to be covered by similar provisions to those in the Commonwealth Public Service has been more than good intentions. I will now set out in some detail what has been done. (Quorum formed) The implementation of Senator Baume's intention that there should be complete coverage of Commonwealth statutory authorities is almost complete, and will be completed by a further part of legislation. When the Government approached the issue of affirmative action in all areas of employment for which the Commonwealth had responsibility, we decided to do it in two parts-to legislate immediately for the public sector, which we did in the Public Service reforms of 1984, and then to have a period of consultation with the private sector and higher education, which we did by the affirmative action working party of which Senator Baume was a member. From the time of the passage of the 1984 legislation, it was possible for Commonwealth statutory authorities to opt to come into that program. Senator Baume and Senator Haines both know that those authorities did not do that. So we found ourselves in the situation in which large areas of employment in the Commonwealth public sector were not covered. So we decided to take action, and not just to have good intentions as Senator Baume suggested. In the second reading speech on this Bill, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated that consideration was being given to the appropriate legislative mechanisms for the coverage of Commonwealth statutory authorities. The Prime Minister also said that the Government is of the view that there is a need for all employers, whether in the private or the public sector, to conform with the principle of equal employment opportunity. So the Prime Minister was of a mind with Senator Baume and Senator Haines on this matter. On 4 June the Government announced that the Commonwealth statutory authorities with 40 or more employees will be required to implement equal employment opportunity programs for women, Aboriginals, migrants of non-English speaking backgrounds and people with disabilities. The statutory authorities for which the Public Service Board has a role in relation to employment matters will be covered by regulation under the equal employment opportunity provisions of section 22b of the Public Service Act. I point out to Senator Baume that these regulations were tabled in this chamber on 11 June 1986 and cover all authorities in a statutory relationship with the Board, together with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. All of those authorities are named in the regulations that were tabled in this chamber on 11 June. Senator Peter Baume —I missed how many there are. Have you covered them all? Senator RYAN —I will get my officers to check those regulations and count them. But the regulations cover all those authorities in a statutory relationship with the Board, plus the ABC. Their programs will be monitored in the same way as Public Service departments. The other statutory authorities about which Senator Baume and Senator Haines have both expressed concern will be covered by separate legislation. The Bill is being drafted and will be introduced as soon as government business permits. I know that Senator Baume has expressed scepticism as to the pace of action in this respect but I am advised by my officers that the drafting instructions have gone to parliamentary counsel, so the matter certainly is in hand. There will be a slight variation in the form in which these remaining statutory authorities are covered. I will explain what this is. The four statutory marketing authorities, those involved in marketing wool, wheat, meat, livestock and dairy products, will be covered by similar provisions in their enabling Acts. The new legislation will cover approximately 25 statutory authorities including those about which Senator Baume has just been expressing concern, namely, Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Australia Post and Telecom Australia. I have just recalled that Senator Baume referred to Trans Australia Airlines. Senator Peter Baume —I was quoting the agenda resolutions which came in before the name change. Senator RYAN —Of course, Senator Baume would never be anything other than up-to-date. I suggest that this legislation meets the concern of the Opposition and Senator Haines that all areas of government employment should be covered by some form of affirmative action legislation requirement. The legislation will enable the authority's annual report to be a special report or to be included in the ordinary annual report of the authority. The equal employment opportunity program of each authority will follow the eight-step program set out in the Bill before the Senate. The program will be able to be included in the corporate plan of the authority. The Government considered the inclusion of statutory authorities under the affirmative action legislation but we rejected this course as it would mean that statutory authorities would not be required to meet the standards set for other areas of Commonwealth employment, namely, the other minority groups. This new legislation means that statutory authorities will implement EEO programs for women and disadvantaged groups. Consequently, and I am sure that this will be clear now to Senator Baume and Senator Haines, the Government cannot accept the Opposition's amendment as it would reduce the obligations that would be placed on all areas of government employment to eliminate discrimination against women and disadvantaged groups and promote equal employment opportunity through AA programs. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.13) —There are some problems with what the Minister has told me. I am very grateful to her for what has been done since we drew to her attention the enormous deficiency in the Bill and for what she intends to do. First, the passage of this amendment would in no way affect any subsequent legislation. The legislation which the Minister intends to bring in would have effect whether or not this amendment is passed because the Minister suggests that the provisions in the legislation which she intends to introduce will be more onerous than would be required under this legislation. Obviously, the authorities would respond to that. There is absolutely no reason why, in the interests of the women employed in statutory authorities, this amendment should not be accepted tonight. Then the Government can introduce its legislation and do one of two things: It can either have within the legislation a repeal of this provision tonight if the Government does not wish to leave it there or the new legislation could simply override it. We are offering coverage now to the women employees in the statutory authorities. The Government is offering coverage at some time or other. The Government's record over two years since the introduction of the Public Service Reform Act has been pretty slack. The Minister now tells me in response not that there will be one piece of legislation to correct the problem that we have identified but, if I heard her correctly, there will be one piece of legislation plus four amending Bills. There will be five pieces of legislation. I suggest to the Minister in relation to the four marketing authorities-because I simply do not believe that she will get priority in the program-that the provisions be included in the statute law reform. Senator Ryan —That is right. Senator PETER BAUME —All right. That statutory law revision is the first point. If the Minister has the other legislation introduced and passed through the Parliament by the end of the year I would be very surprised. I would offer her warm congratulations. I believe that the timetable will be later. The number of weeks provided for the sitting is quite limited. The Budget session is always busy and a group of women could be protected if this definition were altered and Commonwealth authorities were required to be included which otherwise will not be included until the legislation comes through. I do not in any way criticise the Minister's intention to introduce legislation but I have also been involved in drafting legislation, seeing it through the processes of government and through the Parliament. At this stage the legislative program for the Budget session is probably almost closed off. We are probably looking at the Minister's legislation coming through in the autumn session. However satisfactory that may be there will be six months when a whole group of women could have been protected. But the Minister is seeking explicitly to exclude them. There is no inconsistency between having them included under this Bill and coming back later with the legislation which she proposes and which will impose upon them more onerous conditions. It is not an either/or situation. That is simply wrong in logic. We can pass this legislation, the Government can require the programs to be started now and when the succeeding legislation comes through the Minister can make whatever administrative arrangements seem appropriate. While I am grateful to the Minister, very little credit reflects upon the Government for its failure to act over two years. There is credit in the fact that the Government responded quickly once we drew to its attention the fact that a large number of women were not getting a fair go. But there is not much credit in the response on the problem of the 25 statutory authorities. We told the Government about this problem three months ago-maybe longer. Three months down the track all we have in support of the Government's contention that the Bill should not be amended is that the Government has the authority to have a Bill drafted. The Government could have had it drafted. The Government could have brought it in and introduced it. That would have been a better demonstration of its bona fides. I am in support of what this Bill is about. I am concerned that a large number of women employed by the Commonwealth will not get the benefit of its provisions until some time, as yet unknown, down the track. The amendment which I have proposed is still the right way to go. The Minister has advanced no logical reason to suggest that it is not. I ask the Committee to support the amendment. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator Giles) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. RBrownhill, D. G. G. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Cook, P. F. S. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Archer, B. R. Tate, M. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sibraa, K. W. Knowles, S. C. Richardson, G. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Devlin, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.23) —I move: Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of `employer', leave out the definition, insert the following definition: ` ``employer'' means a person who employs a natural person under a contract of service;'. I have moved this amendment because the Opposition is unhappy about the inclusion of independent sub-contractors as employees under the legislation as it is drafted. The definition of `employer' in clause 3 (1) includes the words `a person who employs a natural person under a contract of service . . . or under a contract for services'. We wish to leave out the second part of that definition because it brings into the definition of employee certain people who are, in fact, independent sub-contractors. This battle has been going on in some of the States and at the Commonwealth level. We are of the view that independent sub-contractors are not employees and that they should not be so classified. We want to take our part of the Government's definition which includes sub-contractors. I think I can understand that the Government is keen to prevent people finding some way to avoid the obligations which this Bill will impose. Someone might say that an employer with 150 employees might keep five employees and put on 145 sub-contractors. I took advice on this matter before proposing the amendment. I was advised that there is quite a deal of case law relating to this point because it has been a matter of some interest to the Commissioner of Taxation over some years as to who is a sub-contractor, an independent self-employed person, and who is an employee. I actually have in front of me some of the cases in which these matters have been dealt with and some of the case law which has emerged. It appears that the courts are quite prepared to go behind agreements which might purport to create independent sub-contractors, agreements which have not been entered into on a bona fide or genuine basis. If that happens, the courts would rule that someone was not in fact an independent sub-contractor and was in fact an employee. If that is the case and if there is adequate case law which will stop people cheating, what is the purpose of trying to include sub-contractors on the list of employees? Some of the companies which took part in the pilot program have indicated that this will provide real difficulties for them. For one thing, they do not keep account of the number of employees which their sub-contractors have. They do not try to look behind the various sub-contractors they may employ. They may have a large number on site. Various tradesmen and others who work for a company are of the view that they may well be picked up because the self-employed contractor is, in fact, a natural person employed under a contract for services. The Opposition feels that that is unnecessary. We want people in a bona fide way to apply the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. This definition has been slipped in to make a different and rather ideological point about what is going on in society. We think that in the interests of amity and of dealing with this legislation properly the amendment I have moved is appropriate and should be agreed to. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(7.28) —The Government does not accept the arguments put forward by Senator Peter Baume. The Bill is designed to cover individual sub-contractors, but not sub-contractors who are legally structured as partnerships or registered companies. The effect of Senator Baume's amendment would be to exclude employees such as art workers who are individual sub-contractors. We are not prepared to accept that exclusion and so the amendment is not accepted. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(7.28) —I ask the Minister a question relating to job sharing. Are the definitions `full time', `part time', et cetera, in clause 3 (1) clearly intended by the Government to include job sharing? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(7.29) —Yes, we count all employees, full time and part time. Amendment negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.29) —I move: Page 3, after sub-clause 3 (2), insert the following sub-clause: `(2a) In this Act, a reference to an employer being an employer of a number of employees is a reference to an employer making available that number of places for full-time employees, whether those places are filled on a full-time, part-time or casual basis, or are filled by more than one employee on a job-sharing basis.' This amendment relates to the matter which has just been raised by my colleague Senator Teague. We are concerned that this Bill may unintentionally provide an incentive for employers not to go down the track of job sharing-of providing flexible employment. A construction can be placed on the Bill as it is drafted which may lead to that conclusion. I put the proposition that there may be a company that is willing to allow two people to occupy a position which otherwise was occupied by one person. If it is occupied by one person and that counts as one for the purposes of building up employment numbers to 100 to trigger the operation of this legislation, that is fair enough. However, if an employer who moves down the road of appropriate flexible employment in order to give women more flexibility in work and employment offers that one job to two people who are then counted as two employees for the purposes of bringing the employer's numbers up to 100, then that employer may well say that it is not in his interests to meet the needs of women in regard to job sharing and all the other variations which relate to the job sharing concept. That employer may say: `I am sorry, I have 80 employees and if I offer 20 of my jobs to job sharing I immediately become subject to the affirmative action legislation.'. We do not want employers to avoid their obligations. What we want to do is to make sure that every full time equivalent employee counts towards the 100 cut-off point. An employer then may well say: `Of course, I will discuss flexible work arrangements'. If a couple of people want to take advantage of flexible work arrangements because it suits them to be employed under job sharing, they can say to the employer that there is no disadvantage that will accrue to the employer, because each of those employees can take half a week each while still being counted, as it were, as one nominal employee for the purposes of the legislation. That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition. The amendment, which is designed to be helpful, is designed to put beyond doubt that proposition. It is designed to ensure that if employers take that kind of action there will not be any adverse consequences. If our amendment is not agreed to, there will be employers in Australia who will think twice about taking what is otherwise a socially very desirable course of action. I say to the Minister that in fact as a result of our amendment she can have legislation with extra flexibility in regard to employment. None of the spirit of her legislation will be breached but the opportunities for women may in fact be enhanced. She will get the kind of flexible employment that she and many other people often talk about and about which I am happy to agree. Amendment negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.35) —by leave-I move: (25) Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``discrimination'', leave out the definition, insert the following definition after the definition of ``trade union'': ` ``unjustified discrimination'' means discrimination that is unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984;''. (26) Page 6, clause 8, sub-paragraph (1) (f) (i), leave out `discrimination', insert: `unjustified discrimination'. These amendments, again relating to the definitions section in the Bill, are merely in the interests of ensuring that the words in this Bill are consistent with the words in the Public Service Reform Act. That Act uses certain words in relation to the word `discrimination'. However, this Bill uses different words. We are seeking consistency in regard to the use of words in the Public Service Reform Act and the words that used are in this Bill. It seems to us that it could be construed that the words used in this affirmative action legislation require more than is required in the Public Service Reform Act. That is one construction. It could be construed that the words required in the Public Service Reform Act do not outlaw discrimination but simply make it improper for there to be unjustified discrimination. They are the words contained in the Government's own Public Service Reform Act of 1984. They refer to unjustified discrimination. In regard to the Public Service Reform Act, the Government must have had some reason for using the words `unjustified discrimination'. I would like to hear from the Minister what the reason was. I am sure that there is a logical explanation. That might be a good place to start discussion of these amendments. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(7.36) —Senator Peter Baume's proposal would have the effect of introducing a definition of `unjustified discrimination' into the Bill. However, no similar term is used in the Sex Discrimination Act. We reject the proposal because we think it is more coherent for the beneficiaries of the Bill to have the terminology in this Bill in conformity with the Sex Discrimination Act. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.36) —I thank the Minister for her reply, but it did not answer the point about which I was asking. I ask the Minister the same question again, because the affirmative action legislation and the Public Service Reform Act are dealing with the same matter in different forms. Therefore, why have the words `unjustified discrimination' being used in the Public Service Reform Act if the Minister is unwilling to use them in this legislation? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(7.37) —The Public Service Reform Act 1984 contained a different definition because it was covering wider groups, for example, racial groups, people with disability and so forth. The forms discrimination could take in those cases would be different Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.37) —The Minister's explanation goes only part of the way. She talked about our introducing a definition of `unjustified discrimination'. What she did not say is that the definition we have used simply says that `unjustified discrimination' means discrimination that is unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act. We have used the Minister's own legislation to identify what is meant by unjustified discrimination. We have not tried to narrow the definition in any way. We are trying to get some consistency. We have already seen that there is to be unequal treatment between different classes of women, depending on whether their employment is in the private sector or certain areas of Commonwealth employment. We really cannot see how the Minister can justify, in addition to that, a different set of definitions for what essentially is the same set of problems. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(7.38) —The private sector is covered by the Sex Discrimination Act and this Bill. It is not required to have programs in respect of the minority groups. Such groups require a different legal definition. Therefore, for consistency in terms of the private sector's response we have used the same definitions. They are the ones with which it is concerned. The Sex Discrimination Act and this legislation have the same wording. Amendments negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.39) —I move: (27) Page 5, sub-clause 5 (9), leave out the sub-clause. Amendment No. 27 circulated by the Opposition seeks to leave out clause 5 (9). The Opposition has taken a consistent view in regard to a number of pieces of legislation that there should not be reliance on the external affairs power for some of the legislative proposals being introduced. A number of constitutional powers are available to the Government to underpin the measures it seeks to take in this legislation. I do not think I need to enumerate the very number of these for the Minister's benefit. Briefly, however, I refer to banking, corporation and postal powers. We can go through a whole lot of powers which the Commonwealth has available to it. Specific placita under section 51 of the Constitution enumerate the other powers which are available to the Commonwealth and which will in fact underpin most of this legislation. I understand that there is only one part of the legislation for which the Minister believes that the external affairs power is important, and that is to include the tertiary education sector. The response to that is simple. I remember that when I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I was solemnly informed by my Department in a brief, real Sir Humphrey stuff- Senator Ryan —They are not like that with us. Senator PETER BAUME —Not much! The first brief in the suitcase said `in relation to your question about the Central Land Council'-with which I was having some difficulty-`we have to inform you that you have no statutory power to stop' what were some very bad practices occurring at that time within a section of the secretariat of the Central Land Council. The very next brief, from a different part of my Department, said: `Would you please now approve the budget of the Central Land Council for the next three months?' It was a matter of pinning the two briefs together and saying to both sets of officers: `Please see me'. When they came to see me they said: `Of course, you wouldn't dare do this, would you?' It took about two days to get negotiations going. The fact is that the Commonwealth is the paymaster of the tertiary sector. I represent this place on the council of one of the universities. I know that the tertiary sector would not want to pick up the requirements in this legislation. I know that the university has a very active program for employment equity. The Government can achieve all it wants without relying on the external affairs power. I cannot believe that it would have to say that it imagines that some part of the tertiary sector would mount a constitutional challenge to this legislation and say that the other powers available do not cover the operation. Do honourable senators think that the South Australian College of Advanced Education would take such a course? I do not think so. I feel that authorities would have a very good regard for the requirements and obligations of this legislation. Senator Teague —Of course they do. Senator PETER BAUME —Of course they do, as my colleague says, and I know that he checked on the matter with the Principal five minutes ago. Because the tertiary sector seems to be the only area where the Commonwealth believes it needs this Part of the Bill, because we believe that is not so and because we believe that the Commonwealth has the power it needs in relation to the tertiary sector, both constitutional powers and the power of the purse which the Commonwealth has and exercises in other areas, we feel that it is not necessary to rely on the external affairs power. Having said that, we believe that it is wrong in principle to use the external affairs power in the way it is being used here. Since it is not necessary, we oppose its use and will press our amendment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(7.43) —It is clear that the Government and the Opposition take an absolutely different view on this matter. It has come up in debate on a number of pieces of legislation. We maintain our view and the amendment is not acceptable. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Peter Baume's) amendment be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Cook, P. F. S. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Archer, B. R. Tate, M. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sibraa, K. W. Knowles, S. C. Richardson, G. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Devlin, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.48) —I move: Page 5, clause 6, leave out sub-clauses (1) and (2), insert the following sub-clauses: `(1) An employer who, on the commencement of this Act, is a relevant employer shall commence the development of an equal opportunity program on the operative day and shall commence the implementation of that program within the period of 6 months after the operative day. (2) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an employer becomes a relevant employer, the relevant employer shall commence the development of an equal opportunity program on the operative day and shall commence the implementation of that program within the period of 6 months after the operative day.' This amendment seeks to alter sub-clauses 6 (1) and (2). The problem that is presented is that the clause as drafted requires relevant employers to do two things. It requires them to develop appropriate affirmative action programs or, as they in fact are, equal employment programs. It also requires them to implement equal employment programs. The Bill states that on a certain specified day, whatever the day is, they shall commence the development and implementation of an affirmative action program. It says that they shall commence the development of a program and the implementation of a program on the same day. A number of employers have said to us that they are perfectly happy to be part of this program but they really cannot sit down on the relevant day to start working out what they have to do and then implement the program. They would be in trouble because they had not started implementing it from day one. The Bill clearly says that on one day they will commence the development of a program and that on that same day they will commence the implementation of the program. All we want to do in the interests of fairness is to say that we have this old-fashioned view that the development of a program comes first and the implementation comes afterwards-maybe a week or a fortnight later. It is very difficult to go back to people and say: `How dare you? You are not implementing a program.'. I am only quoting what the Government has presented to the Committee. It is requiring people to conceive, develop, polish and settle a program and start implementing it on the same day. We think reason would say that there could well be a little time between the development and implementation of programs required under this legislation. The amendments we have proposed are simply to replace two existing sub-clauses, 6 (1) and 6 (2), with two new sub-clauses-magnificently drafted, I might say-in which it is proposed that the relevant employer on the operative day, the day laid down in the legislation, shall commence the development of a program and that not more than six months later that shall be implemented. In other words, we would say to the employer that he will have some time. If the Minister for Education says that six months is too long, that is fine. She may wish to propose three months; I would be interested in her response. What we are saying to the Minister is that it is clearly not possible to do both on the same day. The amendment proposes to separate the development and the implementation of the program. For goodness sake, what the legislation proposes clearly will be impossible for many employers of good will. Amendment negatived. Senator Chaney —Madam Chair, I really find this a thoroughly objectionable evening. I just want to tell the Minister for Education, who is at the table, that from now on if there is not a quorum in this place I will call one. I am just giving notice that we will proceed no further without a quorum. I draw your attention to the state of the Committee. (Quorum formed) Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.55) —I move: (29) Page 5, clause 6, leave out sub-clause (3). Earlier when we moved an Australian Democrats amendment which did not get the support of the Democrats-that extraordinary situation-we argued in relation to this sub-clause. The sub-clause provides that if the number of employees of an employer who has had 100 employees falls below that number such an employer does not cease to be bound by the legislation until the number falls below 80. We think that is unreasonable; we believe it is undesirable and unnecessary. We put the arguments earlier. We oppose the sub-clause and believe it should not be part of the Bill. (Quorum formed) Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(7.57) —As Senator Peter Baume acknowledged, the matter was discussed before. I have already given the reasons why the Government will not accept the honourable senator's amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.58) —At this stage some of our amendments are out of order on the list on which they have been circulated. In order to move through the Bill sequentially we now go to No. 35 of the circulated amendments I move: (35) Page 6, sub-clause 8 (1), paragraph (c), leave out `each trade union having members', insert: `employees'. I am aware that on the working party which considered affirmative action legislation the trade unions were represented as trade unions. That was fine, they played a role. Employer groups, of course, were represented as employer groups. Now, however, we are talking about what individual employers will do in relation to their own work places in implementing the provisions of this Bill. It is our belief that the appropriate people with whom consultations should be carried out are the employees. Any management with any sense will talk to the trade unions, but the requirement should be to consult the employees and not necessarily the trade unions. I ask the Government not to put that wording into the legislation. I cannot imagine that any employer, anxious to implement the provisions of this Bill adequately, would not talk to the trade unions. We cannot see why it should be put into the legislation and why the trade unions should be given a preferred and identified position within the legislation. (Quorum formed) Amendment negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.02) —It is apparent that a number of these technical amendments will not be agreed to. Therefore I seek leave of the Committee to move amendments Nos 30, 31 and 40 together. Although they are unrelated, it might be convenient to consider them together. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (30) Page 7, clause 10, paragraph (1) (e), leave out `, educational programs and other programs', insert: `and educational programs'. (31) Page 8, after sub-clause 10 (2), add the following sub-clauses: `(3) Guidelines issued under paragraph (1) (b) shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after such guidelines are issued. `(4) Either House of the Parliament may, within 15 sitting days after guidelines have been laid before that House in accordance with sub-section (3), pass a resolution disapproving of any of those guidelines. `(5) Any guidelines disapproved by either House of the Parliament under sub-section (4) shall be taken not to have been issued, and guidelines the same in substance as the disapproved guidelines shall not be issued within 6 months after that disapproval.'. (40) Page 8, after sub-clause 11 (1), insert the following sub-clause: `(1A) Directions given by the Minister under sub-section (1) shall not be directions in relation to particular relevant employers.'. These technical amendments to the legislation are designed to improve it. The Opposition seeks to make the legislation as good as it can possibly be when it leaves this place. Amendment No. 30 seeks to amend clause 10 by leaving out the words `educational programs and other programs' and inserting the words `and educational programs'. It seems to us that if the Director of Affirmative Action has a capacity to introduce `other programs' there is virtually no limit to what that Director might wish to introduce. Those other programs could be anything. If it is the Minister's intention that these programs should be research and educational, let us agree to that, but `other programs' could involve almost anything. They could be political, social or a whole lot of things. The Minister is not willing to specify them. I think the words `and other programs' go far too wide and give too much discretion to the Director. Earlier today we pointed out that one of the keys to the success of this legislation will be the way in which it is received by employers and whether they feel it involves fair play. One of the matters about which they have expressed concern is this provision. The next amendment, amendment No. 31, seeks to insert after clause 10 (2) sub-clauses to provide that the guidelines issued under that clause shall be laid before the Parliament and shall be disallowable. We ask that the guidelines be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days, that either House may, within 15 sitting days after the guidelines have been laid, pass a resolution disapproving any of them. We also ask that any guidelines disapproved of shall be taken not to have been issued. We are merely trying to build upon the normal disallowance provisions which exist in subordinate legislation. We understand that guidelines need to be issued and that they will be issued under this legislation, but we feel that as a bona fide of good faith those guidelines should be disallowable. Amendment No. 40 relates to clause 11 (1) after which we wish to add a further sub-clause to ensure that should the Minister give any directions under this Act to the Director of Affirmative Action those directions should not be in relation to a particular employer. We do not want the Minister saying to the Director: `I direct you to go and put the cleaners through Esso Australia or some other particular firm'. The guidelines issued by the Minister to the Director should be general guidelines, relating to the kind of general matters which the Minister may wish to have the Director consider. It may well be that the Minister has no intention of issuing directions to the Director in relation to a particular company, but we believe it should be written into the Act that they be general guidelines. It happens in certain other Acts of Parliament and it could be done with benefit here. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —Order! The question is: That the amendments be agreed to. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.05) —Madam Chair, I have dealt with these amendments together for the convenience of the Committee, I have spoken to them without undue length and I have spoken to them fairly calmly. I invite the Minister to make some kind of response to the substance of each amendment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.06) —There is not a great deal to say. Senator Baume is aware that we do not accept his argumentation on these cases and that we do not accept the amendments. Amendments negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.06) —I move: (37) Page 9, after clause 14, insert the following clause: `Reports by subsidiaries `14a. Notwithstanding sub-section 3 (2), where a corporation indicates in a report under section 13 or 14 that a corporation which is a subsidiary of that first-mentioned corporation is to lodge a separate report under that section, and the subsidiary corporation lodges such a separate report relating to employees of the subsidiary corporation, the first-mentioned corporation is not required in a report under that section to provide any information relating to the employee of the subsidiary corporation.'. There is some confusion about the position which might apply to a conglomerate which may have a number of associate companies. Exactly where do the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd and the companies associated with it-Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd, John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd and a few other companies-fit in? Who has to report in relation to a particular employee? Obviously they would all qualify independently because they all have more than 100 employees. All we are trying to ensure is that only one report has to be made in relation to any employee, so that if a conglomerate reports, the individual bits of it are deemed to have reported. We have tried to draw up an amendment to incorporate this principle, to try to make sure that we can deal with cases where there are a number of linked companies. I understand that the Bond Corporation Pty Ltd may well not come within the ambit of this legislation although many of the companies associated with it will. We have tried to determine the position that will apply within such a conglomerate between its different components. The amendment has been drawn carefully to try to ensure that a report-but only one report-is made in relation to each employee. I noticed earlier that Senator Haines said that she found some merit in this amendment. It is again designed to try to clarify the operation of the Bill. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.08) —Senator Baume is correct in saying that there is some confusion surrounding this area. Perhaps there is some confusion on Senator Baume's part. Our overall intentions are the same, that is, we do not want corporations to be able to avoid their overall responsibilities through the use of their subsidiaries. However, the effect of Senator Baume's amendment would be to destroy the concept of corporate responsibility which is incorporated in sub-section 3 (2). The aim of that provision is for corporations to treat their work force as a whole. That would include the Bond example that Senator Baume gave. This is particularly important in assessing the total number of employees of a corporation, which determines the applicability of clause 7, relating to the date of implementation. The Bill is designed to make corporations responsible for their subsidiaries, both in determining the number of employees and in reporting. (Quorum formed) Sub-section 3 (2) is drafted to ensure that holding companies do not avoid an overall responsibility to meet the terms of legislation by passing their duties on to their operating subsidiaries. The impact of the proposed amendment is that holding companies could avoid this responsibility by stating that individual subsidiaries will report separately. The amendment would diminish the role that major Australian corporations would play under the legislation by enabling them to devolve all management and affirmative action programs on to smaller subsidiaries and to sidestep their public accountability. Amendment negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.13) —I move: (32) Page 10, clause 18, after `further information', insert: `in accordance with those sub-sections'. Clause 18 permits the Director of Affirmative Action to do the following things: Where a . . . report . . . has been lodged . . . and, in the opinion of the Director, the information provided in the report by the employer fails to comply with sub-section 13 (3) or 14 (2) . . . the Director may, by notice in writing request the employer to provide further information . . . That clause does not state that the further information must be relevant to the matters which are in question between the Director and the company. The company may have provided a report and the Director may be of a view that the company has failed to comply with certain earlier provisions. We accept that the Director might then wish to require the company to provide further information but it should only be further information in regard to those sub-sections which information is said not to be provided. As the clause is drafted now a construction could be put on it that the Director in those circumstances could require any information. Senator Ryan —No. Senator PETER BAUME —I am sorry; when one reads that clause one sees that that is what it says. People may tell me that there is a legal interpretation of legislation such as this. Obviously, we say to the Minister: We read what is written. We simply want to clarify it so that the information which may be sought should be information relevant to the matters which were in dispute. This amendment will achieve that. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.15) —It is quite clear from clause 18 that the further information relates solely to sub-section 13 (3) or 14 (2) which deal with the contents of a public report and a confidential report respectively. The proposal is redundant and we reject it. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.15) —It is not clear and the proposal clearly does not relate to further information to those earlier sub-sections. The Minister has been perfectly reasonable but this is the silliest thing she has said. It clearly does not do so. That may have been the advice she has been given but it does not clearly do so. Would the Minister please tell me how it does? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.16) —Senator Peter Baume would be very well aware of the fact that when one is seeking legal opinions one can get more than one piece of advice on the same topic. Our advice, by the legal drafter and the parliamentary draftspeople, is that the proposal clearly does relate solely to sub-section 13 (3) or 14 (2). Amendment negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.16) —At this stage I draw attention to the fact that when we first proposed our amendments the Government picked up one of them and in the other place an Opposition amendment was moved by the Government. It amended clause 19 to which certain words were added. There was a defect in the Bill at that stage. Those employers who were to be named should at least be given warning that they were to be named. I am further advised that once they are named they have certain rights under, I think, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to mount a challenge if they believe that they have been unfairly treated. As it is the Minister's understanding that such people have the right of appeal, the purpose which we were seeking to achieve by our amendment has certainly been picked up by the Government. We thank the Government because this will prevent the Director reporting to Parliament without first advising the company and will prevent capricious action being taken which may be contrary to the facts. For example, this measure will prevent a Director from asserting that an employer has not complied with the legislation when in fact he has done so. Our next amendment is amendment No. 36 which amends clause 30 (1) on page 13 of the Bill. We have merely asked that certain action which the Director of Affirmative Action should take be taken only with the approval of the Minister. It relates to the appointment of consultants. The Bill as it is now written states: The Director may . . . engage as consultants . . . We are merely asking that the Director be required to have the approval of the Minister for the appointment of such consultants. We are not trying to limit the kind of consultants, the number of consultants, the gender of qualifications of the consultants. All we are asking is that the Director, in line with responsibility, should have ministerial approval for such appointments so that the Minister can be questioned and be responsible for them. I can recall in departments of which I was the Minister that there were other situations where I had to approve the appointment of consultants. Other people made the recommendations but I had to approve them. We have sought here to have in clause 30 sub-clause (1) the words `with the approval of the Minister' added. In clause 30 sub-clause (2) we have sought that the terms and conditions should be determined by the Director with the approval of the Minister. In each case we are merely trying to ensure that proper ministerial scrutiny is made of appointments. We are not trying to seek any other steps as to what the appointments should be or who they should be. I seek leave to move together amendments 36 and 37. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: Page 13, sub-clause 30 (1), line 14, after ``The Director may,''. insert with the approval of the Minister. Page 13, sub-clause 30 (2), at end of sub-clause, add ``with the approval of the Minister''. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.19) —I understand Senator Peter Baume's concern, but I point out that clause 30 has been drafted in accordance with current Public Service Board procedures for the engagement of consultants, as implemented after the passage of the Public Service Reform Act 1984. We regard that as adequate protection of the public interest in the appointment of consultants and we will be in a position to provide adequate information to any queries about consultants. Amendments negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.20) —I seek leave to move together amendments 38 and 39. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (38) Page 13, sub-clause 31 (1), leave out ``the Minister may'', insert: ``the Minister shall''. (39) Page 13, after sub-clause 31 (1), insert the following sub-clauses: ``(1a) The Director shall consult each advisory committee in relation to any guidelines proposed to be issued under paragraph 10 (1) (b). ``(1b) The Minister and the Director shall consult regularly with each advisory committee established under sub-section (1) in relation to the matters referred to in that sub-section.''. These amendments relate to advisory committees covered in clause 31 of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill. The purpose of the Opposition in moving these amendments is to ensure that these advisory committees shall be appointed and shall be consulted. The Bill as drafted contains clauses which are permissive. They state that the Minister may do certain things; may appoint certain advisory committees. The Opposition is of the view that that should be a requirement of the Minister; that the Minister shall, in consultation with the Director, establish such advisory committees. We believe that the advisory committees are desirable and that the word `may' admits of a possibility that the Minister may not appoint them. Whether or not the Minister intends to appoint them, if she intends to appoint them she should have no objection to the inclusion of the word `shall'. The second amendment, moved concurrently, requires that, having been appointed, the Director shall consult with the advisory committees. There is no requirement in the Bill, as we read it now, that the Director has to do anything. If an advisory committee is to be appointed, we think it should be consulted. We have moved in very moderate terms that the Director shall consult each advisory committee in relation to any guidelines proposed to be issued and the Minister and the Director shall consult regularly with each advisory committee. We have not attempted to say how often this should be done, but we have suggested that there shall be consultation and there shall be advisory committees. The benefit that would flow from this is the acceptance from within the people who will be affected by the legislation that the legislation is fair dinkum and everything is above board. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.22) —The Government believes it is important to retain flexibility in the appointment of advisory committees. Certainly, the intention to consult is implicit in this whole area and the consultation would take place, but at this stage we think it is undesirable to restrict the flexibility by the proposal of Senator Peter Baume, so we reject it. Amendments negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.23) —I move: (33) Page 14, sub-clause 32 (1), leave out `Penalty: $2,500 or imprisonment for 3 months, or both', insert: `Penalty: $50,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both'. This clause relates to penalties. One of the concerns many employers have is that information which they make available to the Director of Affirmative Action may not be secure and if the penalties for its release are merely token or small there would be an incentive for release to occur. People are worried that those practising industrial espionage may well determine that, with fairly small penalties, they could afford to take the risk of a penalty of $2,500 if some of the information about employment patterns and practices could be obtained. The most they stood to lose might be $2,500. We have looked at the secrecy provisions in a whole range of legislation. We have looked at the penalties in the Human Rights Commission Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Ombudsman Act and a whole range of Acts. Some Acts contain quite substantial penalties where information released may be damaging to business. The Customs Administration Act 1985 provides a penalty of two years gaol or $5,000; the Export Market Development Grants Act provides a penalty of $2,000 or one year's gaol, and so on. I have a whole series of Acts where I am advised that the general relativity is that a $1,000 fine often is equated with six months gaol as the maximum figure. The figures which have been offered here are insignificant. We are out to protect confidential information. The amendment I have moved seeks to provide more realistic penalties. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.25) —In the Government's view, the penalty of $2,500 or three months imprisonment will prove adequate to dissuade people from disclosing confidential information. Amendment negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.26) —I move: (34) Page 15, after sub-clause 32 (3), insert the following sub-clause: `(3a) For the purposes of sub-section (3), the Freedom of Information Act 1982 shall not be taken to be an Act which permits information to be divulged or communicated, or a document to be produced, contrary to this section.'. Amendment No. 34 which has been circulated in my name is one of some consequence. It seeks to add after clause 32 (3) a new sub-clause which is to ensure that confidential information which has been provided to the Director shall not be taken to be a document which can be released under the Freedom of Information Act. Clearly, anyone providing confidential information will do so with an expectation that it will not be released, that it goes to the Director on a confidential basis. I think the Minister has made it clear in some of her comments that that is her intention. But if one reads the relevant legislation, it is quite clear that the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and this legislation provide a loophole. The legislation as it stands is open to the interpretation that the FOI Act is an Act which actually permits the relevant information to be disclosed. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this, so I will read to her the provisions of the legislation. I quote from page 15, clause 32 (3) of the Bill that is before us: (3) Nothing in this section prohibits a person from- . . . . (b) divulging or communicating information, or producing a document, that is . . . permitted by an Act to be divulged, communicated or produced . . . So that clause provides that nothing in this legislation stops a person-say, the Director of Affirmative Action-from divulging or com- municating a document which is permitted by an Act to be divulged. The question then is whether it is possible to divulge the confidential information which has been made available by corporations. If it is, that is a very serious matter. Let us look at the Freedom of Information Act 1982. I draw the attention of the Committee to section 14 of that Act, which states: Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent or discourage Ministers and agencies from publishing or giving access to documents (including exempt documents), otherwise than as required by this Act, where they can properly do so . . . I advise the Committee that it is competent for an officer-say, the Director of Affirmative Action-to claim an exemption in relation to this confidential material. An officer can say: `This material was provided by a corporation in confidence and I will therefore say that it is exempt'. But there is no requirement for the Director to say it is exempt. It is possible that the Director may say: `This was given to me confidentially. I do not claim it to be an exempt document. Relying upon section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act, I intend to disclose it, and I rely further upon the provisions of section 32 (3) of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act'-as this Bill will then be. In general, it is the officers of agencies to whom freedom of information requests are directed and it is those people who claim exemptions under the relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. But the claiming of an exemption is a discretionary act. It is not something which is necessary for officers to do. I now turn to the annual report of the Attorney-General to the Parliament on the operation of the FOI Act for 1984-85. The document is headed `Freedom of Information Act 1982'. In that document the Attorney-General's Department makes some remarks in relation to this matter. First, the report says: The exceptions set out in Part III of the Act and the exemptions in Part IV are `permissive' in the sense that, even though the right of access does not extend to documents falling within exception or exemption provisions, an agency or Minister may still give access to those documents where `they can properly do so or are required by law to do so'. I will also refer to an FOI memorandum issued by the Attorney-General's Department. (Quorum formed) An FOI memorandum, No. 35, issued by the Attorney-General's Department, bears upon the point I am making that the confidential documents which will be supplied by corporations and employers are not protected adequately. At page 9 of that document, under the heading `Obligation to respect a confidence', the Attorney-General's Department says: An agency may, of course, release confidential information even though it would be exempt under section 45. I put it to the Minister that unless she can reassure employers that, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act as I have identified them to her, their confidential reports will not be made public, there will be enormous concern and distress and reluctance to provide confidential information, if they cannot be certain that it will remain confidential. I have indicated to the Minister that under the FOI Act, taken in conjunction with this Bill and in light of advice from the Attorney-General's Department, I believe that there is a possibility, first, for the Director not to claim an exemption where she or he should properly do so, and also for the Director to release information which is confidential, bearing upon the various powers which the Director will have in relation to freedom of information. It is my belief that the confidential information should remain confidential, and it is for that reason we move the amendment, which seeks to make it quite clear that, for the purposes of this section, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 shall not be taken to be an Act which permits information to be divulged or communicated or a document to be produced contrary to this section. It merely dots the i's and crosses the t's, but I would like the Minister to give us the reason, if she is not willing to agree to this amendment, which is perfectly reasonable, why it is not necessary. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.36) —I understand Senator Peter Baume's concern about this very important aspect of the legislation. Because we were aware of this concern during the debate in the House of Representatives, we took specific advice in some detail from Parliamentary Counsel. As a result of that advice I am able to assure Senator Peter Baume that his concerns are met in the way the Bill is currently drafted. The current provisions of clause 32 are designed to ensure that confidential reports and information provided by an employer to the Director cannot be obtained through an application under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. However, Senator Peter Baume's proposal would prevent any information being made available under the FOI Act. The Government is of the opinion that non-confidential reports and information should be available under the Freedom of Information Act and clause 32 is drafted to achieve this effect. I just conclude that this is very firmly the advice from Parliamentary Counsel, after detailed consultation, so I can assure Senator Peter Baume on this very important aspect. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.37) —That is really quite inadequate. We raised a number of specific reasons why this was not covered. I remind the Minister that this Committee and the Senate on many occasions have had to deal with legislation which has been proved to be defective or which has required subsequent amendment in this place, and every piece of that legislation was prepared by Parliamentary Counsel. Of course they are going to tell the Minister it is all right. They prepare all the legislation that comes here which subsequently proves to be not all right. I can remember consideration of various pieces of legislation by committees of the Senate leading on almost every occasion to a need to amend the legislation. Of course they are going to tell the Minister it is all right. I have great respect for the Minister's adviser, but it is no answer to say that it is all right because she is going to appeal to authority. The Minister would fail logic one at any university. Senator Ryan —I actually passed it. Senator PETER BAUME —That is marvellous. I am glad they did not ask the Minister this question because an appeal to authority is not in any way an appropriate intellectual response to the argument. If my argument is wrong, demolish it. I have advanced a coherent argument about why there is a loophole in the FOI legislation. If there is not a loophole, tell me why not? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.39) —I suggest that what Senator Peter Baume has advanced is not so much an argument but his interpretation of a possible loophole. As I said, we have made considerable attempts to explore that possibility because we were alerted to it by the Opposition during the debate in the House of Representatives. It is not only Parliamentary Counsel-I would not claim that the Parliamentary Counsel is infallible. We have gone further in our legal advice, and I can assure Senator Peter Baume that although his concerns are very serious indeed, they are met in the way the legislation is currently drafted. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.40) —I will press the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Cook, P. F. S. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Withers, R. G. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R. Bolkus, N. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tate, M. C. Knowles, S. C. Richardson, G. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Devlin, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.46) —I move: (41) Page 16, after clause 34, add the following clause: `35. This Act, unless sooner repealed, shall cease to have effect at the expiration of 5 years after the day fixed under section 2.'. There remains only this one clause, amendment No. 41, which has been circulated to honourable senators. The Opposition seeks to insert a sunset clause after clause 34, which merely provides: This Act, unless sooner repealed, shall cease to have effect at the expiration of 5 years after the day fixed under section 2. This amendment provides that the Act should come up for re-examination after it has been in operation for a reasonable time. I hope and expect that it would operate well during that time. Certain other Acts of the Parliament come up for scrutiny by way of sunset clauses. That is regarded as an appropriate form of parliamentary scrutiny, and there is a feeling that it should be present in more legislation than it is as it means that we then have to re-examine the legislation. I understand that some Bills with sunset clauses are coming up for re-examination this session. The Opposition believes that the five-year period is a reasonable period and we are anxious that this amendment be added to the Bill. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.48) —The concept of this legislation, as Senator Peter Baume appreciates, is based on long term structural change in the work force. In our view the five-year period for review would be premature and could undermine the long term effectiveness of the program, so the Government does not accept the amendment. Question put: That the proposed new clause (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Cook, P. F. S. Walsh, P. A. Sibraa, K. W. Bolkus, N. Tate, M. C. Richardson, G. F. Gietzelt, A. T. Devlin, R. Kilgariff, B. F. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Archer, B. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Knowles, S. C. Boswell, R. L. D. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion by (Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.54) —The time of the Senate has been taken up, at an expense to the people of Australia, in debating the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill which has passed through this chamber with the support of all the parties represented in this chamber. Nevertheless, the way in which the Government has decided to manage the affairs of this chamber has brought us to the situation where, because of the Government's indifference and incompetence in the matter, and despite the Government at the beginning of this week preaching the doctrine of financial restraint and responsibility, the chamber has had to go through this charade. One can understand that in terms of the commitment which Senator Ryan and her colleagues in the Australian Labor Party have had to this legislation. Nevertheless the prime responsibility for this fiasco rests entirely in the hands of Senator Haines and her colleagues in the Australian Democrats. Nobody is more responsible for betraying the principle of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation than is Senator Haines. It ought to be clearly noted that of the allegedly six members of the Australian Democrats currently serving in the Parliament two are here to see the passage of this legislation. The others simply have shot through as a result either of boredom or their failure to be committed in any sense to the processes of this Parliament. What we are seeing at the moment is a clear indication of what the Australian Democrats have become. Senator Chipp, Mr Chipp as he is now, is alive and well but if he were dead he would be spinning in his grave. He would be spitting chips at the situation to which his Party has been reduced because quite clearly the Democrats with their alleged commitment to the scrutiny of legislation as it passes through the Parliament have come into the Parliament this evening and said: `We are no longer interested in judging legislation on its merits. We are prepared even to forgo putting forward for public scrutiny our own amendments. We are prepared even to forgo our own matters of principle'. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest to Senator Puplick that he should be advancing arguments as to why the Bill should or should not be read a third time. He is getting a little outside that ambit. I ask him to come back to order. Senator PUPLICK —I am putting the proposition that the reason that the third reading of this legislation should not be regarded as mere formality is that clearly a number of amendments should have been made to it. They were amendments of two characters. The first was those sensible amendments advanced by my colleague, Senator Peter Baume, who is leading for the Opposition on this matter. A couple of weeks ago we had clear assurances that the Democrats would support those amendments. Senator Grimes —I take a point of order. Mr President, you correctly pointed out to Senator Puplick that he should be debating whether the Bill should be read a third time not, as he stated, whether amendments should have been passed during the second reading stage of this legislation. I do not mind how long he goes on. I just wish that he would follow the President's ruling. Senator Chaney —Mr President, on the point of order: The processes that the Bill has already gone through are clearly relevant to the third reading. The fact that some of those processes have been rendered a charade by earlier events is a matter on which I think honourable senators should be allowed to comment. It has been a charade because of the antics of the Australian Democrats. That is being expanded upon at the moment I think in a most proper way and it is certainly a fit subject for debate on the third reading. The PRESIDENT —Order! At present Senator Puplick is in order. He was outside the ambit in the first instance. He has now come back within the ambit. I will continue to hear him while he keeps within it. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I am always prepared to operate within the ambit claim that you lay down for any honourable senator. I was saying that the reason the Senate should decline to give this Bill a third reading in its current form is that it is defective because of the absence of two sets of amendments which ought to have been moved and ought to have been accepted by the Senate. As I was saying, the first of those amendments relates to propositions which my friend and colleague Senator Peter Baume put forward. I remind the Senate that they were of two essential characteristics. The first was that this Bill should properly have been re-entitled. It should have borne the title of a Bill relating to equal opportunity in employment. It is not an affirmative action Bill in the sense in which that term is usually and properly understood. It should have borne a title more directly related to the purposes for which the Bill has allegedly been drawn-that is to say, to provide for equality of opportunity for women in both the work force and, as my colleague Senator Teague said, in academic and other institutions. The second point made by Senator Peter Baume related to the extension of this legislation as far as bodies such as Qantas Airways Ltd, Telecom Australia and other statutory authorities under the control of the Commonwealth are concerned. Because the Democrats have decided not to pursue sensible, proper and legitimate amendments to this legislation, it will stand as flawed legislation when it could have been a decent piece of legislation. The reason it is flawed is the determination of Senator Ryan and her colleagues in the Australian Labor Party to have this legislation through this day, this week, regardless of the fact that by taking a little more time and being a little more sensible they could have had a better piece of legislation. They had to get it through this day, this week, because of the sheer, simple incompetence of Senator Grimes and his colleagues in not being able to manage the program of the Parliament in a way which would have allowed this legislation to be in proper form and to take effect from the beginning of September. I appreciate the extent to which Senator Grimes is aggrieved, hurt and upset by the fact that he is clearly, by his actions in the Senate, admitting to his own failure in this matter. It is to his credit that he is prepared to admit publicly and in that fashion his incompetence in this matter. The Senate also needs to dwell on a far more serious point-that is, the attempt of the Australian Democrats, under the new dynamic leadership provided by Senator Haines with the permanently absent Senator Siddons, to deal with amendments to this legislation on their merits. Senator Alston —There is money to be made. Senator PUPLICK —As my colleague Senator Alston said, there is no doubt that Senator Siddons is absent on this occasion because somewhere else there is money to be made. Undoubtedly, he is attending to his financial and company commitments in that regard. Senator Haines had proposed a series of amendments to this legislation. We know that on a number of occasions this evening she has come forward and said: `We are not going to pursue the amendments which the Australian Democrats would have sought to make to this legislation to make it better legislation, more effective legislation; and more responsible legislation, because we do not believe that it should be held up for a couple of weeks'. Indeed, not only has she been prepared to vote against the amendments which she had previously signalled she would support, but she has been prepared to have circulated on behalf of the Australian Democrats a series of amendments which she was then not prepared even to move for debate in the Senate. As Senator Peter Baume indicated in his remarks, some of those amendments may well have been amendments which the Opposition parties would have supported and would have carried into legislative effect. However, in order to get this legislation forced through the chamber, under these circumstances and at this time, Senator Haines is prepared to stand back and say: `This is despite the commitments which are contained in the policy documents of the Australian Democrats which deal with the way in which parliamentary legislation ought to be scrutinised'. In fact, the Australian Democrats documents deal with the way in which parliamentary legislation ought to be looked at. Those policy statement documents say in part: While a Bill is before Parliament it will be scrutinised clause by clause including any delegation of power by the relevant standing committee. Therefore, we have here the Australian Democrats with their alleged commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of legislation being prepared to say: `We now abandon that as a matter of principle. As far as we are concerned, anything that the Australian Labor Party wants to put into effect, anything that the Government wants to put into effect, anything that happens to conform to our appeal to a reducing constituency, is going to be given effect; our own policy statements and our own commitment to look at legislation and to take legislation on its merits will no longer apply'. Senator Haines is duly embarrassed by this matter. Senator Vigor is reduced to a state unknown in this chamber of absolute silence on the matter. We find ourselves now confronted with the Australian Democrats preparedness to abandon that principle-- Senator Vigor —Is this where we clap? Senator PUPLICK —I see that we have now managed to breathe life into the form of Senator Vigor, after so many hours of debate on this matter. The Australian Democrats are prepared on this particular occasion to see this legislation go through in its unamended form-a form which by no means achieves the objectives and the principles which the Government, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats believe in. These are objectives and principles which could have been clearly stated in both the title and the purposes of this Bill. They are not to be stated. The simple reason they are not to be stated is that it is no longer convenient for the Australian Democrats to do so on this occasion. It is very sad that this Bill will therefore be read for a third time in this rather flawed, inadequate fashion. Of course, the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) has this legislation as a great monument to the way in which she sees the reshaping of Australian society in line with her particular vision and that of the Labor Party sisterhood who have supported her consistently throughout this. The men in the Australian Labor Party, by and large, have fled from this debate in terror for their lives and their physical safety. Even those members of the Australian Labor Party, those bold and brave old troopers such as Senator Cooney, Senator Robert Ray, Senator Aulich and Senator McKiernan, who are brave enough to be in here this evening to witness this ignominious Bill being pushed through under these circumstances, are, each one of them, being carefully attended by one of the sisterhood. Senator McKiernan is flanked by Senator Giles on one side and Senator Zakharov on the other, and he dare not move from his place. Senator Cooney and Senator Robert Ray know that if they are to leave the chamber they will have to run the gauntlet of Senator Crowley, who undoubtedly will manage to tackle them in the aisle. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask the honourable senator to retain his jealousy to himself and to stick to the legislation. Senator PUPLICK —I appreciate your stricture, Mr President. I conclude by saying that Senator Maguire would never get out of the place without Senator Coleman managing to deal with him. Senator Grimes, who is confined to the table, undoubtedly has his particular problems. Senator Grimes —Shirley is going to look after me. Senator PUPLICK —I did not think that Senator Grimes's real concern was with Senator Walters. I thought that he was effectively nailed the other day by the description given him by Senator Gareth Evans. In regard to this piece of legislation, I think two things need to be remarked upon. The first is the disorder and disarray which the Government demonstrates at the end of what is only the first sitting week of this parliamentary session. Its incompetence and inability to manage its parliamentary program in a way that will allow it to get its legislation dealt with successfully are appalling. The second thing is clearly the extent to which the Australian Democrats have abandoned any claim to be a force in this chamber looking at legislation on its merits and forcing amendments to legislation where they are truly needed in the interests of the citizens and the people of Australia. In those circumstances it is quite clear that the role that this parliamentary chamber has been forced to play this evening is a clear indication that an amalgamation of the incompetence of the Government in managing its program and the willingness of the Australian Democrats to concede and to be willing partners in that incompetence clearly indicate the extent to which neither of those parties is prepared to take either this chamber or the legislative pro- cess in its correct and proper fashion. It indicates clearly why this Bill in its defective form should not be given a third reading. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Senate adjourned at 9.13 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 September 1986, unless previously called together in accordance with the resolution passed earlier this day. The following papers were tabled: Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 211. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1986- No. 7-Survey of Family Formation. No. 8-New Topics to be included in the Population Survey. No. 9-Survey of Income, Current and Alternative Working Arrangements and Accommodation Costs. No. 10-Survey of Major Labour Costs. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 209, 210. Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1986 No. 214. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 215. Fisheries Act-Plans of Management- No. 8-Northern Prawn Fishery (Amendment). No. 9-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (Amendment). Freedom of Information Act-Notice by the Treasurer under section 58a. National Health Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 208. Passports Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 212. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1986- No. 40-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 41-Liquor (Amendment). No. 42-Poker Machine Control (Amendment). No. 43-Rabbit Destruction (Amendment). No. 44-Real Property (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 45-Stock (Amendment). Regulations 1986- No. 11-(Rabbit Destruction Ordinance). No. 12-(Poker Machine Control Ordinance). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 999) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Are nearly 10 per cent of prisoners in Cessnock and Maitland Gaols receiving unemployment benefits as indicated in recent media reports. (2) Have another one-third of prisoners in the 2 gaols received or are still receiving other social security benefits such as sickness and invalid pensions. (3) Could these practices extend to other gaols in New South Wales and in other states. (4) When did the Minister for Social Security originally become aware of these allegations. (5) How widespread are such practices amongst prisoners in Australian gaols. (6) What was the total cost of all such benefits paid to prisoners. (7) What action, if any will be taken to recover the money and to ensure that such practices do not continue. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) No. (3) My department has made arrangements with Authorities in all States and the Northern Territory for the regular supply of details of admissions to prison to prevent improper payment of social security pensions or benefits to persons in gaol. Persons admitted to gaol from the Australian Capital Territory are listed in NSW prison records. (4) The matter of alleged payments to prisoners at Cessnock Prison was drawn to my attention on 4 February 1986. (5) See (3) above. (6) This information is not available. (7) Normal recovery practices would apply in re- lation to amounts of social security assistance incorrectly paid to prisoners. (Question No. 1206) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: What is the curriculum vitae of each of the Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of Naval Staff, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of Air Staff, to include- (a) command appointments in all ranks from Army lieutenant (and equivalents) and in more senior ranks; (b) staff appointments from the Army rank of lieutenant-colonel (and equivalents) and in more senior ranks; (c) qualifications from military tertiary institutions, for example, Service Staff Colleges, Joint Service Staff Colleges and National Defence Colleges; (d) qualifications from civilian tertiary institutions; and (e) other military qualifications involving successful completion of training of 3 months or more duration. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Chief of the Defence Force. General Sir Phillip Bennett, A.C., K.B.E., D.S.O. (a) Command Appointments-Platoon Commander 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (as a lieutenant). Officer Commanding 2 Commando Company (as a major). Commanding Officer 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (as a lieutenant colonel). Commander 1 Division (as a major general). Chief of the General Staff (as a lieutenant general). Chief of the Defence Force (as a general). (b) Staff Appointments-Assistant Adjutant General Directorate of Personal Services Army Headquarters (as a lieutenant colonel). Director of Co-ordination Army Headquarters (as a colonel). Chief of Staff, Headquarters Training Command (as a brigadier). Assistant Chief of the Defence Force Staff (as a major general). (c) Military Tertiary Qualifications-Graduate of: Australian Staff College, Joint Services Staff College (Latimer UK), Royal College of Defence Studies (UK). (d) Civilian Tertiary Qualifications-Nil. (e) Other Military Qualifications-Graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, Commando Training-UK. (2) Chief of Naval Staff. Vice Admiral M. W. Hudson, A.O. (a) Command Appointments-Commanding Officer, HMAS Vendetta (as a commander). Commanding Officer, HMAS Brisbane (as a captain). Commanding Officer, HMAS Stalwart (as a captain). Commanding Officer, HMAS Melbourne (as a commodore). Flag Officer Commanding, HM Australian Fleet (as a rear admiral). Chief of Naval Staff (as a vice admiral). (b) Senior Staff Appointments-Training Commander, HMAS Cerberus (as a commander) Flag Operations Officer (as a commander). Directing Staff, Australian Joint Services Staff College (as a commander). Director of Naval Plans (as a captain). Director General of Naval Plans and Policy (as a commodore). Assistant Chief of the Defence Force Staff (as a rear admiral). (c) Military Tertiary Qualifications-Graduate of: United States Armed Forces, Staff College, Australian Joint Services Staff College, Canadian National Defence College. (d) Civilian Tertiary Qualifications-Nil. (e) Other Military Qualifications-Graduate of Royal Australian Naval College. Graduate of Britannia Royal Naval College. Long Navigation Course. Naval Combat Data System Course. (3) Chief of the General Staff. Lieutenant General P. C. Gration, A.O., O.B.E. (a) Command Appointments-Troop Commander 7 Field Squadron (as a lieutenant). Troop Commander 11 Independent Field Squadron (as a lieutenant). Officer Commanding 21 Construction Squadron (as a major). Commanding Officer 1 Civil Affairs Unit (as a lieutenant colonel). General Officer Commanding Logistics Command (as a major general). Chief of the General Staff (as a lieutenant general). (b) Staff Appointments-Staff Officer Regional Engineers, Director of Engineers-Army Headquarters, Staff Officer to Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee as a lieutenant colonel. Director of Engineers-Army Headquarters, Colonel (Doctrine) Headquarters Training Command as a colonel. Director General of Operations, Deputy Chief of Operations as a brigadier. Chief of Operations, Assistant Chief of the Defence Force Staff, Deputy Chief of the General Staff as a major general. (c) Military Tertiary Qualifications-Graduate of: Joint Services Staff College (Aust.), British Army Staff College-Camberley. (d) Civilian Tertiary Qualifications-Batchelor of Engineering (Honours)-University of Melbourne. Batchelor of Arts-University of Queensland. Batchelor of Economics-University of Queensland. (e) Other Military Qualifications-Graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon. Royal Military College of Science. United States Army War College. (3) Chief of the Air Staff. Air Marshal J. W. Newham, A.C. (a) Command Appointments-Commanding Officer Western Australia University Squadron, Chief Flying Instructor-Headquarters 81 Wing, Chief Flying Instructor 2 Operational Conversion Unit as a squadron leader. Commanding Officer-3 Squadron, Commanding Officer-Aircraft Research and Development Unit, Officer Commanding RAAF Base Laverton as a wing commander. Officer Commanding 82 Wing (as a group captain). Chief of the Air Staff (as an air marshal). (b) Staff Appointments-Staff Officer, Directorate of Personnel Services (as a wing commander). Director of Personnel Services, Air Staff Officer Headquarters RAAF Amberley, Staff Officer Headquarters Operational Command as a group captain. Senior Air Staff Officer Operational Command, Director General of Operational Requirements as an air commodore. Chief of Air Force Operations, Head, Australian Defence Staff Washington, Deputy Chief of the Air Staff as an air vice marshal. (c) Military Tertiary Qualifications-Graduate of: RAAF Staff College, Royal College of Defence Studies. (d) Civilian Tertiary Qualifications-Nil. (e) Other Military Qualifications-Various pilot training courses related to operational aircraft. (Question No. 1207) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: What are the qualifications, experience, minimum and maximum ages for appointment to command of- (a) a ship or submarine of the Royal Australian Navy; (b) an armoured regiment, an artillery regiment and an infantry battalion in the Australian Regular Army; and (c) a flying unit in the Royal Australian Air Force. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) Qualifications-all officers in command of seagoing ships and submarines must hold a Bridge Watchkeeping Certificate. Additionally, all officers must complete designated Commanding Officers preparatory courses, and submarine Commanding Officers must have passed the Commanding Officers qualifying Courses conducted by the Royal Navy. Experience-Experience for command is linked to seniority and rank and for the following ship types are: Fremantle Class Patrol Boats, Lieutenant Commander. Oberon Class Submarine, Lieutenant Commander or Commander. Major Warships, Commander. Major Warships with Task Group responsibilities HMA Ships Stalwart and Success, Captain. Minimum and Maximum Ages-There are no minimum or maximum ages for sea command of HMA Ships or Submarines other than those associated with the respective rank levels for command of the different ship types. (b) There are no formal written selection criteria to be met for appointment to command an armoured regiment, artillery regiment or infantry battalion in the Australian Regular Army. However, there are commonly acknowledged pre-requisites which are considered essential or desirable before an individual is selected; these pre-requisites include qualifications and experience. The common pre-requisites are: Above average record of performance in all respects; assessed as having demonstrated the necessary leadership ability; preferably have demonstrated an above average performance as a sub-unit commander in the armoured or artillery regiment or infantry battalion as appropriate; desirably to be his second or more appointment as a lieutenant colonel; be considered to have potential for pro- motion to higher ranks; As there is no set minimum or maximum age, by virtue of time in rank provisions and promotion potential the age bracket is approximately 37 to 43 years of age. Particular qualifications and experience-Armoured Regiment. Previous proven performance in 1st Armoured Regiment appointments is considered essential. Artillery regiment. Previous proven performance in artillery regimental appointments is considered essential; furthermore this should have been in the appropriate regiment, i.e., air-defence, field artillery or medium artillery. Infantry Battalion. Previous proven performance infantry battalion appointments is considered essential; furthermore this should have been in the appropriate battalion, e.g. mechanised or parachute. (c) To be appointed to a command of a flying unit in the Royal Australian Air Force the incumbent is normally of Wing Commander rank or higher to meet the command and disciplinary requirements of the Defence Force Disciplinary Code. There is no minimum or maximum age laid down; however, the incumbent must meet the medical employment standard to fly the aircraft type. The incumbent must have the reported ability and experience to successfully complete the aircraft type conversion, and then subsequently complete that conversion. Finally, the incumbent will be selected in competition with the pool of officers meeting the selection requirements. (Question No. 1208) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: (1) What is the age range of Australian Regular Army Brigadiers. (2) How many of those Brigadiers are of each age, in that range. (3) What are the answers to the same questions as in (1) and (2)- (a) for Australian Regular Army officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel and major and soldiers of the rank of warrant officer and sergeant; and (b) for members of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force of equivalent rank. (4) What were the answers to questions (1) to (3) in 1981 and 1976. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The age range for Brigadiers is 39-53 years. (2) Age 39-1, 44-3, 45-3, 46-8, 47-5, 48-3, 49-4, 50-7, 51-6, 52-2, 53-4. (3) (a) (i) The age range for: Lieutenant Colonels is 30-54 years. Majors is 27-57 years. Warrant Officers Class 1 is 31-56 years. Warrant Officers Class 2 is 28-56 years. Sergeants is 23-58 years. (3) (a) (ii) Age Lieutenant Colonel Major Warrant Officer Class 1 Warrant Officer Class 2 Sergeant 23... 3 24... 14 25... 41 26... 97 27... 1 146 28... 6 6 219 29... 15 27 250 30... 1 50 39 305 31... 75 3 67 324 32... 114 3 83 251 33... 1 114 20 149 252 34... 5 125 23 201 237 35... 11 117 56 212 221 36... 20 134 61 206 203 37... 40 109 69 199 154 38... 47 126 91 161 138 39... 78 106 72 156 120 40... 72 79 58 99 76 41... 62 78 61 69 44 42... 39 27 41 51 32 43... 18 27 35 34 24 44... 18 30 27 26 26 45... 20 26 18 27 16 46... 19 22 8 20 21 47... 7 12 20 10 11 48... 13 19 9 12 7 49... 7 11 8 7 12 50... 6 8 2 8 4 51... 4 6 3 2 52... 4 11 7 4 7 53... 4 5 2 3 54... 2 7 3 6 1 55... 1 4 1 2 56... 1 1 57... 2 1 58... 1 (b) (i) The age range for Commodores is 46-54 years. (ii) Age 46-1, 47-1, 48-4, 49-4, 50-5, 51-8, 52-2, 53-1, 54-2. (iii) The age range for Air Commodores is 42-54. (iv) Age 42-1, 45-2, 47-2, 48-2, 49-8, 50-3, 51-1, 52-3, 53-6, 54-3. (4) (a) Army. The age range for Brigadiers in 1976 was 45-54 years. Age 45-1, 46-4, 47-2, 48-5, 49-8, 50-6, 51-4, 52-5, 53-1, 54-1. The age range for Brigadiers in 1981 was 45-55 years. Age 45-3, 46-5, 47-2, 48-7, 49-4, 50-7, 51-7, 52-5, 53-5, 54-1, 55-1. The age range for Lieutenant Colonels, Majors, Warrant Officers and Sergeants in 1976 and 1981 were: 1976 1981 Years Years Lieutenant Colonel... 28-55 33-55 Major... 26-56 26-56 Warant Officer, Class 1... 29-54 27-56 Warrant Officer, Class 2... 26-55 26-56 Sergeant... 22-55 23-56 Age Lieutenant Colonel 76 81 76 81 76 81 76 81 76 81 22... 6 23... 20 7 24... 40 17 25... 101 60 26... 1 1 8 1 150 109 27... 1 2 1 12 2 200 122 28... 1 14 7 26 11 273 217 29... 43 18 2 1 50 26 318 282 30... 58 33 3 3 71 67 255 307 31... 1 83 61 5 11 99 90 256 295 32... 1 93 95 7 16 86 116 186 259 33... 2 81 117 15 31 113 174 179 273 34... 1 10 92 175 9 36 117 218 163 238 35... 10 11 103 145 17 67 127 187 146 192 36... 23 25 96 167 34 70 113 188 134 143 37... 29 39 72 87 32 51 125 144 102 124 38... 47 39 61 51 39 46 107 123 98 98 39... 36 37 57 61 39 53 93 93 89 76 40... 51 43 37 65 39 37 94 85 61 71 41... 55 53 29 60 43 31 75 62 59 53 42... 37 47 36 37 31 46 58 59 59 25 43... 40 35 33 43 24 25 55 43 58 37 44... 22 36 31 28 18 29 52 35 35 31 45... 14 34 22 21 36 24 55 32 38 23 46... 19 16 23 16 29 22 36 23 39 16 47... 9 14 21 19 29 17 49 23 46 18 48... 10 12 19 19 38 11 45 17 40 17 49... 8 6 14 22 34 8 26 14 29 11 50... 4 3 16 8 23 13 33 12 19 17 51... 5 1 20 15 22 9 25 7 17 11 52... 2 1 12 18 24 13 14 12 24 11 53... 4 5 16 11 12 17 17 8 9 10 54... 3 3 12 5 8 8 5 5 8 4 55... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 56... 2 3 1 1 1 57... (b) Navy. The age range for Commodores in 1976 was 47-54 years. Age 47-1, 50-2, 51-3, 52-1, 53-3, 54-2. The age range for Commodores in 1981 was 46-56 years. Age 46-2, 47-1, 48-3, 50-4, 51-6, 52-5, 53-4, 54-2, 55-6, 56-2. (c) Air Force. The age range for Air Commodores in 1976 was 48-60. Age 48-1, 50-3, 51-3, 52-4, 53-4, 54-4, 55-3, 57-2, 58-1, 60-1. The age range for Air Commodores in 1981 was 45-58 years. Age 45-1, 46-2, 47-3, 48-3, 49-3, 50-3, 51-4, 52-2, 53-3, 54-5, 55-1, 56-2, 58-1. (Question No. 1209) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 June 1986: (1) Was a statement made by the then Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, on 15 September 1939 about age limits for officers and soldiers for the divisional force then to be sent overseas; if so- (a) what were those age limits; (b) have they been changed since then and if so when; and (c) what age limits apply now for: (i) operational service, (ii) wartime service in base areas, and (iii) peace time service. (2) Are there similar age limits applicable now to the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force; if so what are they. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (a) The ages at which enlistment for the divisional force to be sent overseas was accepted, were Private and Non Commissioned Officer from 20 to 35 years (with exceptions up to 40 years for Warrant Officer and specially qualified Non Commissioned Officer); Subaltern-under 30; Captain-under 35; Major-under 40; Lieutenant Colonel-under 45. (b) In 1942 enlistment in the Australian Imperial Force was restricted to between the age of 19 and 40 and in 1943 soldiers under the age of 19 were not permitted to serve in the Northern Territory or outside of Australia. (c) The current age requirements are: (i) for operational service; at least 18 years of age. (ii) for wartime service in base areas; at least 18 years of age; and (iii) for enlistment as an other rank, minimum age 17 years and for apprentices, minimum age 15. The maximum age of enlistment is dependent upon the enlistee's avenue of entry. (2) Yes. Age limits for operational service, wartime service in base areas and peace time service for Navy and Air Force are in alignment with those for Army.