Tuesday, 31 March 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned elector respectfully showeth: 1. That there is no provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act for an independent tribunal of first instance to hear and determine disputed questions of liability in tax matters before liability (if any) is determined and before payment (if any) is ordered to be made. 2. That under the British and American tax systems tax disputes are heard by an independent judicial tribunal of first instance, before liability (if any) is determined and before payment (if any) is required to be made, and before penalties (if any) are imposed. 3. That under section 201 of the Income Tax Assessment Act payment of income tax and penalties (if any) are required to be made notwithstanding any review or appeal against an assessment, and non-payment carries an additional penalty of 20% interest which is not tax-deductible. 4. That section 167 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to make an assessment `of the amount upon which in his judgment income tax ought to be levied, and that amount shall be the taxable income of that person'. 5. That the powers of the Commissioner are in fact delegated to large numbers of persons employed in the Taxation Department, who are thereby empowered to levy income tax, additional tax, and penalties, in respect of sums of money which are in dispute and may not in fact be taxable income within the meaning of the Act, and who are therefore empowered to confiscate the capital assets of the taxpayer, until such time as a tribunal sets aside the incorrect assessment, which may run into several years. 6. That in the event of interest being payable on any refund, such interest is taxable in full in the year in which the refund is made, and is not averaged out over the period between payment to the Commissioner and refund by the Commissioner. 7. That in the case of additional tax being imposed, the amount of primary tax and additional tax may exceed 100 per cent of the taxable income in question, the surplus being, of necessity, a tax on capital. 8. That in fixing the amounts of additional tax and penalty interest under the Act, no or no sufficient consideration was given to the effect on the finances of the taxpayer of the provisions of section 51 of the Act in disallowing as deductions losses and outgoings of a capital, private, or domestic nature; or of the increases in the rates of tax that have occurred since the provisions for additional tax and penalties were first imposed in the Act vis-a-vis the rates of tax then in force; the maximum rates of primary tax and additional tax then in force being not more than 75 per cent of taxable income. 9. That the powers vested by the Act in the Commissioner and the large numbers of persons exercising delegated powers of the Commissioner, the periods for which investigations may be made, and the amount of penalties imposed, are excessive and oppressive by comparison with British and American tax standards. 10. That the construction of Assets Betterment Statements as used by the Commissioner and Boards of Review, in the investigation of taxpayer's affairs, is incorrect in fact and in contravention of a number of provisions of the Act, and results in the artificial creation of alleged understatements of income, alleged by the Commissioner and Boards of Review to be from an unidentified source, whereas in fact no such understatement has occurred, the error being due to the incorrect construction of the Assets Betterment Statement by the Commissioner and/or the Boards of Review, whereby taxpayers are wrongfully assessed to Income Tax and Additional Tax. 11. That an attempt to correct such error by a taxpayer was thwarted by the breach of duty to the Court and the taxpayer by certain barristers acting in a tax appeal to a Court from a decision of a Board of Review, in suppressing evidence and argument in support of the wrongful construction of the Assets Betterment Statement, even though the said Barristers knew of the nature of the incorrect construction and the breach of provisions of the Act causing or contributing to such incorrect construction, and were instructed to put such material before the Court, and invited by the Court to submit such material. 12. That the breach of duty of the said barristers caused or contributed to an incorrect decision being given by the Court, whereby the use of incorrectly constructed Assets Betterment Statements has been continued by the Commissioner and Boards of Review, and large numbers of taxpayers have been wrongfully assessed to Income Tax and Additional Tax arising out of the use of such incorrect Assets Betterment Statements. 13. That one of the said Barristers was subsequently appointed to a Commonwealth Court, and the other was a known recipient of Briefs in tax matters from the Commonwealth. 14. That in the said Tax Appeal the said Barristers were also instructed to submit to the Court arguments in support of an objection by the Taxpayer to the legal validity of section 26 (a) (now section 25A (1)) of the Act, and similar wording in the definition of ``income from personal exertion'' in section 6 of the Act, and/or the interpretation and administration of such sections against the taxpayer in the case in question, but the said Barristers failed to do so, in breach of their duty to the Court and the taxpayer. In so doing the said Barristers caused or contributed to an incorrect decision of the Court, whereby the taxpayer and other taxpayers have been subjected to incorrect assessments based on a continuance of the legally incorrect wording of such sections as a basis of liability. The legal invalidity of such sections has continued, notwithstanding the subsequent enactment of section 26AAA (property purchased and sold within 12 months), and Part 111A (Capital Gains Tax), provisions of the Act. 15. That in 1986 the jurisdiction of Boards of Review was transferred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the recommendation of the Administrative Review Council pursuant to its Report No. 17 to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the opposition to such transfer by the Commissioner of Taxation, the then present Chairmen and most members of the Boards of Review. 16. That the said Barrister who was appointed a Commonwealth Judge, and a member of the Board of Review who adjudicated in the said incorrect decision on the construction of the Assets Betterment Statement, and the alleged invalidity of section 26 (a) of the Act, are or are entitled to be members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the said Judge is entitled to be a member of a Federal Court which may hear appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 17. That the breach of duty of the said Barristers in the said tax appeal amounted to a prevention or hindering of the administration of justice in the matters the subject of the said tax appeal. 18. That in exercising their powers and functions under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and in the Federal Court, in relation to tax appeals, it is believed that the said Judge and member or members of the Taxation Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (formerly acting as Boards of Review), will be constrained by bias into continuing to confirm incorrect assessments made or issued upon incorrectly constructed Assets Betterment Statements, and section 25a (1) assessments, in contravention of the law that justice should not only be done but also appear to be done. 19. That the Administrative Review Council, in its said Report to the Attorney-General, failed to set out the comparative methods and procedures in Tax Appeals, applying in Britain, America and Europe, by way of comparative analysis for the information of the Attorney-General and Parliament, in their consideration of the matter, even though knowledge of administrative appeals in such other countries was known to the said Council, as indicated in an earlier Report. 20. That the said Barristers in the said tax appeal failed or refused to have a pre-trial conference with the Commissioner of Taxation or his legal representatives with a view to defining the issues in dispute and or to achieve a settlement of the dispute, and increased the time and cost of the litigation to the detriment of the taxpayer. 21. That the said Barristers in the said Tax Appeal demonstrated an inadequate understanding of the constitutional relationship in tax matters between Parliament and the Commissioner acting on behalf of the Executive Government, and the constitutional rights of the public not to be subjected to unlawful and arbitrary taxation, and indicated a bias in favour of the Commissioner against the taxpayer to the point of preventing or hindering the administration of justice, whereby the taxpayer was subjected to considerable loss and detriment. 22. That in view of the Commissioner's Annual Reports indicating annual tax evasion recoveries of about $200 million (apart from additional tax and one-off recoveries such as bottom-of-the-harbour schemes), as against annual increases in Government Expenditure of about $5000 million on a straightline average basis, and the large amounts of income exempted under the Act from Income Tax and Special Services Contribution, and the possibility that many claims of tax evasion are not contested because of the legal expenses of lawyers and accountants, and the non-tax-deductibility of such expenses, tax evasion in itself is not a significant cause of high taxation in Australia, to warrant the taking away of the rights of taxpayers to fair treatment and natural justice. 23. That non-compliance with general constitutional requirements with respect to taxation contributes to illegality oppression and abuse of power by or on behalf of the Commissioner and his delegates, and by Boards of Review, and to the general levels of taxation being higher than need be, and to increases in Commonwealth Expenditure. 24. That the inequalities and oppression in the Australian tax system, and the immunity of Barristers from liability for negligence in the handling of cases in the Courtroom, generates a lack of confidence in the Australian tax and legal system, and is a disincentive to investment in Australia. 25. That although the said errors of fact and law in the construction of Assets Betterment States appear to have been made over a long period of time bona fide by the Commissioner and his delegates, and by Boards of Review, they are nevertheless continuing errors of fact and law artificially creating alleged understatements of income which impose considerable losses and hardship on affected taxpayers, in favour of the Commissioner and to the detriment of taxpayers. Your petitioner therefore humbly prays: 1. That the Senate do refer to the Senate Committee on Finance and Government Operations or to the Committee on Constitution and Legal Affairs, the aforesaid matters for investigation and report, or otherwise cause the said matters to be investigated and reported to the Senate. 2. That the Income Tax Assessment Act and other relevant legislation be amended, and administrative action be taken to correct the aforesaid matters in the interests of justice. 3. That appropriate steps be taken to require the Commissioner of Taxation to refund to affected taxpayers primary tax and additional tax imposed on them in respect of alleged understatements of income artificially created within the Taxation Department by the use of incorrectly constructed Assets Betterment Statements or other financial documents, and therein incorrectly alleged to be understatements of income from ``unidentified sources.'' 4. That assessments made and issued by the Commissioner of Taxation based on Assets Betterment Statements or other financial documents prepared within the Taxation Department be limited to identified omissions of income only. 5. That the maximum periods of time for investigation of taxpayer's affairs be limited to that adopted in Britain (namely, not more than six years subject to leave being obtained from a Tribunal for any further period up to a total maximum of ten years for good cause to be shown by the Commissioner); or in the United States of America (namely not more than three years, subject to further periods in the case of fraud, the onus of proving which is on the Revenue authorities); or to a maximum period of seven years in Australia being the period for which taxpayers are obliged under the Act to keep records. 6. That the Act be amended to provide that primary tax and additional tax should together not exceed 75% of the taxpayer's taxable income in respect of a year in question. 7. That section 167 of the Act be amended by omitting therefrom the phrase `the Commissioner may make an assessment of the amount upon which in his judgment income tax ought to be levied' and substituting therefore the phrase `the Commissioner may make an assessment of the amount of taxable income of that person upon which taxable income, income tax has been imposed by the Parliament'. 8. That section 201 of the Act be amended to provide that a taxpayer shall not be obliged to pay primary Income Tax or additional tax in dispute until such dispute is determined by an independent tribunal of first instance, and that penalty tax (if any should not commence to run on unpaid tax (if any) until from the date of such determination. 9. That interest payable by the Commissioner on refunds of tax be averaged out over the relevant years between dates of payment to the Commissioner and refund by the Commissioner. 10. That additional review and appeals tribunals of first instance be appointed pari passu with the numbers of such tribunals operating in Britain and America, on a relevant population ratio basis. 11. That the costs of the taxpayer incurred in contesting a tax assessment be made allowable deductions under the Act. 12. That in respect of assets acquired prior to 19th September 1985, the present provisions of section 25a (1) including as assessable income profit arising from the sale by the taxpayer of any property acquired by him `for the purpose of profit-making by sale, or from the carrying on or carrying out of any profit-making undertaking or scheme' and words to the same effect contained in the definition of `Income from Personal Exertion' in section 6 of the Act be repealed with respect to assets acquired prior to 19th September 1985; or alternatively that there be substituted therefor objective time-periods from date of acquisition not exceeding six years (in the case of real estate), and three years (in the case of other assets); or alternatively to otherwise remove the subjective purpose of the taxpayer as determined by the Commissioner of Taxation or his delegates or by a Board of Review, as a basis for liability, and substitute therefor the objective test of specified time-periods of holding determined by the Parliament as the basis for liability, indexed for inflation, where the period of holding exceeds the period of one year presently enacted in section 26aaa of the Act as a criterion of liability. 13. That with respect to Reviews of Assessments by Boards of Review and the Taxation Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and appeals to Courts, adequate pre-trial Directions hearings and Settlement Conferences between the Commissioner and the Taxpayer be available to either party on request, and in any event be made mandatory prior to a hearing; the person conducting such pre-trial hearings and conferences to be under a duty to reconcile the parties to the dispute to achieve a satisfactory settlement and to limit the areas in dispute, and not simply to perform the function of chairing such pre-trial hearings and conferences perfunctorily. 14. That Part VIIIA of the Judiciary Act be amended to provide that in all Courts, Boards, and Tribunals, exercising Federal Jurisdiction, Barristers be made liable for negligence in their conduct of proceedings before such Courts, Boards, and Tribunals, including Solicitors appearing as Barristers. 15. That the conduct in the Courtroom of the said Barristers in the said Tax Appeal be investigated as to whether such conduct prevented or hindered the administration of justice, and caused or contributed to a judgment which was incorrect in fact and wrong in law, and should be set aside, or otherwise nullified by legislative or administrative action. 16. That the procedures in operation in Federal and State Jurisdictions in the United States of America for the appointment to and removal from office of persons as Judges be investigated and reported to the Senate. 17. That a Judicial Appointments Commission be set up to provide for the calling of applications for appointment to fill judicial and Tribunal vacancies arising in the exercising of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and for the hearing of objections thereto and the making of recommendations for appointment to the Governor-General, subject to ratification by the Senate, as in force in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. 18. That a Judicial Conduct Commission on the lines of similar Commissions in the State and Federal Jurisdictions of the United States of America, be set up to provide for the lodging and hearing of complaints with respect to the continuing competence and conduct of Judges and members of Boards and Tribunals exercising Federal Jurisdiction, and the making of recommendations as to their removal from office or otherwise, to the Governor-General and Parliament (in the case of exclusive Federal Jurisdiction), and to State Governors (in the case of State Courts and Tribunals and Boards exercising invested Federal Jurisdiction). 19. That the Senate investigate and report whether or not the responsible Minister and the Senate were misled into transferring jurisdiction in Tax Reviews from Boards of Review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, by inadequate reports from the Administrative Review Council, and in particular by the failure of such Council in its Report to include statements as to the comparative practices adopted in Britain, United States of America, and Europe, for the hearing and determination of tax appeals; the relative numbers of tribunals of first instance to hear and determine such appeals; and the failure of such Report to indicate the desirability of adequate pre-trial directions hearings and settlement conferences, and of the making of certain amendments to the Act and Regulations with a view to expediting and shortening the hearing of Tax Reviews and Appeals by Boards of Review and the Courts, to save the parties the risk of uncertainties and costs; and the relevance of removing the immunities of Barristers and Solicitors from liability for negligence in the hearing of tax appeals and other aspects of the civil jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunals and Boards in respect of their conduct of the cases in the Courtroom, and incidental thereto. by Senator Messner (from one citizen). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) notes the emergence of the New Left within the union movement, demonstrated by the recent actions of the Building Workers Industrial Union in their campaign for a $52 a week pay increase; and (b) calls upon the Government to ensure that the viability of employers within the building industry is not further eroded through unreasonable industrial action in this difficult economic climate. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos. 1 and 2 standing in my name for two and four sitting days hence. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision for terminating the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Government of the United States of America relating to the establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility and for purposes related thereto. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, four sitting days after today, I shall move: That Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 3 of 1987 relating to the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council fees and allowances and made under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 be disapproved. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for nine sitting days hence. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, at the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) commends the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee for its outstanding record of success over its 12 months life in revealing multi-millions of dollars of waste, incompetence and misallocation of money by the Hawke Labor Government; and (b) notes that the Hawke Government's belated response to this success has been to appoint a ministerial committee comprising federal ALP President and Immigration Minister, Mick Young, Arts Minister, Barry Cohen and finance Minister, Senator Peter Walsh, to examine procedures for making these government grants which have been exposed by the Waste Watch Committee. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation to my previous questions concerning the letting of the new coastal surveillance contract to a company known as Amman Aviation. I refer particularly to that part of the Minister's answer to my second question in which he said he had made his own investigations which revealed that the previous operator, Skywest Airlines, was: . . . at a similar stage of establishment- or perhaps I should say non-establishment- when it won the previous contract for coastal surveillance in 1982. I ask: Has the Minister been advised that at the time of tendering in 1982 Skywest had been in business for over 20 years; employed 161 staff, including 59 pilots; was operating 29 aircraft; and was running scheduled services from Perth and Port Hedland to many destinations in Western Australia? Is it a fact that Skywest was then the biggest general aviation operator in Western Australia and one of the biggest in Australia? Why did the Minister so blatantly mislead the Senate on 25 March in answer to the second part of this question with this totally untrue claim of a comparison between the state of readiness of the two companies concerned at the times in question? Senator GIETZELT —I recall the questions asked of me by Senator Durack in respect of the tendering arrangements for our surveillance operations and the awarding of the contract to Amman Aviation. I have not been advised about any changes or further developments in respect of that. Senator COOK —Can the Minister represen-ting the Treasurer inform the Senate of the effects of a $21.5 billion reduction in revenues? In what circumstances would such a situation occur? Senator WALSH —The effect of a $21.5 billion reduction in revenue, minus only $32.5m of expenditure cuts which the Opposition has identified that it would make if it was elected to government, would be a deficit of around $25 billion. Senator Ryan —How much? Senator WALSH —A deficit of about $25 billion. That would be close to 10 per cent of gross domestic product, about double the highest defi-cit as a proportion of GDP that has ever been recorded and more than double in dollar terms the prospective deficit left by Mr Howard when he was last Treasurer. The effect of that would be to push interest rates up to levels that I think are beyond the comprehension of most people-certainly 30 or 40 per cent and probably very much higher, so high that they are out of the bounds of any previous experience. Senator Cook also asked me under what conditions such a reduction in Commonwealth revenue could take place. Very clearly, the conditions under which such a reduction in Commonwealth revenue could take place would be those prevailing if a coalition government were to be elected and it implemented the policies of the National Party, as of course we know the Liberal Party has a record of doing. The Liberal Party in recent times has jumped to the National Party tune. If I may, I shall flesh out the details of that proposed $21.5 billion reduction in Commonwealth revenue. The main items of cost to revenue of the various resolutions carried by the National Party conference last weekend are as follows: Income splitting, $2,850m; child care rebates, $115m; the repeal of the assets test, $160m to $300m; a wages freeze-that is, the effect on income tax because of wages being frozen, if it actually happened-$500m; repealing the lump sum tax on superannuation, $85m; a 25 per cent flat tax with the existing threshold, $7.5 billion; and increasing the dependent spouse rebate from $830 to $4,000 and the dependent child rebate from a maximum of $200 to $2,000, another $2.5 billion. The abolition of the capital gains tax will mean a reduction of $25m directly; fringe benefits tax and substantiation repeal, $9,000m; quarantining of negative gearing, $100m to $200m; the abolition of the financial institutions duty, as the Opposition calls it, by which I presume it means the bank account debits tax, $300m; and the repeal of the prescribed payments system, $850m. The final item is the abolition of all excise on petroleum products-promised by Mr Hunt in his speech at the National Party conference-$5.6 billion. That adds up to something more than $21.5 billion. That is the policy of the National Party. The National Party calls the tune in the coalition and a coalition Liberal Party in government would of course dance to the tune of the National Party, as it does in Opposition. The consequences of that sort of policy on the macroeconomy I have already spelt out. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is the Minister aware that on the order of the Federal Court a new ballot opens tomorrow for the positions of State Secretary and Assistant State Secretary in Queensland of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia? Is it a fact that the new election was ordered by the court following allegations of gross irregularities in the previous ballot in June and July last year, including claims that voting papers collected from previous places of employment of union members were subsequently completed by other than the persons to whom they were addressed? Is it a fact that those alleged to have been involved in this collection included the two persons acting in the positions up for election and themselves candidates, Mr Brian Elton and Mr Colin Hardie? Was the matter referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Senator Georges —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I believe we are now listening to a misuse of Question Time, where by way of a question Senator MacGibbon is trying to malign two people who are standing for election in Queensland. That election is presently under way. I think it is grossly unfair and a misuse of the privilege of this place so to do. The information which he is giving is inaccurate to the point of distortion. I would suggest to you, Mr President, that we ought not to allow this sort of question to flow to the Minister. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. That is quite an extraordinary point to be raised by a Government senator, given that within the last-- Senator Ryan —An Independent senator. Senator Chaney —An Independent senator who has been supporting the Government on every vote to this point. Mr President, the fact is that within the last few days in Question Time a Minister in this place made references to somebody who has been subject to court action and acquitted, and made a very significant attack on the legal system and on the individual concerned. I would simply say to you, Mr President, that the question which has been asked is a question which relates to whether or not an election is being held, and whether there has been an order by a court for a new election. They are matters which I think are properly asked of the Minister. If there have been any delays in investigating a follow-up of the matter, they are matters of public interest. I would suggest that the question clearly is in order. The PRESIDENT —The question is in order. Senator MacGIBBON —Thank you, Mr President. Was the matter referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Brisbane by the returning officer on 23 June last year? Have any charges yet been laid as a result of police and the Director of Public Prosecutions investigations and, if not, how does the Minister explain the extraordinarily long delay? Senator GARETH EVANS —I ask Senator MacGibbon to place his question on notice. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister seen a Sun news report which details the extent of a Queensland Government surplus of receipts over expenditure to the tune of $102m which the National Party Government has failed to spend on services for the people of Queensland? Can the Minister ask his Department of Finance to investigate this hoarding of dollars to ensure that no Federal grants for vital community services remain in this category? Will this slush fund be taken into account when considering State grants at the forthcoming Premiers Conference? Senator WALSH —I have seen some references to the matter raised, but I am not familiar with all the details. I know that in the past specific purpose payments which have been made available to Queensland have not been drawn down and, just as an aside, the Queensland Government has simultaneously abused the Federal Government for not providing sufficient funds. There is certainly a record of that happening. Senator Reynolds's question goes beyond that, as I understand it. It was: Will I investigate the possibility of funds having been actually paid to Queensland for specific purposes not being used for those purposes? The answer is: Yes, I certainly will. Indeed, there is also a record of that sort of Commonwealth money having been misused by the Queensland Government in precisely that way; although to be fair one should say not, to my certain knowledge, to the extent of $102m or anything like that. I certainly will investigate that further. I would not be at all surprised if tens of millions of dollars, if not $100m, of Commonwealth payments made to Queensland have been misused-effectively misappropriated-in the way that Senator Reynolds suggests. I will do everything I can to track it down, although I dare say that if I were successful in doing so the National Party toadies in the Senate would probably try to prevent me from giving the Senate the details of it. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Finance, follows his answer showing his detailed knowledge of Commonwealth grants to Queensland and their expenditure or otherwise by the Queensland Government. I ask the Minister: Can he confirm the accuracy of the report that there is such a muckup in the New South Wales Department of Industrial Relations and Technology that there will be an estimated shortfall of $11.1m in spending on the community employment program and that, of the $103.6m available for Commonwealth expenditure in 1986-87 on employment programs in that Labor State, only $66.7m has been spent to date? Can the Minister confirm that the community employment program secretariat has such an abundance of funds that it has placed advertisements throughout Australia advising of their availability and inviting urgent applications with a closing date of 24 April? In view of this evident failure of the New South Wales Labor Government to expend these Commonwealth funds, will the Minister show the same expert knowledge about the position and will he assure the Senate that he will ensure that these moneys are not wasted in an end of year flurry of expenditure? Senator WALSH —I note for the record that yet again the greatest National Party toady in the Senate, Senator Chaney, is attempting to protect the Queensland Government from the exposure of its financial misdemeanours. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, I ask you to withdraw that statement. Senator WALSH —I withdraw the word `toady'. The greatest defender of the National Party that the Liberal Party has-that is, Senator Chaney-yet again is attempting to use his position as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to protect the Queensland Government from the exposure of its financial misdemeanours. Those who have watched Senator Chaney and the Liberal Party in general over recent months in particular will not be surprised that the Liberal Party and its leaders have adopted that role. Senator Chaney —On a point of order: The Minister is clearly debating the question; he is clearly not addressing himself to the question. He was asked a perfectly straightforward question about matters of which he seems to have the most expert and detailed knowledge with respect to Queensland and an abysmal ignorance with respect to any Labor State. He has refused to follow up allegations of the most peculiar activities of the State Government of Western Australia with respect to the Fremantle Gas and Coke Co. We now find that, as usual, he takes refuge in personal abuse and vilification when he is asked a question about the activities of a Labor Government. Mr President, I ask you to bring this parliamentary hypocrisy to an end. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walsh to direct himself to the specific question that was asked by Senator Chaney, not the previous question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I resent being called a hypocrite by the greatest hypocrite that the Senate now has. I do not seek refuge in the Standing Orders; I can take it as well as give it, unlike some of the hypocrites sitting across the aisle. Queensland has a very long history of misuse of Commonwealth funds. It goes back at least a decade. I know there have been allegations about New South Wales. I have seen a report in the Press. I believe I saw a subsequent Press report which answered, at least substantially, the allegations that have been made. I do not have any formal advice from Mr Willis who, of course, is the Minister responsible for the community employment program. I will seek that advice. In response to Senator Chaney's totally gratuitous and hypocritical reference to the Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd I point out that no Commonwealth funds were involved. Senator WEST —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It relates to the setting up of home help programs for veterans in New South Wales. I am informed that a veterans home help service is available in other States. Can the Minister provide us with information about the provision of a veterans home help service in New South Wales? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate would be aware that under the community employment program a pilot home help scheme for elderly veterans was conducted by my Department with the stated objective of maintaining veterans in their own home environment and therefore preventing their becoming patients of an institution earlier than necessary. It was a very successful pilot scheme and showed that it should become a permanent feature of my Department. However, in order to do that it was essential that we begin negotiations with State governments which had a similar community home help scheme operating. As we wanted to extend it from the metropolitan area to all veterans wherever they lived, negotiations were commenced with all the State governments with a view to rationalising the services and the Commonwealth purchasing services from the State authority. Unfortunately, changes did not take place as quickly as we would have liked in New South Wales and agreements were reached with all other States but New South Wales. However, I have had a recent communication with the New South Wales Minister concerned, Mr Aquilina. The first discussions at an officer level have taken place with a view to the State participating in the scheme with the Commonwealth, of course, providing the necessary funds. I can assure Senator West that the delay that has taken place has not been the result of any lack of concern at the Commonwealth level; difficulties of reorganisation are taking place in New South Wales. However, those difficulties have been ironed out and the Minister has given us an assurance that very shortly there will be in operation a scheme which has already been satisfactorily transferred to States with Commonwealth funding back-up, to such an extent that persons wherever they live will be able to have assistance from the home help scheme. Senator MACKLIN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that the European Parliament has called for member states of the European Economic Community to ban the irradiation of foodstuffs? Is the Minister also aware that the British Medical Association's Board of Science has called for a full-scale international study of the risks of food irradiation before the ban is introduced into the United Kingdom? Does the Minister agree with Sir Arnold Burgen, the leader of the Board of Science team of the British Medical Association, that a full-scale study must include those countries where irradiation is used extensively-in particular, Holland? Will the Government seek to co-operate with other countries to make sure that what Dr John Dawson, head of the British Medical Association's science division, has called clear adverse effects of food irradiation are identified prior to any decision being made with regard to food irradiation in Australia? Senator TATE —I am not personally aware, nor do I have anything in the brief to indicate that the Minister for Health is aware, of the resolutions emanating from the European Parliament nor resolutions coming from the United Kingdom Board of Science of the British Medical Association and the further elaboration from its Chairman, which Senator Macklin quoted to the Senate. Of course, in saying that I do not suggest in any way that the information conveyed to the Senate in Senator Macklin's question is inaccurate. However, I am not able to base an answer to the question on any assurance that those resolutions have been passed. Insofar as Senator Macklin suggests that this is a matter for more than one nation state to consider, I would agree. Such studies as are undertaken between nations in regard to this problem of food irradiation obviously ought to be taken into account before any final decision is taken within the Australian community in relation to this important matter. Senator Macklin will be aware not only that the Australian Consumers Association has undertaken an inquiry into this topic but also that a committee of the House of Representatives-I think it is the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation-is undertaking such an examination. As I understand it, Dr Blewett has been in contact with his State counterpart Ministers for health asking them to defer any action on food irradiation regulations pending the outcome of those inquiries. The first meeting of the National Food Standards Council in April will have all existing National Health and Medical Research Council food standards on its agenda. I understand that Dr Blewett intends asking for consideration of the food irradiation standard to be held over to a later meeting. Uniform adoption by this Council of a food standard requires the unanimous support of all Ministers present, as the honourable senator is no doubt aware. Several State Ministers have already indicated to Dr Blewett that they support his call for deferring any action on food irradiation regulations. So the Senate, and Senator Macklin in particular, can be assured that there will not be any premature or hasty action initiated, or participated in, by this Government. As with other matters where other State Ministers for health are concerned, collaboration and co-operation will be undertaken in the first instance. Senator BLACK —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence seen recent media reports relating to the discovery of unexploded ammunition on a residential sub-division at Sunshine Beach in Queensland? Are land developers obliged to inform home or land buyers of the fact that this sub-division and others are located on former World War II firing ranges? Can the Federal Government enforce a temporary halt to development in the area until the land is safety checked and prospective home or land buyers are made aware of the possible existence of live ammunition? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of recent reports that a 250-pound bomb was unearthed at a depth of one metre by the owner of the land in question whilst digging on his property. In accordance with normal practice, an Army demolition team established that the bomb was safe and it was taken to a quarry outside Noosa and there detonated. The area was the site of two major firing ranges at Caloundra, between 1939 and 1945, and Noosa between 1939 and 1959. The existence of the ranges was known to the Queensland Government and local government authorities. Nonetheless, they decided with that knowledge of the existence of the ranges, to offer the properties for urban development. Reducing possible unexploded ordnance hazards to levels consistent with such development is, it will be appreciated, a responsibility well beyond that of the Federal Government. It would be surprising, though, if land developers were unaware of the possible existence of unexploded ordnance at the time the land was zoned for urban purposes. It is doubtful whether the Federal Government has the authority to enforce a halt to development. The problem goes beyond that in the sense that it is virtually impossible to provide a guarantee that all ammunition in the area of the former ranges is cleared. Recently the Auditor-General reported his concern that the Department of Defence needed to take a closer look at the number of former weapons ranges throughout Australia and the Government is examining that report at the moment. I assure the Senate on behalf of the Minister for Defence that he continues to guarantee that all unexploded ordnance which is reported will be dealt with by expert service personnel in an expeditious and appropriate manner. One wishes that the Queensland Government had demonstrated a similar sense of responsibility in this matter. Senator NEWMAN —I ask the Minister for Education: What is the estimated cost to the Government of the $250 tertiary education administration fees being paid by the Government for Australian Capital Territory teachers attending courses? How many Australian Capital Territory teachers are receiving this benefit from the Government and how many of them are at the same time in receipt of wages? Why is the Government paying these fees in view of the Minister's comments in this place on the ability to pay of public servants and others in the work place? On what principle is the Government paying these fees? Has it any intention of expanding payment to other Commonwealth employees? Will the Government also pay the fees for those nurses throughout Australia who are struggling part time to obtain tertiary qualifications in a profession which is moving to become totally tertiary educated? Senator RYAN —I would be very interested to know where Senator Newman came by this information-or alleged information-on which she has based her question, because the people who are exempted from administration charge payments are a series of welfare beneficiaries amongst whom people in employment could not be included by definition. The students who have their $250 paid for them are students in receipt of Austudy, and the only students in receipt of Austudy are full time students who meet the family income test. So there is no way that anybody employed as a teacher would be in receipt of Austudy, nor would such a person be exempted from the charge because such a person is not a beneficiary. So, under the policy as it exists, it is not possible for someone employed as a teacher to be having the $250 charge paid through my Department through Austudy. So I would be very interested to hear the basis on which Senator Newman has formed this point of view. She might like to make material available to my office. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether the Government is aware of proposals to alter the statute of limitations for the collection of taxes so that it would apply from when a tax liability was first incurred rather than from when the tax liability was finally determined. What would be the advantages of such a proposal, and will the Government move to alter the statute in regard to the collection of taxes in this way? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question is an unequivocal no. The answer to the first part of the question, which asked whether the Government was aware of these proposals and so on, is yes. I am aware of them and I am sure the Treasurer is, and probably a number of other people are. The proposals have been floated recently to reverse the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Act which was passed by the Parliament last year. Those proposals emerged from the National Party of Australia Federal Council meeting held last weekend, at which a Queensland delegate who was given the job of moving the motion pleaded blissful ignorance as to what the proposals meant or what their implications were. The motion was suitably couched in these somewhat vague terms: that this Council requests our Party on regaining office to immediately reinstate the statute of limitations in relation to taxation. That seemed fairly innocuous, or at least sufficiently vague to be meaningless to most people. But it is far from meaningless. It arises in fact out of a decision given by the Queensland Supreme Court last year in which it ruled in a way that it had never been expected any Supreme Court would rule; that is, that a statute of limitations applied to action by the Taxation Commissioner to recover taxation liabilities. The fact that such a motion was moved is evidence that the Queensland Branch of the National Party-or the cheats and criminals for whom the Queensland National Party operates-are still smarting from that action of the Government last year. Not to have so acted, would have led to gains by an assortment of paper scheme tax avoiders, whose schemes had been disallowed by the Commissioner in the late 1970s, and allowed them to have pocketed some $900m or thereabouts in taxation liability, because the Queensland Supreme Court ruling that the statute of limitations applied to these people as action actually to recover the debt, as distinct from issuing an assessment, had not been taken within, I think, a five or seven-year period. So, had that perverse decision of the Queensland Supreme Court been allowed to stand, the honest taxpayers of Australia would have been deprived of $900m of revenue which would have accrued instead to the people who devised and used shonky paper tax avoidance schemes in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. It is worth noting that when the Government introduced the legislation to overturn that decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland and to make these tax cheats pay the $900m which was due, that legislation was opposed by every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the National Party-the former, no doubt, acting under instructions from the latter. In other words, as Mr Howard says, the policies of the Liberal Party and the policies of the National Party are the same. The only thing that should be added is that the policies are dictated to the Liberal Party by the National Party. The only other aspect of this question that I want to pursue is the call that I made to the Leader of the Opposition on 4 December last year to seek an assurance from all members of the parliamentary Liberal and National parties that none of them would have been a personal beneficiary of the attempt to reject the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Act of 1986, had that attempt succeeded. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, concerns the impact of the $250 administration fee on the enrolment of part time students at tertiary institutions and relates to her claim, repeated as recently as yesterday in an interview on the steps of Parliament House, that the fee is helping the Government provide extra places in tertiary institutions. Is it a fact that grants to tertiary institutions are made on the basis of an estimate from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and that in March the grants are adjusted on the basis of actual enrolment figures? As this is the last day of March, does the Minister now have accurate information on full and part time enrolments in universities and colleges of advanced education? If so, will she make this available to the Senate? If not, would the Minister please explain why not? Senator RYAN —Let me say at the outset that, whatever the effect of the $250 administration charge on full time or part time students might be, it is nothing compared to the effect on all students throughout Australia if the party to which Senator Bjelke-Petersen belongs ever influenced government policy, because there have already been statements from the Premier of Queensland-a prime ministerial aspirant who we expect would have the support of Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen-that he would abolish the Commonwealth Department of Education and the commissions that are administered by it, so that all of the costs of higher education in Queensland, for example, would be borne either by the State Budget of Queensland or, what is more likely, by the citizens of Queensland. So let us start with a realistic appreciation of what the National Party of Australia, or that part of the National Party led by the Premier of Queensland, would do if ever it got the chance to influence Commonwealth policy-which, of course, as we all know, fortunately, will not happen. With regard to the impact of the $250 charge on particular groups, I have already explained to the Senate that the Tertiary Education Commission has set up a research project which is examining that impact in a proper methodological fashion. A monitoring committee, which includes members of parliament, representatives of the institutions and members of student bodies, will look at the results of that project and make recommendations to government about its impact so that the Government can be in a position to modify, if it should judge it necessary, the charge in relation to part time and external students. However, with regard to that part of the honourable senator's question which had to do with the way in which the CTEC grants are paid to institutions, her information is quite right. The Commission makes an assessment of the number of students who will be enrolled at a particular institution, a grant is made on that basis, and that grant is adjusted for the $250 charge. At the end of March, when enrolments are finalised, it can make adjustments if it has underpaid or overpaid an institution. That is the procedure by which CTEC manages the business of giving to the institutions the appropriate level of grant. However, the full effect of the charge on individual institutions and on institutions nationally is not known at this point because, although enrolment figures are known, what is not known, or will not be known properly until we get the results of the research project, is whether those enrolment figures cover the same composition of students or whether there is a different composition. For example, there seems to be a trend to shift from part time to full time enrolments. Simply knowing the gross number of full time and part time enrolments will not of itself tell us anything about that shift or the reasons for it. Although Senator Bjelke-Petersen is right in her description of how CTEC calculates the appropriate level of grant to an institution, the effect, if any, on the participation of particular groups since the introduction of the administration charge will only be known at the time when the research project is complete. When we have that information, I shall be happy to share it with the Senate. Senator FOREMAN —Is the Special Minister of State able to report further on the Australian Federal Police investigations into the complaint made by Mr Kennett on the recording of his car phone conversation with Andrew Peacock? Senator TATE —As honourable senators will be aware, at 5.30 on 23 March a letter from Mr Kennett to the Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner, Southern Command, was delivered to AFP headquarters in Melbourne. In that letter Mr Kennett made several points, but amongst them he lodged a formal complaint in relation to the apparent-and I emphasise, as he no doubt did, the word `apparent'-interception of his private telephone conversation and requested an investigation into this matter and the prosecution of any person who appears to have committed an offence. As a result of that complaint having been received, naturally the AFP has undertaken certain investigations. In particular the AFP has interviewed Mr Rene Kalwet of the People for Equality not Institutionalisation. A search of his home resulted in the seizure of a radio scanner and a tape recorder. A copy of a tape recording has also been obtained, though I believe not in the home of Mr Kalwet. Pending examination of the tape so that it can be established that it is what it purports to be, the AFP anticipates providing a brief of evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions later this week. I emphasise that in the course of my answer I said that a copy of a tape recording has also been obtained. Those members of this chamber who perhaps participated in an earlier inquiry relating to tapes and their authenticity will know how difficult it is to authenticate copies of tape recordings. I would say that great caution needs to be exercised by any member of parliament who wishes to go public on his assessment as to whether the tape or copy of the tape recording used by a radio station is indeed authentic. Telecom has advised the AFP that it is technically feasible to record a car phone conversation through the scanner seized by the AFP at the home of Mr Kalwet, but whether this was in fact done in this instance is a matter still to be determined. I have great confidence in the ability of the AFP and its technical backup to make a determination, which will then be put to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP quite independently will make a decision using the evidence forwarded by the AFP and any admissions that may have been made as to whether a prosecution should be launched. The DPP will decide what charges should be laid presumably in relation to an alleged offence under section 7 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, but he will do so in accordance with the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth, which is a public document. I emphasise that the decision to prosecute will be his, and certainly not mine or that of the AFP. Senator VANSTONE —My question is to the Minister for Education. Is it a fact that the maximum personal income permitted before Austudy benefit entitlements decrease remains at $2,000 a year, the figure it was in 1983. Since average weekly earnings have risen by 32 per cent since March 1983, does the Minister agree that failure to increase the cut-off point on the personal income test means a contraction of eligibility and access? Will the Minister inform the House why the personal income test was not increased this year when other Austudy income test levels, namely the parental and spouse levels, were raised by 5 per cent? Does the Minister agree that this has contributed to an erosion of the real value of benefits, especially to those seeking independent status for Austudy? Senator RYAN —The facts about the level of personal income allowable before there is some loss of Austudy benefits as set out in Senator Vanstone's question are correct. However, I remind Senator Vanstone that, when the Government is working out the way in which it can assist students, it has to balance a number of things. One of the very important decisions which the Government took a couple of years ago and which it is now implementing is the increase in the level of Austudy benefits. So while it is the case that the level of personal income allowable before Austudy benefits would be lost has not been increased in recent years, the actual level of benefit itself has been increased-quite significantly for some categories of students. Also, the family income test, which affects the majority of students in receipt of income, has been liberalised and expanded in its effect in a number of ways. All in all, although there has been no liberalisation of the personal incomes test, there has been a net benefit in the level of Austudy for those students who receive it. Senator GILES —I refer the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women to last week's announcement by the Minister for Social Security of the Government's strategy for child support reforms. What significance will the proposed child support scheme have for women? Senator RYAN —I think that there has been general community endorsement of the Government's proposed child maintenance and collection agency proposals. One of the things that the Government hopes to achieve by moving to a formula based on equitable and obligatory payments of child support by those non-custodial parents who can afford to pay such support is an improvement in the standard of living of families where one parent has left. As we know and as we are reminded many times in this chamber, the number of families living below the poverty line has increased dramatically in recent years and the main reason for that is the large number of women who are supporting children and who are forced to live on the pension. It is now becoming a matter of public knowledge-and it ought to be-that only about 30 per cent of non-custodial parents in Australia pay child support. In other words, at present 70 per cent of non-custodial parents do not pay child support and many of those are in a position to do so. This failure on the part of non-custodial parents to support their children is one of the reasons why there has been an increasing number of women alone with children living in poverty. Our Government hopes that, by introducing a fair, equitable and compulsory form of maintenance payments and by making that maintenance collectable through a maintenance agency, the main beneficiaries will be the children and women who are currently living below the poverty line on pensions. Senator SHEIL —My question is addressed to you, Mr President, and it concerns the letter you circulated to senators last week expressing concern about payment of Commonwealth Parliament Refreshment Rooms accounts. In view of the fact that the Joint House Department has also sent round circulars about payment arrangements, would it be possible for you to table in the Senate, after one month's grace from today, the names of those members and senators, present and past, whose accounts are outstanding, with the amount owing and the duration? The President —The Speaker and I are examining the situation at the moment. Some steps have been taken which have been reasonably successful. We are looking at a number of measures and I hope to be able to make a statement here very shortly. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to Senator Button, both in his capacity as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and as Minister representing the Minister for Science. Has his attention been drawn to an article in today's Australian Financial Review entitled `Government in dilemma over direction of research funds' which refers to the results of a study into business enterprise research by the Department of Science? I ask whether the Government is in a dilemma over where to direct funds for research if, as the article states: . . . the findings raise the question of whether government research assistance should be much more aimed towards the high technology industries, where need is greatest, rather than broadly spread across all manufacturing industries. Senator BUTTON —The article has been drawn to my attention, although I have not studied it in detail. It makes two points which are not unfamiliar in respect of research and development expenditure. There are perhaps two answers to be given in respect of the way the Commonwealth Government now funds research and development in this country. The first and major method of financing research and development is by a 150 per cent tax incentive for investment in research and development in the private sector. That is essentially market led in the sense that the companies which are eligible for that incentive, having to put up the money themselves, will determine where the research and development, in their own best interests, is best done. I think that is entirely appropriate. The Commonwealth should not in general be indicating research and development priorities to a whole range of businesses, telling them what we as a government think they ought to be doing. That should be a matter which is very much determined by conditions in the market-place. The second element of Commonwealth research and development assistance is the grants for industrial research and development scheme. It is under that scheme that the Government has indicated some areas of priority. Under the grants for industrial research and development scheme, certain areas have been designated as generic technologies, as we call them-biotechnology, new materials, technology associated with computers and the communications industry. We have asked the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board to give some priority in those areas. I should also make it clear that, apart from the two schemes I have mentioned, there are a number of other assistance measures for high technology industries, such as the manufacturing investment companies scheme, which provides venture capital for companies involved in those sorts of industries; and industry assistance measures for the space industry and the communications equipment industry-things such as bounties for high technology machine tools and government procurement. There is also a high technology exporters scheme, operated by the Department of Trade. Looking at the whole package, if there is a bias at all in research and development funding and associated funding, it is in favour of high technology industries, but we do not believe that one can necessarily be directive about these things. All sorts of technologies might relate to processing, as distinct from products, which is very important to a whole range of industries, as the honourable senator, as a former printer, will know. Senator ALSTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Is it a fact that official figures released yesterday show that full time adult ordinary time earnings for men working in the private sector rose by 12.1 per cent in the 15 months between August 1985 and November 1986, compared with public sector wage increases of 7.7 per cent? Is it also a fact that in the same period women's wages rose by 11.7 per cent in the private sector and 8 per cent in the public sector? Does the size of the gap suggest a certain blowout in the Budget forecast for 1986-87, which is largely the result of a private sector wages drift? In light of these figures which suggest wage increases far in excess of productivity gains, and the threats by significant left wing unions attending tomorrow's national trade union conference to reject the new two-tiered wages system together with in terrorem stoppages in the metals and building industries, can the Government explain how it expects its permissive wages policy, a policy of drift, to make the economy more competitive? Senator WALSH —I welcome this concern on the part of the Opposition about wages growth and the effects of excessive wages growth on macroeconomic outcomes. I therefore expect, before the day is out, that the Leader of the Opposition, along with Senator Alston, will denounce the doctors union of the Australian Capital Territory-the greedy doctors union-for its attempt to get a $425 a week pay increase for a part time job. The members of the doctors union in this Territory spend about one-quarter of their time treating Medicare patients in public hospitals, and they are paid an average of $22,000 a year for that. Senator Archer —What has this got to do with the question? Senator WALSH —Well, honourable senators opposite are concerned about wages growth. The doctors union has been offered an increase of 21 per cent for these services that it performs, but it is demanding an increase of 85 per cent which, per doctor on average, works out at a pay increase of $425 a week for a part time job in which those doctors spend about one-quarter of their working time. This Government has been quite consistent. Mr Willis denounced the claim of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia some time ago for an increase of $70-odd a week and the Government is vigorously opposing the other building unions which are attempting to secure, outside national wage case decisions, a $52 a week wage increase. Both of these pale into insignificance beside the outrageous attempt by this greedy doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory to get a $425 a week pay increase for a part time job. I note the selective indignation and concern of the Opposition, which is very concerned about what the Government regards as excessive wage claims. We share that concern with the Opposition. We regard the claim by the building workers as an excessive claim, and it is being opposed vigorously by the Government for that reason. However, we wish that the Opposition would come on board with us in opposing the Australian Capital Territory branch of the doctors union in its attempt to get a $425 a week wage increase for a part time job, in the full knowledge, and indeed backed by the explicit statement of Dr McNicol, that the intention is to have that outcome, should the doctors secure it, spread throughout the country. In other words this is a try on by the Australian Capital Territory branch of the doctors union on behalf of all the other members of the greedy doctors union in Australia. This is the test case. If this greedy Australian Capital Territory branch of the doctors union were to get away with this outrageous claim, we have it on the word of Dr McNicol that the intention is that it flows on throughout Australia. What moral authority would anybody who allowed that to happen and who sanctioned it have to condemn the plumbers union or the building workers who are trying to get $50 and $70 a week wage increases for a full time job, as against the doctors union's greedy and outrageous claim for a $425 a week wage increase for a part time job? As to the actual statistics that were quoted by Senator Alston, I think they are probably right, but they need to be treated with a number of qualifications. It is not unusual for such statistics to be subsequently revised. The time period in question encompasses a period when there was a significant cashing out of fringe benefits, which does not increase wages cost but does increase the recorded wages paid. As an aside I think it should be noted that, in spite of that apparent significant cashing out of fringe benefits, the fringe benefit tax revenue collected as such is likely to exceed the Budget forecast. This means that the incidence of fringe benefits and the haemorrhaging it was inflicting upon the income tax base were substantially greater than had been anticipated, and therefore the cost of repealing the fringe benefits tax, which the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party are committed to do, would be much greater than the earlier estimates have suggested. Finally, those statistics quoted make no allowances for compositional changes in the work force. Senator ALSTON —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister whether that is a plea of guilty to a certain Budget blowout and whether, in the event that the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber is prepared to reiterate our disapproval of the doctors ambit claim, the Minister will equally deplore the behaviour of the metals unions and the building unions in the context of tomorrow's national union conference. Senator WALSH —The Government is opposed to the action that is being taken by those unions. The Government's policy is to support the decision made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the national wage case about one month ago. Mr Willis, a number of other people and I have explicitly denounced he claims by the plumbers and gasfitters and the building workers unions because we believe they threaten the national interest. As to the reference to a Budget blowout, it means no such thing. It means that this Government has adopted the practice-it is the practice of the Commonwealth bureaucracy in my experience, if it is left alone-of adopting conservative valuations of policy changes, by which I mean adopting a conservative estimate of the increased revenue which would flow from a changed taxation policy and, likewise, conservative estimates of the expenditure savings which accrue to a changed policy on the outlays side. It has been the practice of this Government to accept the conservative estimates of the bureaucracy about things like that. As we know, it has not been the custom of previous Liberal Party Treasurers to accept those conservative estimates. If previous Liberal Party Treasurers have seen a need to cook the books for an election Budget, they have had no hesitation in doing so, as a result of which outlays in every year when John Howard was Treasurer were in excess of the Budget estimates. This Government does not present shonky figures in the way that previous Liberal Party Treasurers have been wont to do. We present the honest but usually, I believe, conservative estimates made by public servants, particularly as a consequence of policy changes. Finally, to return to the wages question, I repeat the invitation, particularly to Senator Alston and his Leader, to denounce the doctors union for its greedy, outrageous attempt to get a $425 a week pay increase for a part time job and to show the commensurate degree of indignation in response to that outrageous claim that they show in response to claims by other unions for $50 and $70 a week pay increases for full time jobs. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, who has had a pretty light time so far today. Can the Minister provide the Parliament with a copy of a defence facilities plan which takes into account the disposition and location of naval facilities in Australia and which accommodates the moves forward of naval defence into the twenty-first century, as intimated by both the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the Defence White Paper? Where are the detailed and published plans which indicate exactly what facilities will need to be moved from Sydney in order to accomplish the relocation of major elements of the fleet, firstly, to Cockburn Sound and, secondly, possibly to Jervis Bay or some other location in south-eastern Australia? Finally, can the Minister provide an independent and objectively prepared report on the suitability of locations on the Australian coastline for naval facilities? Does such a document prove that there is no feasible alternative for locating facilities on the south-eastern Australian coastline other than Jervis Bay? Senator GARETH EVANS —The basis for major changes to the disposition of the fleet and location of naval facilities is contained in the fleet base relocation study report which was tabled, together with the statement of the Minister for Defence relating to it, on 25 February this year. The essential changes are: Development of HMAS Stirling to take half the fleet and commencement of planning for relocation of the other half from Sydney. Relocation of individual fleet units and timing are matters that are still under consideration. Implementation would take place progressively. Facilities to be moved from Sydney to accomplish relocation of major elements of the fleet are the naval fleet bases, HMAS Platypus and HMAS Waterhen. These were indicated in the joint statement of the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales of 17 November 1985. A mine countermeasures capability will be maintained in Sydney Harbour. The Minister for Defence indicated in his statement tabling the fleet base relocation study report that Jervis Bay has been clearly established by defence examination as the most suitable alternative base in the east for the fleet. Under the procedures of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, Defence will, of course, be required to justify that position. There is no suggestion that Jervis Bay is the only feasible alternative on the east coast but other locations have substantial problems and costs and in some cases also raise major environmental issues. Senator KILGARIFF —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer, firstly, to the fact that small business provides about 45 per cent of Australia's jobs and, secondly, to the 2level of bankruptcies during 1985-86 in which period 6,408 businesses went bankrupt. I also draw the Minister's attention to the 35.6 per cent increase in the level of bankruptcies in the first six months of the 1986-87 year. Does the Minister accept that if this trend continues 8,000 predominantly small businesses are likely to go to the wall in 1986-87? Can the Minister say what impact this level of bankruptcies will have upon Australian workers and specifically how many people can expect to become unemployed this year due to their employers businesses folding under the weight of the Federal Government's high cost, hurtful small business policies? Senator WALSH —It is ironic or appropriate-I am not sure which; it depends on which side one sits-that Senator Kilgariff should raise the question of small business today because this afternoon, I believe, and if not this afternoon then certainly this week, the Treasurer will be introducing into the House of Representatives taxation legislation regarding imputation; that is, the removal of double taxation of company profits. A very large number of small businesses, of course, are proprietary companies. Right up until now, proprietary companies have been subject to double taxation, first as a company and secondly as the dividends are distributed to the company shareholders. That will cease once legislation which the Treasurer is about to introduce has been passed by the Parliament. Senator Messner —What does that have to do with it? Senator WALSH —I presume that even Senator Messner will vote for this, unlike that Government legislation he voted against last year which sought to recover $900m from tax cheats who had seen an opportunity, thanks to a capricious decision by the Supreme Court of Queensland, to get away with not paying the $900m which the courts had found they were liable to pay. I think that even Senator Messner will vote for the tax imputation legislation which is about to be introduced. It will remove from all business-which is particularly important for small business because it depends generally on internally-generated funds for further investment and expansion-the impost of double taxation. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The answer is totally irrelevant to the question, which related to the number of personal bankruptcies. Quite apart from the fact that a business which is making losses does not pay tax and therefore is not affected by changes to the tax law of the sort the Minister has described, he is describing changes to company tax law which have nothing to do with individual bankruptcies. Mr President, I ask you, if we are not to have a farce in this place, to ask the Minister to address himself to the scandalous level of personal bankruptcies in this country. The PRESIDENT —I was listening to the Minister's answer. He was dealing with bankruptcies and small business. I ask the Minister to be relevant and return to Senator Kilgariff's original question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I have dealt with the alleged concern of Senator Kilgariff for small business and his assertion that small business is facing a particularly difficult time. On the question of bankruptcies, the figures that the honourable senator gave, I think, were that the number would be approaching 8,000 this year if the trend continued. If that is so, that level is approaching the level of bankruptcies when John Howard was Treasurer. If the number of bankruptcies is approaching the level that applied when John Howard was Treasurer, one would have to agree that that probably is fairly serious. The other question he raised related to the effect on employment. Senator Messner, among others who were interjecting a moment ago, asserted that the Budget forecast of employment was not so much rubbery as stretched. In other words, Senator Messner, among others, asserted that the Budget forecasts of employment growth would not be realised and accused this Government of following the custom established by previous Liberal Party Treasurers of producing shonky figures in Budget Papers. The fact is that total employment for the six months to February of 1987 increased by almost 100,000 which is in excess of the rate of growth forecast in the Budget but is about the rate of growth in employment which has applied since this Government was elected to office just over four years ago, as distinct from employment in the last year when John Howard was Treasurer when not only did employment fail to grow but it fell by 250,000 because 250,000 people lost their jobs. Senator KILGARIFF —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister understand that I am referring to personal bankruptcies in business, not company bankruptcies in business? Senator WALSH —If Senator Kilgariff was referring to sole traders, that was not clear in his question and therefore I was not aware of it. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-I do not know whether leave was required; nevertheless I thought I would take the safer course. During Question Time I raised a point of order concerning Senator MacGibbon's question which unfairly intruded into the affairs of a union in Queensland and the ballot which is taking place. The information which he gave was distorted and incorrect. Nevertheless, Mr President, you disallowed the point of order and I am not questioning that you allowed the question to flow through. However, I am concerned that the question may be rebroadcast with the point of order deleted. Senator Peter Baume —Of course it will. Senator GEORGES —If that is the case, I take a strong objection to it. The point of order taken brought into question the abuse of privilege in this place by an honourable senator asking a question which was falsely based, which impugned people and which named people. The point of order was raised in order to make that matter clear. However, if the question is rebroadcast without the point of order also being rebroadcast, the unfairness about which I am complaining will flow on. Mr President, I ask you to bear my objection in mind and if the question is to be rebroadcast my objection to the question ought also to be rebroadcast. The safest course, I suggest, Mr President, is this: If a serious point of order is raised concerning a question, that question ought not be rebroadcast at all. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I wish to speak to the matter raised. It seems to me that what should not happen in this place is that there should not be a political determination of what is included and what is not included in the broadcast. I understand that there are rules which are basically controlled by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings but which govern what is rebroadcast and what is not from Question Time. I simply respectfully suggest, Mr President, that those rules should be applied without fear or favour and without reference to a particular political viewpoint on a particular question. The PRESIDENT —In reply to Senator Georges's question, Senator Chaney is correct. However, Senator Georges, the point of order will be deleted from the rebroadcast tonight. On the second point, Senator Gareth Evans asked that the question be put on notice, and therefore both the question and point of order would have been deleted anyway. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 3.15 p.m., by order of the Senate, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women) —I table the report of the Consultations on the National Agenda for Women 1986. I seek leave to make a statement relating thereto, to incorporate the statement in Hansard and to move a motion relating to the paper. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- In November 1985, the Prime Minister made a statement in the Parliament outlining the Government's preliminary thinking on the content of a National Agenda for Women. The Government decided to develop a National Agenda to ensure that efforts made to improve the status of women during the United Nations Decade for Women, which ran from 1976 to 1985, were continued. The National Agenda will provide a basis for Government action to further the status of women as we move towards the year 2000. In the Prime Minister's statement, he put forward a number of proposals on ways in which the Government might help ensure the full and equal participation of women in Australian society. He announced some important policy initiatives, such as the introduction of affirmative action legislation to guarantee fair and equal opportunity for women in the paid work force and the development of a national women's health policy. The Prime Minister also pointed to areas where obstacles or prejudices still discourage or inhibit women from participating in society to the full, and where the Government believed that further action was warranted. At the same time, the Prime Minister invited Australian women to have a say in the development of the National Agenda for Women. I led an extensive series of consultations with women all around Australia and in all walks of life last year, with the assistance of the National Women's Consultative Council. It is with much pleasure that I today present to the Parliament a report on these consultations. Its title-Setting the Agenda-is evidence that the Government is committed to taking into account the views women in Australia have put forward in the development of the Agenda. I would first like to place on record my thanks to those women who took part in the consultations. It is estimated that more than 25,000 women participated in the process, through completing a questionnaire, taking part in meetings and conferences or making submissions themselves or on behalf of women's organisations. Substantial agreement on the importance of several issues, particularly the need for equality of opportunity, showed that many major concerns are common to a large number of women in Australia. I would now like to point to the major concerns and priorities identified during the consultations. The importance attributed to education for women and girls commonly centred on its role in providing choice about future vocations or occupations. In June last year, an interim National Policy and Plan of Action for the Education of Women and Girls was endorsed by all State and Territories, with the exception of Queensland. When finalised, the national policy will provide a focus and a framework for future action on the education of women and girls by Commonwealth and State authorities. The need for post-school transitional training to facilitate the entry of young women into the paid work force, and for retraining opportunities for women to gain new skills or to update their vocational knowledge were identified as areas requiring further attention. Issues associated with women's participation in the paid work force were mentioned in most of the submissions or reports of meetings which were received, and women responding to the questionnaire identified work-related matters as among the more important issues on the draft Agenda. These issues included the continued prevalence of occupational segregation, employment conditions such as working hours and leave provisions, and the particular difficulties faced by women who combine full time paid work with caring for a family. Now that the Affirmative Action legislation is in place, women can expect to face fewer obstacles to achieving their full potential in their working lives. As a result of this higher education institutions and the larger private sector organisations will systematically examine their employment practices to identify and remove explicit or hidden elements which can limit women's opportunities for employment or promotion. It was apparent that most women work in the home caring for their families from time to time throughout their lives, most often for periods when their children are young. The status and image of women who work full time in the home emerged as a significant area of concern. Many women felt that the value of the contribution made by them to the family and the community is not sufficiently recognised, and that they often suffer from poor self-esteem and isolation. The extent and importance of women's voluntary work in the community and in caring for the aged and disabled was also highlighted during the consultations. Not surprisingly, child care emerged as one of the most important issues for the Agenda. Women commented on the availability of child care, the variety of care available, and on the costs of care. The Government is proud of its efforts to increase substantially the availability of child care places, which have more than doubled over the last four years. But clearly much still needs to be done. Questions related to income security were a primary focus of many submissions. Common concerns related to the number of families and women who live in poverty, the question of maintenance payments, the financial position of single and dual income families with children, family allowances and the discrimination against women evident in certain superannuation arrangements. The Government is now considering the findings of the Social Security Review, which has to date focused on financial assistance to families with children, including sole parent families. Last week, the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, announced the Government's plans concerning the establishment of new arrangements for child support payments by non-custodial parents. These measures will improve the financial circumstances of many sole parent families. Violence against women and children emerged as a priority concern for women. The increased funding which the Government has provided for women's refuges since it has been in office has enabled more women to leave violent domestic situations and to go with their children to a safe place. Last year, the Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, introduced the ACT Domestic Violence Ordinance 1986 and related legislation to provide greater protection for the victims of domestic violence-who are women as well as children-in the Australian Capital Territory. Similar legislation has also been introduced in a number of the States. The way in which many advertisements continue to portray women in an unrealistic manner was highlighted, as was the still apparent tendency for women's achievements to be down-played or overlooked by the news media. A number of participants maintained that a preventive and holistic approach to women's health was a cornerstone to achieving overall improvement for women's health in their various stages of life. Much comment focused on aspects of women's reproductive health, on childbirth and on child nurturing. Other concerns included occupational health and safety and aspects of women's mental health. Access to appropriate and affordable housing was a priority concern for many women, particularly those who are sole parents, who are on low incomes or who are old. It is also a priority of this Government, which has provided an increased level of funding to enable State housing authorities to increase their stock of public housing. There was widespread recognition of the needs of groups of women who often face additional disadvantages in relation to their participation in society. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women from non-English speaking backgrounds, women with a disability, sole parents, young women, older women and women living in rural or remote areas have special needs and face additional difficulties in obtaining access to services or in participating to the full in all spheres of activity. Other issues raised included the importance of consultation and the level of women's participation in decision making in all spheres of activity. The National Agenda consultations have demonstrated the enormous contribution that women themselves can make to the development of appropriate policies and programs. Through the National Women's Consultative Council and other consultative processes, we will ensure that the effective communication channels between Government and women in the community are maintained. It is clear from this very brief summary of the concerns raised during the consultations that Australian women are looking to Government to continue and enhance its efforts to provide an environment in which their status and levels of participation can grow. The National Agenda for Women will be the foundation on which policies to realise these expectations will be planned and built up to the year 2000. When the Prime Minister made his Parliamentary statement in November 1985, he was pleased to note that the Opposition substantially agreed with the direction of the Government's thinking for future action to advance the status of women in Australia. The vote in the House of Representatives on the Equal Employment Opportunity Bill last week, however, has obviously called into doubt the Opposition's commitment in this very important area. The Liberal Party in casting off the work which its then spokesperson, Senator Peter Baume, helped to initiate, shows how the dictates of political opportunism guide its actions. It is my sincere hope however, and doubtless that of the majority of Australian women, that we can once again secure the high level of bipartisanship that the National Agenda for Women truly deserves. Work towards finalising the Agenda is well advanced, and I will be announcing it later this year. I commend the report on the consultations to the Senate. It is indeed a fair and detailed representation of the mainstream views of many thousands of our fellow citizens and as such it stands in marked contrast to the extremism which on this and other issues threatens to engulf members opposite. Senator RYAN —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.16) —The paper which has been tabled by the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) is a report on consultations on the National Agenda for Women. The statement, of course, deals with the contents of that report. The Opposition welcomes the report that has been prepared, which was initiated by the statement the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made in the Parliament in November 1985 in which he set out the Government's policy in relation to the preparation of this National Agenda for Women. When that statement was made in the Parliament in November 1985 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) made a major statement on behalf of the Opposition in relation to our policy on and attitude to the question of the status of women and the plans which the Government had in mind. I would like to quote some of the words that the Leader of the Opposition uttered in the House of Representatives on that occasion. He said: The Liberal and National parties are committed to an effective equality of status for women. We recognise the changes which have occurred and which affect the lifestyles of many women in Australia. We too share very much the goal expressed in the Prime Minister's remarks that we should desire to give greater choice to women in Australia. Indeed, the theme of those remarks, that of greater choice-which is a major feature of Liberal-National Party philosophy and policies which are being developed in all areas of government-has a very special application in relation to the women of Australia. The report on the consultations on the National Agenda for Women which has been tabled today shows the value of the work which has been done by those who have been engaged in conducting these consultations. I particularly congratulate the convenor of those groups that conducted these consultations because, as the statement that the Minister has tabled indicates, there has been agreement on the importance of a number of issues which have emerged from these consultations. As the Leader of the Opposition said so clearly in November 1985-remarks which I reaffirm on behalf of the Opposition-the Liberal-National parties have in government, as well as in opposition, a very proud record in regard to the question of the status of women in Australia. Although this is certainly not recognised by the Minister in this statement, I think it is worth reminding honourable senators that in fact it was the coalition Government which in 1976 established the Office of Child Care. It was that same Government which in 1976 introduced the family allowance, recognising for the first time in Australia in clear terms the importance of a separate income for women even though they were not in the work force. It provided a direct payment to women. I think the significance of the family allowance is that it is an outstanding example of the very important transfer of independence, from a tax deduction for the wage earner-in most cases the husband-to the hands of the wife and mother in the family situation. That fundamental feature of the family allowance is still of the greatest importance to a large number of women in Australia, even though there has been in the last decade a great increase in the number of women in the work force. One important matter that has been identified by these consultations and which is set out in this statement is the need to recognise the extent and importance of women who work full time in the home. Senator Ryan's statement acknowledges that this emerged as a significant area of concern for Australian women. It also acknowledged the extent and importance of women's voluntary work in the community and in caring for the aged and disabled. That was another feature which was highlighted in these consultations. The report also sets out some of the other major concerns and priorities which were identified throughout these consultations. The first that was acknowledged and identified was the importance attributed to education for women and girls. That was seen as vitally important in providing choice in regard to their future-the choice either to enter the work force full time or enter it for a period before embarking upon marriage and a family and, very likely, returning to the work force at a later stage. That part of the report noted the importance of post-school transitional training to facilitate that entry into the work force. Of course, that is not unique to women by any means, but the acquiring of technical skills and their right to those technical skills-the same right of any person in the community-is still of great significance to them. The statement also noted the importance of retraining opportunities for women. This, of course, is no doubt of general importance as well, but is of very special importance to women who have left the work force for a period when their families are young and who want to return to the work force at a later stage. Women may want to acquire new skills, or those with professional skills may want to bring those skills up to date to enable them to go back to their professional work. That is not surprising to the Opposition. Indeed, it is clearly in line with our whole approach to education, our education policies and, particularly, the great importance that we attach in our policies to the availability of choice of education and educational opportunities. We are certainly in a very strong position, in regard to our education policies, to meet that major concern which has been identified by women throughout these consultations. The statement also noted concern about the continued prevalence of occupational segregation and employment conditions in general-matters such as working hours, no doubt the length of working hours, the actual arrangement of working hours, and leave provisions. These are, of course, all matters of particular difficulty for women, who have a particular need for part time work, a need for flexibility in the hours they work and, indeed, in the days that they work. These again are matters which the Opposition fully appreciates, and has acknowledged in our industrial relations policy. A central element of that policy is the making of voluntary agreements so that people will not be hidebound with the sort of rigid working times, hours, days and so on which are a feature of the excessively bureaucratic awards of our arbitration system and which in many cases are quite unsuited, particularly to women in employment. In our policies they will be given a very much greater opportunity to meet these obvious concerns they have about the nature of employment conditions, hours of work and so on. The vital importance to so many women of part time work is another matter which is acknowledged in our policy and which will be included in the industrial relations system on our return to government. There are many other matters, and I do not propose to go through all of them, but in selecting these concerns at random, as I am, it is quite noticeable how many of the concerns of women expressed in these consultations are not the concerns of the strident feminists which the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, and numbers of other Labor senators in this place seem to emphasise. They are the real concerns of Australian women. Certainly the value of these consultations has been to reveal how very wide are the concerns of women, and they are not just the concerns of the strident feminist that we hear so much about from those on the other side of the chamber. Another matter of concern which particularly interests me is that which has identified the numbers of women who are living in poverty, simply because they are single parents who have to rely on supporting parents benefits and with inadequate maintenance payments. This is also a problem in two-parent families where there is only a single income and when that income is low. We on this side of the chamber have been emphasising for some years the importance of adequate means of assessing maintenance, ensuring that proper maintenance is assessed and paid and is collected and received by the custodial parent. We know that the Government has only just made a new-found recognition of this. I can remember moving in this chamber amendments to the Family Law Act in 1983, 3 1/2 years ago. I sought to amend that Act in order to improve the position of single parents, mainly women, who are not receiving inadequate maintenance because they have been shoved on to the taxpayer by the deliberate policy of Labor governments, particularly as a result of the philosophy of the late Senator Murphy with his Family Law Act which transferred that responsibility from the non-custodial parent to the state. Every one of the Labor senators who were here in 1983 voted against my amendment. I introduced a Bill at the end of 1985 to do the same job probably in a slightly more detailed way, and 12 months ago Senator Gareth Evans-who is now wandering in and out; we do not know where he is or he does not know where he is, as usual-told us that the Government opposed that Bill. Last week, the day after the Government found its new philosophy that there was a problem of single parent women in poverty, the Bill was brought on again for debate in this chamber, and they got up one after another to talk it out to avoid voting on it again. What a sorry record. What a sorry record the Labor women senators have had on this matter, in company with their male colleagues. This statement that has been put down, this report of the consultations on the National Agenda for Women, is of great interest to the Opposition because it reveals clearly that the vast majority of women in Australia have the same concerns as we have and they want policies addressed to those concerns-policies which are far more in line with the thinking of the Opposition than with that of the Government, despite all the protestations and all the talk by Senator Ryan and others. I have spoken already about some of the real achievements of the Opposition when in government in relation to these matters. I wish to indicate that as far as the recognised status of women by political parties is concerned, it was a coalition government which first appointed a woman in Dame Enid Lyons to a Federal ministry. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who unfortunately does not seem to be with us this afternoon, was the first woman given a Cabinet portfolio. Her distinction is well known and recognised as Minister for Social Security and then as Minister for Finance. She was the first woman appointed to such a position and that appointment was made by a coalition government. The Liberal Party has always recognised and encouraged women to take high office in the Party. Several state presidents of the Liberal Party have been women. The present Victorian State president is a woman. We have a very live understanding and recognition of the importance of the status of women, not that they should be in the home, as Labor senators would like to have people believe, but that they should have a full role in the community, whether it be on a voluntary basis or on the highest professional basis. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle came into this latter category as the first woman Cabinet Minister in Australia. Many other women on our side of politics will achieve status of that kind and, I venture to suggest, far earlier than women on the Labor benches. There are probably no more conservative, anti-feminist groups in this community than the unions of Australia. That is why all these awards that I have talked about are being tailored for men and not for women. The women want flexibility in employment and they will get it under the policies of the Opposition when it is returned to government. This is a valuable report because it tells us in the clearest terms, perhaps for the first time, what the women of Australia really need. Certainly, their needs and aspirations will be very well met by the policies of the Opposition. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.34) —I must say that I find it rather extraordinary, not to say a trifle pathetic, to listen to Senator Durack trying to regain some of the ground that was lost by the Liberal Party of Australia last week in the deplorable display that it turned on in relation to the Government's equal opportunities legislation when it preferred to kow-tow to the multi-untalented members of the National Party of Australia rather than put into effect its avowed support for the women of Australia. The extraordinary performance put on by Senator Durack today was an attempt to paper over the gaping cracks that occurred in the credibility of the Liberal Party in the eyes of most women in Australia. Senator Durack's definition of a strident feminist as someone who does not seem to support anything that is in this report is rather odd. I would have thought that most of us in this place would classify ourselves as feminists and I certainly do, although Senator Durack left me out of his list. For many years now, we have been arguing for equality of opportunity in the work force, for equal treatment under the law, and for attention to be paid to the needs of women in a wide range of areas, and this report simply articulates those same views that have been argued by us for a long time. The special importance of this document is that it actually quotes, as well as reflects, the concerns and aspirations of Australian women from a very wide range of age groups, ethnic groups, occupational areas and educational backgrounds. I suggest that their views are at least as important to governments-or should be-as those of any other group in the community. Indeed, I suggest that they are probably more important than the views of most groups that governments have a tendency to listen to because they reflect far more the real problems of society, the grass roots problems that affect Australian families at all income levels, in all social groups and in all ethnic groups. Women are a very important, constantly overlooked and frequently underrated element in Australia's social and economic well-being. To have in front of us the comments of ordinary women with the same sorts of aspirations that many of us have and have argued for, is particularly pertinent, very relevant and long overdue. This document should be regarded as a valuable tool for government in the coming months and years. In the main the women whose views are expressed in this report are not speaking from vested interests, at least not the sort of vested interests that union and business representatives so often put forward. Instead these women are speaking out because of a genuine and well-founded concern about the lost opportunities, the discrimination, the violence, the stress and frustration that have faced them for many years and have continued to face them and their families in Australia in the 1980s. The issues that they raise through this report range from child abuse to child care. They relate to women's special health needs, their educational needs, the special problems facing rural, aged and migrant women, the difficulties facing women living below the poverty line following a marriage breakdown, for example, the resentment they feel at the low status given to the work done by women in the home, and the discrimination still facing women in the work force. Also they are concerned about the need for affordable housing, about women's treatment before the law and women's views about the environment and peace. All these matters are picked up in this document. Thus, the value and importance of the report come very largely from the contributions made the women themselves. These are not reports of what women want but statements by women themselves about what they want. The despair and the anger, as well as the hope that things might change, comes through very clearly in this document. The Minister's statement recognises this contribution made by the women represented and quoted in the report before us, and acknowledges the report's importance. But unfortunately too much of it is simply rhetoric and far too frequently we have seen this Government's actions run counter to the needs of women and contrary to the Government's stated policies. Certainly they seem to run counter to the needs that are expressed in this report. The delay in the normal November consumer price index increases to pensions last year, an action that was of course supported by Liberal and National Party senators, was, I would have thought, hardly the best way for this Government to have acted to help the aged and supporting parents, the majority of whom are women, get out of poverty and give their children and their families the standard of living to which they believe they are entitled. I would have thought that abolishing, even in a gradual form, the grant from the national community health program to the Nursing Mothers Association of Australia was hardly consistent with the Government's avowed intention of doing something to combat child abuse or to increase the status of women at home caring for children. The Government argues on the one hand that it is concerned about recognising the value of the role played by women in the home and the importance of removing the sorts of stresses from families that lead to child abuse, yet the Nursing Mothers Association is deeply concerned that the counselling service it provides not just to nursing mothers and not just about breast feeding but to mothers with young children across the board, will be severely curtailed by the decision of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to curtail and finally, I think by 1990, cut out the funding to that Association. Senator Zakharov —There is competition for those funds. Senator HAINES —Of course there is a lot of competition for those funds. Nobody is arguing about that, but this Association reaches a vast number of women in the community and it provides a telephone counselling service for volunteers not just about breast feeding but about how best to deal with the other problems that are regularly faced by women in the home. To deny funding to an organisation which deals with mothers from the time their children are born until the time the children are well developed is, I think, very much contrary to the Government's alleged purposes. The $250 tertiary education administration fee, as everybody knows from every bit of evidence, both empirical and anecdotal, will impact most on female students, particularly those from low income or migrant families which do not rate education for women particularly highly, and it will have a quite significant impact on women who are working part time or are caring for children and who want to study part time. The Minister's statement finishes with a reference to the Government's equal opportunity legislation. I, like all thinking women and men in the community I would imagine, certainly welcome the initiatives that the Government has taken over the last few years through the Sex Discrimination Act, through the affirmative action legislation and through the legislation which was debated so appallingly-from some sides of the House anyway-in another place last week. However, I think it is worth repeating something which has been stated in this place time and again from a variety of senators-that access to employment opportunities according to merit only and not according to sex, marital status or any other rather irrelevant criterion can go only so far to ensure that women are able to avail themselves of this access. Without child care, without access to educational opportunities-either initial education opportunities or retraining opportunities-and without more flexible employment opportunities, all the equal opportunity legislation in the world will not get women into the work force in the numbers in which they would like to be there. Sadly, I suggest, this Government has not so far shown that it is prepared to hear and minister to the needs of women and their families to the same extent that it hears and grants the demands of some male dominated groups and, in particular, business groups. How else can it explain abandoning the proposed maintenance collection system or the proposal from some quarters in the Government to means test family allowances? Surely members of the Government must be aware that studies by the Institute of Family Studies and others indicate that the income earned by the male breadwinner is not necessarily shared by the rest of the family in an equitable way and that to simply means test according to that criterion will significantly disadvantage a large number of women and their children. Yet the Government is apparently listening to those sorts of proposals as a result of the demands from business groups that the deficit be cut in any way in which it can be in order to placate overseas money markets and, presumably, get back our AAA rating. Rhetoric is fine, but women in Australia are entitled to more than that. They are entitled not only to be consulted but also to be heard in the most meaningful way in which governments can hear people's concerns. To do anything else, I would have thought, is to be condescending as well as patronising. An awful lot of women in Australia, including me, expect far better than that from a Labor Government which has pledged itself to improving the opportunities for women in Australia. There is still far too much to be done, and the last chapters of this report indicate that. The portrayal of women in the media still leaves much to be desired, still emphasises stereotypes which are decades out of date. We still do not pay enough attention to preventive health care, in particular as far as women's health needs are concerned. There is still much that needs to be altered in the law's attitude to women, and women's access to sport, in terms of numbers, is still well and truly out of alignment with men's access. It is, as I said earlier, a fact that women, for a variety of reasons, are the group most concerned about peace and conservation, not only for their own sakes but also for the sake of their children, yet this Government is ignoring their pleas in continuing to do things such as selling uranium to France, allowing indiscriminate woodchipping and failing to protect many of the unique areas that Australia has to offer future generations. Women around Australia have made their views known in this report. I suggest that it is not only encumbent on this Government and future governments to listen to them; it is imperative that they do so. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(3.48) —I commend the Government for consulting with Australian women on setting the agenda towards 2000. It is high time that the important role of women in every aspect of life was acknowledged, and high time that opportunities were made available to women to utilise their talents. The present Government has made improvements in many areas of urgent need relating to women, and I think it needs to be congratulated for those efforts. The Minister for Education and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) has acknowledged in her statement that many areas still need a great deal of government support; for example, the provision of child care facilities and the provision of women's refuges so that women and children have access to safe places when they are subject to domestic violence. One chapter that I recommend to all Australians, particularly all male Australians, is the one about the dignity of women. The words of women themselves are very good educative material. I think the Australian community in general needs a great deal of education about the attitudes that women have. I was very interested in the questionnaire which was part of the national consultative process. While there was an attempt to be comprehensive on a wide range of issues affecting women, I noticed a huge gap. That gap was the omission of any reference to what worries most women I know-the future of this planet in terms of threats from weapons of mass destruction. Senator Giles —You will find it on page 80. Senator VALLENTINE —I am coming to that. In the questionnaire there was no mention of Australia's role in contributing to the threat of nuclear war. It could be argued that such questions would have been inappropriate because they are not exclusive to women. However, it is good to know that women did have some input along those lines. It is pleasing to see that women's overriding concerns were acknowledged in the Government publication `Setting the agenda'. On page 80 one woman is quoted as saying that in the year 2000 she wants to `be here' and further, as saying: The needs of Australian women cannot be attained without a world free from the threat of war. The need for education about peaceful resolution of conflicts is also acknowledged. This requires a great deal of emphasis by education authorities at both Commonwealth and State levels. Women also added-uninvited-views about caretaking the environment and also about the awareness of the impact of aid programs for women, especially in so-called developing countries. I know that there are many women in Australia concerned about the priorities of government spending on defence, as opposed to the rising and falling percentages spent, for example, on health and education. I trust that these areas in which women's views were not directly sought-that is, peace, environmental care and the impact of aid programs-will be taken very seriously by the Government as a whole, and by the Opposition, because they are very important issues affecting all Australians as world citizens. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.52) —I think it is important that a document such as this is given a good hearing in the Senate. There is an understandable desire amongst senators to proceed with other business, but I think that this is an important document and should be examined. I will truncate anything that I say, bearing in mind that probably other persons who want to say things have just not had the opportunity to do so. That is what I gather from the conversations that are going on around the place, so I will be as brief as I possibly can. Nevertheless, this is a document which should be read by every senator, and read thoroughly. It is an attempt to express the views that were gathered as a result of the announcement that was made last year. Whether those views are the totality of views is another question, and there will be discussions about that matter later on. There are three matters that I would like to deal with. The first is that we ought to understand that we should go to the causes of problems rather than throw money at the effects. I think there are a lot of problems faced by women in Australia, and the attitude of the Government really is just to throw money at those effects rather than look at their causes. The causes have to be examined, and examined very thoroughly. For example, I will deal with what is stated in the appendix about what the Government has done in various areas. I have also noted those areas, but the fact is that very few of them are going to the causes of the problems that are faced by women. The Minister for Education and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) does say in her speech, as does the document itself, that `a significant area of concern is the status and image of women who work full time in the home'. One of the great problems faced by women is that justice has not been done to those who are full time home makers or who choose to be substantially full time home makers. A recognition is not really made of their contribution not only to their own families but to society as a whole. After all, it is the family which is the best provider of the services to the children, rather than the state being the organisation which would provide those services. I give two reasons for this. The first is that the family is the natural and fundamental unit of society to provide those services, and it can do it more efficiently. The second is that for the state to takeover those particular tasks would be far more costly and inefficient. They include, of course, child rearing-which is the responsibility of not only the women but also the whole family, including the parents-the development of the child and the care of the ill and the aged. I noted that Senator Durack mentioned that the Liberal Government introduced the family allowance in 1976. I think the point that he made was valid; that is, that very often the tax rebate that was received largely by the wage earner, who in most cases was the husband, was pocketed. On that occasion the Government abolished the tax rebate for children, cashed it up and gave it to the mother in the form of family allowances. I applauded that situation then, but I warned that if the allowances were not going to be indexed-and I think Senator Grimes also warned of this at that time-this would create grave problems for families and for mothers. The situation is there before us: They have not been indexed. What has occurred since that time has been the greatest robbery ever perpetrated against any group in Australia. Figures that were produced by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library statistics group show that $10 billion has been thieved from the purses of the mothers since that time by successive governments because of their failure to index family allowances. Now the Government suggests that there is going to be some sort of scheme of means testing of those provisions. That is part of the three-card trick, because it is not the Government's money; it is the money that the worker took from his hip pocket and put into the mother's purse. It was taken from his hip pocket by virtue of the abolition of the spouse rebate, and it was put into the purse of the mother because of the family allowance scheme. The Government is really robbing the mothers of this country of those funds, and it has to stop. In fact, that scheme has to be updated and its lost value restored, which would mean a restoration of about 35 per cent. Another matter which was raised yesterday is the spouse rebate. Again, that is a recognition of the work of the woman herself, whether she has children or not, in the home. If the woman has children she receives $1,030 a year, but that should be increased to $1,851 a year just to take account of movements that have taken place in the tax rebate area. I believe that is a matter which ought to be given urgent consideration by the Government. Two other questions need attending to, and I will speak very briefly on them. One cannot put everything in a document such as this-I acknowledge that and I acknowledge the difficulty that people had to face in drawing it up-but unemployment amongst young women is critical at present. It makes one's heart bleed to see a lot of these young women who have striven to do their best at school and who are unable to get jobs. They go to interview after interview. There are probably people in this chamber who have experienced that in their families. It is distressing for the parents and for the young girls as well. I think we have to consider extending affirmative action to those people who are out of work and who desire to contribute and to engage in creative work. We have to ensure that they have the opportunity of doing that work. The pressure that is applied to so many women with dependent children to go into the paid work force is deplorable. That pressure should be taken off those women, and they should be given a true freedom of choice. I think freedom of choice is mentioned on a number of occasions in this document, and I welcome that. They should be given a true freedom of choice so that we go to the cause of many of the problems. The cause of a large number of the problems of young girls not being able to get jobs is the fact that their mothers are forced, because of economic circumstances, to stay in the paid work force to make ends meet. Then we have the establishment of a series of child care centres and the like. The final thing that I want to mention is the status and the dignity of women. The appendix to the document mentions the introduction of the sex discrimination legislation. I know a large number of women who were very upset and insulted that the sex discrimination legislation gave a de facto or cohabiting relationship the same status as a bona fide marriage relationship. They were absolutely appalled that that was the result of it. That should be considered, and it should have been considered by the Parliament just before Christmas last year when I sought leave to move an amendment to that legislation to enable a conscience vote. I want to know when people in this chamber will stand up and ensure that that conscientious objection provision is included in the sex discrimination legislation. A large number of women are absolutely disgusted that the legislation places their bona fide marriage state on the same level as a cohabiting arrangement. Senator Zakharov —I do not know of anyone who says that. Nobody has ever said that to me. Senator HARRADINE —That is the effect. Senator Tate —Don't lead him on. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Tate says: `Don't lead him on'. That is the effect of the sex discrimination legislation when it relates to a number of questions, including the hiring of accommodation. That is the effect-- Senator Tate —There has been a full debate on that-that's all I am suggesting. We have other business this afternoon. Senator HARRADINE —It is a very important question, and it is one of conscience when it comes to people wanting to choose whether they hire their premises to a married couple rather than a cohabiting couple. The Government is throwing money at the effects, for example, of what has taken place and what has been encouraged by governments over a period-that is, abortion, contraception, intrauterine devices and the like. The Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 received evidence that the major cause of infertility in Australia is previous abortions, contraception, sterilisation and IUDs. Nothing in this document or the Minister's statement, unless I have missed it, goes to the question of infertility, which is very worrying to a large number of women throughout Australia. We have had enough of listening to what doctors have said because largely they have been the ones who have recommended abortions, IUDs, sterilisation-- Senator Walters —Come on; cut it out. Patients go to a doctor asking for them. Talk sense. Senator HARRADINE —I am talking about the persons in the family planning outfits. Senator Peter Baume —You said `doctors', Senator, and I take it you are referring to the lot of us. It is really unfair. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry; I am referring to the people in the context of what is contained in this document, which talks about family planning centres. It is the family planning outfits that I am concerned about. I know a large number of doctors who are very much opposed to that situation and who recognise that one of the major problems of infertility has been caused by what has been said to the people through the family planning outfits. It is those people about whom I am concerned, and I think that matter ought to be considered by the Government in relation to this document. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.07) —As the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, said, the women of Australia were invited to have a say in the National Agenda for Women. I want to consider the average woman who responded to this. By far the majority of women who responded are married; the majority-only just-are between 25 and 44 years of age; they are Australian; they definitely have children; and they come from the country, although quite a number of them are from the capital cities. Having looked at that, I would have preferred the Minister, if it were possible, to have given us the priorities of women. That has not been done; so a considerable amount of money has been spent in this area but we have not come up with what was the women's first priority. We have the range of answers to the questionnaire. By far the majority-42 per cent-of the questionnaires, we are told, mentioned the women at home. The issues of women at home were identified as a high priority. Overall, 42 per cent of the respondents to the questionnaire rated it among the three most important issues. Obviously, as has been indicated by the Opposition on so many occasions when this Government has brought in its affirmative action legislation, the majority of women want to fit in their working lifestyles with their home responsibilities. This is not new and should not be news to the Government because in the Clemenger Report `Beyond the Stereotypes' we find that in answer to a question put to women on what working arrangements would they prefer right now, given a choice-in other words, if women were kings what would they like to do most in regard to their working lifestyles-a total of 74 per cent went for all sorts of options that fitted in with their family commitments; paid work at home, 12 per cent; part time employment, 31 per cent; unpaid voluntary work, 5 per cent; and full time running a home, 26 per cent. So a total of 74 per cent of women, which is a very large number, aim for some type of work that fits in with their family commitments. Only 20 per cent of women chose full time employment. That is quite an amazing figure. This report has highlighted the fact that this is what women want. Looking at the chapter on women in the paid work force we find that a total of 33 per cent noted work and employment as specific primary concerns. Employment conditions, including working hours and leave provisions, with the particular difficulties of women combining full time paid work with caring for a family were also the subject of considerable comment. In addition, women put forward varied views on affirmative action policies. Comments in `Setting the Agenda' underline what I have just cited from `Beyond the Stereotypes'. Let us look again at the section on women in the home. I will come back to the affirmative action section in just a moment. We find that 42 per cent of women in the questionnaire, as I said earlier, rated women's responsibilities in the home as being among the three most important issues to them. I will come back to the affirmative action part because Senator Ryan feels that this is an important issue. The report says: `In addition, women put forward varied views on affirmative action policies'. If we look at those views, as expressed in the report it states: Very many women regarded affirmative action as a positive development, acknowledging the Government's intention to encourage policies to systematically identify and dismantle barriers to women's achievement. I would call that-as I think would the majority of women-equal opportunity, not affirmative action, because affirmative action, as it is recognised throughout the world gives quotas for the numbers of women that should be employed in any one industry. It refers to numbers, actual quotas. Senator Ryan's report then goes on to state that there was little support for the imposition of quotas. So while the report says that women put forward varied views and very many women regarded affirmative action as a positive development, it notes that there was very little support for the imposition of quotas. It was considered that quotas would result in employment and promotion on grounds other than merit; that is, on the basis of qualifications, skills, experience and talent. The report states: `Some confusion was evident between quotas and objectives'. That is a value judgment about whether there was confusion. I will come back to that a little later. In the child care area, overall, 29 per cent of women who responded to the questionnaire indicated that child care was one of the principal concerns. Again, that is a very relevant figure. Coming to the family allowance, we find that a significant number of participants called for the family allowance to be increased. Labor has not increased the family allowance at all in its term in office. When we were in office we increased it by 50 per cent. The dependent spouse rebate was increased considerably by us, from a maximum of $400 to a maximum of $1,030. This Government has not increased the dependent spouse rebate at all. Senator Harradine —Despite the promise to do so. Senator WALTERS —Yes, despite the promise to do so by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his first election speech. He also promised that the family allowance would be increased. The Office of the Status of Women did market research in which 89 per cent of women regarded family allowances as important to them. This Government had a National Agenda for Women. It received 13,000-odd responses and it did not take any notice of the 89 per cent of women who want family allowances increased. That is the calibre of this report. The report obviously underlines the fact that family allowances should be increased. The Government, saying in the agenda that it is giving women a say, ignores that altogether. Chapter 7 is entitled `Violence against women and children'. There is considerable concern amongst mothers of Australia about the violence that goes on, particularly against their children. Chapter 8 is entitled `The dignity of women'. Again, overall, 28 per cent of the respondents to the questionnaire cited in the agenda identified the dignity of women as one of the top priority concerns. If we look through that chapter we come to the question of pornography and censorship. The report says: The dignity of women can never be improved while pornography on paper and video and violence on video, film and television continues unchecked and freely available. This concern- . . . was echoed in many . . . submissions, and in concerns identified in responses to the questionnaire. Those women who commented on the relationship of pornographic materials to the dignity of women often called for the introduction of much stricter censorship standards. It is of great concern to me that representatives of the Office of the Status of Women who came before the Joint Select Committee on Video Material refused to view the videos we were concerned about. They freely gave us the advice they had given to the Minister. They had said that they thought that the videos that were permitted in Australia were all right. We invited them to see some of them and they refused. They would not look at the videos we were referring to. Obviously, they had no idea what the Committee was referring to and now that comments have come from women all over Australia, perhaps they will agree to look at them because the Government must do something about them if it is sincere in any way in giving women a say as in the Agenda for Women of Australia. What I was most interested in appeared on page 76-general comments regarding the economy. Unfortunately, we do not have a figure; the Minister has not given it to us. I would very much like to know what percentage of Australian women showed concern. It is just stated that many participants took part in the consultations. They took the opportunity to comment on issues related to economic policy. The Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women began its submission by drawing attention to the importance of economic policy to women. It said that economic policy has a direct bearing on the opportunities of Australian women and men in all walks of life. It shapes opportunities in employment, in business, our quality of life and the standards of community services we enjoy. That underlines the concern that the women of Australia are presently showing about the economy of the nation. It is no use the Government believing that women are interested only in child care, women's health, sport and recreation, their jobs, domestic violence and special needs. The women of Australia are interested in the economy of Australia and until the Government understands that it will not get very far. Women are also vitally interested in the housing issue. Page 8 of the Minister's statement reads: The vote in the House of Representatives on the Equal Employment Opportunity Bill last week, however, has obviously called into doubt the Opposition's commitment in this very important area. I will deal with that matter because I believe the Minister is not speaking accurately when she says that. The Government has been very clever, very smart, in introducing the two Bills into the Senate. In early 1986 the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill was introduced. The Government called the legislation affirmative action to satisfy the more radical feminists of its supporters. However, it was not an affirmative action Bill and the Opposition asked that the name of the Bill be changed to equal employment opportunity for women Bill. That was not done and affirmative action was maintained in the name of the Bill. From 1 February 1987 the legislation applied to employers who had 1,000 or more employees; in 1988 it will apply to employers who had more than 500 employees and in 1989 it will apply to employers who have more than 100 employees. All those various companies had to do was submit a forward estimate which means a quantitative measure or aim which may be expressed in numerical terms and which is designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters. It was a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specific time. There was also an objective. So the legislation was not affirmative action; it was just a forward estimate or aim. An employer could give forward numbers if he chose but he did not have to give them; it was purely an aim. No direction was given to the Minister to force various employers to upgrade their aim or indeed to upgrade numbers if they chose to put forward numbers. There was nothing like that. That is the first Bill that came before us in 1986-the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. What has the Government done? The Government has just put through the House of Representatives another Bill which relates to Commonwealth authorities. What has it called the legislation? It is called Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 but without a doubt it is an affirmative action Bill requiring numbers and quotas-figures that the National Agenda for Women has said that women do not want. There is little support for affirmative action; there is little support for quotas; there is little support for numbers. Yet the Government has just introduced the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill under a fictitious name. This time the legislation should be called affirmative action legislation, but it is not. It is called equal employment opportunity legislation and states that Commonwealth authorities must set the quantitative, that is numbers, and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. So the legislation requires figures, numbers, quotas. It states: to assess the effectiveness of the program by comparing statistics and information collected . . . So this legislation is a true affirmative action program; it is a true affirmative action Bill. The legislation also states that the responsible Minister may direct the Commonwealth authority. Senator Tate —What about the principle of merit? You don't want to answer that. You won't answer that. Senator WALTERS —I will come to that matter in a moment. The Bill states that the responsible Minister in respect of a relevant authority which has elected to lodge reports with the Minister may in writing give general direction to the authority with respect to the performance of its obligations under the Act. So we have an affirmative action Bill called the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill which allows the Minister to direct Commonwealth authorities to increase their numbers if he does not think the quotas are correct. The legislation does not deal only with women; it deals with a whole designated group of people. As I have said, it deals not only with women but also with Aboriginals and their families, with Torres Strait Islanders and their descendants, with migrants whose first language is not English, with the mentally and physically handicapped and with other designated groups that have not yet been put forward by the Government but no doubt it will decide upon them by regulation. Senator Harradine —I bet it doesn't deal with you. Senator WALTERS —I am sure it does not. This Bill is misnamed; it is called equal employment opportunity legislation whereas it is true affirmative action legislation demanding numbers. The previous Bill, which was called affirmative action legislation, did not require numbers and it was really equal employment opportunity legislation. Both Bills have a covering clause which states that one should appoint people on merit. That applied to the first Bill because an employer did not have to achieve certain numbers; he just had a general aim. So one could legitimately say that the employment of people would be on merit. However, when an employer has to put forward a figure and when the Minister can direct the Commonwealth authority to increase that figure, that quota, merit flies out the window. If a Commonwealth authority said that it would employ an extra, say, 50 women and, come a direction from the Minister that he wanted the figure increased to 55, how on earth would merit come into it? The Commonwealth authority must obey the Minister and it must stick to the numbers-that is stated in the Bill-but now the Government is talking about merit and that, of course, is a lot of rubbish. The Minister also talked about the fact that maintenance payments were a concern of women expressed in the questionnaire. In 1983 the Opposition put up a private member's Bill seeking to take out of the Family Law Act the requirement presently in that Act that a judge, when deciding on maintenance, must take into consideration supporting parents' entitlements to a taxpayer-supplied benefit or pension for them. It is all very well for Senator Tate to look a little upset about this, but in 1983 he, along with Government members, voted against our private member's Bill. Not many months after that Senator Tate was saying in Tasmania that of course this provision must be taken out of the Family Law Act and was claiming the idea as his own. That was quite hypocritical because he had just previously voted against this measure when we had put it up. Now the Government is putting up this measure as its own policy, having previously, in 1983, voted against it when we put it up. The main thrust of this statement of Senator Ryan does not touch the crucial part of what women want. Our industrial relations policy, indeed, does just that. We have said to the women of Australia, and to everyone else in Australia as well: `Available to you under our policy are flexible work hours, flexible conditions, job sharing, if you so desire-anything that you and your employer together come to an agreement about'. Under the Government there is no way that women can have flexible work hours because the unions will not permit it. The unions will not permit a group of women to come to an agreement with their employer so that they can have, say, just half an hour's lunch break and go home so that they are there when their kids come home from school. The unions will not allow it. Indeed, this has already been pointed out very clearly by the unions in the Mudginberri dispute. What happened in the Mudginberri dispute? The employer and the employees came to an agreement on flexible work hours and on what income they wanted. They were in full agreement. The employees were doing a lot better; they were earning a lot more. They came to this agreement with their employer. And what did the union say? It said: `Not on your life. We did not organise it, and therefore you cannot come to a private agreement'. That is what we want to abolish in this country. The women of Australia have to be able to make their own arrangements with their employers to fit in with their family commitments. If the women of Australia want to take on some part time work they should be entitled to take on that part time work. They should not have to abide by union decrees which make them unable to set their priorities as they want. If they want to be home after work to fit in with their children coming home after school and it suits the employer, they ought to be able to do it. They ought not to have to abide by a union decree that says that all that is outside their capabilities and that the union does not approve of it. There is so much in this report that has just been tabled. There is so much hypocrisy in the whole set-up of asking the women of Australia to help set an agenda. There is so much hypocrisy in the Government saying that it is asking women to help it set the agenda when 89 per cent of women asked for family allowance to be increased and the Government says: `It is not one of our priorities. We will not give you what you ask. Anything trivial, anything that is a little band-aid measure, yes. But don't ask us to give you what you see as your number one priority. You don't stand a ghost of a chance'. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.35) —I know that it is already just on an hour past the time when the Government had hoped the Estimates committees would meet, but I think it is necessary to refer briefly to some of the matters contained in this report of the consultations on the National Agenda for Women 1986. The difficulty about referring to some of them might be taken to indicate that I do not regard others as important, but I do want to refer briefly to the matters raised in chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10. Chapter 7 deals with violence against women and children. That matter is debated quite frequently and I think most of us are familiar with the issues that arise. The next chapter is `The dignity of women', and it points out that 28 per cent of the respondents to the questionnaire on the Agenda identified the dignity of women as a top priority concern. So it was with some disappointment that I found that the question of pornography and censorship was left to just a bit less than half a page at the end of that chapter, because I think the reality of pornography and violence on video is something that has a great impact on women and children and the way they are treated, and certainly on the way children grow up and the attitudes that they have. Pornography is a matter that has been discussed in the Senate for many years. In 1984 there were significant changes which meant that there was a great deal more of this material in the country. Since that time a number of us have pressed for changes, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory. A Senate committee was set up to look into the impact of the changes on the admission of this material. Then that committee reported and handed over its material to the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. I am sorry to have to remind honourable senators that it is now just past two years from the time that Committee first started out on its deliberations, and it has not yet reported to the Parliament. It is a Committee which is dominated by Government members, and I am afraid I can conclude only that the Government has little interest in seeing that this topic is reported on and dealt with. What I would have liked-and I have said this many times-is for the Government to have brought in a moratorium on the sale and distribution of X-rated video material in the Australian Capital Territory while the Committee conducted its inquiry. Perhaps I need not remind honourable senators that the reason for wanting that moratorium in the Australian Capital Territory was that all other States had banned such material. I think it is still legal in the Northern Territory, but it is from the Australian Capital Territory that a very significant and flourishing mail order video industry is operating. the material is going into all of the other States that banned it, because it is still legal to distribute it in the Australian Capital Territory. As I said, it is with some concern that I see that there is less than half a page on the matter in this report. I quote one of the big pieces in the report which came from a submission: The dignity of women can never be improved while pornography on paper and video and violence on video, film and television continues unchecked and freely available. Even now I would again say to the Government: `Do what you can do and ban it in the Australian Capital Territory, at least until such time as the parliamentary Committee reports'. The next chapter is entitled `Women's health'. It indicates that 18 per cent of the women who responded to the questionnaire placed health as a high priority and concern. I suggest that perhaps 18 per cent of women is a fairly low figure when one looks at the reality of the way women regard health. Many of the women who might have responded are perhaps too elderly and were not in a position to comment. It is a very important and significant area for elderly women, especially perhaps elderly migrant women-women for whom English is not their first language and who suffer from the additional problem, when they are old, of not being able to use their new language in the way that they could when they were younger. I think that many of us are familiar with what occurs. It is an important and a pressing matter. Osteoporosis, a complaint from which women have suffered for a long time, is something which must have a very high priority on the Agenda. It is important that all possible steps are taken to see that women know what they can do to help themselves avoid that debilitating problem. Apart from the effect on a woman who suffers from it, what is the cost to the community of the implications of osteoporosis? It is an issue that needs to be raised frequently so that we finally get some solutions from research and so that we know exactly what it is, how it can be combated, and how women from a very early age can learn to help themselves avoid that problem when they are elderly. None of us wants to be a burden on our families because of broken bones and the consequences of osteoporosis in later life. I believe that all of us could do a great deal to help ourselves if we knew about the problem early enough. Senator Tate —What is the solution? Is it diet? Senator REID —Diet is one matter. Perhaps this is not the time to mention it, but it is suggested that plumper women have less problem with it than slimmer ones. Diet is part of it. It is not just a matter of calcium intake; it is more than that. Too much calcium taken unsupervised very likely can lead to other significant problems. It is not just a simplistic matter. It needs to be addressed, and I believe it can be. Under chapter 10, which is headed `Other concerns', there is a portion entitled `General comments concerning the economy'. I join my colleagues who have said that income security is vital to any woman, especially when she has the responsibility for children. It is not necessarily vast sums of money that are needed, but security of the amount that she has, so that she can budget and organise her household in a way that provides security for her children. She is concerned about the state of the economy and the possibility of her children being able to obtain employment or get into a tertiary institution. She is concerned about the cost of housing and the way in which housing repayments have risen in recent times. I have constituents in the Australian Capital Territory who are facing the prospect of having to sell their homes to get out of the financial mess that they are in as a result of high interest rates. In regard to the question of maintenance, which, of course, is very much concerned with income security-we did debate this matter last week-it is quite clear that something needs to be done. I regret that the Government did not take the opportunity to support the changes that could have been made last week when the matter was debated by the Senate. I hope that it will not put it off for too long. As we are short of time today, I conclude on this point: On the matter of finance and income security, and the consequences of financial worries and stress, which causes marriage breakdown and despair, I received a letter not long ago from a woman. I will read part of it: It seems to me not only unjust but absurd that a family such as ours can possibly be driven by despair over financial matters to a point of separation before we qualify for affordable housing. If I take the children- and there are five of them- and leave my husband, I know that not only will I have access to a supporting parent pension, but also to a Government house. This letter and the attached information is an attempt to prevent that possibility from becoming a reality. There is much more in this letter. The issue is a very deep and involved one and there are many other aspects of it. I hope that the Government will give us the opportunity to debate it in full, that it will address the real issues that are of great consequence to women and their families, and that it will see that the plight of some of them which exists at present will be alleviated. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(4.45) —I find this report of the consultations on the National Agenda for Women 1986 entitled `Setting the Agenda' particularly interesting, if only due to the fact that in its initial stages it states much that is obvious, and much with which we would not disagree. However, there are certain areas in which it is light on the ground. Not least of those areas is the statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). She asserted that the Opposition had changed its direction in terms of its policy on equality of opportunity and equality of employment opportunity. That is quite clearly incorrect. We have never at any stage opposed any proposition put forward for equality of opportunity generally, or equality of opportunity in employment specifically. Women do need a fair go, and we have recognised that for a long time. By the same token, we will not say that women need a fair go in isolation from other members of the community. This community is made up of men, women and children, and all should be given a fair go. As Senator Harradine mentioned by way of interjection a little earlier, there is nothing in this report which addresses the problems of youth. Those young people in Australia today who are struggling not only to find jobs but also to make ends meet, to carve a career for themselves and to make a future of stability, are not even considered in this report. That concerns me greatly. As I say, we have never sought to discriminate against anybody. We have always maintained a very firm and unequivocal position in saying that women need a fair go, men need a fair go, the youth of Australia need a fair go, regardless of their race, regardless of their age, regardless of sex, and so on. We have not veered away at any time from the basic merit principle. I shudder to think what will happen when we do veer away from that merit principle, because that merit principle is all important, regardless of sex, regardless of age, regardless of race, and regardless of any form of incapacity. It worries me when we have before us proposals to be debated at a a later date in which quite clearly the merit principle is mentioned, but, added to that, there is ministerial intervention and a measure is to be taken on a statistical basis of success or lack of it. We must stick purely and simply to the merit principle. Aims and objectives are fair enough, but when we start to dictate, either via legislation or via ministerial intervention, we are getting on to very dangerous ground. The Government, as is stated in this report, wants more work based child care. I ask: At whose cost? It wants flexible working hours. As my colleague Senator Walters said earlier, we do not oppose the creation of more flexible working hours; it is just a jolly shame that the unions will not allow it. We have seen example after example in State after State in which women have made those arrangements with their employers because they consider it particularly important that they are at home when their children arrive home. I too consider that that is very important, having regard to the increasing number of juvenile delinquents as the years go by and the problems that children can get into that are far more readily available to get into than they were in my day. I would do everything possible to encourage mothers to be at home when their children get home-if not to pick them up from school. Too often we hear of children being abducted between school and home. I think that we as legislators should be looking very carefully at providing every possible opportunity to make sure that young children and young adolescents have as much supervision as possible. The document talks about the provision of more maternity leave. I am not too sure who will pay for it, but the cost of the existing maternity leave provisions is enormous to the private sector, and the private sector, as we know, is being squeezed to death at the moment. It can barely breathe under the burden of the bureaucratic nonsense with which it has to deal today. But this statement is saying that even more restrictions are to be put on its operations. The statement that women's achievements are played down or overlooked in the media is somewhat of a sad reflection, because some of the misguided positions taken by the strong feminists probably emanate from the fact that many successful women are not given enough publicity. These mad, radical feminists believe that there are no successful women, which is quite inaccurate to say the least. If such a move will change the course of the nation, which I doubt, I hope that the media will give women's achievements more recognition. I found it interesting to see in the statement that schools have to be involved in teaching everything now, including child care, housework, nutrition, health and domestic finance. I thought that that was fairly sensible until I read the next proposition, which envisaged males in the next generation being capable of looking after families. I think that it is rather absurd to make such bland statements. Education in those areas is quite sensible, but if it is only to be directed at males so that they are to be capable of looking after families, it is an extraordinary proposition. Males used to be, and I think the majority still are, very capable of looking after families. They have not had formal education to do so. Since this is now to be a responsibility of schools, I would ask: Where does parental responsibility begin and end and where does the school take over. Most of those things-I speak not about the dim dark ages but more recently-have always been taught at home with assistance from the schools, but now we are getting to a position where the parents can abrogate their responsibility and hand it all back to the schools. Frankly, I do not have too much confidence in the schools being able to deliver the goods. We must make every opportunity for parents to be able to be responsible for the destinies of their own children, and bring back the bond between parents and children in preference to starting to say `Don't you worry about that'-as a certain gentleman has a great capacity to say in this country-`We will take the responsibility away from you and place it in schools'. This is an interesting document, because it is the only Government document that acknowledges the low income of the rural sector and a need for rural families to receive assistance. Well, how about lowering the interest rates to start with? That would be of enormous assistance to the rural sector. But no, instead of that we are looking at band-aids on the bucket to provide more public money to people in strife. If we started looking at the positive ways of reducing hardship in rural areas, we would all be better off. There is real hardship in the rural community as there is in various areas of the business sector, but instead of looking at ways in which we can provide greater opportunities to people with less burdensome bureaucracy, where are we heading? We are heading for more and more government expenditure at a time when I was believing that this Government was attempting, even though it has failed in the past, to try to cut down government expenditure. This document clearly shows that government expenditure will not be cut but will be increased. The document also states that young people, single people, supporting mothers, older people, rural people and working people are all living in poverty. Is it any wonder, because the Government policies of the day lack any ability for anybody to take any initiative to be a wealth creator, to be a person who is in a position to provide more employment for people? Why does not this Government, instead of making the bland statement that all these people are living in poverty, set about reducing taxation, looking at the family allowance position, which it promised to do and never did, looking at tax deductibility in certain areas pertaining to families, and looking at greater flexibility in working hours and acting on it? The Government should provide lower interest rates, reduce the inflation rate and provide greater educational options all within the existing framework. There is no great necessity for increased expenditure. The Government should provide some income security and affordable accommodation. We have all the infrastructure set up to be able to do all these things, yet they are not being done. Clearly, judging by this document, women are still concerned about those basics of life, their security, employment prospects for their families generally, and want to be assured that they have a roof over their heads. There are many more positive steps that can be taken towards ensuring that women and people in the community generally, of all ages and of both sexes, have greater opportunity in what is being provided to assist them. I do not think this document goes to the core of the problem. It is fiddling around the fringes in preference to sitting down and saying: `These are the initiatives that we wish to take'. I hope that in the very near future the Government will look more closely at the positives, instead of the negatives which are overwhelming in this document. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(4.57) —I do not want to move that the debate be now adjourned, but could I have an indication from the Opposition Whip as to how many speakers will be continually added to the list in the course of this afternoon? There are two important ministerial statements due to be brought into this chamber this afternoon. I am scheduled, at some stage in the distant future, to bring in a ministerial statement in response to a report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in which many senators are interested and on which they wish to speak. Senators will also be aware that there are probably dozens of public servants waiting around in the corridors at great expense to the taxpayer. Senator Gareth Evans —Hundreds. Senator TATE —Hundreds probably. They are in the corridors of the Senate waiting to participate in the Estimates committee deliberations. We cannot go on forever hearing the same arguments to which we are accustomed. I would like some indication from the Opposition Whip as to how many more speakers there will be on the Opposition side, that is all. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.59) —As Opposition Whip, might I say that there is no speakers list for the discussion of this ministerial paper on the status of women. What is happening is that Opposition senators who are very interested in this subject are speaking to the paper. I stress that it was indicated that there were to be discussions on this paper, and that it was suggested that the Estimates committee hearings would take place after dinner. Therefore, I do not think the Opposition can be blamed in any way for the enormous expenditure that is supposedly being incurred at the moment. It is not the Opposition's fault because Opposition members believe they have the right to speak on this important subject. I understand that there are very few other senators who wish to speak on this paper. I understand that there are probably two more speakers, and I understand that there will be little discussion on the paper in which Senator Tate is interested. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.00) —I had not intended to participate in this debate and I am not sure how many of my colleagues intend to do so, but I was in my office and I heard Senator Tate asking questions about the state of the list. I find that fairly extraordinary when the Government at this stage is unable to tell us what the parliamentary program is. At the mo- ment we are being told that it is not known whether we will have Estimates committees this week-- Senator Gareth Evans —But you do know that you have Estimates committees today and that there are hundreds of public servants out there waiting for you to stop rabbiting. Senator CHANEY —The Manager of Government Business in the Senate might think that he speeds things up in the Senate by accusing me of rabbiting, but he actually slows them down. Perhaps when he is 93 he will wake up to that. At present the Government is unable to tell us what we are doing in the Senate after today. We might have Estimates committees on Thursday and we might not. We were not to sit on Friday, but we are now told that we might sit on Friday. All I can say is that I am not prepared to have lectures read to the Opposition about the debates we have in this place when the Government cannot make up its mind about what it is doing. In fact, the Opposition is being left in a position where the plans of senators, which have been made in the faith of the program that has been announced for some months, are all apparently to be changed. The reality is that the Government indicated on 5 February that it wished to amend the identity card legislation. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) issued a Press release saying that the Government would amend the legislation. We are now to have a debate on the identity card legislation which is not in an amended form. It is as plain as the nose on anybody's face that the Government is playing politics with this legislation in order to try to hide the economic crisis, its May mini-Budget and its difficulties in trying to ensure that this country goes anywhere. Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr President: That has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at issue raised by Senator Tate to which Senator Chaney is purporting to reply. Senator CHANEY —The point raised by Senator Tate concerned uncertainty about the program. The point that I am making in response is that there is complete uncertainty about the Senate's program because the Government is unable to advise us what the program will be until after it has had a meeting at 9.30 tomorrow morning. When I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button)-not the Manager of Government Business-what meeting would determine the sittings of the Senate, he said that he could not tell me. As usual we are being subjected to a whole lot of nonsense by the Government. For a reason that I do not understand the Government has chosen a day when the program showed that we would rise at 3.15 p.m. to consider Estimates to bring three ministerial statements into this place-one on the status of women and matters related to that, one on electoral reform and I am not quite sure about the third one. If the Manager of Government Business is going to persist in antics such as the one we had yesterday when we had the tabling of the Government's response to a Senate committee report in Question Time-a most unusual procedure which sparked off a fairly lengthy debate in this place-if he is going to bring major statements into the House on a day when the Senate is supposed to rise at 3.15 p.m. to consider Estimates, all that I can say is that the Government is asking for everything that it has got. It is an absurd way to run this place and it would be treating the Opposition with contempt to bring in these statements and then say that senators are not to have an opportunity to deal with them. The Opposition will have no part of or truck with that approach to the management of this place. The PRESIDENT —On the point of order: Senator Chaney is quite entitled to make those remarks. I do not know whether he has finished his remarks, but from what I can discover, having just come into the Chair, Senator Tate did not seek leave to make a statement and neither did Senator Chaney. Therefore, as far as I am concerned we are still dealing with the ministerial statement. I call the next speaker, Senator Newman. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.06) —Thank you, Mr President. As you were not in the chamber when Senator Tate got up to make his statement, you will not realise that he did so in an attempt to forestall my speaking. I am very flattered by the fact that he thought that he would cut off debate-- Senator Tate —On a point of order, Mr President: That is a complete and utter misrepresentation. I said that I did not want to halt the debate. I simply sought from the Opposition Whip the remaining speakers on the Opposition side. I specifically said that I was not trying to forestall the debate in any way. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator NEWMAN —It is quite clear that there are two Ministers in this place who do not want the debate to go on tonight. We must wonder what their motives are in trying to forestall debate on a matter which the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) considers of major importance. Obviously the Opposition considers it a matter of major importance. So do Senator Harradine and Senator Haines. Yet all of a sudden the Government finds it a nuisance and wants it to go away. Well, we will not go away, Senator Tate. We will not go away, Senator Evans. We are here to debate the paper which the Minister for Education tabled only this afternoon. If the Government did not want the matter discussed this afternoon, why did it table it? Time was short. The Government knew that this matter was of major importance to us even it was not to it. Government senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interruptions. I suggest that Senator Newman confine her remarks to the ministerial statement. Senator NEWMAN —As it is such an important matter I do intend to confine my remarks to the statement as far as possible. However, a report that is as weighty and substantial as this deserves more attention. It would have been very useful to have a longer debate at another time but we were given no notice. This report was dumped on our lap and we were expected to come here and not have any meaningful debate on it. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced this National Agenda for Women and a survey back in November 1985, he said that there were three principles on which the whole subject would be based. These were: Giving women a choice, giving women a say and giving women a fair go. The coalition parties believe that those are all very worthy principles and we support them. Let us make it clear from the beginning that we are not arguing about the principles but we are arguing about a lot of things associated with this report and the Government's handling of women's affairs. We believe that women should be able to have opportunities opened up for them. We believe that they should go into the next century with status equal to that of Australian men. Certainly this Government is giving women a say. There can be no doubt about that. If there is not one survey going on, there is another; there is a constant stream of surveys. Giving women a say is okay; it is in giving women a choice and a fair go that the Government is not succeeding. Let us remember some of the surveys. Last year it was announced that $100,000 would be spent over five years. That was granted for a study into the stress likely to be incurred from completing household chores, for goodness sake! If the Prime Minister has his little group of Ministers looking at wasteful grants, let them look at that one. Just imagine a five-year study of the stress involved in completing household chores! I could give the Senate a burst on that in five minutes. I have done 26 or 27 years of household chores; I think that I am expert in that field. Perhaps some senators opposite could do with a bit of education in that area. Yesterday Senator Ryan announced another survey. What was that survey? Seven hundred and fifty households were to be surveyed on the extent and range of unpaid work done by women at home. That has been announced just after this report on setting the agenda. Why does the Government need to survey another 750 households about the unpaid work that women do at home or how women spend their time in a 24- or 48-hour period? It sounds like the McNair ratings-`Fill in your diary of what you did every minute for the last 24 or 48 hours'. The Minister said that this survey would provide useful information for planning of all sorts of things. She said that we would get sound statistical information on the way work in the home is undertaken. She is very concerned to learn something about work in the home. Perhaps it would be a jolly good idea if she went home and practised and gave this place away. Perhaps that is not a very kind thing to say, but I suggest that if she needs to spend all this Government money to find out about work in the home, she really should go home and do a bit of in depth research herself. As I have said, I do not believe that this Government is giving women a fair go. I do not believe that it is giving a choice. The Minister in her statement said that she had some major concerns about areas relating to women. I wish to canvass just a few of those rather than keep Senator Tate too long from his electoral paper. Let us look at the question of education. We on this side of the chamber are concerned, as I am sure are many on the other side, that girls must have the same opportunities as boys to participate in and achieve in all areas and levels of study. Great steps have been taken in this country over the years and girls today are faced with a much greater choice than our mothers had. But just as important in providing equal opportunities for them is the task of encouraging them to participate in all areas that are open to them. We all know that in many cases the only real barrier to girls entering courses which lead to professions such as engineering or carpentry is their own unwillingness to do so. There is male domination of classes, there are teacher attitudes, there are the perceived employment prospects but, above all, girls are often influenced by their parents to take courses which prepare them for the traditional female roles. This Government says that it is concerned about the education of girls, and what does it do? It has imposed a $250 fee which puts part time women and single subject women out of the opportunities for education. Senator Crowley —What is a part time woman? Senator NEWMAN —Part time women students. I thank the honourable senator; I am glad she corrected me. Her Government has managed to put these women out of the educational running. They are trying to improve their qualifications, trying to get out of the poverty traps. They are not all on welfare. Many of the women who are trying to get this part time education are not on welfare. They are dependent on a husband's maintenance or earnings. They need their income for themselves, and the Government is not giving them any help at all. It is no good paying the Australian Capital Territory teachers their $250 fee and not helping women who are studying part time, struggling along on their own. Let us not forget those nurses, who have to compete in a very tertiary-oriented occupation from now on, who were trained under the hospital system. The Government does not give them any help, but it pays teachers in the Australian Capital Territory to improve their qualifications while they are getting wages from the Government. Australian women are concerned about their sons and daughters not getting into tertiary institutions. There is an aspect of education to be concerned about. The Minister also said that she was concerned about employment. So are we. What about the jobs for these women? What about the jobs for these women's children? That is what we are concerned about in the area of employment. The Minister seems to think that if we bring down legislation we deal with the problems of women in employment. Of course, we do not. Employers have to be educated, not compelled, away from an attitude against women employees. The most effective way for employers to learn about the qualifications of women is to learn from women themselves. If they are appropriately educated, if they are capable, if they are confident in their abilities, they will themselves bring about change, in a far more permanent way than legislation ever could. Affirmative action legislation will increase the number of women in the work force in the short term but long term change will be brought about only by their performance. We cannot afford to rely on legislation to give us equal opportunity; we cannot expect to get the job because of our sex. Let us beware of the decision that was made in the United States of America last week. Women who succeed want to be able to take pride in their own achievements, achievements which they have gained through their own attainments and drive. We cannot allow this sense of achievement to be denied us by quota systems and the like. I do not believe that women want jobs at the expense of their self-esteem. Women who are appointed through quotas and who fail at their jobs jeopardise the future opportunities for other women. The Government denies that it is introducing quotas, but the setting of `quantitative and other indicators' for assessment, and the comparing of statistics for effectiveness assessment, are only a euphemism for a quota. Let there be no doubt about it; that is what is happening with the legislation before the chamber now. Equal opportunity is supported by the coalition parties, but quotas and unnecessary regulation of business are not acceptable. Senator Bolkus —Who wrote this speech? Senator NEWMAN —The end does not justify the means, and if the honourable senator opposite does not know that he had better learn quickly. Businesses that go broke do not employ anybody, male or female. Let us be very clear about that. It is this Government that is sending businesses broke throughout Australia. The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. I ask Senator Newman to ignore the interjections and to direct her remarks through the Chair. Senator NEWMAN —Yes, Mr President. I will be very happy to speak to you. You are obviously much more receptive than some of those opposite. I think the Government should be looking very much more closely at the high level of bankruptcies in this country, as was mentioned earlier today. It is very clear that the mismanagement of the economy by this Government is directly responsible for many jobs being lost. It is this area of jobs that we are concerned about, not whether women have to be put into jobs by artificial means. Let us get the economy right, let us get interest rates down, let us get taxes down, let us get the regulation of business down, then let us get employment up. Senator Cook —Vote Labor. Senator NEWMAN —If people voted Liberal we would not be in the mess we are in. It is because they voted Labor that we are in this hole. Another subject of concern to the Minister was women in the home. I am very glad that she considered that it was a matter of concern, apart from something to be studied. Senator Bolkus —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 421, the order related to repetition. I suggest that if the speaker is not pulled up we will all be suffering repetitive stress injury from listening to her. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator NEWMAN —Thank you, Mr President. If the honourable senator is not capable of learning and if he is finding it boring, perhaps he would be better to leave. However, maybe he is teachable and perhaps, therefore, it might be worth his while staying. Senator Boswell —He is a slow learner. Senator NEWMAN —Perhaps it is that he is a slow learner. The trouble today is that women do not truly have the choice of being women in the home. Women who have small children and who would dearly love to be in the home are being forced by this Government out into the work force. They are being forced because they cannot keep up with the cost of living that has been caused by this Government's mismanagement of the economy. This Government, over a four year term, has made no attempt to do anything about the dependent spouse rebate and no attempt to do anything about family allowances. Its only defence is simply to keep referring to years gone by. It has been in government now for four years and its record is rotten. The dependent spouse rebate is down 30 per cent in value from the time this Government came to office. The women of Australia do not need a survey to find that out. They know every week in their budgeting the net effect of having this Government in office. The Minister referred to a number of other matters. Because of Senator Tate's concern about the time, I do not want to canvass the entire report. Senator Tate —Oh! Senator NEWMAN —I am very tempted to ignore Senator Tate, but I am concerned to give my colleagues an opportunity to speak on this matter before somebody brings down a gag. One of the matters which the Minister did not canvass very much at all was the question of housing. While I will not take the time tonight to talk about important matters concerning income security, health, advertising, violence and other such matters, I wish to pay a bit more attention to the question of housing. If there is one thing that is important to the women of this country it is how their families and themselves are housed. In this area, this Government's record is rotten. With high interest rates, with changes to investment guidelines and with changes to the taxation rules, we now have over 700,000 families below the poverty line after paying their rent or their mortgage costs. How is that for a record? Fancy going to an election on that! Young families throughout Australia are living in caravan parks. Young women are sleeping on park benches. Rents are going through the roof in the private rental market and, as a result, we have young couples who can neither buy a home, as they cannot take up the options of the first home owner's scheme because they cannot afford the rest of the money required, nor afford to rent on the private market-and we are expecting by 1990, which is only three years away, to have one quarter of a million families on the public rental waiting list. How is that for a record? Senator Boswell —Rotten. Senator NEWMAN —Rotten, yes. I would like to conclude by just drawing some of these strands together and saying that this National Agenda for Women, according to the Minister's statement, is going to be finalised later this year. This is a bit like the child maintenance situation. Honourable senators will recall that the Government started off with I think a Press release late last year about child maintenance. Senator Puplick —It all starts with a Press release. Senator NEWMAN —It all starts with a Press release, thank you very much. A little later we got a nice little glossy pink brochure all about child maintenance, and that canvassed the issues too. That was put out for a bit of discussion so that people could have their say, although a lot of people said that they were not given enough time to have their say. Then what do we get? We get a piece of paper wheeled up which says: `These are the things we think we will do, and these are the things we think we will look at doing'. Once again it was just a stalling tactic by the Government just to look as if it were doing something. There was very little substance in the latest piece of paper on the child maintenance program. That is exactly what seems to be the case here with the National Agenda for Women. We had a whole lot of publicity back in 1985, and the Government has bubbled along with its agenda meetings ever since, here and there, particularly with some of the party faithful. Then this lovely glossy brochure was produced but nobody has managed to tell us yet at what cost to Australian taxpayers it was produced. Now the Minister says that this is all going to be looked at and that the agenda for women will be finalised later this year. In view of the fact that it has just been pushed into the agenda for today, it looks to me as though it is a government rushing to get a few things cleared away, and I just have to wonder why. Let us make it clear that this is government by survey, it is government by Press release, it is government by glossy publications and it is government by `sell the story', but do not put too much substance in it. The Government says that we do not need to put too much substance in it. If it is trying to sell something to the Australian people, what is inside does not matter. The packaging is all. Of course there are useful, worthy and interesting things in here. Most of us knew all of them all along. How much did it cost to find that out all over again? The women of Australia and all Australians are much more concerned about unemployment. They are much more concerned about the fact that this Government has got the place in a mess, that housing is unobtainable and that the family tax policies are just totally unacceptable. I say to this Government: Get the running of the country right. Then the Women of Australia might take it seriously. It has given them a say. Now it must give them a fair go. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(5.22) —I welcome the report on the consultations that have been going on with respect to the National Agenda for Women. I have a number of regrets, not the least of which is the limited time available to view this report, to enable us to speak on it, having read it. In the statement made by the Minister for Education and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan), she said that she wants a bipartisan approach to this matter. So bipartisan is the Minister that the booklet Setting the Agenda-this one-was not made available until the Minister made her statement. Accordingly senators on this side are limited to making brief comments. I would have thought that if the Minister really wanted to be bipartisan, the report and her statement would have been available to enable debate and discussion to take place once we had read the booklet. As Senator Reid pointed out when she was speaking earlier, the limited time available therefore means that those of us who wish to speak cannot canvass all of the important matters we would like to canvass. We are limited to raising a few points and leaving other important points out. Senator Giles —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I just want to clear up one matter. Is it not the case that this report would go on to the Notice Paper for discussion at a later date? Senator Archer —No point of order. Senator Giles —No. I think it is worth while making the point because on a number of occasions this afternoon we have been accused of denying people the opportunity to look thoroughly at the report and to deal with it at their leisure later, which many of us intend to do. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, but it will go on to the Notice Paper. Senator VANSTONE —I will rephrase my comments and put them this way: I would have thought that with the booklet being available prior to the ministerial statement, it would have enabled informed debate, much more informed debate than we are allowed to have now. Mr President, the Senate is under some stress, through the bungling of the Government putting these two statements on this afternoon. I ask that you shut other senators up. If they want to get on with the job then they should be quiet and let senators speak. The PRESIDENT —Order! There have been too many interjections, but I would ask Senator Vanstone to ignore the interjections and to address the Chair. Senator VANSTONE —A further point I want to make, with respect to the Minister's self-professed bipartisanship, is that so bipartisan is she that she cannot resist in the statement alleging that the Opposition vote last week on the equal employment opportunity legislation `calls into question'-she says-the Opposition's commitment to equal opportunity. She goes further than that and alleges that the Opposition has cast off the work of Senator Peter Baume, the former Opposition spokesman on the status of women, and that this was done under the dictates of political opportunism or opportunities. This is not the language of bipartisanship. This is the language of an opportunist who drops a statement into this chamber on an issue which she says is to her one of the most important areas to be canvassed. She drops that statement on us at the last minute, holds back the documents so that we cannot have a fully informed debate on her statement; she drops it on us at a time when she knows there are, as Senator Tate has pointed out, other Ministers waiting to make statements, at a time when she knows that there are public servants out there and that we know how expensive it is to keep them waiting. An opportunist does that. She puts the statement on hoping to get out of any debate on it, so that only her words will be heard. Tough luck. I just want to make the point that the Minister has no right to claim meekly at the end of her statement that she wants bipartisanship on this matter when we consider the two points that I have already raised. With respect to the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill, I wish to make the point that in my view the Opposition has not backed away from its commitments to equal opportunity. The Minister knows that we have said that we would support the Bill with the amendments that we are seeking. Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is now canvassing a matter that is already on the Notice Paper. She should know better. Could you draw her attention to that? The PRESIDENT —You should not discuss the Bill in any detail, Senator Vanstone. I would ask you to confine your remarks to the Minister's statement this afternoon. Senator Walters —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister's statement does contain the matters that Senator Vanstone is already canvassing. The PRESIDENT —I have given a ruling, Senator Walters. I call Senator Vanstone. Senator VANSTONE —Thank you, Mr President. I have no intention of canvassing any detail within the Bill whatsoever. As there was an oblique reference-one might say a sarcastic one-to the Bill in the Minister's statement I simply wish to complete making a few comments that I have not finished, but I will not be canvassing the detail of the Bill. I would support in general legislative measures which are to be introduced and which bring forward the true operation of equal opportunity in Australia. But in saying that, I do not give carte blanche to this Government to introduce any Bill at all to achieve that. I retain, and the Opposition retains, not only a right but an obligation to press for legislation to be introduced in the form that the Opposition considers to be most acceptable. If that were not the case there would be almost no need to come in here and debate Bills. There would be no need for a committee stage on a Bill because if there were no right to hold out for amendments, it would not be a worthwhile exercise, it would be a farce in this chamber. I will deal with the detail of the Bill when it comes on. At that time I will spell out yet again my commitment to equal opportunity programs for women and other groups, and my concerns with a particular Bill. I have a number of comments to make with respect to the Minister's statement. I am disturbed that the Minister's statement does not, in my view, make adequate reference to the feminisation of poverty, which is dealt with in chapter 6 of the booklet entitled Setting the Agenda. The Government has consistently refused to support Senator Durack's amendments to the Family Law Act, which would have substantially improved the lot of Australian women. The Government tells us that it wants to proceed with reforms in child maintenance collection. It has had numerous investigations into this and numerous policy documents issued. It issued a discussion paper in October that basically said three things. It said first of all: `We want to collect maintenance for children through tax'. It secondly said: `We want an administrative group to co-ordinate such collection'. Thirdly, it said that it wants a formula to be established so that maintenance is set at an acceptable level. The document basically said that, because so many competing priorities and principles are to be taken into account when setting a formula, the Government is putting out a discussion paper; it wants the views of all Australians, not just women, on these matters. After all the policy work that had been done, one would have thought it might have been able to sort out those priorities of policy. It is a difficult area and I for one would rather it be taken slowly and the Government get it right rather than rush it in and get it wrong, as it did with the Priority One program. I have no concern with the Government taking time but, having issued this document in October, we had a ministerial statement last week. What did that say? It said `Yes, we want to collect maintenance through tax' and `Yes, we want an administrative agency to co-ordinate that'. It said the same as the October discussion paper but, by the way, the principles and the setting of priorities of those principles to establish a formula are still too difficult, so the Government is to set up a consultative group. In other words, we did not advance very far. We had a ministerial statement to say the same as had been said in October. As I said, I do not mind the Government taking as long as it likes-I would rather it got it right-but the consistent issuing of discussion papers, surveys and ministerial statements that do not say very much is just a disgrace. The Government is constantly announcing its intention to do things and then not backing it up with legislative action. In the meantime Australian women could have benefited from Senator Durack's amendments to the Family Law Act which were not agreed to by the Government. I hope this report is not the same as that relating to the child maintenance issue-another report giving some details of what has been asked and what the responses are but not showing what legislative response the Government will have to that information. I do not deny that the job of setting up the National Agenda for Women and getting all the comments has been a long one, but I look forward to seeing a report after this one, to seeing the Government's response. I hope it will be a little quicker than some of the things that have happened as a consequence of the statement with respect to the National Agenda for Women in 1985. You might remember, Mr President, that in that statement the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that he would appoint a health policy co-ordinator in the Department of Health to help co-ordinate a women's health policy. Six months later nothing had happened. Quite fairly, I thought, I raised that issue at a Women's Electoral Lobby conference in Canberra. Ms Brooks has now returned to the gallery. I welcome her back. She obviously found some of the discussion too scintillating and had to leave-or for some other reason. At that conference Ms Brooks obviously felt the need to offer a reply to my criticism that the Government had not acted on its promise of six months before. The Minister was sitting next to me, but she did not jump up and make a particular point about this. She realised that the Government had defaulted and had not done its job, but Ms Brooks hopped up and got a right of reply. What did she say? She was not at all surprised that a health co-ordinator had not been appointed. She said that, because there are so many good women in the Health Department, we did not really need one, and what a stupid complaint it was for me to make, in which event I would have said what a stupid promise it was for the Prime Minister to make. I am very pleased to see that last month-two years later, unless I have it wrong-we finally had an appointment made. What a relief! I conclude by simply saying that I look forward to seeing the Government's legislative response to the needs and concerns of Australian women, which are hopefully expressed in this report which I will read with great interest and pleasure. I look forward to reading with interest and pleasure the Government's legislative response to these comments. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(5.34) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —I seek leave to make the Government's response to the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, to incorporate the statement in Hansard and to move a motion relating to the statement. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- On 22 December 1986 the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform presented a report relating to the operation during the 1984 general election of the 1983-84 amendments to Commonwealth electoral legislation. The Joint Select Committee has provided a good forum for seeking improvements to the Electoral Act and has made a very useful contribution to electoral reform in its report. The review undertaken by the Committee follows the substantial reform measures recommended by its predecessor, which were largely implemented by this Government in 1983-84. Honourable senators will recall that this Government, responding to the recommendations of the earlier Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, introduced the most substantial set of reforms for many years. Those changes have generally worked well. Nevertheless there was a high informal vote for the House of Representatives at the 1984 general election which was a challenge for the Committee to resolve. The thought and experience that has gone into the present Committee's report under Senator Robert Ray's leadership has created the opportunity to make further improvements. The Committee's recommendations generally embody the values of equality and fairness within the sometimes complex procedures that are required to achieve those values. In general terms, the report reflects a large measure of agreement amongst representatives of the major political parties on the Committee. In view of the Committee's continuing contribution to electoral reform the Government agrees with the committee's first recommendation that there should be a joint standing committee to provide a continuing forum for review of the electoral system. A measure of the Committee's work is that the Government has seen fit to accept the great majority of the 156 recommendations in the report. While most of the report's recommendations are technical, intended to enhance the existing provisions of the Electoral Act and its administration by the Australian Electoral Commission, there are several recommendations which will make substantial improvements to the electoral system. Some matters in the report are considered essential for legislative implementation before the next election is held. These will be included in legislation I intend to introduce in this sitting. I will return to these essential items in a moment. But first I want to outline the Government's response to some of the significant recommendations in the report. Several of these will have budgetary considerations. In order to reduce the high informal vote for the House of Representatives at the last election, the Government has agreed in principle to the Committee's recommendations for an intensive media campaign and to a mailing to electors of information on electoral procedures. In regard to the mailing to electors it would be cheaper to resort to the use of a `To the Householder' pamphlet prepared by the Electoral Commission. However this would not reach certain sections of the community and would have less impact than a personalised approach. The Government therefore agrees that the pamphlets be sent by the Electoral Commission to each enrolled voter. Another advantage of this approach is that individually addressed letters that are `returned to sender' will alert the Electoral Commission to the need to check the accuracy of the roll in those instances. The Government has also agreed to the Committee's recommendations to simplify the scrutiny of Senate voting. Without such amendments to the Electoral Act any substantial increase in the number of candidates for the Senate will unduly prolong the counting of votes, and could well mean that some candidates might be delayed in taking their places in the Senate. The Government has accepted the Committee's recommendations for ensuring that patients in hospitals and nursing homes can freely exercise their vote, including comprehensive polling facilities at all hospitals and nursing homes, while retaining the postal vote option for patients. The Government's general acceptance of the Committee's recommendation that Electoral Commission staff attend naturalisation ceremonies reflects its continuing desire to encourage new citizens to participate in our democratic electoral processes. The Government will continue to encourage all eligible citizens to enrol and vote, and accepts the Committee's recommendation for an increase in the administrative penalty for failure to vote, from $4 to $20, and for spot checks on the validity of enrolment claims. Some of the abovementioned measures will not be implemented in the first stage. The Committee's recommendations 2 to 11 concerning the redistribution process will be implemented as part of the early legislation package. To facilitate this process the Electoral Act will be amended to allow determinations of representation entitlements to be made in the tenth or eleventh month of a parliament. The Government does not accept recommendation 18 (e) that published electoral rolls should include electors' date of birth, gender and occupation. Prior to 1984, occupation and gender were listed on the electoral rolls. However, following a recommendation of the previous Committee, occupation and gender were removed. The Government is mindful that many electors would regard the publication of their date of birth as an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Furthermore, the dissemination of occupation and gender is unnecessary to determine an elector's right to vote, and their release would be inconsistent with the information privacy principles contained in the Privacy Bill, currently before the Senate. Likewise, the Government does not accept recommendation 18 (b) which would allow the Electoral Commission to sell magnetic tapes of habitation indexes and electoral rolls, and microfiche of the electoral rolls at a commercial price. The availability of electoral roll information in a computer compatible format increases its commercial value, particularly to mail order and other direct selling companies. The Government does not wish to facilitate access by commercial and other interests to personal information provided by electors to the Electoral Commission. The question of disclosure of personal data under the Freedom of Information Act, and the possibility that commercial and other interests will attempt to use this avenue to obtain elector information, are matters that the Government currently has under examination. The Committee recommended that the Act be amended to provide for annual habitation reviews. The Commonwealth presently meets the full cost of biennial habitation reviews in each State with the exception of Western Australia, which already contributes half the costs. The Government has decided to examine further the financial aspects before proceeding with this recommendation. The Committee also recommended the retention of the standing appropriation for habitation reviews and legislative amendment to guarantee funds for the printing of the electoral rolls. The Government prefers to remove standing appropriations from legislation, wherever possible, to allow greater scrutiny by the Parliament and the Government of proposed expenditure. Funding for future habitation reviews and the printing of electoral rolls will be sought in the normal budgetary process. The Government has already announced that the use of the Australia Card would be limited to taxation, social security and medicare purposes. It therefore does not agree with the Committee's recommendation that, if an Australia Card is introduced, a reference be made to the Joint Select Committee-or its successor-to determine if, and to what extent, the card should be given an Electoral Act function. Due to the exigencies of the legislative program, legislation to give effect to the acceptable recommendations in the report will be introduced in two stages. As I have already indicated those recommendations which are essential to the effective conduct of the next election will be introduced as soon as possible in this sitting. These essential matters include: Simplifying the Senate scrutiny to speed up final results (recommendations 89 and 90); implementing a 14-day cut-off for receipt of postal votes and extra-territorial operation for the Commonwealth Electoral Act (recommendation 59); extending the statutory period between the issue and the return of the writs from 90 to 100 days (recommendation 46); repealing the registration of candidate provisions introduced in 1983 (recommendations 40 and 104); consolidating provisions relating to the nominations of candidates (recommendations 40, 47, 48 and 49); improving the arrangements for group voting tickets for the Senate (recommendations 45, 62, 63, 64 and 65); standardising the way party affiliations are shown on ballot-papers (recommendation 67); making provision for the extension of times in the election timetable when emergencies occur (recommendations 148 and 149); amending the definition of an election advertisement (recommendation 102); amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act to bind the Crown (recommendation 136); extending the period to be covered for the returns of election expenditure by third parties (recommendation 121); repealing the requirement for returns by printers (recommendation 127); repealing the requirement that enrolled voters live within a division in the three months prior to the poll (recommendation 20); providing for the Electoral Commission to make amendments to claims and financial disclosure returns when a genuine mistake occurs (recommendation 134); providing for a common release date for all public funding claims and financial disclosure returns (recommendation 135); allowing for the processing of enrolment claims up to close of roll (recommendation 29); providing for advice to be given to divisional returning officers regarding the number of absent votes issued (recommendation 77); and providing for a provisional scrutiny of the House of Representatives preferences to take place as part of the fresh scrutiny, thereby providing an earlier indication of likely outcomes (variation of recommendation 98). Over a period of 85 years the Commonwealth Electoral Act has established one of the best electoral systems in the world. Australians were early in achieving the vote for women and the secret ballot. The Act required, first compulsory enrolment and then compulsory voting, to ensure that the elected representatives truly represent the real majority of Australia's citizens. It introduced preferential voting for the House of Representatives and later proportional representation for the Senate to give each elector a full expression of his or her preferences among candidates. The Act now embodies the principle of one vote one value for the House of Representatives so that the next general election will reflect equality of representation to a greater extent than ever before. It has developed redistribution procedures which exclude partisan pressures and gives individual electors and community organisations ample opportunity to be heard. In periods of political turmoil and social conflict, the neutrality and basic fairness of Commonwealth electoral procedures are universally valued. I congratulate Senator Robert Ray and his Committee for this work which has culminated in another very useful report, which does further credit to the parliamentary committee system. Senator TATE —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.35) —I thank the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) for the response from the Government to the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. At this juncture I do not want to take time to debate it in the Senate. I will go so far as to say that I am pleased to note in the attached Press release that the two major contentious items have been given attention-that is, that the electoral roll will not contain the voters' ages, sex and occupations and that the Commonwealth electoral roll will not be sold commercially on computer tape. It is highly desirable and I commend the Government for that. The point on which I would like to make some comment is that the Minister said that, in rejecting this proposal, the Government was acting in accordance with the principles contained in the Privacy Bill that is now before Parliament. For the Government to talk about leaving things out because of the Privacy Bill at a time when the whole purpose of this week's exercise is to bring before the Senate the most critical piece of legislation that will ever interfere with people's privacy in Australian history is almost laughable. Here we are talking about interfering in people's lives with the Australia Card Bill, yet the Government is saying that it will not do something because it will interfere with privacy. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-The Government's response to the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform is very rapid, which augurs well for the new Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) if he is able to deal with things so rapidly. I also note that he gave notice today of the introduction of legislation with regard to this matter. It must also be one of the most rapid introductions of a Bill. I wonder whether it is in draft form yet or whether, if it is not, somebody has had some heavy pressure placed on him to get it into the Parliament. I am pleased with the acceptance by the Government of the recommendations of the Committee. In almost every one of the Committee's recommendations it came finally to a consensus. Without a doubt other propositions would have been pushed, particularly by the majority of the Committee members-the Labor Party members-if they had had their way. I pay tribute to them in that on almost every occasion they sought to come to a position which could be generally agreed to by all political parties and by all members of the Committee. I think that is the reason that this Committee has worked so well to date and has been able to engage in a fairly massive overhaul of the Australian Electoral Act. I pay tribute to Senator Robert Ray for his chairing of the Committee and for a lot of the work he has done in trying to make sure that there is general agreement about these matters. Ultimately if there is a general agreement the hope is that the Electoral Act will not become a matter of purely partisan objections; it will be the basis upon which we all agree to construct our democracy. I think that is to the good, and the Electoral Act has progressed enormously in the last few years. I am also pleased that in a sense the Minister has picked up my minority report and has not accepted the majority report with regard to the electoral roll and the matter of the voters' dates of birth, gender and occupations. That is also gratifying. It probably reflects that in general the population did not care terribly much for that aspect of the Committee's report. That was one of the few items in the report that received adverse media comment. Again, I think it shows that the Government is responsive in this regard to these matters and has tried to take a very responsible view by steering a middle course and not trying to push as strongly as it might in terms of its priorities in relation to its political party's policies and what it believes may advantage it most. I hope that this demonstration that has gone on in the last few years will be followed in future and that the Electoral Act will be seen as something that is not of partisan concern but of concern to all political parties to make sure that at the Federal level we have the most fair, equitable and democratic system that can be devised. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition requesting changes in the membership of Estimates committees. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.41) —Mr President, I wrote you that letter on the basis of the sitting arrangements which were then laid down by the Government. We have been told that those sitting arrangements may now be varied. Therefore, the switches in the membership which were meant to accommodate the availability of Opposition senators may no longer be relevant. It does appear that there is something in the air because we have just heard from the Department of the Special Minister of State, which wanted to know which senators were retiring, because members of the Department wanted to work out superannuation entitlements. One wonders what in the hell the Government is up to when a department is wanting to know how to work out senators' superannuation. I just thought that I should let the Senate know. It must be that Senator Tate, the new Minister, being anxious to be on top of the job and with a possible election, is making inquiries as to which of us will disappear. In those circum- stances it makes moving this motion about on what dates honourable senators might be available for sittings a bit silly. I apologise for submitting a letter which was predicated on circumstances which have changed. Because we are told by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) that Estimates committees will sit tomorrow, as programmed-- The PRESIDENT —I understand that they will be sitting tonight and Thursday. Senator CHANEY —In that case, I will move a motion which simply covers the changes which were put forward to apply on 31 March and which are dealt with in that letter. I will omit from the motion the changes that were suggested for 3 April, 6 April and 27 April. I move: (1) That the following Senators be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committees as follows, with effect from the commencement of the meeting of the relevant Committee on this day: Estimates Committee B-Senator Sir John Carrick Estimates Committee C-Senator Parer (2) That the following Senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, be appointed members of Estimates Committees as follows, with effect from the commencement of the meeting of the relevant Committee on this day: Estimates Committee B-Senator Watson Estimates Committee C-Senator Hill Mr President, that was a somewhat inelegant motion, that the Clerks might like to clean up. It was originally designed to encompass a whole lot of other changes which now may be quite irrelevant. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit, dated 30 March 1987. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Maguire, I present the 266th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.44) —In order to enable Estimate committees to meet, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.44) —Perhaps I could take this occasion, since the Leader of the Government in the Senate is present, to say that it seems quite extraordinary that public servants should be ringing up to inquire about which senators are leaving so that the public servants can work out retirement allowances. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: What instructions, if any, have been given by the Government to the Department of the Special Minister of State, or to any other department, with response to an election? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.44) —in reply-I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition avail himself of Question Time tomorrow about that issue. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Estimates Committee B will meet in Committee rooms 1 and 2 and Estimates Committee C will meet in Committee room 6. Prior to the sittings of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 5.45 p.m. The following paper was presented: Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1987-No. 4 Export Control (Fees) as amended (Amendment). The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 1571) Senator Walters asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 4 December 1986: (1) Does Mr West draw any salary or expenses as a member of the Government's Advisory Committee on Logging in Tasmania; if so, what are the terms of the Consultancy in relation to: (a) salary; (b) arrangements of reimbursement of costs incurred; (c) the requirements on Mr West's time; (d) the conditions of his appointment; and (e) the terms of the appointment. (2) Will the Minister table the agreement with Mr West setting out the terms and conditions of his Consultancy. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Mr West is a member of the Government's Advisory Committee on Tasmanian Forestry Operations which is the responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industry. Separately Mr West was engaged as a consultant by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to provide advice on environmental issues. The consultancy ceased on 30.1.87. (a), (b), (d) and (e) (i) Advisory Committee on Tasmanian Forestry Operations-Mr West receives remuneration for fees, travel and incidental costs in attending meetings as per Determination No. 12 of the Remuneration Tribunal 1986 Review. (ii) Consultant to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment-$10,500 per annum, updated in line with National Wage Case decisions, and approved travel costs as determined under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Determination No. MC/49, dated 19 November 1986). (c) (i) Advisory Committee on Tasmanian Forestry Operations-The Committee has met, to date, on 5 occasions between 22 October 1986 and 27 November 1986. Canberra 22.10.86 Launceston 30-31.10.86 Canberra 5.11.86 Launceston 24-25.11.86 Canberra 27.11.86 (ii) Consultant to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment-Mr West was engaged on a part-time basis, working one week in four. (2) The Minister sent a copy of the agreement with Mr West to you.